Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~

[Tortoise]

BIB This will the the lasting mantra regardless of what happens, despite that we now have the state admitting that it cannot be the case. A system put in place to specifically reach a fair decision decides and somehow individuals know better? Then why have a judicial system? Just go back to vigilantism?

I have not decided his actual intention is irrelevant, the state has based on the premise that he must have known he'd kill and therefore he did.

It won't fly.

Where and when?

Do you mean not pursuing? Not pursuing because they can't?

Nel says the bedroom scene makes OP's version impossible, that's hardly admitting that DD cannot be the case.

Why would you seek to confuse the argument with a statement like that?

 

[sleuth-d-]

The other thing that i find a bit odd is that the "defense timeline" appears in closing HOA rather than at trial.

Yet if this is the defence version of what really happened that night - why was in not in Roux's opening?

1. his client was still working on 'what really happened that night' at this stage.
2. based on the uncertainty within the defence case, one of roux's tactics/gambles was to wait and take advantage of possible grey areas in the state witnesses' evidence.
...

is it usual to have a 12 day gap between the end of the state case and the beginning of the defence's?

 

[mrjitty]

'although Perumal has never actually confirmed the reason for not appearing in the trial.'

This is another unusual part of the case that I can't get my head around unless they are all bound to silence, by Law, until the whole trial/appeal is finally over?

Perumal has said nothing and neither have any of the other witnesses that were called to trial.
No newspaper exclusives.
No appearances on Oprah ?

Are they still all in shock?

I personally would have wrote 3 books on the subject by now lol:shame:

Perumal is a medical doctor!

I guess he would be severely reprimanded by the medical society if he started shooting his mouth off

As for the other witnesses - i guess they don't want to be in contempt of court.

Maybe Dr Stipp already has his book on ice

 

[LemonMousse]

BIB This will the the lasting mantra regardless of what happens, despite that we now have the state admitting that it cannot be the case. A system put in place to specifically reach a fair decision decides and somehow individuals know better? Then why have a judicial system? Just go back to vigilantism?

I have not decided his actual intention is irrelevant, the state has based on the premise that he must have known he'd kill and therefore he did.

It won't fly.

Sorry, but the state have never admitted that it "cannot be the case" that the evidence points to DD. Nel made a specific point of letting the SCA know that he and his team still believe it was DD but they understand their limitations in arguing against factual findings so are not pursuing it.

Vigilantism? Don't be so dramatic. And it's perfectly acceptable to decide that a court/jury made a wrong decision if that's what you think.

Whether you like it or you don't, myself and 90% of all commentators - here and elsewhere - do not believe Pistorius thought Reeva was a burglar. And we've reached that conclusion listening to the evidence.

"......the state has based on the premise that he must have known he'd kill and therefore he did".

Er...yes. That is an intention by default. Not direct intention - where you achieve a specified desired outcome - but acting in a way so reckless to someone else's welfare that it forms an "intent" in terms of murder.

And it will be close to impossible for anyone to conclude that he did not know he would kill - the issue is more whether he had genuine cause to believe he had the lawful right.

 

[mrjitty]

It was said to be because his findings were the same as the state's and he would not alter his opinions. If that is so, and it is as it should be, he is to be congratulated.

Professor Jan Botha was used instead.

Here is a link that explains what happened although Perumal has never actually confirmed the reason for not appearing in the trial.

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-04-17-oscar-trial-defence-pathologist-wont-testify

Anyway Masipa decided the gastric evidence could be explained by wild speculation

 

[LemonMousse]

Well it's an appeal now so it's all about the legal perspective I think.

Why he may or may not have snapped might be interesting but it's a bit off topic now.

To be fair, if it's not personally interesting to you, perhaps just ignore it? I don't think it's really your place to decide what other people can or can't talk about.

 

[mrjitty]

Where and when?

Do you mean not pursuing? Not pursuing because they can't?

Nel says the bedroom scene makes OP's version impossible, that's hardly admitting that DD cannot be the case.

Why would you seek to confuse the argument with a statement like that?

Anyway - South Africa has the separation of powers and the three branches of Govt

The State maintains it was murder.

The judiciary says it was not.

The state routinely catches up with these villains in the long run

 

[Tortoise]

Anyway - South Africa has the separation of powers and the three branches of Govt

The State maintains it was murder.

The judiciary says it was not.

The state routinely catches up with these villains in the long run

..Yet, not yet, mrjitty

 

[foxbluff]

RSBM

If it's handed down within the current term which ends on Monday, 30 November, we only have ...:bed: :bed: :bed: :bed: to go. If this extends to the end of next week, we'll have to add a further 4.

Aaah the long awaited bed count... at last!!--------(???)I'm confused, however, by the last sentence above.--------Given that the last day of current CT Term ends Mon. Nov. 30th, how could Judgment get delayed to the first week of Dec.? tia

 

[Interested Bystander]

Anyway Masipa decided the gastric evidence could be explained by wild speculation

:floorlaugh:

 

[aftermath]

Sorry, but the state have never admitted that it "cannot be the case" that the evidence points to DD. Nel made a specific point of letting the SCA know that he and his team still believe it was DD but they understand their limitations in arguing against factual findings so are not pursuing it.

Vigilantism? Don't be so dramatic. And it's perfectly acceptable to decide that a court/jury made a wrong decision if that's what you think.

Whether you like it or you don't, myself and 90% of all commentators - here and elsewhere - do not believe Pistorius thought Reeva was a burglar. And we've reached that conclusion listening to the evidence.

"......the state has based on the premise that he must have known he'd kill and therefore he did".

Er...yes. That is an intention by default. Not direct intention - where you achieve a specified desired outcome - but acting in a way so reckless to someone else's welfare that it forms an "intent" in terms of murder.

And it will be close to impossible for anyone to conclude that he did not know he would kill - the issue is more whether he had genuine cause to believe he had the lawful right.

BIB - doesn't that smack of admitting to wanting another bite of the cherry? How can they convincingly argue that something is DE when they don't actually believe DE was committed?

 

[LemonMousse]

BIB - doesn't that smack of admitting to wanting another bite of the cherry? How can they convincingly argue that something is DE when they don't actually believe DE was committed?

I think it was more about addressing the elephant in the room and avoiding confusion.

It was a highly complex argument that looked as if it was straying into matters of fact rather than law. So Nel basically said, "Look, it's obvious that we do actually still see this as DD and we believe the lower court was mistaken, but that ship has sailed and we are not attempting to argue it here, because we can't".

Perfectly fine, IMO.

And yes, they can still argue DE even though they think it was actually DD. What they "think" doesn't matter - it's how Masipa applied the law to her factual findings that is relevant.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

If he is praying I hope he slips in a 'And please forgive me for all the lies I told even though I swore in your name I would be truthful. You understand I had to do it don't you. I didn't really mean it. We still friends?'.

bbm :floorlaugh:

... and noone roars down in a thundering voice "NO!" :stormingmad: - although OP would need exactly this at the end, IMO.

 

[Trotterly]

Where and when?

Do you mean not pursuing? Not pursuing because they can't?

Nel says the bedroom scene makes OP's version impossible, that's hardly admitting that DD cannot be the case.

Why would you seek to confuse the argument with a statement like that?

Why is it confusing that the state is accepting that Reeva's screams were unsafe?

 

[foxbluff]

The other thing that i find a bit odd is that the "defense timeline" appears in closing HOA rather than at trial.Yet if this is the defence version of what really happened that night - why was in not in Roux's opening?

IDK for sure, but my guess would be that Roux could only contruct a Timeline after earwitnesses had been exam'd/cross-exam'd and needing to incorporate the testimony of the Cell Phone Data Expert's analysis.

 

[Trotterly]

The other thing that i find a bit odd is that the "defense timeline" appears in closing HOA rather than at trial.

Yet if this is the defence version of what really happened that night - why was in not in Roux's opening?

I missed your post from earlier.

I find it rather amusing that the defence are being criticized for not having a full version where Nel didn't even let on what he was supposed to have done until half way through the trial.

 

[Tortoise]

Why is it confusing that the state is accepting that Reeva's screams were unsafe?

The State has to accept it was a factual finding, do you know that?

So, you are putting out an incorrect statement about what the State is admitting. It isn't confusing that the State can't argue factual findings, its confusing that you would say something that isn't true.

Even if the court found (erroneously in my view obviously) it must have been OP screaming, all it means is that Reeva was silent or not heard. The State's case wasn't dependent on Reeva screaming. Can you explain to me how it means he can't have murdered her.

 

[Tortoise]

I missed your post from earlier.

I find it rather amusing that the defence are being criticized for not having a full version where Nel didn't even let on what he was supposed to have done until half way through the trial.

Big difference, OP was there, Nel wasn't.

OP knew he was charged with murder, what do you mean by 'didn't let on what he was supposed to have done'?

 

[Tortoise]

BIB - doesn't that smack of admitting to wanting another bite of the cherry? How can they convincingly argue that something is DE when they don't actually believe DE was committed?

It's the same as at trial.

The State worked through the charges, starting with DD of Reeva. And then the State said, even if the court finds that it wasn't DD of Reeva, we say he can't escape a charge of DE.

That second part doesn't mean they withdraw their case for DD.

 

[LemonMousse]

Why is it confusing that the state is accepting that Reeva's screams were unsafe?

The state never accepted that Reeva's screams were unsafe. By which you mean the evidence of her screaming.

Masipa found that the scream evidence was unsafe. This was a matter of fact. Nel cannot challenge her on factual findings, even if he vehmently disagrees with her - and since his primary evidence for DD was the screams he could not ask the SCA to look again at her acquitting him of DD.

I am astounded that you listened to what Nel said and concluded that he was admitting that the scream evidence was "unsafe". Astounded.

Do you think, possibly, that your determination to be "right" is clouding your objectivity a bit? Yiou do seem to be seeing things that are not there....like the secret evidence contained in Annexure A.