Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lisa (Juror#13) has updated her excellent blog here:

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/oscar-trial-was-the-verdict-reasonable/

I agree with her views 100%. I remain appalled by the judge's disregard of so much evidence and the weight she gave to OP's version(s) and the Defence timeline. I sincerely hope that the Prosecution does appeal.

Am I right in thinking that if the appeal is heard it is possible that the verdict can be completely reconsidered e.g. it could even go to Dolus Directus?
 
@ ApplesInMyBra

"Well I couldn't have possibly foreseen that a leaf might be a dog poo, but arming yourself with a lethal weapon containing black talon bullets and not being able to foresee that you might kill someone??? JM's verdict is still ringing in my ears and I am still depressed about it (and the awful dog turds that now inhabit my vaccuum cleaner)."

Apples, if you need a defence advocate there's a good one goes by the name of Barry Poux.
;)
 
Fuskier said:
Hi Judgejudi, we are with you about the rage; many others around the world appear to have it too. Might have something to do with perceived gross injustice in this case. Further, the link was copied from a www.news.com.au article printed earlier today. I don't know why it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that Fuskier. The link is now working. I loved the titles to the book. I bet lots of people will come up with others. I'm too cranky at the moment to even think about it though.
 
Mr Fossil said:
Lisa (Juror#13) has updated her excellent blog here:

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/oscar-trial-was-the-verdict-reasonable/

I agree with her views 100%. I remain appalled by the judge's disregard of so much evidence and the weight she gave to OP's version(s) and the Defence timeline. I sincerely hope that the Prosecution does appeal.

Am I right in thinking that if the appeal is heard it is possible that the verdict can be completely reconsidered e.g. it could even go to Dolus Directus?
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting this link Mr.Fossil. I agree with the article and specifically with the purpose of her blogs as articulated in the first paragraph. I'm hopeful of an appeal to a higher court in South Africa with several judges presiding over this judgement. This action may be imperative to restore a sense of justice and to intercept the potential social and legal consequences of this judgement in the wider SA community. My opinion only.
 
thewagesofsin said:
Not much left to discuss. Perhaps the judge could sit in a room that small and not reasonably expect to get hit and killed but would anyone else do it? Let alone take that gamble four times??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and I have large thumbs.
Click to expand...

BBM

Right on.

I wouldn't dare anyone to stand in that tiny toilet cubicle and let someone fire 4 Black Talon rounds through the door at them, because the outcome would be certain death.

Wait a sec - I totally lied.

I dare Oscar Pistorius to stand in that tiny toilet cubicle and let someone fire 4 Black Talon rounds through the door at him.

Go ahead, Oscar. I dare you.
 
I'm seeing a couple of tweets to the effect that Culpable Homicide in this instance carries a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Any views?

James Grant ‏@CriminalLawZA
All credit to @mariusdutoit for his research: a minimum sentence of 5 years if you used a gun & perpetrated a sch1 offence which incl culp.

Marius du Toit ‏@mariusdutoit
@burt_charity @Vol_Woman @JayPhotog @alexeliseev @CriminalLawZA Section 51(2)c (i) of Act 105 if 1997 read with schedule 1 of act 51/1977

Marius du Toit ‏@mariusdutoit
@burt_charity @Vol_Woman @JayPhotog @alexeliseev @CriminalLawZA min sentence 5 yrs - not maximum - only minimum

Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1997-105.pdf

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1977-051.pdf
 
The verdict and its explanation is giving me PTSD-type flashbacks. Has anyone else experienced a senior (e.g., parent, teacher, manager) who has decided that you are incompetent, irresponsible, can't do anything of value etc etc; yet sees one of your peers (e.g., sibling. student, co-worker) as being unable to do no wrong - despite all objective evidence to the contrary???

I've had this experience in a workplace, where I've been far more experienced and qualified that the senior and the co-worker combined (both of whom were social workers). There was nothing I did or could do that was even OK. Their judgements were based on feelings rather than facts - rather like Judge M.

Judge M's verdict is reminiscent of this - OP (poor love) against these ridiculous accusations. Such a nice man couldn't do anything bad??!!!!!

I might have to cease reading this forum if the flashbacks get too bad, which would be a shame because I love everyone's imput.
 
A close family source said his lawyers were convinced Pistorius might avoid jail time altogether and be handed a suspended sentence instead.

The insider said Pistorius’ uncle, Arnold, had told them it was a “very good judgment and they shouldn’t mess with it”.

“They realise they were lucky to get away with culpable homicide.”

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/state-vs-oscar/

"Get away with culpable homicide"

"Get away with..."

This is the mindset of OP via his uncle who made the above statement. OP's only concern has been to "get away with" murdering Reeva.

Uncle Arnold has put into words exactly what OP has been hoping to accomplish this past year and a half - to get away with murder - although I've no doubt that OP was hoping to be acquitted of any and all charges.

"Get away with culpable homicide" - rather than be rightfully convicted of what he deserved - at the very least murder (dolus eventualis, if not dolus directus).

If shooting & killing Reeva was truly a horrendous mistake that he never intended to happen, why in hell would OP hope to "get away with" anything at all???

Only a guilty person uses the term "get away with".

An innocent person has no need to "get away with" anything.
 
Masipa throws out Mangena’s evidence too. When Roux cross-examined Mangena he told him OP’s version was he fired two double taps but Mangena says this would be impossible because of Reeva’s wounds. Later, under cross-examination OP says the shots were fired in quick succession.

How very convenient for Masipa to throw out the ear witnesses’ testimony because it was unreliable as they may have discussed what they heard with others, or saw or heard something in the media, but OP’s sitting right there in the courtroom listening to not only their evidence but also that of the experts and has days in which to think of how to tailor his testimony.

Referring to Mrs van der Merwe, Masipa said, “Soon thereafter she heard someone crying out loud. It seemed to her it was a woman’s voice but her husband told her it was the accused crying. Although it was not established how her husband knew that it was the accused who was crying, this piece of evidence is enough to throw some doubt on the evidence of the witnesses who were adamant that they’d had heard a woman scream”. WHAT? WHATEVER VAN DER MERWE’S HUSBAND SAID IS HEARSAY AND AS SUCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN INADMISSIBLE. So on the one hand Masipa disregards the evidence of Berger, Johnson and Sam Taylor because they’d never hear OP cry or scream before but she accepts the evidence of Mrs van der Merwe’s husband who never even testified??????

Masipa delivers her judgment on the basis that if it’s UNreasonably IMpossibly true, she’ll believe it and throw everyone else under the bus.
 
Mr Fossil said:
I'm seeing a couple of tweets to the effect that Culpable Homicide in this instance carries a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Any views?

James Grant ‏@CriminalLawZA
All credit to @mariusdutoit for his research: a minimum sentence of 5 years if you used a gun & perpetrated a sch1 offence which incl culp.

Marius du Toit ‏@mariusdutoit
@burt_charity @Vol_Woman @JayPhotog @alexeliseev @CriminalLawZA Section 51(2)c (i) of Act 105 if 1997 read with schedule 1 of act 51/1977

Marius du Toit ‏@mariusdutoit
@burt_charity @Vol_Woman @JayPhotog @alexeliseev @CriminalLawZA min sentence 5 yrs - not maximum - only minimum

Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1997-105.pdf

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1977-051.pdf
Click to expand...

I hope that this is true but I imagine that even if so, she would be able to make it a suspended sentence of five years. Will be interesting to find out more re this though. However, I very much doubt he will go to prison - just reading today's comments here reminds me of so many baffling and seemingly illogical conclusions 'the good judge' reached in coming to her verdict.
 
sorrell skye said:
A close family source said his lawyers were convinced Pistorius might avoid jail time altogether and be handed a suspended sentence instead.

The insider said Pistorius’ uncle, Arnold, had told them it was a “very good judgment and they shouldn’t mess with it”.

“They realise they were lucky to get away with culpable homicide.”

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/state-vs-oscar/

"Get away with culpable homicide"

"Get away with..."

This is the mindset of OP via his uncle who made the above statement. OP's only concern has been to "get away with" murdering Reeva.

Uncle Arnold has put into words exactly what OP has been hoping to accomplish this past year and a half - to get away with murder - although I've no doubt that OP was hoping to be acquitted of any and all charges.

"Get away with culpable homicide" - rather than be rightfully convicted of what he deserved - at the very least murder (dolus eventualis, if not dolus directus).

If shooting & killing Reeva was truly a horrendous mistake that he never intended to happen, why in hell would OP hope to "get away with" anything at all???

Only a guilty person uses the term "get away with".

An innocent person has no need to "get away with" anything.
Click to expand...

:goodpost: .. well said, and my thoughts exactly when I heard that is what he said!
 
AW2B said:
I'm not sure if this was posted already..but just in case:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-cleared-murdering-lover-Reeva-Steenkamp.html
Click to expand...


Quote from June Steenkamp '(We) couldn't even look. (We) didn’t want to see him. They were jubilant. I can’t share that.'
My heartbreaks for them.

I just cannot fathom how someone can be found guilty of even the lesser charge of CH but only be handed a fine. I often complain about the light sentences that are given for convicted killers in Britain, but a FINE? What an insult to the victims.
 
“He stated that if he wanted to shoot the intruder he would have fired higher up and more in the direction where the opening of the door would be, to the far right of the door and at chest height”.

REALLY? 3 OUT OF 4 SHOTS HIT HER AND ALL 3 WERE CAPABLE OF KILLING HER.
 
New grounds for appeal

Where an accused makes statements in his defence, and these statements are not disproved, then it is a matter of law that a court cannot set these aside and dream up more favourable possibilities that he could have proffered instead and proceed on the basis that this dreamed up version could reasonably possibly be true.

OP has ALWAYS maintained that an intruder being INSIDE the toilet did not put him in danger.

It starts with his bail application: "I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger." This is maintained in his trial testimony, where he said he thought his life was in danger not because they were inside the toilet, but because they were now opening the door and coming out to attack him.

Why is this crucial? Because the objective evidence shows no magazine rack moved and no sound could have taken place to make OP think the door was opening, therefore this aspect of his trial version is disproved (in fact, his trial testimony as to why he shot at all has been rejected as untruthful). His bail application version is very different to his trial version, in that he fired pre-emptively before they had a chance to come out. There is no mention of thinking they had started coming out to attack him. This further confirms that the perceived imminent attack was a fabrication offered only during the trial stage.

We are left only with his belief that though the intruders were inside the toilet they were not actually coming out of the toilet. On his own version, he believed this did not put him in immediate danger. However, the court has found that he DID believe his life was in danger at this point. This is setting aside an accused's version and proffering a more favourable one which has been dreamed up. Presumably, the court has found for example that maybe he thought there was an armed intruder who was about to shoot through the door. The accused's own version however is that he never believed any such thing. Even without OP's version, the fleeing into the toilet and closing of the door and an innocent Reeva merely standing behind it constitutes strong prima facie evidence that he cannot possibly have thought he was under imminent attack. Therefore he intended to kill unlawfully, i.e. murder.

Case law in point

“I may not think up a defence for him. The accused may continue to protest his innocence - that is his right. But I cannot foist a defence on him” S v Mthembu (CC 163/2008) [2011] ZAKZPHC 60

“It is trite law that a Court is entitled to find that the State has proved a fact beyond reasonable doubt if a prima facie case has been established and the accused fails to gainsay it ….. But one of the main and acknowledged instances where it can be said that a prima facie case becomes conclusive in the absence of rebuttal, is where it lies exclusively within the power of the other party to show what the true facts were and he or she fails to give an acceptable explanation ……. The State is not required to plug every loophole, counter every speculative argument and parry every defence which can be conceived by imaginative counsel without a scrap of evidence to substantiate it” S v BOESAK [2000] ZASCA 112; 2000 (1) SACR 633 (A)

Similar principles apply to the finding of direct intention to shoot but no foresight of killing even the intruder, which was never offered even as a backup defence by the accused or his counsel. If you drop the baton of truth, it is not for counsel let alone a court to pick it up and finish the race for you.

This is a matter of law, and allows an appeal. The matter of law has led to an erroneous finding of fact, which can and should be reversed to reach a guilty verdict on murder. I'm beginning to think this should be top of the list on any appeal by the state... would be interested in what others think...
 
Judgejudi said:
Masipa throws out Mangena’s evidence too. When Roux cross-examined Mangena he told him OP’s version was he fired two double taps but Mangena says this would be impossible because of Reeva’s wounds. Later, under cross-examination OP says the shots were fired in quick succession.

How very convenient for Masipa to throw out the ear witnesses’ testimony because it was unreliable as they may have discussed what they heard with others, or saw or heard something in the media, but OP’s sitting right there in the courtroom listening to not only their evidence but also that of the experts and has days in which to think of how to tailor his testimony.

Referring to Mrs van der Merwe, Masipa said, “Soon thereafter she heard someone crying out loud. It seemed to her it was a woman’s voice but her husband told her it was the accused crying. Although it was not established how her husband knew that it was the accused who was crying, this piece of evidence is enough to throw some doubt on the evidence of the witnesses who were adamant that they’d had heard a woman scream”. WHAT? WHATEVER VAN DER MERWE’S HUSBAND SAID IS HEARSAY AND AS SUCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN INADMISSIBLE. So on the one hand Masipa disregards the evidence of Berger, Johnson and Sam Taylor because they’d never hear OP cry or scream before but she accepts the evidence of Mrs van der Merwe’s husband who never even testified??????

Masipa delivers her judgment on the basis that if it’s UNreasonably IMpossibly true, she’ll believe it and throw everyone else under the bus.
Click to expand...

I agree, Judi - Masipa erred in accepting Mrs. Van der Merwe's testimony regarding what her husband said - it was the epitome of hearsay, yet, for some reason, Masipa chose to include it to support her verdict.

It well & truly boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Hearsay was accepted, but direct ear witness testimony was rejected.

The more I ponder Masipa's verdict, the more I'm inclined to wonder if perhaps the verdict may have been arrived at by forcing the selected evidence to fit a predetermined verdict.
 
Mr Fossil said:
I'm seeing a couple of tweets to the effect that Culpable Homicide in this instance carries a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Any views?

James Grant ‏@CriminalLawZA
All credit to @mariusdutoit for his research: a minimum sentence of 5 years if you used a gun & perpetrated a sch1 offence which incl culp.

Marius du Toit ‏@mariusdutoit
@burt_charity @Vol_Woman @JayPhotog @alexeliseev @CriminalLawZA Section 51(2)c (i) of Act 105 if 1997 read with schedule 1 of act 51/1977

Marius du Toit ‏@mariusdutoit
@burt_charity @Vol_Woman @JayPhotog @alexeliseev @CriminalLawZA min sentence 5 yrs - not maximum - only minimum

Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1997-105.pdf

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1977-051.pdf
Click to expand...

Still doesn't do it for me. That means he'd be out in 2 1/2 years. A slap on the wrist for a person's life. Oh, golly gosh, he'd miss the 2016 Olympics. What a shame.
 
Judgejudi said:
Still doesn't do it for me. That means he'd be out in 2 1/2 years. A slap on the wrist for a person's life. Oh, golly gosh, he'd miss the 2016 Olympics. What a shame.
Click to expand...

I agree. He should get a minimum of 15 years IMO (and more if an appeal is successful). I posted this because I'd understood CH had no minimum and this view seemed to say it is a minimum 5 years in this instance (though I guess, as lithgow1 observes, it could be suspended).
 
sorrell skye said:
I agree, Judi - Masipa erred in accepting Mrs. Van der Merwe's testimony regarding what her husband said - it was the epitome of hearsay, yet, for some reason, Masipa chose to include it to support her verdict.

It well & truly boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Hearsay was accepted, but direct ear witness testimony was rejected.

The more I ponder Masipa's verdict, the more I'm inclined to wonder if perhaps the verdict may have been arrived at by forcing the selected evidence to fit a predetermined verdict.
Click to expand...

BIB .. I'm not just inclined to think that, I'm convinced of it. I believe she worked backwards (i.e. from a position of not wanting to send him to jail), and therefore made the verdict of CH her starting point, then pick and mixed her reasons for arriving at that decision, throwing out anything that didn't fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 138 more.
Total: 3,520 (members: 139, guests: 3,381)

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
3,381
Total visitors
3,520
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,612
Messages
17,971,810
Members
228,844
Latest member
SoCal Greg
Back
Top