We are all guilty of speaking a little sharply. I don't think anyone's intention is to be unfriendly .
No, it is however a subject that has made us all feel rather angry at times, a lot of times in fact - and you've been welcoming to new posters - as post below shows
I like everyone that posts in here:D im not offended. keep posting:)
One thing I have noticed since this thread started is new posters get a warm welcome and their views generate discussion, which is what it's all about. As we get to sentencing hopefully more will appear !
I still can't get my head around the Verdict,:( - and if the State don't Appeal it, including the ammo charge, it will be even more baffling and i'd want to know why - Pretty sole-destroying for Reeva's family , they haven't got justice,,,,,,,,,,,,yet, things can change so we'll have to wait and see, fingers crossed.
I totally agree with you there. Our Ding Dings will soon turn into the ding dong of Christmas bells at this rate and we will all be slozzed, STILL bing doinging about this on going saga. :D
Oh no, you said the C word! Now you've done it. I might change my mind about reporting!
Indeed I have and it was on this charge I based my assumptions.
I think it reasonable to say no one, certainly Nel, expected Pistorius to escape the ammunition charge. It was so clear cut or as they say in America a ‘slam dunk’ charge. I certainly could not see any way of him escaping it based on the legislation under which he was charged. I would go as far as to say, any other person, under another judge, would have been found guilty without question.
So the question has to be why was Pistorius found not guilty when he was so obviously guilty?
Clearly because the evidence and the law which pointed to his guilt was so compelling a lot of effort was put into ‘finding a way’ of pronouncing him not guilty.
This effort literally involved producing new case law which could ultimately have serious consequences.
Now, I could give the benefit of the doubt if this situation had been created by Masipa alone, perhaps having a ‘very senior moment’ in her personal desire to find Pistorius not guilty.
However that is not the case, if it were the two assessors would have quickly correct her and explain the situation she was creating. They did not do so!
So I seriously think they were all ‘collectively leaned on’ to get him off the ‘watertight’ firearms charge that carried the greatest penalty by any means possible and with no regards to the consequences.
Yes, I can certainly see where you are coming from. And it could also answer all the puzzlement that so many can't work out.
I agree with you Moody, scruffy was very polite and explained her reasoning as best she could, she said quite clearly that she hadn't any links yet they were demanded of her.
Other newbies to the thread have been welcomed with open arms (If they are anti Oscar) and have argued the toss (without links) yet are not brought to task, regardless of what some FMs on here say it certainly does look like a gang mentality to a newbie or lurker.
I don't think it was fair to mock her credentials as a legal secretary when we have members on here who profess to be in the legal profession yet have never been asked to show evidence of it.
Just found this link....- apologies if posted before. BUT - Frank was No.10 on the State's witness list - I hadn't seen this before - All I was aware of was that he told Van Aardt that he didn't hear anything and so it was pointless calling him , but hadn't realised he was actually on the list of State witnesses, here it is in writing.
Aww, guess being pretty elderly he really didn't hear a thing , but he was outside and dressed when Mike and Carice saw him at OP's house - not worth rehashing again I know, but thought it interesting seeing his name on the actual list of witnesses.
1. At the time of the incident there was no one else in the accused’s
house except the accused and the deceased. Therefore it could only
have been one of them who screamed or cried out loud.
I read that perhaps Frank didn't have legal residency so that was reason he wasn't called - but doesn't explain the fact he was 'ignored' as even being on OP's premises that night, even though he wasn't actually in OP's main house that night does it, confusing.
Comments
The springy type without a doubt, I wouldn't want to cause any permanent damage..;-);-)
No, it is however a subject that has made us all feel rather angry at times, a lot of times in fact - and you've been welcoming to new posters - as post below shows One thing I have noticed since this thread started is new posters get a warm welcome and their views generate discussion, which is what it's all about. As we get to sentencing hopefully more will appear !
I still can't get my head around the Verdict,:( - and if the State don't Appeal it, including the ammo charge, it will be even more baffling and i'd want to know why - Pretty sole-destroying for Reeva's family , they haven't got justice,,,,,,,,,,,,yet, things can change so we'll have to wait and see, fingers crossed.
Oh no, you said the C word! Now you've done it. I might change my mind about reporting!
Masipa is not in love with OP as many think - she finds him a lying toad and guilty of unlawful killing.
The Tasha's charge is the worst of the other three charges, and shows him to have been stupid and reckless on at least that occasion.
Oh yes only 91 days 05 hrs 55 mins and 2 seconds to go!
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
That's it I'm hitting the button, alert, alert!!
I'm hoping to be flying to Barbados on Christmas Day.
As my dear departed old mam used to say, "Just cos it smells fishy doesn't mean it's a haddock." Yeah she was a bit dippy like.;-)
Yes, I can certainly see where you are coming from. And it could also answer all the puzzlement that so many can't work out.
Well, the more this trial goes on, the more info that is revealed, the brighter the light shines on it.
How much more and how much longer can it and we go on? ;-)
Good saying....mums always have good sayings.
Mine is "just because a dog is born in a stable, doesn't make it a horse."
No wonder my sons are a bit warped in the head.
I have no idea what this post is about???
My mum use to say " I'll draw my hand across your face "
Very nice indeed
Well I think it's quite clear.
Just a bit of a group hug, want to join in ?
There's no filth in this one though.:o
Noooo, its a group hug.
Are they suffering from trench foot over there >>>>>> ?
Expectations as a child of a felt tip to be drawing all over your face?
there's no filth in the trench either!
*looks innocent* :cool:
http://ewn.co.za/-/media/Files/WitnessList%20pdf
Aww, guess being pretty elderly he really didn't hear a thing , but he was outside and dressed when Mike and Carice saw him at OP's house - not worth rehashing again I know, but thought it interesting seeing his name on the actual list of witnesses.
BUT why in Masipa's Judgement (below) did she say :
http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/140915OPJudgment.pdf
1. At the time of the incident there was no one else in the accused’s
house except the accused and the deceased. Therefore it could only
have been one of them who screamed or cried out loud.
I read that perhaps Frank didn't have legal residency so that was reason he wasn't called - but doesn't explain the fact he was 'ignored' as even being on OP's premises that night, even though he wasn't actually in OP's main house that night does it, confusing.