I should clarify: what I meant is that if a person believes they're acting in putative private defence - that is, they believed their life was in danger and that they killed lawfully in self-defence - they can't be convicted of murder. And what I'm suggesting is that this is why the judge acquitted him of murder, because (so she accepted) it was reasonably possible that he genuinely believed there was an intruder threatening his life.
I agree with your second paragraph to a certain extent; however the answer to that question can be "yes" and the person would still have to be acquitted of murder if they believed they were acting because their life was under threat (i.e. in putative private defence).
Therefore my question is whether, once the judge has decided Pistorius acted in putative private defence - that he erroneously believed he was acting in self-defence - she then needs to go on to consider dolus in relation to the hypothetical intruder. Because it seems to me that's a completely irrelevant question after she has already accepted PPD. I want to find out how PPD and dolus eventualis intersect, as it's clear they do.
BIB - I don't see how that works. If the answer is "yes" then it's proved the person has the necessary intent required for a verdict of murder. The judge has already established that he acted unlawfully by shooting. So the question is put to see if it's murder or not. If it's "yes" it's murder, if "no" then you would turn to culpable homicide.
I think you may be right that in some way she feels she has dealt with the issue when speaking about his putative private defence. But it's very unclear. And that doesn't explain why she goes on to say "I now deal with dolus eventualis" and then ask the wrong question and proceed to give reasonings why Pistorius couldn't have believed it was Reeva behind the door. This seems to show an error and I think it's the crux of what legal bods have been querying.
Spot on. If M'lady believes that the case will be reviewed anyway then what was the point in her writing endless reports for a month when she could be sat back sucking her worthers originals?
:D
Maybe she done it on purpose to keep us guessing like a who done it and also to keep this thread going. ;-)
"The fundamental rule in considering circumstantial evidence is
that in order to justify an inference of guilt, a court must be sure that
inculpatory facts are incompatible [indistinct] the innocence of the
accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable
hypotheses."
and
"What is interesting is that Mr Johnson too made his first call at
03:16. This call was made to Strubenkop security. This time is closer to
the time mentioned by the Stipps as the time Dr Stipp made a call to
security. Johnson made the call soon after he and his wife, Ms Burger,
had heard what they described as a woman screaming. They also heard
a man shout ‘help’ three times. It was only after this that they heard
what they described as gunshots. It is clear from the rest of the
evidence that these were actually sounds of a cricket bat striking
against the toilet door. "
Masipa clearly failed in her duty to apply the test to both sets of sounds. Particularly since the later ones were what Johnson and Burger heard.
So if the prosecution do appeal and whichever body it is that hears the appeal finds in favour of the prosecution, can the defence appeal against that judgement?
Anybody know?
Yes. Defence would have a chance at full acquittal due to mistrial
I couldn't get the video of the forensic scientist to play. Any summation of what he said. There was a female forensic scientist interviewed by SABC News and she said she couldn't believe the sheer amount of evidence Masipa dismissed.
I don't normally watch BBC3 (too old!) but there is a documentary on at 9pm following the Steenkamps through the trial.
I couldn't get the video of the forensic scientist to play. Any summation of what he said. There was a female forensic scientist interviewed by SABC News and she said she couldn't believe the sheer amount of evidence Masipa dismissed.
I don't normally watch BBC3 (too old!) but there is a documentary on at 9pm following the Steenkamps through the trial.
I'm going to brace myself and watch it. Not expecting anything new tho.
"The fundamental rule in considering circumstantial evidence is
that in order to justify an inference of guilt, a court must be sure that
inculpatory facts are incompatible [indistinct] the innocence of the
accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable
hypotheses."
and
"What is interesting is that Mr Johnson too made his first call at
03:16. This call was made to Strubenkop security. This time is closer to
the time mentioned by the Stipps as the time Dr Stipp made a call to
security. Johnson made the call soon after he and his wife, Ms Burger,
had heard what they described as a woman screaming. They also heard
a man shout ‘help’ three times. It was only after this that they heard
what they described as gunshots. It is clear from the rest of the
evidence that these were actually sounds of a cricket bat striking
against the toilet door. "
Masipa clearly failed in her duty to apply the test to both sets of sounds. Particularly since the later ones were what Johnson and Burger heard.
wasn't Mr Johnston's time of the call taken from the actual time on his phone that he used when making notes. Was there actually any supporting phone data?
wasn't Mr Johnston's time of the call taken from the actual time on his phone that he used when making notes. Was there actually any supporting phone data?
yes you are correct. It seems sloppy of Nel not to have got the data from the security company as well.
As regards point 2 it does appear that OP was awake and using his phone. Either it was switched off and he turned it on at these times or he was using Do Not Disturb.
As you say GPRS is an always on connections and updates will come in when things arrive not in bunches UNLESS the phone has been turned on or DND feature turned off.
I leave my phone on overnight and things come in randomly through the night. If my phone had been turned off things that been sent but not yet received on the phone would all come in at once.
DND doesn't turn GPRS off. Calls are silenced and emails etc. continue to be received. I believe OP uses Airplane mode to disconnect his phone as it's considerably quicker than turning the phone off (and on again).
"The fundamental rule in considering circumstantial evidence is
that in order to justify an inference of guilt, a court must be sure that
inculpatory facts are incompatible [indistinct] the innocence of the
accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable
hypotheses."
and
"What is interesting is that Mr Johnson too made his first call at
03:16. This call was made to Strubenkop security. This time is closer to
the time mentioned by the Stipps as the time Dr Stipp made a call to
security. Johnson made the call soon after he and his wife, Ms Burger,
had heard what they described as a woman screaming. They also heard
a man shout ‘help’ three times. It was only after this that they heard
what they described as gunshots. It is clear from the rest of the
evidence that these were actually sounds of a cricket bat striking
against the toilet door. "
Masipa clearly failed in her duty to apply the test to both sets of sounds. Particularly since the later ones were what Johnson and Burger heard.
I'm not too sure this judge wrote all this.
Something does not square with her and the judgement.
It's like it was written by someone who did not hear first hand the evidence.
"The fundamental rule in considering circumstantial evidence is
that in order to justify an inference of guilt, a court must be sure that
inculpatory facts are incompatible [indistinct] the innocence of the
accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable
hypotheses."
and
"What is interesting is that Mr Johnson too made his first call at
03:16. This call was made to Strubenkop security. This time is closer to
the time mentioned by the Stipps as the time Dr Stipp made a call to
security. Johnson made the call soon after he and his wife, Ms Burger,
had heard what they described as a woman screaming. They also heard
a man shout ‘help’ three times. It was only after this that they heard
what they described as gunshots. It is clear from the rest of the
evidence that these were actually sounds of a cricket bat striking
against the toilet door. "
Masipa clearly failed in her duty to apply the test to both sets of sounds. Particularly since the later ones were what Johnson and Burger heard.
It makes me ponder. If so many imminent judiciary within her own Country are prepared to break an unwritten code and condemn her judgement on the CH ruling then how many more are only keeping their council on her other findings because it would feel like twisting the knife in?
3:15 - 3:19 (just four minutes) - OP goes back to the bedroom, climbs over the bed, looks everywhere for Reeva. (all the while screaming).
Puts on his socks and legs. Picks up his cricket bat and hits the door until a panel comes loose.
Unlocks the door and checks on Reeva, holds her against him crying.
Gets his phone, dials and calls Stander.
He must have done all that very quickly.
ETA: Also ran to the balcony to call for help.
Is that all accurate?
One might almost think he didn't have to search for Reeva because he knew she was in the toilet, he didn't have to put on his legs because they were already on, he didn't have to fetch the cricket bat because he had already bashed the bathroom up with it and he didn't have to break down the door because he had already, mostly, breached it. Gosh, could he actually have been guilty of murder with intent? ;-)
Comments
I think it's even more fascinating that not only can we hear either version but that how consistently we hear it varies as well.
Doesn't add much. But when I listen I can hear whichever version I set out to hear.
BIB - I don't see how that works. If the answer is "yes" then it's proved the person has the necessary intent required for a verdict of murder. The judge has already established that he acted unlawfully by shooting. So the question is put to see if it's murder or not. If it's "yes" it's murder, if "no" then you would turn to culpable homicide.
I think you may be right that in some way she feels she has dealt with the issue when speaking about his putative private defence. But it's very unclear. And that doesn't explain why she goes on to say "I now deal with dolus eventualis" and then ask the wrong question and proceed to give reasonings why Pistorius couldn't have believed it was Reeva behind the door. This seems to show an error and I think it's the crux of what legal bods have been querying.
Maybe she done it on purpose to keep us guessing like a who done it and also to keep this thread going. ;-)
Did you mean a Cock?
"The fundamental rule in considering circumstantial evidence is
that in order to justify an inference of guilt, a court must be sure that
inculpatory facts are incompatible [indistinct] the innocence of the
accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable
hypotheses."
and
"What is interesting is that Mr Johnson too made his first call at
03:16. This call was made to Strubenkop security. This time is closer to
the time mentioned by the Stipps as the time Dr Stipp made a call to
security. Johnson made the call soon after he and his wife, Ms Burger,
had heard what they described as a woman screaming. They also heard
a man shout ‘help’ three times. It was only after this that they heard
what they described as gunshots. It is clear from the rest of the
evidence that these were actually sounds of a cricket bat striking
against the toilet door. "
Masipa clearly failed in her duty to apply the test to both sets of sounds. Particularly since the later ones were what Johnson and Burger heard.
But still no proof he screams like a woman.
That is true.
Yes. Defence would have a chance at full acquittal due to mistrial
There is not a snowballs chance in hell of a full acquittal for his crime.
I couldn't get the video of the forensic scientist to play. Any summation of what he said. There was a female forensic scientist interviewed by SABC News and she said she couldn't believe the sheer amount of evidence Masipa dismissed.
I don't normally watch BBC3 (too old!) but there is a documentary on at 9pm following the Steenkamps through the trial.
Konya's concise synopsis
I'm going to brace myself and watch it. Not expecting anything new tho.
wasn't Mr Johnston's time of the call taken from the actual time on his phone that he used when making notes. Was there actually any supporting phone data?
I was wavering between acquittal and CH before the verdict it was very close. I guess an acquittal is still possible if it is looked at again.
yes you are correct. It seems sloppy of Nel not to have got the data from the security company as well.
DND doesn't turn GPRS off. Calls are silenced and emails etc. continue to be received. I believe OP uses Airplane mode to disconnect his phone as it's considerably quicker than turning the phone off (and on again).
I'm not too sure this judge wrote all this.
Something does not square with her and the judgement.
It's like it was written by someone who did not hear first hand the evidence.
Just a thought.
I will eat all your hats my hats and any other hats if that happens:D
It makes me ponder. If so many imminent judiciary within her own Country are prepared to break an unwritten code and condemn her judgement on the CH ruling then how many more are only keeping their council on her other findings because it would feel like twisting the knife in?
You're on!
One might almost think he didn't have to search for Reeva because he knew she was in the toilet, he didn't have to put on his legs because they were already on, he didn't have to fetch the cricket bat because he had already bashed the bathroom up with it and he didn't have to break down the door because he had already, mostly, breached it. Gosh, could he actually have been guilty of murder with intent? ;-)
Also large slices of humble pie