Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
AJ_DS said:
As you see it, all police photographs in all criminal cases should be deemed inaccurate and unreliable… since no crime scene was ever photographed before anybody (police officer, police investigator, paramedic, etc) had done a walkabout to ascertain the situation.



Yes, authorized and mandated individuals went into the bedroom, bathroom and everywhere in OP's house to do their job… that does NOT constitute evidence that the crime scene was altered or tampered.

Nel didn't call the 2 policemen… why would he ?… It is not for the State to call upon witnesses in attempts to establish that the unsubstantiated claims made the Defence are wrong.

What is surprising is that Roux didn't call those 2 policemen.

BTW, who are those 2 policemen ? Who made the claim they arrived at the scene before Col. van Rensburg ?



I don't recall Botha testifying… so how can Van Rensburg's evidence be contradicted by Botha ??



Yes, a great many things were touched and moved after the scene was documented by photographs… that's perfectly normal and standard operating procedures in a crime scene investigation.

I'm not sure whether you are saying Van Rensburg was reliable and credible witness or not… some bits of his testimony you discredit (because they contradict OP's version) and other bits of his testimony you reaffirm (because they might help OP's version)



Why wouldn't the photo evidence be a true reflection of the scene ?… where is the evidence it is not ?…

Individuals who did not testify, unasked and unanswered questions, speculation based on possible events, etc certainly do not amount to proof that the photo evidence is not accurate.

2 questions whose answers may prevent futile discussions :

Is there any of State's evidence which contradicts OP's version of events that you find reliable and credible ?

Is there any element in OP's version of events which contradicts the State's evidence that you find unreliable or not credible ?
Click to expand...

How would you weigh up the likely veracity of the photos of the bedroom, given van Rensburg's evidence? How did he go on the balcony and not move anything if the big fan was where it was in the photo?
 
GR_Turner said:
How would you weigh up the likely veracity of the photos of the bedroom, given van Rensburg's evidence? How did he go on the balcony and not move anything if the big fan was where it was in the photo?
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem with Van Rensburg going onto the balcony with the large fan being where it is on the photo.

As per the photo, the right-hand side balcony door is open… the right-hand side curtains are partially open…

I suppose it may give a false impression there is no room to maneuver but it is not so as curtains are not a rigid unmovable obstacle which can obstruct one's passage.

How Van Rensburg did it… I would imagine that an experienced police officer doing a walkabout of a low-risk crime scene would proceed slowly and methodically, paying attention not to disturb anything.

large fan.jpg

As for your reply, I found it lacking answers to the questions I posed to you…

… but I would understand if you declined answering them on account that it would jeopardize your unwavering faith in OP, his version and his claims.
 
GR_Turner said:
Why do they lock down scenes of crimes if it is not to be clear that the photos of the crime scene are an accurate reflection of the scene at the time of the crime or as soon after as possible? Since they didn't in this case, the photos can't be taken as accurate. There is considerable evidence that the scene was attended by a number of people before the photos were taken, and these people's evidence is contradictory. Moreover, we can imagine that the position of fans and plugs was the last thing on anyone's mind in the early stages of this case. So:
1. The State didn't call two policemen who claimed to have been there before Col. van Rensburg. Why not? They could have explained why there was a discrepancy between their's and van Renburg's testimony and then stated what they saw and did while they were upstairs.
2. Van Rensburg's evidence was also contradicted by Botha's in regard to where Oscar was when Botha arrived - clearly Col. van Renburg couldn't have gone upstairs with Botha when Botha hadn't yet arrived. Something is very amiss with his evidence.
3. We also know that Col van Rensburg did touch the plugs at some point as there is a photo of this, and we know from his testimony that he went out onto the balcony on arrival, apparently without moving anything, which might explain the angle of the fan or indeed it's position. He also said in cross that he picked up the fan, the big silver fan, but Roux was fishing for something else and didn't follow up the point.

So how anyone can claim that the photo evidence is a true reflection of the scene, I don't know.

I do see the significance of the fans and duvet. But only the duvet was in that position for sure. Oscar might have just been mistaken about the placement of the fans and the photo evidence doesn't prove otherwise if it doesn't reflect the true scene at the time.
Click to expand...

Oscar cannot be mistaken about the fans as he strongly testified about them, and if he did not move the fans, how did reeva manage to slip behind him unnoticed to the bathroom? You see, for his story to be true he MUST have moved the fans, that's why he fabricated that story in the 1st place. It needed to buy him the time, and not see reeva.

So all we have left is the 'contamination' theory which is bordering on OJ simpson levels where you are claiming that police officers innocently happened to move key pieces of evidence around, and coincidently positioned them in places that directly contradict OP's story. I doubt you really believe that.
 
He may be fast but karma will catch up to him and the judge who played dumb by acting like she believed this piece of crap. My bedroom is bigger than his and i still dont see how his explanation could even hold water in the eyes of that judge. She should be happy that Tmz is not following her around while she spends that blood money. She also may have felt prejudice towards reeva and her family because................
 
mirage1 said:
Oscar cannot be mistaken about the fans as he strongly testified about them, and if he did not move the fans, how did reeva manage to slip behind him unnoticed to the bathroom? You see, for his story to be true he MUST have moved the fans, that's why he fabricated that story in the 1st place. It needed to buy him the time, and not see reeva.

So all we have left is the 'contamination' theory which is bordering on OJ simpson levels where you are claiming that police officers innocently happened to move key pieces of evidence around, and coincidently positioned them in places that directly contradict OP's story. I doubt you really believe that.
Click to expand...

Totally agree…

Considering it was a very hot and humid day, I suspect :

- The large fan was where it appears on the photo
- The large fan was pointing in the direction it appears on the photo
- The curtains where open as they appear on the photo
- The balcony door was open as it appears on the photo

… so as to blow cooler night air into OP's bedroom… and they were never moved or changed by either OP or the Police.

OP's story about moving 2 fans to place them at the foot of the bed and to orient them both directly onto him and Reeva makes very little sense… it would be like trying to fall back asleep with the noise* and sensations of gale-like winds.

… nevertheless OP had to concoct some kind of story in which :

- he would not be able to hear Reeva leave the bedroom : noise from 2 running fans

- he would not be able to see Reeva leave the bedroom : face away from the bed

- he would not be able to see that Reeva was not in bed : pitch darkness (close balcony door and curtains)

- he would re-open the curtains and the balcony door : yell for help

… to be fair, just as OP had no other options but the mistaken identity intruder story, he had not many or no other options but the fans/curtains story.

As one would expect, it generated a great many nonsensical and/or contradictory elements in the overall story.

* not only the noise of fan blades as they slice the air, not only the noise of the wind itself as it passes your ears BUT ALSO the intermittent noise of the magazines stacked on both bedside tables whose pages would have been flying open and close like crazy under such a constant wind !!
 
I hear the circus is back in town soon...

"3. Whether the court was correct in its construction and reliance on an alternative version of the accused and that this alternative version was reasonably possibly true"

No wonder OP is running scared... this is a golden hand dealt by Masipa, I hope Nel picks it up and plays his cards right.
 
ApplesInMyBra said:
Thanks L2L!

Can you please repost that first link? It doesn't seem to work.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

Sorry about that, but I tried every which way to get it to work, but couldn't get it!
 
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/art...ight-blades-no-longer-fit.html#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
 
L2L said:
Sorry about that, but I tried every which way to get it to work, but couldn't get it!
Click to expand...

It's probably from a site that WS doesn't approve of, I've run into that before.
 
DarKHawK said:
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/art...ight-blades-no-longer-fit.html#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
Click to expand...

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."
 
Val1 said:
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."
Click to expand...

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...e3SY9ckCoFTBRo7040xR0Ng&bvm=bv.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
 
L2L said:
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...e3SY9ckCoFTBRo7040xR0Ng&bvm=bv.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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
pandax81 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fascinating insight......................thank you pandax81 much appreciated.
 
pandax81 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is the case as Roux is supposed to be bringing precedents of the "appealed appeal"
 
Trotterly said:
I'm not sure this is the case as Roux is supposed to be bringing precedents of the "appealed appeal"
Click to expand...

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.pl?file=za/cases/ZASCA/1984/89.html&query=%20seekoei

Maybe one of our Afrikaans speaking websleuthers can help us out?
 
....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 ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 86 more.
Total: 3,423 (members: 87, guests: 3,336)

Online statistics

Members online
87
Guests online
3,336
Total visitors
3,423
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,529
Messages
17,953,943
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top