1718 users online (285 members and 1433 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 108 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 103 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1611
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,304
    Quote Originally Posted by L2L View Post
    Sorry about that, but I tried every which way to get it to work, but couldn't get it!
    It's probably from a site that WS doesn't approve of, I've run into that before.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,304
    Quote Originally Posted by DarKHawK View Post
    In the comments section on the Daily Mail on the article

    Jailed Oscar Pistorius 'is so paranoid about being poisoned in prison that he only eats tinned food - and has lost so much weight his blades no longer fit'

    Read more:*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ixzz3TUMJSMxq*
    Follow us:*@MailOnline on Twitter*|*DailyMail on Facebook


    there was mention of a case next week! What case?

    Sent from my K00C using Tapatalk
    From this bit in the article, it could be either to do with his possible August release, or a hearing on the acquittal appeal.:
    "He could be released from jail in August and allowed to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.

    However, the state has appealed Pistorius’s acquittal on a charge of murder. The athlete’s own lawyers have challenged the ruling to allow the appeal. The next hearing in the case is next week.
    "

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by Val1 View Post
    From this bit in the article, it could be either to do with his possible August release, or a hearing on the acquittal appeal.:
    "He could be released from jail in August and allowed to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.

    However, the state has appealed Pistoriusís acquittal on a charge of murder. The athleteís own lawyers have challenged the ruling to allow the appeal. The next hearing in the case is next week.
    "
    http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...87519884,d.dGY

    OP's lawyers have applied (to J.Masipa) for leave to appeal (to the SCA) the leave to appeal granted to prosecution (by JM) in December 2014. The date set down for this appeal is March 13 (next week!) and will be heard by Judge Masipa. She will very likely grant the appeal and it will probably be heard by SCA in conjunction with the prosecutor's leave to appeal JM's verdict for which no date has yet been set.
    In other words, the defence don't want the prosecution's leave to appeal to get to the SCA...defence running scared! Hope this makes sense, if not......

    Jake18 (02-26-15) summarised it clearly here:
    1) The Defence don't want the case heard by the SCA
    2) They're trying to stop this by arguing that Masipa's potential errors were those of fact and not law
    3) They're not actually expecting Masipa to change her mind in March but procedure dictates that they need to go through her before they can appeal to the SCA
    4) There will likely then be a preliminary ruling by the SCA as to whether the errors were factually based or a potential legal mistake; if the former then the full case won't be heard
    5) The fact that this is unprecedented suggests that they are either tactically brilliant or desperate
    Last edited by L2L; 03-05-2015 at 06:34 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by L2L View Post
    http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...87519884,d.dGY

    OP's lawyers have applied (to J.Masipa) for leave to appeal (to the SCA) the leave to appeal granted to prosecution (by JM) in December 2014. The date set down for this appeal is March 13 (next week!) and will be heard by Judge Masipa. She will very likely grant the appeal and it will probably be heard by SCA in conjunction with the prosecutor's leave to appeal JM's verdict for which no date has yet been set.
    In other words, the defence don't want the prosecution's leave to appeal to get to the SCA...defence running scared! Hope this makes sense, if not......

    Jake18 (02-26-15) summarised it clearly here:
    1) The Defence don't want the case heard by the SCA
    2) They're trying to stop this by arguing that Masipa's potential errors were those of fact and not law
    3) They're not actually expecting Masipa to change her mind in March but procedure dictates that they need to go through her before they can appeal to the SCA
    4) There will likely then be a preliminary ruling by the SCA as to whether the errors were factually based or a potential legal mistake; if the former then the full case won't be heard
    5) The fact that this is unprecedented suggests that they are either tactically brilliant or desperate
    Bearing in mind that my post was a query to Mr Jitty about whether my surmising was correct... Where ARE you Mr Jitty??

    I personally don't think Masipa will grant the appeal but it's academic given that, once the DT have presented to appeal to her they can then present their case to the SCA, irrespective of what she decides. It's a funny law quirk, isn't it?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    204
    We are in unchartered territory here, this is not the normal 'appeals' process, so even the teams involved are testing the waters with procedure.

    Roux had three main arguments why the Qs of law should be dismissed:

    - The legal precedent (Seekoei) is that the prosecutor cannot reserve Qs of law in cases where a competent verdict is delivered instead of total acquittal
    - Academic questions will not be heard by the SCA, and as the court made a finding of fact that the accused did not intend to kill anybody, a murder conviction is impossible and therefore the questions are academic
    - The Qs are not bonafide Qs of law, but Qs of fact masquerading as Qs of law

    Presumably, Roux wants a separate and preliminary hearing on these matters first. It makes sense, it is unfair and a waste of time, resources and money to be forced to argue the whole lot together if the Qs might be dismissed anyway.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by pandax81 View Post
    We are in unchartered territory here, this is not the normal 'appeals' process, so even the teams involved are testing the waters with procedure.

    Roux had three main arguments why the Qs of law should be dismissed:

    - The legal precedent (Seekoei) is that the prosecutor cannot reserve Qs of law in cases where a competent verdict is delivered instead of total acquittal
    - Academic questions will not be heard by the SCA, and as the court made a finding of fact that the accused did not intend to kill anybody, a murder conviction is impossible and therefore the questions are academic
    - The Qs are not bonafide Qs of law, but Qs of fact masquerading as Qs of law

    Presumably, Roux wants a separate and preliminary hearing on these matters first. It makes sense, it is unfair and a waste of time, resources and money to be forced to argue the whole lot together if the Qs might be dismissed anyway.
    Fascinating insight......................thank you pandax81 much appreciated.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    765
    Quote Originally Posted by pandax81 View Post
    We are in unchartered territory here, this is not the normal 'appeals' process, so even the teams involved are testing the waters with procedure.

    Roux had three main arguments why the Qs of law should be dismissed:

    - The legal precedent (Seekoei) is that the prosecutor cannot reserve Qs of law in cases where a competent verdict is delivered instead of total acquittal
    - Academic questions will not be heard by the SCA, and as the court made a finding of fact that the accused did not intend to kill anybody, a murder conviction is impossible and therefore the questions are academic
    - The Qs are not bonafide Qs of law, but Qs of fact masquerading as Qs of law

    Presumably, Roux wants a separate and preliminary hearing on these matters first. It makes sense, it is unfair and a waste of time, resources and money to be forced to argue the whole lot together if the Qs might be dismissed anyway.
    I'm not sure this is the case as Roux is supposed to be bringing precedents of the "appealed appeal"

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by Trotterly View Post
    I'm not sure this is the case as Roux is supposed to be bringing precedents of the "appealed appeal"
    The question of whether or not Seekoei can be overturned or distinguished from the present case, bearing in mind that it appears to have stood as a precedent since 1984, is unchartered territory.

    There are sound and logical reasons why Seekoei should be reversed, but, as far as I can remember, Masipa didn't elaborate on why she didn't consider Seekoei to be a problem for the State.

    Roux will doubtless seek to persuade her that OP is entitled to rely on Seekoei, on the grounds that it would be unfair to him to move the goalposts after his trial.

    Also, as it is rare for the State to appeal against conviction, (possibly due to Seekoie and the issue of funding/caseload), I imagine that the vast majority of legal practitioners have not encountered a scenario where the Defence is not only opposing the appeal itself, but has also lodged an application challenging the trial judge's decision to grant the Prosecution leave to appeal.

    I don't know what the rationale behind Seekoei was - here is the Appeal judgement - it's in Afrikaans

    http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/disp.p...ery=%20seekoei

    Maybe one of our Afrikaans speaking websleuthers can help us out?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    ....are we heading towards a judicial masquerade where the outcome is the excuse of having exhausted the legal system so enabling OP to walk out of prison with no worries of any further recourse to the law ?
    Last edited by Colin de France; 03-10-2015 at 02:54 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,094
    Reeva Steenkamp's mother says prosecutors' bid to get a harsher sentence for Oscar Pistorius 'doesn't matter' as she launches domestic violence foundation

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...us-appeal.html

    Mrs. Steenkamp is a classy and gracious woman.
    "I'm sorry; if you were right, I would agree with you." - Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings."


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by kittychi View Post
    Reeva Steenkamp's mother says prosecutors' bid to get a harsher sentence for Oscar Pistorius 'doesn't matter' as she launches domestic violence foundation

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...us-appeal.html

    Mrs. Steenkamp is a classy and gracious woman.
    Her daughter Reeva fought against domestic violence and died a violent death at the hands of her boyfriend.

    I can't for the life of me understand why she would say "it doesn't matter" ?!?

    If she doesn't believes OP's story...

    - Doesn't matter that her daughter's murderer perjured himself about the circumstances of her death ?

    - Doesn't mater that her daughter's killer will get away with murder with only a slap on the wrist ?

    - Doesn't matter that a very poor message is sent to all domestic abusers and domestic victims ?

    … what's the point of launching a domestic violence foundation when you are indifferent towards pursuing Justice for the victims of domestic violence and punishment of the perpetrators of domestic violence ?

    If she believes OP's story...

    - Doesn't matter that a man is being persecuted for a crime he did not commit ?

    Either way, IT MATTERS !!
    Last edited by AJ_DS; 03-10-2015 at 11:58 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by AJ_DS View Post
    Her daughter Reeva fought against domestic violence and died a violent death at the hands of her boyfriend.

    I can't for the life of me understand why she would say "it doesn't matter" ?!?

    If she doesn't believes OP's story...

    - Doesn't matter that her daughter's murderer perjured himself about the circumstances of her death ?

    - Doesn't mater that her daughter's killer will get away with murder with only a slap on the wrist ?

    - Doesn't matter that a very poor message is sent to all domestic abusers and domestic victims ?

    … what's the point of launching a domestic violence foundation when you are indifferent towards pursuing Justice for the victims of domestic violence and punishment of the perpetrators of domestic violence ?

    If she believes OP's story...

    - Doesn't matter that a man is being persecuted for a crime he did not commit ?

    Either way, IT MATTERS !!
    Yes! Absolutely agree! Forgiveness is one thing but "doesn't matter" is something else altogether. I could never understand this attitude of Reeva's mother from the start. Of course, it matters.... it matters a great deal not just to the family involved but to the whole human race that we know about such violence and that we see it punished appropriately.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by AJ_DS View Post
    Her daughter Reeva fought against domestic violence and died a violent death at the hands of her boyfriend.

    I can't for the life of me understand why she would say "it doesn't matter" ?!?

    If she doesn't believes OP's story...

    - Doesn't matter that her daughter's murderer perjured himself about the circumstances of her death ?

    - Doesn't mater that her daughter's killer will get away with murder with only a slap on the wrist ?

    - Doesn't matter that a very poor message is sent to all domestic abusers and domestic victims ?

    … what's the point of launching a domestic violence foundation when you are indifferent towards pursuing Justice for the victims of domestic violence and punishment of the perpetrators of domestic violence ?

    If she believes OP's story...

    - Doesn't matter that a man is being persecuted for a crime he did not commit ?

    Either way, IT MATTERS !!
    I agree with you, AJ.

    However, the way I look at it is that she knows that Oscar intended to shoot Reeva, but she's now trying to distance herself from the litigation, and his fate, in order to focus on the positive and preserve her sanity.

    I do wonder, though, how Nel feels about it. From a psychological perspective, I imagine that it must be much easier to fight on for justice when the victim's family is fully engaged and committed to the process. And we know that Roux has already tried to capitalise on her 'satisfaction' with the outcome.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,954
    Is Reeva's mother saying that pursuing justice for her daughter's death doesn't matter? I do remember her saying she was happy with the 5-year sentence, and that she wasn't out for revenge. However, this isn't about revenge, but about making sure the law was followed in reaching the correct decision. Masipa's application of the law (especially with regards to possession) needs to be clarified for future reference. Mrs Steenkamp admitted she thought OP was a liar on the stand, so her saying it doesn't matter about his sentence makes no sense.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by soozieqtips View Post
    Is Reeva's mother saying that pursuing justice for her daughter's death doesn't matter? I do remember her saying she was happy with the 5-year sentence, and that she wasn't out for revenge. However, this isn't about revenge, but about making sure the law was followed in reaching the correct decision. Masipa's application of the law (especially with regards to possession) needs to be clarified for future reference. Mrs Steenkamp admitted she thought OP was a liar on the stand, so her saying it doesn't matter about his sentence makes no sense.
    .....if she did say it ....could it have been nothing matters because nothing can bring her daughter back ?
    Last edited by Colin de France; 03-11-2015 at 07:49 AM.

Page 3 of 108 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 103 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 701
    Last Post: 12-03-2015, 03:16 AM
  2. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1357
    Last Post: 11-12-2015, 08:10 AM
  3. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~
    By beach in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1071
    Last Post: 10-26-2015, 08:26 PM
  4. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1087
    Last Post: 08-05-2015, 09:28 PM
  5. Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~
    By Harmony 2 in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1308
    Last Post: 02-28-2015, 11:08 AM

Tags for this Thread