1247 users online (219 members and 1028 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 72 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1080
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by lithgow1 View Post

    b) since they think the verdict was correct, why bother coming on this forum to dissect the perceived weaknesses in the State`s case.
    For what it's worth some of the reasons I find myself posting are because the topic interests me enough to want to discuss it with others who share that interest. And because I find it both fascinating and worrying that so many people can't/won't see the reasonable doubt. And because the pervasive influence of the media and social media needs to have a countering balance somewhere. (because 'justice for reeva' does not mean the public enjoyment of the demolition of a man. It means finding out the the truth and holding him to account for it) And because it is interesting how people can read/watch the same things and come to such different interpretations. And because - since the defence version is unlikely (but not impossible) in places, - assessing and reassessing my own views against those who don't agree with me is a good test for the validity of the conclusions I have drawn.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by aftermath View Post
    For what it's worth some of the reasons I find myself posting are because the topic interests me enough to want to discuss it with others who share that interest. And because I find it both fascinating and worrying that so many people can't/won't see the reasonable doubt. And because the pervasive influence of the media and social media needs to have a countering balance somewhere. (because 'justice for reeva' does not mean the public enjoyment of the demolition of a man. It means finding out the the truth and holding him to account for it) And because it is interesting how people can read/watch the same things and come to such different interpretations. And because - since the defence version is unlikely (but not impossible) in places, - assessing and reassessing my own views against those who don't agree with me is a good test for the validity of the conclusions I have drawn.
    .....that's all very well......but try taking on issue's such as that mentioned in post 11....objectively..;

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by lithgow1 View Post
    Snipped...


    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.

    Dixon wasn't a great witness, but neither was he the disaster he has been made out to be. IMO.

    Re the photos... Was his asking someone to kneel much different to vermeulen's investigation into whether the cricket bat could have been swung with force on prosthetics or stumps?

    Yes- of course he should have ensured the model was at the correct height, but at least he explored the legs-on or legs-off issue . Why didn't the state offer their own carefully measured photographic evidence to show that Dr Stipp in all probability saw pistorius still just on his stumps?

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    765
    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.
    When he wasn't in the situation of being in fear of his life because of an imminent attack - as he described - it was obvious to him or anyone else that firing in that space was extremely dangerous, but was he thinking it at the time? I think all his attention was on the intruder from the moment that window opened.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin de France View Post
    .....that's all very well......but try taking on issue's such as that mentioned in post 11....objectively..;
    Please don't tell me what to do. I said to lithgow1 that I would respond to his/her post in three parts- which I have now done.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Trotterly View Post
    When he wasn't in the situation of being in fear of his life because of an imminent attack - as he described - it was obvious to him or anyone else that firing in that space was extremely dangerous, but was he thinking it at the time? I think all his attention was on the intruder from the moment that window opened.
    ....this is neither here nor there......yes it was obvious with or without fear....

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    559
    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 (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?
    You aren't the only one who is confused by DE. It seems a very thin line between CH - should have foreseen - and DE - did foresee. I'm totally unclear how the court resolves this. I have heard arguments that they should base this on the evidence ie - he fired 4 shots so he must have foreseen the possibility of killing whoever was there. But then how does this distinguish the accused' actual beliefs (what he actually did foresee) from those of the reasonable man (what he should have foreseen)? If the court can just accept the accused's statement that he didn't foresee it, then the state could never get a successful prosecution. Maybe it's one of those things like 'reasonable' doubt- a sliding scale and the court must decide at what point 'reasonable' ends, and in CH vs DE at what point 'should have known' becomes 'did know'.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by aftermath View Post
    Please don't tell me what to do. I said to lithgow1 that I would respond to his/her post in three parts- which I have now done.
    .......i didnt tell you what to do....i said try ...unless i'm wrong you said you're looking for enlightment and confirmation of your position but at the same time you're being selective in what you want to discuss.......and unfriendly at that....

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    You aren't the only one who is confused by DE. It seems a very thin line between CH - should have foreseen - and DE - did foresee. I'm totally unclear how the court resolves this. I have heard arguments that they should base this on the evidence ie - he fired 4 shots so he must have foreseen the possibility of killing whoever was there. But then how does this distinguish the accused' actual beliefs (what he actually did foresee) from those of the reasonable man (what he should have foreseen)? If the court can just accept the accused's statement that he didn't foresee it, then the state could never get a successful prosecution. Maybe it's one of those things like 'reasonable' doubt- a sliding scale and the court must decide at what point 'reasonable' ends, and in CH vs DE at what point 'should have known' becomes 'did know'.
    ....well it was certainly forseen when in relation to himself.....

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Trotterly View Post
    When he wasn't in the situation of being in fear of his life because of an imminent attack - as he described - it was obvious to him or anyone else that firing in that space was extremely dangerous, but was he thinking it at the time? I think all his attention was on the intruder from the moment that window opened.
    According to him he was. He was asked why he didn`t do a certain thing and he proceeded to give a reason as to why. I know that you have been trying to make out that it was a later thought, or that Nel pushed him into it, which makes it a bit hard to analyse what he said on the stand if there is always going to be excuses offered for his most self-damning statements. He said it so it should be accepted as his thought at the time and then the implications of that thought explored IMO.


  11. #26
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    682
    Befuddling...

    FROM PAGE 3327 of Masipa's Judgment:
    "I now deal with dolus eventualis or legal intent. The question is:
    1. Did the accused subjectively foresee that it could be the deceased
    behind the toilet door and
    2. Notwithstanding the foresight did he then fire the shots, thereby
    reconciling himself to the possibility that it could be the deceased in
    the toilet."


    FROM PAGE 3328:

    "The question is: Did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant death, yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the circumstances of this case the answer has to be no.
    How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let
    alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."



    FROM PAGE 3329:
    [B]It follows that the accused’s erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus. The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder dolus eventualis. That however, is not the end of the matter, as culpable homicide is a competent verdict.[/I][/B]
    Last edited by Marfa Lights; 08-06-2015 at 07:06 AM.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin de France View Post
    .......i didnt tell you what to do....i said try ...unless i'm wrong you said you're looking for enlightment and confirmation of your position but at the same time you're being selective in what you want to discuss.......and unfriendly at that....
    You told me to ' try taking on the issues of post 11' That's an imperative - a command verb. I was polite- I said please. No need for the persistent tone in your responses to me.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Marfa Lights View Post
    Befuddling...

    FROM PAGE 3327 of Masipa's Judgment:
    "I now deal with dolus eventualis or legal intent. The question is:
    1. Did the accused subjectively foresee that it could be the deceased
    behind the toilet door and
    2. Notwithstanding the foresight did he then fire the shots, thereby
    reconciling himself to the possibility that it could be the deceased in
    the toilet."


    FROM PAGE 3328:

    "The question is: Did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant death, yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the circumstances of this case the answer has to be no.
    How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let
    alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."



    FROM PAGE 3329:
    [/I][/B]It follows that the accused’s erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus. The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder dolus eventualis. That however, is not the end of the matter, as culpable homicide is a competent verdict.[B][I]
    Colour me stupid but I don`t get it. Why does the answer have to be no? She has no more idea what was going through his head at the moment he fired those shots than we do.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Marfa Lights View Post


    FROM PAGE 3328:

    [I][B]"The question is: Did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant death, yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the circumstances of this case the answer has to be no.
    How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let
    alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."
    ........after that one could ask .....what was the point in firing then ? ............

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by lithgow1 View Post
    According to him he was. He was asked why he didn`t do a certain thing and he proceeded to give a reason as to why. I know that you have been trying to make out that it was a later thought, or that Nel pushed him into it, which makes it a bit hard to analyse what he said on the stand if there is always going to be excuses offered for his most self-damning statements. He said it so it should be accepted as his thought at the time and then the implications of that thought explored IMO.
    BIB - exactly. If he wasn't thinking about it at the time - then he could have just said it didn't occur to him because he was in panic mode (or whatever). But he very clearly gave a reason for not firing a warning shot at the time he was in the bathroom. Even when the killer damns himself with his own carefully chosen words, his supporters will still find a way to negate it.

Page 2 of 72 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... 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