862 users online (134 members and 728 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 72 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1080
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9,735

    Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

    Parole Board Recommends Oscar Pistorius Be Released In August
    June 08, 2015
    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...ased-in-august

    Pistorius was convicted of culpable homicide, which The Guardian compares to manslaughter. The South African broadcaster eNCA reports that prosecutors are appealing that conviction. They're asking a court to convict him, instead, of murder, which carries a longer sentence.

    As eNCA reports, there is a possibility that Pistorius could be out on parole and then, if prosecutors are successful, he could be sent back to prison.
    Oscar Pistorius nearly home free
    2015-08-02
    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...-free-20150802
    Oscar Pistorius’ lawyers have won the latest round of his legal battles.
    Previous thread:
    Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

    Link to Oscar Pistorius Forum Index: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/for...scar-Pistorius
    Last edited by KateB; 08-05-2015 at 09:26 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    9,735
    Please continue here. Thanks.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Suffolk, England
    Posts
    352
    Good morning all - I read somewhere that to have a healthy diet your plate of food had to include many different colours.... This is therefore healthy and is my offering to celebrate the new thread :-)

    rainbow-cake-300x300.jpg

    I haven't posted for a while on here, is there any news on the appeal?
    "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands." Douglas Adams

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,513
    That cake looks as lurid as some of the OP tabloid stories! There is some info on the appeal on the last pages of the previous thread.

    I hope that aftermath will answer the questions posed to him/her near the end of the last thread as to a) why is a critical eye never turned on the defence case and b) since they think the verdict was correct, why bother coming on this forum to dissect the perceived weaknesses in the State`s case. They were good questions from cottonweaver IIRC so I hope they get answered. I hate it when there is good discussion happening and then a new thread is opened as they often get lost then.

    PS Sooziqtips also had a good question about why is there no criticism of Roger Dixon for, say, using a model four inches shorter than OP on his stumps for the photos of what the Stipps could have seen. His excuse (It was an oversight m`lady) was so weak that IIRC Nel accused him of deliberately trying to mislead the court and I for one cannot see any other interpretation. It is one thing to make excuses for Pistorius` behaviour but quite another for a so-called expert witness to indulge in such trickery.
    Last edited by lithgow1; 08-06-2015 at 04:59 AM. Reason: added PS

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by lithgow1 View Post
    That cake looks as lurid as some of the OP tabloid stories! There is some info on the appeal on the last pages of the previous thread.

    I hope that aftermath will answer the questions posed to him/her near the end of the last thread as to a) why is a critical eye never turned on the defence case and b) since they think the verdict was correct, why bother coming on this forum to dissect the perceived weaknesses in the State`s case. They were good questions from cottonweaver IIRC so I hope they get answered. I hate it when there is good discussion happening and then a new thread is opened as they often get lost then.

    PS Sooziqtips also had a good question about why is there no criticism of Roger Dixon for, say, using a model four inches shorter than OP on his stumps for the photos of what the Stipps could have seen. His excuse (It was an oversight m`lady) was so weak that IIRC Nel accused him of deliberately trying to mislead the court and I for one cannot see any other interpretation. It is one thing to make excuses for Pistorius` behaviour but quite another for a so-called expert witness to indulge in such trickery.
    Sorry - didn't know how to answer a post from an earlier thread! Will probably need to split my response into three to avoid an essay!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,513
    Quote Originally Posted by aftermath View Post
    Sorry - didn't know how to answer a post from an earlier thread! Will probably need to split my response into three to avoid an essay!
    No worries. I don`t know how to do that either! Like I say it is a bit annoying when a new thread opens and stuff from the old one tends to get lost. They weren`t my questions in any case, but I thought they were good ones.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    765
    Quote Originally Posted by lithgow1 View Post
    That cake looks as lurid as some of the OP tabloid stories! There is some info on the appeal on the last pages of the previous thread.

    I hope that aftermath will answer the questions posed to him/her near the end of the last thread as to a) why is a critical eye never turned on the defence case and b) since they think the verdict was correct, why bother coming on this forum to dissect the perceived weaknesses in the State`s case. They were good questions from cottonweaver IIRC so I hope they get answered. I hate it when there is good discussion happening and then a new thread is opened as they often get lost then.

    PS Sooziqtips also had a good question about why is there no criticism of Roger Dixon for, say, using a model four inches shorter than OP on his stumps for the photos of what the Stipps could have seen. His excuse (It was an oversight m`lady) was so weak that IIRC Nel accused him of deliberately trying to mislead the court and I for one cannot see any other interpretation. It is one thing to make excuses for Pistorius` behaviour but quite another for a so-called expert witness to indulge in such trickery.
    I read something about massive holes in the defence case. Just thought I would add that the defence case can have many holes, large and small. It doesn't have to be a complete picture or a pile of feathers or anything else other than to create the necessary doubt about the state's case. This needs to be grasped in order to make sense of what will happen during the appeal. Otherwise there will be more frustration and anger.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by lithgow1 View Post

    I hope that aftermath will answer the questions posed to him/her near the end of the last thread as to a) why is a critical eye never turned on the defence case.
    (snipped)

    There is always a critical eye on the defence case - but ultimately they just had to create reasonable doubt whereas the state had to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    682
    The best thing about a new thread is the lovely food presentation! Thank you KarenUK.

    I was looking online for any updates on the appeal and came across this older website/blog put together by a couple of U.S. law students. Thought I might post it for the wonderful photos of Reeva if nothing else.

    https://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com...lly-explained/

    Like everyone else, I am interested in clarifying Masipa's application of Dolus eventualis-- particularly regarding the distinction she might have been trying to make (and muddled up IMO) about the objective vs. subjective test that would apply to the correct legal determination.

    Here's a twitter exchange from back in September of 2014 that explains what I mean:

    Mandy Wiener
    ‏@MandyWiener
    Dolus eventualis is 'did' foresee, culp is 'should have'. Masipa says she believes OP didn't foresee consequences. It's a subjective test.
    5:38 AM - 11 Sep 2014

    Wessel van Rensburg ‏@wildebees Sep 11
    @MandyWiener correct, but she restricted the foresee question to Reeva, should apply to intruder as well @PikkieGreeff


    So, is this really the essence of what happened with Masipa's ruling (maybe we could get some help from our legal eagles on here)-- did she make some kind of mash up in logic by ruling first that OP could not be guilty of DE because he could not have foreseen that the deceased (Reeva) was behind the toilet door because he believed she was in the bedroom, ergo NOT GUILTY OF DE (this would more appropriately apply to DD, I would think)?

    And then she goes on to let him off on DE for the death of whoever was behind the door (the imaginary intruder in his version) by saying the State did not prove that Oscar subjectively DID FORESEE firing four Black Talon-type rounds into a toilet cubicle would likely result in the death of whoever was behind the door. So she apparently applied only the more objective test that he merely SHOULD HAVE FORESEEN which led to her verdict of CH.

    Is this what happened? Did Masipa ultimately feel like the State failed to prove Oscar intended to kill the person behind the door?

    Is this because she accepted his claims that he "fired without thinking"? Or because he felt vulnerable and he had an awful fright therefore he could not be held responsible for deliberately arming himself, approaching the noise, and firing off four rounds at an (assumed) intruder trapped in a tiny enclosed space?? Even though he SHOULD HAVE known this (CH) would likely result death, she finds that he DID NOT realize this (DE)??

    Is this what it gets down to? Help enlighten me a little more, please because her determination whether or not the accused DID NOT KNOW or "COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN" his actions would result in the death of the person behind the door continues to boggles the mind. I know the State has based their appeal in part on the claim that Masipa gave too much weight to his disability and vulnerability. How else could she have arrived at that decision?

    Is this the crux of the appeal in your opinion?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,189
    Originally Posted by aftermath
    But I am definitely interested in testing and scrutinising the state's case and seeing if there are other viable alternative explanations (not excuses)
    snipped

    I can't understand this just because you have said many times that Justice was done in this case so there is no injustice served.
    And you have said that the State failed to prove theirs many times too. So why are you still interested in scrutinising the "failed" State's case?

    Secondly, a separate point for me is why haven't you (plural, not just you ) shown any interest in scrutinising the issues with the Defence's case?
    Most of the people who post here seem to be pretty sceptical by nature, not just about OP's version etc.




    Here's the posts from the last page of thread 62, best paste I could do, will take the liberty of fetching Soozie's
    p.s. my post wasn't just directed at aftermath - it was all the truth and justice seekers out there


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Marfa Lights View Post
    The best thing about a new thread is the lovely food presentation! Thank you KarenUK.

    I was looking online for any updates on the appeal and came across this older website/blog put together by a couple of U.S. law students. Thought I might post it for the wonderful photos of Reeva if nothing else.

    https://spotlightonlaw.wordpress.com...lly-explained/

    Like everyone else, I am interested in clarifying Masipa's application of Dolus eventualis-- particularly regarding the distinction she might have been trying to make (and muddled up IMO) about the objective vs. subjective test that would apply to the correct legal determination.

    Here's a twitter exchange from back in September of 2014 that explains what I mean:

    Mandy Wiener
    ‏@MandyWiener
    Dolus eventualis is 'did' foresee, culp is 'should have'. Masipa says she believes OP didn't foresee consequences. It's a subjective test.
    5:38 AM - 11 Sep 2014

    Wessel van Rensburg ‏@wildebees Sep 11
    @MandyWiener correct, but she restricted the foresee question to Reeva, should apply to intruder as well @PikkieGreeff


    So, is this really the essence of what happened with Masipa's ruling (maybe we could get some help from our legal eagles on here)-- did she make some kind of mash up in logic by ruling first that OP could not be guilty of DE because he could not have foreseen that the deceased (Reeva) was behind the toilet door because he believed she was in the bedroom, ergo NOT GUILTY OF DE?

    And then she goes on to let him off on DE for the death of whoever was behind the door (the imaginary intruder in his version) by saying the State did not prove that Oscar subjectively DID FORESEE firing four Black Talon-type rounds into a toilet cubicle would likely result in the death of whoever was behind the door. So she apparently applied only the more objective test that he merely SHOULD HAVE FORESEEN which led to her verdict of CH.

    Is this what happened? Did Masipa ultimately feel like the State failed to prove Oscar intended to kill the person behind the door?

    Is this because she accepted his claims that he "fired without thinking"? Or because he felt vulnerable and he had an awful fright therefore he could not be held responsible for deliberately arming himself, approaching the noise, and firing off four rounds at an (assumed) intruder trapped in a tiny enclosed space?? Even though he SHOULD HAVE (CH) known this would likely result death, she finds that he DID NOT (DE) realize this??

    Is this what it gets down to? Help enlighten me a little more, please because her determination whether or not the accused DID NOT KNOW or "COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN" his actions would result in the death of the person behind the door continues to boggles the mind. I know the State has based their appeal in part on the claim that Masipa gave too much weight to his disability and vulnerability. How else could she have arrived at that decision?

    Is this the crux of the appeal in your opinion?
    ....i think she seriously slipped up there..... by Pistorius's own declaration he was afraid of shooting anywhere else in fear of the bullets bouncing round to kill himself....thus he had already thought out the conséquences of shooting and what the result may be......writing to Nel right now..;

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,189

    Soozieqtips post from last page of thread 62

    BIB - that's a very good point. If people claim to be interested in justice, you'd think the massive holes in the defence would spark a little interest too, but no. How about Roger Dixon misleading the court when he used a shorter model to demonstrate what could be seen through the bathroom window by the Stipps? I know supporters will come up with some kind of excuse, but I think it was a deliberate attempt to discredit the Stipps. Dixon was supposed to be an expert for goodness sake, and he used a model 4 inches shorter!


    Nel: You're giving the court an indication of how much the accused would have been visible on his stumps... then you give us a photograph that does not reflect that..... why would you hand in that photograph.... or... even take that photograph

    Dixon: I'm not trying to mislead the court Milady

    Nel: That's what I'm testing... that's what I'm testing. You mentioned the word, Mr Dixon (pause). What I don't understand... if that's what you wanted to point out... why would you not ensure... that the person on his knees... stands on something, er, is lifted... to scale, because you're an expert. Why wouldn't you make sure that his height... is exactly... the height of Mr Pistorius on his stumps. Why would you not do that?

    Dixon - Milady... it is something I omitted. I overlooked it at the time.
    Soozie - if you wish to remove...please post and i will delete
    Last edited by cottonweaver; 08-06-2015 at 06:27 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    682
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin de France View Post
    ....i think she seriously slipped up there..... by Pistorius's own declaration he was afraid of shooting anywhere else in fear of the bullets bouncing round to kill himself....thus he had already thought out the conséquences of shooting and what the result may be......
    That's exactly what I thought when I heard his testimony about his concern for ricochet bullets if he fired a warning shot into the shower or elsewhere in the bathroom. I could feel Roux cringe too.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Marfa Lights View Post
    That's exactly what I thought when I heard his testimony about his concern for ricochet bullets if he fired a warning shot into the shower or elsewhere in the bathroom. I could feel Roux cringe too.
    ....this point is being overlooked too much........

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by cottonweaver View Post
    Soozie - if you wish to remove...please post and i will delete
    That's fine. I was going to copy it over anyway but you've saved me the trouble

Page 1 of 72 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1157
    Last Post: 12-08-2015, 08:29 AM
  2. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 701
    Last Post: 12-03-2015, 03:16 AM
  3. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1357
    Last Post: 11-12-2015, 08:10 AM
  4. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~
    By beach in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1071
    Last Post: 10-26-2015, 08:26 PM
  5. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1087
    Last Post: 08-05-2015, 09:28 PM

Tags for this Thread