Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[katydid23]

I predict he ends up back in custody soon though. He is not going to stay out of trouble.

Does SA have a parole type situation, in which he has to follow rules or he gets sent back? Like no guns, no drinking etc? If so, he will be back in :jail: soon.

 

[GR_Turner]

I'd be more than a little surprised if posters on this forum didn't know that this is not an appeal on the facts. The appeal by the State is based on the fact that Masipa misdirected herself on her interpretation of the law.
The SCA will review the facts and then consider the basis of the appeal.

Nowhere is it stated or implied in the SCA Rules that “it’s common practice to read only the parts of the record that are relevant to the appeal at hand”. What it does state is:

“8. Record.—(1) An appellant shall within three months of the lodging of the notice of appeal lodge with the registrar six copies of the record of the proceedings in the court a quo and deliver to each respondent such number of copies as may be considered necessary or as may reasonably be requested by the respondent”.

It further states:

“8. (7) (a) A core bundle of documents shall be prepared if to do so is appropriate to the appeal”.

This is at the court’s discretion as to whether or not it’s appropriate and the court has decided it is.

Paragraphs 8.(8)(e) and 8.(9)(e) relate to whether or not the parties agree to parts only of the record being provided. This was what Roux asked for and got. Nel wanted to provide the entire record.

However,

8. (9) (e) If the parties agree to limit the record, only those parts of the record of the proceedings in the court a quo as are agreed upon shall be contained in the record lodged with the registrar: Provided that the Court may call for the full record and may order full argument of the whole case.

If you read the post to which I was responding the poster was making the following point:

The poster quoted: 'The Court hears appeals on fact and since there are no jury trials, it has a relatively wide discretion to make its own factual findings. Because of this jurisdiction, judges have to read the record of the full proceedings in the lower courts.' (the poster's bold)

Since the second sentence follows from the first, I pointed out that this is not an appeal on the facts.

The poster also went on to suggest that the reason why the SCA will not hear the full record is because OP is getting special treatment. Again, this is not the case if you read the SCA appeal rules that I linked to. I was just pointing this out to the thread.

 

[Trotterly]

Just today I remember OP's behavior what I expect of a liar and murderer who hadn't an ounce of remorse plus shame and to whom hadn't happened an accident:

The disgraced Olympic superstar zoomed in on an FHM cover girl at a party just 52 days after the Valentine's Day killing at his Silver Woods Estate home in Pretoria last year.

Bizarrely, the object of his attention, Kesiah Frank, bears a striking resemblance to the slain woman.

Frank is also, like Steenkamp, a beautiful blonde model who holds a law degree.

The details of Pistorius's behaviour in private - along with excessive drinking - are in sharp contrast to his public demeanour since Steenkamp's death.

He has been at pains to portray himself as an emotionally broken man during the months of his murder trial at the High Court in Pretoria.


http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...double-just-52-days-after-shooting-girlfriend

Ok, I get it you don't like him, but what on earth has this got to do with the shooting?!

 

[Marfa Lights]

I predict he ends up back in custody soon though. He is not going to stay out of trouble.

Does SA have a parole type situation, in which he has to follow rules or he gets sent back? Like no guns, no drinking etc? If so, he will be back in :jail: soon.

Let's see if Uncle Arnie can get those onerous conditions lifted just as they were while he was out on bail. After all he needs to fit back into society (clubbing) and will always need to protect himself and his loved ones-- maybe more so now.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Ok, I get it you don't like him, but what on earth has this got to do with the shooting?!

Shooting, no. Sentencing, perhaps. IMO this behavior indicates a lack of: genuine remorse, respect for Reeva's memory, respect for her friends and family, respect for the young woman in the club, respect for the court and the (re-negotiated) conditions of bail, character, judgment, self-control, etc...

 

[aftermath]

Shooting, no. Sentencing, perhaps. IMO this behavior indicates a lack of: genuine remorse, respect for Reeva's memory, respect for her friends and family, respect for the young woman in the club, respect for the court and the (re-negotiated) conditions of bail, character, judgment, self-control, etc...

If it even happened at all, it also indicates self-destructive behaviour, desperation, depression etc. However, I have doubts about the story anyway- who was the source for the story? where were the mass of outraged tweets from people witnessing this incident? A few blurry mobile phone snaps to cash in on a negative pistorius story?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Ok, I get it you don't like him, but what on earth has this got to do with the shooting?!

OP or not OP - every man who want to make others believe he shot his girlfriend while thinking of an dangerous intruder and only defending the life of his beloved girlfriend and then goes partying a month after, I would see as liar/swindler/bad character/certainly murderer. I wouldn't like the man whoever and I don't like OP for his sneaky murderous action and behavior. I would have perhaps pitied OP (and another man), if it had really been an undeserved misfortune. But it hasn't been, if you see the evidence and the whole mosaic!
I'm sure you wouldn't protect another man with same history and crime but only Mr. Hero because you do like him very much and you prefer to be/to remain blind.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I sometimes wonder if the Pistorius apologists would be quite as sure of themselves if it had been their daughter who had been killed by a man known to have severe temper tantrums, had a known irresponsibility with respect to gun handling, picks fights with people in night clubs, threatens to break someone's legs, two times his women, a known liar who also lies whilst giving evidence and a whole lot more.

 

[soozieqtips]

If it even happened at all, it also indicates self-destructive behaviour, desperation, depression etc. However, I have doubts about the story anyway- who was the source for the story? where were the mass of outraged tweets from people witnessing this incident? A few blurry mobile phone snaps to cash in on a negative pistorius story?

BIB - What a surprise. So you excuse it anyway? And that's impartial? Funny, because that's what got him into this mess in the first place. Too many people enabling his atrocious behaviour and letting him get away with whatever he wanted just because of who he was. If he'd been held to account before he killed Reeva, maybe he wouldn't have assumed he could get away with that too. How do you explain his outrageous behaviour before the killing, when he was at the height of his fame and wasn't desperate and depressed? Do you have an excuse for that as well?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=...ved=0CCwQ9QEwA2oVChMIxvjYppyPxwIVi4osCh19egP6

Johannesburg clinical psychologist Leonard Carr said the family should probably rather have characterised Pistorius's behaviour as "self-sabotaging".

"He shows a consistent lack of judgment and a lack of impulse control. What his behaviour shows is someone who does not have control and has a severe lack of judgment ... how he has been behaving shows there is something seriously wrong." With murderers there is always something seriously wrong, IMO.


Hours after the Sandton nightclub scuffle, Pistorius broke his Twitter silence by tweeting a Bible verse and pictures of him with children - in all probability knowing news of the fight was about to become public. The only panacea for him, hypocritical, IMO.


Earlier this year, the Sunday Times reported that Pistorius had lied in the past to protect his image and had been caught boasting about things he did not have. Lying in the past, the present and the future, IMO.

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't see J Greenland calling him a murderer nor any other serious commentator.

I would have thought that recent events would have made it clear that, in England at least, such comments were not only unfair but also unwise. But you go ahead.

Whilst I definitely don’t want to focus on pointless libel issues I must pick you up on your post above.

The point, as you know of my orig post was about your unrealistic suggestion of opportunities for a million plus libel actions globally (“Sue the world” sung to the LiveAid theme tune!)

Anyway, glad you read some Greenland who does much to dispel the naivete amongst a few : “……law and justice are not necessarily the same thing.”

Of course JG does not use one-liners and say “he’s a murderer’ but he’s quite unequivocal across many passages in the transcript.

So let’s go back to him and see what he says:
“You know, let me say to you, Lisa, that I as a judge... I would have rejected the whole of Oscar's defense. I think that for any number of reasons especially on critical issues, I would have said to Oscar: "You have not taken this court in good confidence. All the court can find is that you pointed a gun knowing you're pointing at a human being and you pulled the trigger four times in to the human being in a hail of bullets. That's all this court can safely accept, the rest the court is still confused about. So I am not going to accept your version as to why you killed her. And that being the case, there isn't a noble excuse that you have advanced for this killing. You are guilty of murder."

“Yes, my supposition on it, and I put it no higher than that, is that this was the terrible culmination of a domestic fight that they had, emotive fight. It fits entirely with Oscar's profile.”

 

[cottonweaver]

…and what he states on DE murder:

“..provided he foresees that he might kill a human being, he is guilty of murder on the basis of what is known as dolus eventualis. That conclusion becomes completely unavoidable. And to conclude otherwise is irrational.”
..” As cases go, as murder cases go, you actually cannot have a stronger case than that. You can say that the state case could not have been improved even if it had a video recording of the shooting.”

"“But I should say on a more serious note, that having thought about it, and thought about it, and thought about it... I am absolutely, utterly distressed at this decision, having thought about it. Very calmly and carefully, and I think that I must be credited with the fact that I've got tremendous experience. I've spent over 35 years in the courts, I've seen it all, and there is no decision that has mortified me, saddened me, more than this decision……… So, that's the one hand. But of course, it is
very very frustrating when at the end of the process nobody can be satisfied. And I repeat, nobody can be satisfied that justice was done or seen to be done. “

He's certainly wrong on the last sentence huh!

 

[JudgeJudi]

What is a human life worth in South Africa? Not much at all.

Think again before stealing that steel manhole cover, those phone lines or electricity cables - tough new minimum sentences of three to 25 years in jail are on the way.

The bill creates a new offence.

It criminalises the unlawful and intentional tampering with or damaging or destroying of essential infrastructure and provides for the possibility of the imposition of a severe penalty, namely imprisonment which may be up to 30 years,” a ministry memo explaining the bill said.

Minimum sentences are harsh. First-time offenders face a minimum of three years in jail.

Scrap-metal dealers and secondhand dealers caught with any metal bits of “essential infrastructure” that can’t be explained legally face minimum sentences of five to 10 years.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/up-to-25-years-in-jail-for-cable-theft-1.1895188#.VcCma40Vg4k

Wasn't Reeva worth more than the penalty for this? Words fail me.

 

[aftermath]

BIB - What a surprise. So you excuse it anyway? And that's impartial? Funny, because that's what got him into this mess in the first place. Too many people enabling his atrocious behaviour and letting him get away with whatever he wanted just because of who he was. If he'd been held to account before he killed Reeva, maybe he wouldn't have assumed he could get away with that too. How do you explain his outrageous behaviour before the killing, when he was at the height of his fame and wasn't desperate and depressed? Do you have an excuse for that as well?

Why the hostile tone? If you choose to believe a negative pistorius story,- fine. I choose to be cynical about it as it was unverified by any traceable source. If you decide that the details of the article support your view of him as disrespectful, unremorseful etc, - fine. I decided that whilst (if true) it could indicate what you think is true, that there is an equally valid explanation that fits with the psychologists ' assessment of him and his current emotional and mental state.

What outrageous behaviour prior to the shooting are you referring to? I don't know if I will have any excuses but I might be able to offer some unsensational, rational explanations

 

[aftermath]

Whilst I definitely don’t want to focus on pointless libel issues I must pick you up on your post above.

The point, as you know of my orig post was about your unrealistic suggestion of opportunities for a million plus libel actions globally (“Sue the world” sung to the LiveAid theme tune!)

Anyway, glad you read some Greenland who does much to dispel the naivete amongst a few : “……law and justice are not necessarily the same thing.”

Of course JG does not use one-liners and say “he’s a murderer’ but he’s quite unequivocal across many passages in the transcript.

So let’s go back to him and see what he says:
“You know, let me say to you, Lisa, that I as a judge... I would have rejected the whole of Oscar's defense. I think that for any number of reasons especially on critical issues, I would have said to Oscar: "You have not taken this court in good confidence. All the court can find is that you pointed a gun knowing you're pointing at a human being and you pulled the trigger four times in to the human being in a hail of bullets. That's all this court can safely accept, the rest the court is still confused about. So I am not going to accept your version as to why you killed her. And that being the case, there isn't a noble excuse that you have advanced for this killing. You are guilty of murder."

“Yes, my supposition on it, and I put it no higher than that, is that this was the terrible culmination of a domestic fight that they had, emotive fight. It fits entirely with Oscar's profile.”

Trotterly just pointed out that the comment was libellous. He/she never suggested there would be a million plus libel actions globally.

 

[soozieqtips]

Why the hostile tone? If you choose to believe a negative pistorius story,- fine. I choose to be cynical about it as it was unverified by any traceable source. If you decide that the details of the article support your view of him as disrespectful, unremorseful etc, - fine. I decided that whilst (if true) it could indicate what you think is true, that there is an equally valid explanation that fits with the psychologists ' assessment of him and his current emotional and mental state.

What outrageous behaviour prior to the shooting are you referring to? I don't know if I will have any excuses but I might be able to offer some unsensational, rational explanations

BIB 1 - why so defensive? I wasn't hostile at all.

BIB 2 - seriously, I thought you'd followed the case closely? If you have no idea about the outrageous stuff OP got up to prior to shooting an innocent woman dead then I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

[cottonweaver]

Trotterly just pointed out that the comment was libellous. He/she never suggested there would be a million plus libel actions globally.

You know, I agree but much more significantly, I don't think anyone else misunderstood MY extension of his argument that ie. if a poster is at risk of libel, then a zillion other newspaper posters are equally in the same boat. Is that a realistic proposition to litigate all those cases. Are you clear?

 

[cottonweaver]

I choose to be cynical about it as it was unverified by any traceable source.

snipped


From Germany's a great WS poster - she always provides a link - helps keeps things more "transparent" doesn't it.

I just checked her link - - the article does mention a traced source - the model did not deny the event had taken place but simply did not want to "make a statement". So now, let's logically extend that point : model herself does not want to sell her story,even if ( and we don't know - it's unverifiable) $ were offered for her story, if you follow.
Not everyone is for sale you know.

 

[cottonweaver]

I decided that whilst (if true) it could indicate what you think is true, that there is an equally valid explanation that fits with the psychologists ' assessment of him and his current emotional and mental state.

RSBM
Sorry aftermath I forgot to add:
Why would you want to negate From Germany's link based on your reading of the MH assessment?

ie.
June 2014 M.Health assessment of OP’s current state of mind, ie. at 1 year almost 5 months after the killing.

Report of OP “hitting” on model/lawyer K.Frank in April 2013, 52 days after the killing.

Killing feb 14th 2013

 

[GR_Turner]

Whilst I definitely don’t want to focus on pointless libel issues I must pick you up on your post above.

The point, as you know of my orig post was about your unrealistic suggestion of opportunities for a million plus libel actions globally (“Sue the world” sung to the LiveAid theme tune!)

Anyway, glad you read some Greenland who does much to dispel the naivete amongst a few : “……law and justice are not necessarily the same thing.”

Of course JG does not use one-liners and say “he’s a murderer’ but he’s quite unequivocal across many passages in the transcript.

So let’s go back to him and see what he says:
“You know, let me say to you, Lisa, that I as a judge... I would have rejected the whole of Oscar's defense. I think that for any number of reasons especially on critical issues, I would have said to Oscar: "You have not taken this court in good confidence. All the court can find is that you pointed a gun knowing you're pointing at a human being and you pulled the trigger four times in to the human being in a hail of bullets. That's all this court can safely accept, the rest the court is still confused about. So I am not going to accept your version as to why you killed her. And that being the case, there isn't a noble excuse that you have advanced for this killing. You are guilty of murder."

“Yes, my supposition on it, and I put it no higher than that, is that this was the terrible culmination of a domestic fight that they had, emotive fight. It fits entirely with Oscar's profile.”

Judge Greenland also said he thought the timeline was a side issue or something like that. If he thinks that then it's no wonder he would have found him guilty. It's comments like: 'It fit's entirely with Oscar's profile' that make me wonder about his attitude. The court wasn't shown much evidence of bad character and the only previous girlfriend to give evidence said nothing about him being abusive despite both of them believing the other had cheated on them (which you would have thought would cause trouble if anything would). There's really only the texts which are 4 out of 1700 and which seem much less alarming when seen in context.