1100 users online (186 members and 914 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 72 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1072
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by Interested Bystander View Post
    I am not too sure whether it was anything to do with the pressure group other than to bring the release to the Minister's notice.
    No but now we can imagine that they will be petitioning the minister every time there's a decision they don't like in the hope of getting lucky and finding that someone has made a mistake as happened here.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by kittychi View Post
    In fairness to Aimee, based on her and both of her brothers' comments and general behavior, she probably thinks every prisoner would get a requested bath, different bed, better gym equipment and private toilet.

    :sarcasm:
    And to be even fairer to Aimee, she said that within a week of his arrival in prison.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nirvana
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    No but now we can imagine that they will be petitioning the minister every time there's a decision they don't like in the hope of getting lucky and finding that someone has made a mistake as happened here.

    Yes, I can see that happening. The Minister might rue the day he made the OP decision.


  4. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by Interested Bystander View Post
    Yes, I can see that happening. The Minister might rue the day he made the OP decision.
    Then again, it might mean that he'll be more on top of his job in making sure that things are done correctly in the first place so he doesn't need to refer any more decisions.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by pandax81 View Post
    They hide it under the carpet in exactly the manner you describe - by posturing that it is not an issue so simply not dealing with it. It's no good pretending the question reserved is 'whether the court was correct to find that OP did not foresee the possibility of killing' - it isn't*. The Q is 'Whether the principles of dolus eventualis were correctly applied to the accepted facts...'

    The state lists many of the court's findings as "accepted facts". Conspicuously absent is the finding that OP clearly did not foresee the possibility of killing. The problem is, the state does not explain why they do not consider this an accepted fact - that is the issue, they don't even deal with it. To make the finding as the court did about OP's subjective intention requires no knowledge of dolus eventualis, you don't even need to have heard of dolus eventualis to make that finding. In this regard, it is legitimate to believe the onus is on the state to show why it is not a finding of fact and once you have that finding, the principles of dolus eventualis are then applied rather than the other way round. The state appear to be putting the cart before the horse. I'm not arguing the point one way or the other definitively, my point is if the state think they are putting the horse before the cart, they should have argued why.

    This 'fingers in the ears' tactic is no good, they need to tackle things head on and ward it off now at this stage, it is such an obvious and strong objection that will come like a knockout punch, at least make some defensive gesture.

    * That would have been a better question, one couched in terms of the legal principles and evidential approach and burden in determining subjective intention. It is one with precedent too from the Supreme Court that would go in favour of the state. But that isn't the question alas.
    Hmmm

    I don't really agree - its the very point at issue.

    BIB

    If the factual finding was such a knockout punch - the state would never have been sucessful in leave to appeal

    Roux made the very argument you made now and was not successful.

    The problem is that we are dealing with a legal standard, and inferences. i.e. mixed questions of fact and law.

    The judge found that OP intended to shoot the intruder (4 times!)

    The states case is that the finding about the lack of intention was due to errors of law that the judge made rather than factual findings...

    I am sure that the point you raise will be heavily argued in the defence HOA - which is where one would expect to find it.

    The state will react to that in Court once they know what the defence's arguments actually are.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    I agree. And it sets a bad precedent if pressure groups feel that they can influence decisions in this way.
    Surely all the "pressure group" has done is ensure the State follows the law?

    The public should always hold the State to account and demand transparency and accuracy

    Finally public confidence in the judicial system is always important.

    If the public see convicted killers walking essentially free after an absurdly short period because they are wealthy - that damages the integrity of the system.

    I find it strange to complain about citizens who want to ensure the rules are correctly applied in this case

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by cottonweaver View Post
    Women's Month in SA


    In response to ANC statement " Today we will celebrate the women who have served thsi nation for so many years. "

    Rebecca Davis says: ( she wrote some thoughtful OP articles.)
    "Please can everyone stop "celebrating" women & instead just employ them, pay them equally, & not rape & kill them? "


    https://twitter.com/becsplanb

    Hear hear.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nirvana
    Posts
    3,502
    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    Then again, it might mean that he'll be more on top of his job in making sure that things are done correctly in the first place so he doesn't need to refer any more decisions.
    Oh dear, my comment was a joke. I thought most people would understand that.


  9. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Heart of Europe
    Posts
    27,185
    Even out of the court, Roux has such an archaic way of speaking; when media asked him about a possible appeal he said, 'I may not comment'.

    I did have the link but lost it while waiting for the thread to reopen. I think it was in an EWN Reporter article but I can't find it now so take the above as rumour.
    We 'embraced' the missing Bob Harrod case as requested but 6 years on, are still waiting for further guidance


    Flyers/FB/Case Overview&Media Links
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...2009-19/page22

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    This sort of argument makes me think about how prisoners who won't admit their guilt are often deemed to not have shown remorse and are denied parole as a result, often leaving them with much longer sentences than those who admit their guilt. In some cases it is shown later that they wouldn't admit guilt because they weren't guilty.

    I'm afraid the article above comes from the same position - my guess is that the idea of remorse she refers to is an admission of guilt and nothing less. It's hard to seem remorseful and have your words taken seriously while denying that you did as you are accused.
    BBM: I disagree. He wasn't even sorry for his deadly "mistake." He was sobbing and crying for himself and what he did to himself and his career, not Reeva or her family.

    He admitted that he shot the gun that killed Reeva. If I believed every word of his version of the story, I would still expect any human being to feel remorseful and devastated at what they destroyed for someone else even accidentally. That never came from Oscar and is one reason that so many people think he knew exactly who was in that bathroom and why.

    Oscar saying to Gina "how do you sleep at night" and his quotes from the night at the VIP bar "I'll piss on Zuma" and more should tell you all you need to know about Oscar.
    "I'm sorry; if you were right, I would agree with you." - Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings."


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,304
    Quote Originally Posted by pandax81 View Post
    They hide it under the carpet in exactly the manner you describe - by posturing that it is not an issue so simply not dealing with it. It's no good pretending the question reserved is 'whether the court was correct to find that OP did not foresee the possibility of killing' - it isn't*. The Q is 'Whether the principles of dolus eventualis were correctly applied to the accepted facts...'

    The state lists many of the court's findings as "accepted facts". Conspicuously absent is the finding that OP clearly did not foresee the possibility of killing. The problem is, the state does not explain why they do not consider this an accepted fact - that is the issue, they don't even deal with it. To make the finding as the court did about OP's subjective intention requires no knowledge of dolus eventualis, you don't even need to have heard of dolus eventualis to make that finding. In this regard, it is legitimate to believe the onus is on the state to show why it is not a finding of fact and once you have that finding, the principles of dolus eventualis are then applied rather than the other way round. The state appear to be putting the cart before the horse. I'm not arguing the point one way or the other definitively, my point is if the state think they are putting the horse before the cart, they should have argued why.

    This 'fingers in the ears' tactic is no good, they need to tackle things head on and ward it off now at this stage, it is such an obvious and strong objection that will come like a knockout punch, at least make some defensive gesture.

    * That would have been a better question, one couched in terms of the legal principles and evidential approach and burden in determining subjective intention. It is one with precedent too from the Supreme Court that would go in favour of the state. But that isn't the question alas.
    BBM - I thought it was pretty obvious, OP had taken a firearms course and was well-versed in what a gun of that caliber could do, in fact, that specific evidence was admitted iirc.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by kittychi View Post
    BBM: I disagree. He wasn't even sorry for his deadly "mistake." He was sobbing and crying for himself and what he did to himself and his career, not Reeva or her family.

    He admitted that he shot the gun that killed Reeva. If I believed every word of his version of the story, I would still expect any human being to feel remorseful and devastated at what they destroyed for someone else even accidentally. That never came from Oscar and is one reason that so many people think he knew exactly who was in that bathroom and why.

    Oscar saying to Gina "how do you sleep at night" and his quotes from the night at the VIP bar "I'll piss on Zuma" and more should tell you all you need to know about Oscar.
    How do you know why he was crying? And do you believe everything the papers say, or just when it's some new story with a negative slant on op?

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,513
    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    How do you know why he was crying? And do you believe everything the papers say, or just when it's some new story with a negative slant on op?
    IIRC the comment to Gina Myers was overheard by a journalist and a court security guard and video footage showed her recoiling from something he said to her. Put it this way, I would believe her over him re this incident, which is just another of the many events which do not shine a favourable light onto Oscar Pistorius.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,189
    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    How do you know why he was crying? And do you believe everything the papers say, or just when it's some new story with a negative slant on op?
    Putting the reasons for his crying aside for a minute, I have to say this GR. .....

    BIB This "swallowing whatever the press say" theme from yourself has been a constant refrain in your objections in terms of fair treatment for OP, across three threads. Yet it struck me yesterday your concluding post about the reasons for the early release ( being the pressure group's influence) struck me as an "uncritical" response to media reports from yourself.

    Whilst there are of course many instances of sensationalist drivel and inaccuracies and no-one can should simply swallow all the press articles, (the press are back on the OP bandwagon after all) this release story itself is another "unknown".
    No-one knows the reasons for the postponement except Minister/Correctional services - in total here we have speculated about ten different motives - I have speculated over and over but I can't be definitive about this.

    I'm not going to conclude "ah that women's group was successful, how unfair" etc from here onwards - that's how the B.S. starts and possibilities gain grounds as fact.

    Personally I still wouldn't claim to know which of the options is the real reason, except after weighing them, IMO some of them are maybe more likely than others.

    It strikes me that most people here on WS are much more inquisitive and sceptical than those that can be found in other quarters.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nirvana
    Posts
    3,502
    A goodly portion sensationalism here from the Daily Fail

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...son-YEARS.html

    'Oscar wanted a bath built in his cell, a new bed and is allowed to cook his own meals because he fears being poisoned': Shamed Pistorius' diva jail demands revealed as he is warned he could stay in prison for YEARS."

    What a paper! Yesterday, in the same, I read that the Parole Board had been given 14 days to meet! I will see if I can find it but I do wonder, when I read this type of reporting, whether it is worth uploading.


Page 4 of 72 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... 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 #63 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1079
    Last Post: 08-19-2015, 08:07 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