Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #70 *Appeal Verdict*

[Trotterly]

I really can't understand their persistence in arguing error in objecto.

I can only think they have put someone very inexperienced on the case, and don't care very much about their reputation as lawyers.

Masipa identified the error in their argument of transferred malice and so too did the SCA, so I want to know what is their game exactly?

Are they saying Pistorius should have been charged with the murder of the figment of his imagination?

I don't see the problem with identity.

For determination of DE once the potential victim has been identified as human then further refinement of identity cannot matter.

Subjectively for determination of lawfulness identity does matter insofar as the threat is concerned.

The problem arises in this case as DE is foreseen and reconciled unlawful killing.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't see the problem with identity.

For determination of DE once the potential victim has been identified as human then further refinement of identity cannot matter.

[BIB1] Subjectively for determination of lawfulness identity does matter insofar as the threat is concerned.

[BIB2] The problem arises in this case as DE is foreseen and reconciled unlawful killing.

BIB1 - as far as I know, error in objecto applies to the intent to kill a person, and not the test of lawfulness of the act (PPD)

BIB2 - Identity doesn't matter in this case because DE is foreseen and reconciled unlawful killing of any person.

 

[Belgarion]

I assume you are referring to an accused using their phone whilst the court was active?

I never saw OP doing this.

The newspaper story concerning Katie Price only mentioned tweets during the period of the trial not from court.

The photos I've seen from court are just him on his phone presumably during breaks as there are people wandering about. I have not seen any photos of him when the court was active.

I would have thought that the photographer would have been keen to capture him on the phone with the court obviously active, but no.

It’s also a pity a photographer didn’t catch brother Carl removing Pistorius’ phone prior to deleting its contents. Must have been something very incriminating on it for him to do that. Wonder who told him to nick it.

 

[mhiforme]

It’s also a pity a photographer didn’t catch brother Carl removing Pistorius’ phone prior to deleting its contents. Must have been something very incriminating on it for him to do that. Wonder who told him to nick it.

If you know for a fact that Carl removed Oscar's phone and deleted it's content, then clearly by extension, the prosecution would know this as well. The fact that they knew this and didn't prosecute Carl for obstruction of justice or evidence tampering makes this irrelevant and a non-story.

 

[Trotterly]

BIB1 - as far as I know, error in objecto applies to the intent to kill a person, and not the test of lawfulness of the act (PPD)

BIB2 - Identity doesn't matter in this case because DE is foreseen and reconciled unlawful killing of any person.

I agree DE is the unlawful killing of anyone.

Foreseeing and reconciling the unlawful death of another.

But if subjectively there is perceived lawfulness then there may not be murder DE.

This perceived lawfulness does not depend on the victim's identity either but it can depend on who the accused thinks it is if they are acting in self defence.

 

[Trotterly]

It’s also a pity a photographer didn’t catch brother Carl removing Pistorius’ phone prior to deleting its contents. Must have been something very incriminating on it for him to do that. Wonder who told him to nick it.

Incriminating for who? CP or OP? Or anyone else?

We just don't know.

It is a shame there aren't more photos of people doing naughty things.

I can only think of the ones where the policeman was plugging in his phone and the policeman who was in the room where he should have been.

Its also a shame OP didn't have a voice controlled TV as the manufacturer might be able to help us with a recording of the screams.

 

[soozieqtips]

If you know for a fact that Carl removed Oscar's phone and deleted it's content, then clearly by extension, the prosecution would know this as well. The fact that they knew this and didn't prosecute Carl for obstruction of justice or evidence tampering makes this irrelevant and a non-story.

BIB - it doesn't mean that at all. For a start, the deleted content couldn't be retrieved once CP had carefully gone to the bother of syncing his brother's phone with his own computer. Without knowing the content, what could Nel have actually done that would have helped his case? Nothing. It amuses me that the murderer's family claimed that whatever was deleted was not relevant to the trial, like it was up to them to decide what was and wasn't relevant.

 

[Belgarion]

If you know for a fact that Carl removed Oscar's phone and deleted it's content, then clearly by extension, the prosecution would know this as well. The fact that they knew this and didn't prosecute Carl for obstruction of justice or evidence tampering makes this irrelevant and a non-story.

Of course it’s relevant even if you prefer it not to be.

Evidence should not be removed from a crime scene. His brother chose to ignore this and I think it safe to say it was to advantage Pistorius. Likewise sister Aimee removed evidence from the scene, again one can assume to aid her brother.

So what does that tell you about the character of his siblings? Even more relevant what does that tell you about the character of Pistorius who even in his ‘grief’ remembered to tell his siblings what to remove and where to find it.

Unless of course you want to believe Carl and Aimee acted off their own back, something like…..

Carl – Oh, there’s a phone, I know I shouldn’t take it but it would be interesting to see if what’s on it, maybe something juicy that’s worth deleting.

Aimee – I must remember to pop upstairs and see if I can find poor Reeva’s handbag, I’m sure her mother would love to have a memento of her recently dead daughter.

I don’t think so!

 

[Trotterly]

Of course it’s relevant even if you prefer it not to be.

Evidence should not be removed from a crime scene. His brother chose to ignore this and I think it safe to say it was to advantage Pistorius. Likewise sister Aimee removed evidence from the scene, again one can assume to aid her brother.

So what does that tell you about the character of his siblings? Even more relevant what does that tell you about the character of Pistorius who even in his ‘grief’ remembered to tell his siblings what to remove and where to find it.

Unless of course you want to believe Carl and Aimee acted off their own back, something like…..

Carl – Oh, there’s a phone, I know I shouldn’t take it but it would be interesting to see if what’s on it, maybe something juicy that’s worth deleting.

Aimee – I must remember to pop upstairs and see if I can find poor Reeva’s handbag, I’m sure her mother would love to have a memento of her recently dead daughter.

I don’t think so!

You think they were both aware at the time that OP knew it was Reeva he was murdering?

 

[Belgarion]

You think they were both aware at the time that OP knew it was Reeva he was murdering?

Who knows, but of one thing I’m sure is that they as close knit siblings knew their brother was deep in the proverbial and they were going to do their best to help him. Even if it meant removing items he wanted removed for some reason.

Don’t you think it strange, a phone and a handbag both items capable of containing ‘information’ that he might not want the police to find.

 

[aftermath]

Of course it’s relevant even if you prefer it not to be.

Evidence should not be removed from a crime scene. His brother chose to ignore this and I think it safe to say it was to advantage Pistorius. Likewise sister Aimee removed evidence from the scene, again one can assume to aid her brother.

So what does that tell you about the character of his siblings? Even more relevant what does that tell you about the character of Pistorius who even in his ‘grief’ remembered to tell his siblings what to remove and where to find it.

Unless of course you want to believe Carl and Aimee acted off their own back, something like…..

Carl – Oh, there’s a phone, I know I shouldn’t take it but it would be interesting to see if what’s on it, maybe something juicy that’s worth deleting.

Aimee – I must remember to pop upstairs and see if I can find poor Reeva’s handbag, I’m sure her mother would love to have a memento of her recently dead daughter.

I don’t think so!

Wild speculation about what the Pistorius siblings may or may not have thought/said/done achieves little, IMO.

It is far from 'safe' to assume,for example, that Aimee collected the handbag for sinister purposes and in so doing, dragged Carice Stander into it with her.

Neither is it safe to draw any conclusions about their character or that of their brother - (who often seems to be cast in the role of master-sibling-manipulator whenever the topic of the bag /phone crops up)- from little more than unobjective guesswork.

Also, the psychologists who assessed him seemed convinced that his 'grief' is in fact, grief, and therefore doesn't merit the inverted commas.

 

[Tortoise]

Wild speculation about what the Pistorius siblings may or may not have thought/said/done achieves little, IMO.

It is far from 'safe' to assume,for example, that Aimee collected the handbag for sinister purposes and in so doing, dragged Carice Stander into it with her.

Neither is it safe to draw any conclusions about their character or that of their brother - (who often seems to be cast in the role of master-sibling-manipulator whenever the topic of the bag /phone crops up)- from little more than unobjective guesswork.

Also, the psychologists who assessed him seemed convinced that his 'grief' is in fact, grief, and therefore doesn't merit the inverted commas.

bib - it can never be known to be a fact, only a possibility, for which there are a few.

 

[Tortoise]

I agree DE is the unlawful killing of anyone.

Foreseeing and reconciling the unlawful death of another.

But if subjectively there is perceived lawfulness then there may not be murder DE.

This perceived lawfulness does not depend on the victim's identity either but it can depend on who the accused thinks it is if they are acting in self defence.

The failure of his defence was not related to who he thought was behind the door.

 

[Trotterly]

bib - it can never be known to be a fact, only a possibility, for which there are a few.

In my experience as far as trials are concerned a "fact" becomes a fact when the judge accepts expert opinion and no higher court says otherwise.

So it's a fact.

An "inconvenient truth" to use the common vernacular.

 

[Trotterly]

The failure of his defence was not related to who he thought was behind the door.

Correct.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Can anyone suggest a valid non-suspicious reason for CP taking OP's phone from the murder scene?

OR why his sister would take Reeva's bag when she had never met RS's mother or any other member of the family who lived 1100 kilometres away.

 

[Belgarion]

Can anyone suggest a valid non-suspicious reason for CP taking OP's phone from the murder scene?

OR why his sister would take Reeva's bag when she had never met RS's mother or any other member of the family who lived 1100 kilometres away.

A difficult one to answer and that’s the reason I’m sure there are those who will say it achieves no purpose, except perhaps to avoid answering, to speculate on such matters.

 

[Trotterly]

Can anyone suggest a valid non-suspicious reason for CP taking OP's phone from the murder scene?

OR why his sister would take Reeva's bag when she had never met RS's mother or any other member of the family who lived 1100 kilometres away.

Something incriminating CP in an unrelated issue and exactly why she said she took the bag. She believed and still believes it was an accident and as far as she was concerned no "crime" had been committed. In such an emotionally charged situation she made a bad decision. Why does it have to be sinister?

 

[Interested Bystander]

In answer to Trotterly's post.

Lol. I knew you would come up with something exonerating both of them. I am 100 per cent sure that both of them knew it was a crime to remove anything from a murder scene. One would have to be an ignoramus not to and IMO they are both worldly enough to know the law. Interesting that you feel that she thinks OP is not guilty. I happen to think the whole Pistorius family know he is guilty.

 

[Belgarion]

Can anyone suggest a valid non-suspicious reason for CP taking OP's phone from the murder scene?

OR why his sister would take Reeva's bag when she had never met RS's mother or any other member of the family who lived 1100 kilometres away.

Deleted - duplicate