Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

[Paul Connelly]

I totally agree..........what sort of bullets was the spider using?

Dunno, but I bet he bought them on the dark web! I'll get my coat...

 

[Paul Connelly]

Absolutely d'accord! Paul, you are a writer, aren't you?
It's a big pleasure to read you.
Thank you!

Thanks Souza, that's very kind of you. I'm humbled and flattered in equal measure. I'm not a writer as it happens. It's mostly down to gin-fuelled hallucinations.

I used to work for a hedge fund before I decided I'd sold enough of my soul and decided to become more socially productive. If you read between the lines of my posts you'll probably guess how I now blag a living.

 

[Trotterly]

Thanks Souza, that's very kind of you. I'm humbled and flattered in equal measure. I'm not a writer as it happens. It's mostly down to gin-fuelled hallucinations.

I used to work for a hedge fund before I decided I'd sold enough of my soul and decided to become more socially productive. If you read between the lines of my posts you'll probably guess how I now blag a living.

Hard summer eh?

 

[Sherbert]

Yes - and as carefully noted - that is mixed question of fact and law.

One looks at the facts established via evidence, (not disturbed) and then evaluates whether a legal standard has been met.

Masipa misdirected herself as to the legal standard - which is why the questions re fact are not relevant to Leach's decision

Yes, and the beauty of it is that dear old Masipa, J highlighted in fluorescent markers the legal dimension to the question by misdirecting herself on foreseeability, thus gifting the Prosecution its argument that her fact-finding on intent was based on a misunderstanding of the principles of DE! But for that misdirection, it would have been much easier, imo, for the Defence to argue that her finding was purely factual and solely attributable to OP's oral evidence that he shot in panic and didn't intend to kill anyone.

 

[Paul Connelly]

Hard summer eh?

Oh I dunno... Judge Leach's pep talk cheered me up no end. I take your point though!

 

[Paul Connelly]

Yes, and the beauty of it is that dear old Masipa, J highlighted in fluorescent markers the legal dimension to the question by misdirecting herself on foreseeability, thus gifting the Prosecution its argument that her fact-finding on intent was based on a misunderstanding of the principles of DE! But for that misdirection, it would have been much easier, imo, for the Defence to argue that her finding was purely factual and solely attributable to OP's oral evidence that he shot in panic and didn't intend to kill anyone.

Absolutely! Good point.

I think Mr Jitty also pointed out the irony of this up thread.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Found that while searching for something other ...

 

[Susza]

Thanks Souza, that's very kind of you. I'm humbled and flattered in equal measure. I'm not a writer as it happens. It's mostly down to gin-fuelled hallucinations.

I used to work for a hedge fund before I decided I'd sold enough of my soul and decided to become more socially productive. If you read between the lines of my posts you'll probably guess how I now blag a living.

BIB1: Oh please, which one is your favourite? Would like to check if it has the same effects on me

BIB2: I did, of course, and got it. Must be very interesting.

 

[soozieqtips]

But there was expert testimony that he was especially anxious. I think such a finding is not based on what happened post shooting but is from his character and his character as a disabled person. He claims he felt very vulnerable on his stumps and the SCA seems to have disregarded the finding he was scared for his life. Even though he put himself in that position as he had done before when investigating noises.

BIB - it's strange then, that on that particular night - the night when neighbours heard arguments and screams, that OP chose to deviate from his normal pattern of not shooting at noises - and shot at one instead. Even though he had experienced 'noises' before (on the nights when no witnesses heard arguing and screaming), he hadn't shot at them. His washing machine spooked him and he armed himself with his gun and went to investigate. He identified the washing machine as the noise and didn't shoot. He didn't identify the 'noise' on the night he murdered Reeva (once again, the night witnesses heard arguing and screaming) but he shot at it 4 times?

Why did he choose to shoot that night and not the other nights? He had always identified the noise before. What was different? What did he think entitled him on that particular night to shoot 4 shots (with a pause in between 1st and 2nd) through the door knowing someone was behind it and knowing he wasn't legally entitled to take such defensive action? His anxiety disorder was absent at the time he chose to fire 4 shots. So what other reason did he have for doing what he did? Could it be the most obvious?

 

[Paul Connelly]

BIB1: Oh please, which one is your favourite? Would like to check if it has the same effects on me

BIB2: I did, of course, and got it. Must be very interesting.

BIB1: Oh please, which one is your favourite? Would like to check if it has the same effects on me

BIB2: I did, of course, and got it. Must be very interesting.

My absolute favourite has to be Gin Mare with a sprig of rosemary, olives and orange ring, tonnes of ice, fever tree tonic in a huge coppa glass. Or a gold fish bowl as my philistine OH so scathingly refers to it. Truth be told I adore lots more, G-vine and Tanq Ten are moorish too and top of my Christmas list!

How about you?!

Interesting is one word for the job! It's both frustrating and exhilarating but I suppose like life in general the joys and occasional successes always outweigh the bad stuff. When it doesn't there's always the Gin Mare! Slainte Susza

 

[aftermath]

BIB - it's strange then, that on that particular night - the night when neighbours heard arguments and screams, that OP chose to deviate from his normal pattern of not shooting at noises - and shot at one instead. Even though he had experienced 'noises' before (on the nights when no witnesses heard arguing and screaming), he hadn't shot at them. His washing machine spooked him and he armed himself with his gun and went to investigate. He identified the washing machine as the noise and didn't shoot. He didn't identify the 'noise' on the night he murdered Reeva (once again, the night witnesses heard arguing and screaming) but he shot at it 4 times?

Why did he choose to shoot that night and not the other nights? He had always identified the noise before. What was different? What did he think entitled him on that particular night to shoot 4 shots (with a pause in between 1st and 2nd) through the door knowing someone was behind it and knowing he wasn't legally entitled to take such defensive action? His anxiety disorder was absent at the time he chose to fire 4 shots. So what other reason did he have for doing what he did? Could it be the most obvious?

On his version he identified the noise as an intruder, investigated with gun in hand (as he had done before), but this time found 'confirmation' in the form of the open window, then the slamming door, then the wood moving noise. He was right: someone was in the bathroom, and since (his version again), he 'knew' (wrongly) that Reeva was still in the bedroom, that was confirmation of an intruder.

 

[Trotterly]

BIB - it's strange then, that on that particular night - the night when neighbours heard arguments and screams, that OP chose to deviate from his normal pattern of not shooting at noises - and shot at one instead. Even though he had experienced 'noises' before (on the nights when no witnesses heard arguing and screaming), he hadn't shot at them. His washing machine spooked him and he armed himself with his gun and went to investigate. He identified the washing machine as the noise and didn't shoot. He didn't identify the 'noise' on the night he murdered Reeva (once again, the night witnesses heard arguing and screaming) but he shot at it 4 times?

Why did he choose to shoot that night and not the other nights? He had always identified the noise before. What was different? What did he think entitled him on that particular night to shoot 4 shots (with a pause in between 1st and 2nd) through the door knowing someone was behind it and knowing he wasn't legally entitled to take such defensive action? His anxiety disorder was absent at the time he chose to fire 4 shots. So what other reason did he have for doing what he did? Could it be the most obvious?

He identified his bathroom window opening. Clearly this can only have meant a person in the bathroom. AFAIK all the other noises were unidentified at first. A big difference,

 

[Magdalyn]

I totally agree..........what sort of bullets was the spider using?

This man-screaming-like-a-woman-over-a-spider case...was there also a couldn't-possibly-have-been-the-screamer dead woman found in his house too? :waitasec:

 

[james83]

And sometimes quite disgusting. The ignore button achieves nothing if people respond to their posts. The best way is to never respond to their posts. Let them see their goading will get them nowhere on this victim-friendly forum.

As Bessie likes to say, "Roll and scroll", and this is the perfect solution.

This is correct because losing your rag and responding to them is exactly what they desire.
They really are a strange bunch these type of people, no doubt they go from forum to forum looking for a raise.
I imagine in real life situations they wouldn't have the bravery to make such comments/claims hence this is how they get there kicks.
Ultimately they are just baters and they do it so often they are rather good at it, i suppose you could call them
master baters.

 

[mrjitty]

Just to add to my previous comment, there's a poster, one of two who come here from time to time, who normally "reside" on DS. That person got an absolute hiding yesterday, and I do mean a hiding. Have a look. Some of you will know who I'm talking about but I won't take this any further.

Related to the strange proliferation of bacon flavoured user names?

 

[Val1]

I have no issues with people having differing opinions, what I don't like is the nastiness in some of the posts towards the victim in this case.
I have no intention of bothering to do any of that to see if I'm being talked about, to be honest. I very much doubt I am as I am not a regular contributer, but even if I am - "What the eyes don't see, the heart doesn't grieve"!

Should a post be egregious enough, there is always the option to bring it to the moderator's attention and let them deal with it.

 

[Val1]

Very direct and well said. Some people want to gloat and dance on her grave because they are probably Oscar himself who is bored during his house arrest. Jmo

Good post.

As Buddy in Elf would say, what a "cotton-headed ninnymoggins!"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319343/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_66

 

[foxbluff]

What? Yes this is the twilight zone"The Constitutional Court is the watchdog of the law. All that is going to be done there is to see if the law was abided [by] constitutionally. When the appeal was made at the SCA, one of the options was that it be taken to trial court. Should they fail at the Constitutional Court, they will revert to the High Court," he said"http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/oscar-pistorius-to-dig-deeper-into-pockets-20151208I don't get it. Fail at CC level, try and appeal again at HC level? .:thinking:

I'm unable to open that link (not to worry as the problem is almost certainly between "me & my puter"), so I don't know who said such a thing but I agree with your Twilight Zone analogy! .... I've just spent hours surfing the net (for something else) and ran across so many articles we've already seen where Roux is quoted, again and again, as saying if the Appeal to ConCourt is UNSUCCESSFUL then he returns to the High Court for SENTENCING....And everything else we've read indicates that the ConCourt is the LAST option for an appeal.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Presumably this is the way the CC appeal will go. That the SCA did not take proper account of his disability and how it could have affected his fear of an intruder.

Neither did Masipa-- shouldn't they have appealed her verdict based on that reasoning before taking issue with the SCA?

 

[cottonweaver]

I'm unable to open that link (not to worry as the problem is almost certainly between "me & my puter"), so I don't know who said such a thing but I agree with your Twilight Zone analogy! .... I've just spent hours surfing the net (for something else) and ran across so many articles we've already seen where Roux is quoted, again and again, as saying if the Appeal to ConCourt is UNSUCCESSFUL then he returns to the High Court for SENTENCING....And everything else we've read indicates that the ConCourt is the LAST option for an appeal.

JJ posted it on the same page as my post - so it definitely does open.
I have also read elsewhere, the following likely course foxbluff:

1. appeal to CC, (the processing of this application in itself may delay the sentence hearing and Roux cab go a little beyond the deadline) , assume unsuccessful with having CC hear this Appeal, so next
2. sentencing at HC. Let's assume sentence given is too long for OP, so next
3. he appeals against sentence, either through HC or SCA again

All that assumes he has the funds, he is hardly going to go Legal Aid equivalent is he!
Hearing the above speculation reminds me of his 4 year battle over the prosthetics, fight, fight, throw money at it......

I agree there are so many diverse "expert" opinions out there, the consistent thing they mentioned over the last few years, is this will run & run