Trial Discussion Thread #53 - 14.12.9, Day 42 ~ final verdict~

[PrimeSuspect]

Does anyone know if he is allowed to have firearms after this verdict? I sure hope not as I honestly feel he would have another accidental or on purpose discharge of a weapon. This guy has a serious case of trigger fingers.

Just like a few others we know who had deadly discharges of their firearms near restaurants or in home. A couple real good examples I can think of are actor Robert Blake and producer Phil Spector

I don't believe there will be any type of stipulation that he can't have guns. Just my opinion of course, but it is South Africa after all.

 

[zoran]

If OP is making noises about returning to the track you can bet UNCLE is behind this. Just imagine at sentencing when Milady is told that OP would benefit by rehabilitating on the track rather than in jail where he can continue to inspire people with disabilities.
Milady would buy into that I reckon.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Because its entirely bogus and ridiculous? If Jodi Arias reads her tabloids and sees that story I bet she'll wish her imagination was as good. It always astonishes me how low some folks will go for 5 minutes of lurid fame and a few handfuls of soiled dollars.

Oh dear, comparing Jodi Arias who stabbed Travis Alexander 27 times, slit his throat, then shot him in the head with the innocent ex girlfriend of Oscar Pistorius who, by the way, shot and killed Reeva with 3 black tallon bullets, one to the head. smh

I think I understand what is happening here. :thinking:

 

[Jake18]

I now realise I did not post the link to the broadcast where it is said that an appeal is no longer possible. There were two broadcasts posted by Giles (fairly close together) and I thought JudgeJudi was referring to the second one. However, I was wrong. Here is the link to the relevant broadcast and if you listen from 8 minutes onwards you will see where the opinion is that Judge Masipa changed, by adding to her previous statement, the point in question from Error in Law to an Error in Fact which the prosecution is legally not allowed to appeal

8 minutes onwards (though the whole discussion is very interesting indeed).
https://soundcloud.com/giles-10/legal-round-table-after-verdict/s-u3guC

Thank you to Giles for the link.

This is what I'm finding confusing...

Nicholas Tatz, upthread, said she was correct in not going with eventualis because it wasn't Reeva Oscar intended to kill. Whereas the lawyers on this broadcast are saying the opposite - that initially the judge opened the door for an appeal by only stating that it wasn't eventualis because he didn't mean to kill Reeva by firing through the door but she then amended it - the following day - by saying "Reeva or anyone else" whereas someone else - maybe Booth? - says the legal issue is with her deciding that Oscar wasn't intending to kill the person behind the door.

Nel will know, hopefully!

 

[Jake18]

I really have no idea but I definitely got the impression that not much could be done. You have listened to the same discussion as I and the eminent Processor Tuson was there. He is considered to be the most knowledgeable professor of law in SA. However, I thought it was indicated by the panel that they felt sure the prosecution would do absolutely everything to go to appeal. I don't think the NPA will leave the situation as is. If he is handed down a good sentence the state will accept it but, of course, OP can appeal that and there is a chance that another judge might set him free. What an unholy mess.

Unless, of course, it was Nel who pointed out the error to the judge between day one and two of the sentencing, hence the amendment on day two and the abrupt ending on day one. Something happened on day one, it was all very strange.

 

[JudgeJudi]

A good article by Ulrich Roux published today (Saturday)

"In delivering her ruling, judge Thokozile Masipa said that "a reasonable person would have foreseen if he fired shots at the door, the person inside the toilet might be struck and might die as a result", which suggests a classic case of dolus eventualis".

More on this subject and the question of a possible appeal by the State is also canvassed.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...te-prepares-appeal?view=mobile#opt-in-message

 

[PrimeSuspect]

A good article by Ulrich Roux published today (Saturday)

"In delivering her ruling, judge Thokozile Masipa said that "a reasonable person would have foreseen if he fired shots at the door, the person inside the toilet might be struck and might die as a result", which suggests a classic case of dolus eventualis".

More on this subject and the question of a possible appeal by the State is also canvassed.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...te-prepares-appeal?view=mobile#opt-in-message

Thank you JJ, so if the sentence is considered a suitable term no need for an appeal by Nel and PT. Please J Masipa, do the right thing.

 

[Z&BsMommy]

Coffee in hand, ready to start sleuthing! Goodmorning all!

 

[cottonweaver]

I see Carl is tweeting again.

This from 3 hours ago alongside the satirical Joe Soaps/Masipa cartoon published recently.

"Amongst the Joe Soaps of this world is chap called @realDonaldTrump. Ignorance is inexcusable."

Oh the irony, Calamity Carl, social media junkie finding it it works both ways.

Comment is free.
Welcome Carl, to a global wellspring of social opprobrium, via Facebook, Twitter......

I for one, still think you'll be visiting your bro in Pretoria prison one day soon

 

[JudgeJudi]

I'm wondering if it will, if OP's trial was considered a success, I'd say it's possible.

“Aletta Alberts, MultiChoice’s head of content, has ¬confirmed to a reporter there are plans in the pipeline for a dedicated court channel that will broadcast the proceedings in ¬Dewani’s trial”.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/dewani-trial-tv-channel-works/

 

[sleuth-d-]

I know this is probably not possible but if I were the Steenkamp family I would want to move as far away from SA as I could...I simply would find it hard to live in a country whose judicial system allowed my daughter's life to be taken by a man she loved and then for all intents and purposes the murderer will not have to alter his lifestyle much at all and he goes on his way...and on the way will make money off her death. I'd be gone.

if he makes any money from the aftermath of this it should ALL go to the foundation i hear mrs steenkamp has set up. i wonder if this will happen?

 

[JudgeJudi]

if he makes any money from the aftermath of this it should ALL go to the foundation i hear mrs steenkamp has set up. i wonder if this will happen?

Sure, and if pigs had wings they would fly.

 

[JudgeJudi]

This photo says it all really ... Reeva's cousin, Kim Martin and two other family members

 

[Cherwell]

Who are they?

 

[sleuth-d-]

No, it's against the law to shoot at someone that is stealing your truck or anything else unless they are immediately threatening you with great bodily harm/death. That is why he was initially prosecuted for Murder. Public opinion came in because of the perceived penalty that the father would pay for the rest of his life, the personal penalty of living with having killed his own daughter.

so public opinion can play a part in sentencing/penalties in sa? ... ... ...

 

[JudgeJudi]

Time to reflect on what sort of a guy Gerrie Nel is both inside and outside the courtroom:

The International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) had only good things to say about Nel. He received a special achievement award from the IAP for his "fierce pursuit of the vision of the National Prosecuting Authority's ideals to achieve justice in society".

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-02-20-pistorius-prosecutor-nel-has-integrity-beyond-reproach

The man who has reduced murder accused paralympian Oscar Pistorius to tears for the past week teaches children wrestling, according to Sunday's Rapport.
In the evenings prosecutor Gerrie Nel teaches children aged between three and six the finer points of the sport. The report is accompanied by a blurry photo of Nel in takkies, shorts, and short-sleeved top kneeling on a wrestling mat, talking to two boys.
“He is quiet and modest and completely focused when he trains with the youngsters,” the mother of a boy who gets lessons from Nel was quoted as saying.
“He has endless patience and never loses his temper. The children love him,” she told the newspaper.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/gerrie-nel-teaches-kids-wrestling-1.1675220#.VBP-SixxnBw

 

[JudgeJudi]

Who are they?

Reeva's cousin, Kim Martin, and two other family members

 

[04009margaret]

Life for the disabled prisoner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t5BIjYy7pU&list=PL2BJTpLEt7O7zPu-8lpEaye8Os6chwX8G&index=31

 

[cottonweaver]

This is what I'm finding confusing...

Nicholas Tatz, upthread, said she was correct in not going with eventualis because it wasn't Reeva Oscar intended to kill. Whereas the lawyers on this broadcast are saying the opposite - that initially the judge opened the door for an appeal by only stating that it wasn't eventualis because he didn't mean to kill Reeva by firing through the door but she then amended it - the following day - by saying "Reeva or anyone else" whereas someone else - maybe Booth? - says the legal issue is with her deciding that Oscar wasn't intending to kill the person behind the door.

Nel will know, hopefully!

(Apologies if all of this has been quoted before, with work and life have not been able to watch any of the verdict live and read the commentaries til now. )

Nel definitely knows where JM went wrong - that's probably why he looked so resigned on his bench - mixture of that and embarassment.

James Grant knows too, thankfully. Heavy-going article, but if you stick with it, Grant concludes that JM made errors in law which "may allow an appeal".* Everything Grant says chimes with Nel's points during the trial, but its not in layman's terms.

errors were around her concept of PPD, 'error in objecto' and eventualis:

ON PPD:

'After turning her attention to the accused’s defence of putative private defence, Masipa stated that the question was: “whether the accused intended to kill.” Immediately it becomes apparent that there was a misconception regarding the nature of the defence of putative private defence. It is not the question of whether the accused intended to kill, but whether he intended to unlawfully kill.'

"The question of whether the accused intended to unlawfully kill is the question of whether the accused believed he was under attack and entitled to resort to force in defence. This question was not engaged with. The question the judge pursued was whether he intended to kill."

According to Grant she should have also questioned the degree of force incl ammo '..The question – a very necessary question – becomes, did the accused foresee that he was not allowed to resort to that extent of force......The point is that this is another reason to think the Court did not properly engage with the defence of putative private defence.'

ON eventualis:

"At that point it seemed Pistorius was bound to be convicted of murder – given that there seemed little question that he did intend to kill whoever was in the toilet – despite his defence of putative private defence. But the judgement took another strange turn.....
.......She repeats this again twice: did he forsee the possibility of killing the deceased? She says, on the third occasion, that the accused did not forsee killing “the person behind the door, let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time”. But accepting that the accused thought that the deceased was in the bedroom does not exclude the possibility of there being someone else behind the door. Indeed, ironically, that is his own version: that he thought there was someone else behind the door."

...'the question ought to have been: “did the accused forsee the possibility of killing whoever was behind the door”. This is an entirely different question which, in turn, begs the question whether the accused must have, and by inference did, forsee that he would kill whoever was in his toilet by firing four shots through the door."

Grant then goes on to explain that her attempts at justification on Day 2 of the verdict didn't really help because

...'We are left having to rely on the reason she provided previously in her judgement – that he did not forsee killing “the deceased or anyone else for that matter” because, as she said previously, the accused thought that the deceased was in the bedroom. As discussed above, a belief that the deceased was in the bedroom does not exclude someone else being in the toilet and this is exactly what he believed, on his own version."

http://criminallawza.net/

*Henceforth Grant concludes that it would be a very dangerous gamble for the DT to appeal a stiff sentence for CH as he may well end up getting murder.

 

[JudgeJudi]

June looks devastated. All she and Barry wanted was the truth. This is such a travesty of justice.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29184590