Includes this point, which some people still refuse to accept.
"Some have argued that the charge of murder was somehow defective and restricted the prosecution to prove that Pistorius knew (or foresaw) that it was specifically Steenkamp behind the door. Phelps has argued that: “ … the problem started off with the way that the indictment was drafted. It focused closely on him shooting at Reeva Steenkamp and not on whoever was behind the door”. Yet the indictment read as follows, and could not conceivably have said anything else:
COUNT 1 – MURDER …IN THAT … the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill a person, to wit, REEVA STEENKAMP, a 29 year old female.
Given that the crime of murder is the unlawful intentional killing of another human being, it is difficult to understand how this restricted the prosecution to having to prove that the accused knew it was Steenkamp behind the door. "
"Some have argued"?
I'm not sure anyone on this thread has ever tried to say that he cannot be guilty of murder because he shot the "wrong" person. It seems obvious that the identity of the person is irrelevant. He knew "someone" was behind the door. He shot and killed "someone". He should be convicted of killing that "someone". That seems pretty cut and dried. I never thought that trying to get him off on this point of law was credible.
I know you're desperate to crank up that verdict to murder but I don't think that will happen.
There is confusion over her DE decision. Whether that will be formally challenged, who knows. I would like to see it clarified. But it's still going to produce the same result.
The legal opinion seems to be concentrating on the DE. There are grumbles about the intruder story but the reasonable doubt in the prosecutions version has not been seriously challenged. No one is challenging the doubt about those screams for example.
Nope.
You could not have read me more wrong.
However, I'm not going to give you another hundred lines this time. ;-)
My point is about the law and how it is applied or not. I already said a few days ago, I'm not so concerned about the verdict, but more so about how it was reached.
But they weren't there to determine what he was thinking, that's the court's job. They were to establish whether his capacity for thinking at the time time of the offence was in any way affected by mental illness or mental disorder. To which the answer was a clear no.
That they didn't do a very good, ie thorough job, I would agree with.
Yes I agree with you that they are not there to weigh legal
Issues.
When I say fairly poor job, I mean that he had a history of impulsive and reckless behavior and arrest that were more than pranks, and in another person, they would at least be mentioned in order to rule out Bipolar Disorder or another condition. Someone had posted a somewhat bizarre past charge of having to do with misuse of an airline ticket (?).
yeah so in Pistoland bullets are expected to bounce.
In Pistoland consideration of probabilities are reversed
Pistorius admitted that he considered it possible that the highly improbably could occur in that a warning bullet may have ricochet and injured him but he considered it not possible that the highly probable would occur in that the bullets he aimed and fired deliberately at a person would actually kill that person.
Yes I agree with you that they are not there to weigh legal
Issues.
When I say fairly poor job, I mean that he had a history of impulsive and reckless behavior and arrest that were more than pranks, and in another person, they would at least be mentioned in order to rule out Bipolar Disorder or another condition. Someone had posted a somewhat bizarre past charge of having to do with misuse of an airline ticket.
Yet I never read anything that commented on that.
I understood what you meant by poor job, and I entirely agree with you. The panel were not thorough about following up past incidents, including arrests, which indicated impulsive, aggressive behaviour.
It was instructive to read your previous comments about what could and should have been done by the panel, from the pov of someone with experience of comparable proceedings.
When OP was asked certain questions, about anger for example, his response was apparently taken at face value, and not cross-referenced with reported examples of his rage.
I'm not sure anyone on this thread has ever tried to say that he cannot be guilty of murder because he shot the "wrong" person. It seems obvious that the identity of the person is irrelevant. He knew "someone" was behind the door. He shot and killed "someone". He should be convicted of killing that "someone". That seems pretty cut and dried. I never thought that trying to get him off on this point of law was credible.
Yes, some have argued .... and he names Kelly Phelps as an example in the very next sentence, and adds a source. Have you bothered to read the whole article? He covers a great deal more than the one point I quoted.
I've certainly seen it argued on here that because Reeva Steenkamp's name was included in the indictment, it somehow made the murder charge more specific.
Yes, some have argued .... and he names Kelly Phelps as an example in the very next sentence, and adds a source. Have you bothered to read the whole article? He covers a great deal more than the one point I quoted.
I've certainly seen it argued on here that because Reeva Steenkamp's name was included in the indictment, it somehow made the murder charge more specific.
Nope. I've been called a lot other things though and I didn't whine about it. If you can't cope with rough and tumble, public forums aren't for you.
You have to be careful. Some posters will report what you call 'rough and tumble", and you'll find yourself banned for a while...as I've found to my cost.
In Pistoland consideration of probabilities are reversed
Pistorius admitted that he considered it possible that the highly improbably could occur in that a warning bullet may have ricochet and injured him but he considered it not possible that the highly probable would occur in that the bullets he aimed and fired deliberately at a person would actually kill that person.
Great innit.
I didn't throw the chocolate cake at the wall as I thought it might make a mess, so I threw it at my husband instead and was very surprised to find that it made a mess of him. I couldn't reasonably possibly have been expected to foresee that the cake would hit him.
I understood what you meant by poor job, and I entirely agree with you. The panel were not thorough about following up past incidents, including arrests, which indicated impulsive, aggressive behaviour.
It was instructive to read your previous comments about what could and should have been done by the panel, from the pov of someone with experience of comparable proceedings.
When OP was asked certain questions, about anger for example, his response was apparently taken at face value, and not cross-referenced with reported examples of his rage.
Agree. Apparently Sam Taylor was not one of their collateral contacts.
I've read that forensics evaluators try not to bias the court by giving out personality disorders, that I can understand.
At the same time, what I read did not seem so objective.
I didn't throw the chocolate cake at the wall as I thought it might make a mess, so I threw it at my husband instead and was very surprised to find that it made a mess of him. I couldn't reasonably possibly have been expected to foresee that the cake would hit him.
Yes, some have argued .... and he names Kelly Phelps as an example in the very next sentence, and adds a source. Have you bothered to read the whole article? He covers a great deal more than the one point I quoted.
I've certainly seen it argued on here that because Reeva Steenkamp's name was included in the indictment, it somehow made the murder charge more specific.
From what I understood about the charge from the state was murder and which the state then went on to name the person who died was Reeva Steenkamp. But it was a murder charge.
Now I see from the judgement that the judge pointed out that because OP thought Reeva was on the bed then he's not guilty of murder.
But surely that's dealing with premed murder of an individual who the accused knew personally and knew was on the premises, but not dealing with the murder charge of any person on the premises which was the state's case in the first place.
At least that's what I understand from it all. ;-)
Anyone wanting to commit murder can now shove their intended victim in a cupboard, lock the door, say they thought the victim was somewhere else, say it was dark, imagined it was a dangerous armed intruder stealing loo roll or reading magazines, and pump as many bullets as they like through the door.
Ear-witnesses hearing screams of a different gender to the accused will all be mistaken.
Eye-witnesses seeing the light on will all be ignored in the judgement.
Neighbours not hearing screams (ie not actually witnesses) will be grounds to dismiss the ear-witnesses who did.
The accused, being declared to have no mental disorder, and knowing the laws, and found to be in full control of his actions and thoughts at the time, will be found negligent and lacking in intent to kill, but what the intention was will not be a matter requiring explanation.
How to Commit the Perfect Murder and Get off With a Conviction for Culpable Homicide, In South Africa.
you forgot "open a window". that is key for getting away with it
A quote from the transcript link I posted above (Juror13 / Judge Greenland)
"J13: Yea. Yea, I agree with you completely on that. I'm wondering, what do you think was the best evidence that the state had in the case - what was the strongest portion of their argument?
JG: The strongest portion of their argument was the undeniable facts, what I call the facts that are beyond dispute. This young lady was (rendered dead?) after the three bullets hit her. That could not be denied. In the safety, sanctuary and security of a suburban home, in Oscar's home, he is the person that pulled the trigger at least four times of a gun armed with lethal bullets which found their mark. Those incontrovertible facts, those undeniable facts, those facts that are beyond dispute was the strongest part of the case. 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.
J13: Yea
JG: It was as good as that. And this is where the absurdity becomes manifested. Had the state used a video recording of that shooting, this court would have still acquitted Oscar Pistorius. That's how absurd this decision is."
blimey. i am glad, though, that it's not just us lot on here (well, some of us) who are baffled by this decision
must be gutting for those in south africa though. what a way to lose confidence in your justice system
wow. he clearly feels very, very strongly about it. i wasn't really expecting that as a lot of people have remained neutral on the topic
Did you see the bit where he says that in Zimbabwe he had seen cases with less evidence of murder in which the accused had made just one or 2 mistakes in his testimony and been hanged?
Yet on his YouTube channel there's a video in which he explains that judges are trained not to assume that an accused who gives his evidence badly or lies must be guilty and explains why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvdzUyQRcE4
It's as though he has theory but then doesn't feel it should apply in practise.
From what I understood about the charge from the state was murder and which the state then went on to name the person who died was Reeva Steenkamp. But it was a murder charge.
Now I see from the judgement that the judge pointed out that because OP thought Reeva was on the bed then he's not guilty of murder.
But surely that's dealing with premed murder of an individual who the accused knew personally and knew was on the premises, but not dealing with the murder charge of any person on the premises which was the state's case in the first place.
True, and that's just one of the pairs of Masipa's knickers she got in a legal twist
Comments
"Some have argued"?
I'm not sure anyone on this thread has ever tried to say that he cannot be guilty of murder because he shot the "wrong" person. It seems obvious that the identity of the person is irrelevant. He knew "someone" was behind the door. He shot and killed "someone". He should be convicted of killing that "someone". That seems pretty cut and dried. I never thought that trying to get him off on this point of law was credible.
Nope.
You could not have read me more wrong.
However, I'm not going to give you another hundred lines this time. ;-)
My point is about the law and how it is applied or not. I already said a few days ago, I'm not so concerned about the verdict, but more so about how it was reached.
Nope. I've been called a lot other things though and I didn't whine about it. If you can't cope with rough and tumble, public forums aren't for you.
Yes I agree with you that they are not there to weigh legal
Issues.
When I say fairly poor job, I mean that he had a history of impulsive and reckless behavior and arrest that were more than pranks, and in another person, they would at least be mentioned in order to rule out Bipolar Disorder or another condition. Someone had posted a somewhat bizarre past charge of having to do with misuse of an airline ticket (?).
Yet I never read anything that commented on that.
Well yeah that's why he didn't fire a warning shot!
I didn't see this post before.
He said wtte "I shot her, I thought she was an intruder"
That just seems like a statement of 2 facts. Neither of which indicate intent, as we now know.
It's about as useful an indicator of guilt as "I crashed my car into her and killed her"
In Pistoland consideration of probabilities are reversed
Pistorius admitted that he considered it possible that the highly improbably could occur in that a warning bullet may have ricochet and injured him but he considered it not possible that the highly probable would occur in that the bullets he aimed and fired deliberately at a person would actually kill that person.
I understood what you meant by poor job, and I entirely agree with you. The panel were not thorough about following up past incidents, including arrests, which indicated impulsive, aggressive behaviour.
It was instructive to read your previous comments about what could and should have been done by the panel, from the pov of someone with experience of comparable proceedings.
When OP was asked certain questions, about anger for example, his response was apparently taken at face value, and not cross-referenced with reported examples of his rage.
Yes, some have argued .... and he names Kelly Phelps as an example in the very next sentence, and adds a source. Have you bothered to read the whole article? He covers a great deal more than the one point I quoted.
I've certainly seen it argued on here that because Reeva Steenkamp's name was included in the indictment, it somehow made the murder charge more specific.
There it is again.
BIB 1.
Totally missing the point.
BIB 2. " as we now know"
Who's we? And what do we now know?
Something someone claims without any factual evidence to back it up is now taken as fact.
This is a discussion forum. Making derogatory comments about other posters is not the same as argument or discussion.
I am not making derogatory comments, I simply summarised the shortcomings of Porky's pov.
Do you want to discuss the trial or do you just want to pick a fight with me?
I haven't read the whole article no.
Who argued that? They sound like OP groupies.
Great innit.
I didn't throw the chocolate cake at the wall as I thought it might make a mess, so I threw it at my husband instead and was very surprised to find that it made a mess of him. I couldn't reasonably possibly have been expected to foresee that the cake would hit him.
Really? Not understanding nearly everything that's ever been written on this forum?
I don't want a fight. I just noticed that several posters on here had taken to insulting another poster as opposed to just disagreeing.
Agree. Apparently Sam Taylor was not one of their collateral contacts.
I've read that forensics evaluators try not to bias the court by giving out personality disorders, that I can understand.
At the same time, what I read did not seem so objective.
Was that your black talon chocolate fudge cake?
snipped for space
wow. he clearly feels very, very strongly about it. i wasn't really expecting that as a lot of people have remained neutral on the topic
From what I understood about the charge from the state was murder and which the state then went on to name the person who died was Reeva Steenkamp. But it was a murder charge.
Now I see from the judgement that the judge pointed out that because OP thought Reeva was on the bed then he's not guilty of murder.
But surely that's dealing with premed murder of an individual who the accused knew personally and knew was on the premises, but not dealing with the murder charge of any person on the premises which was the state's case in the first place.
At least that's what I understand from it all. ;-)
you forgot "open a window". that is key for getting away with it
blimey. i am glad, though, that it's not just us lot on here (well, some of us) who are baffled by this decision
must be gutting for those in south africa though. what a way to lose confidence in your justice system
Very appropriate as we are discussing probably the biggest legal fudge ever but it's not chocolate flavour in fact it tastes very fishy to me
Did you see the bit where he says that in Zimbabwe he had seen cases with less evidence of murder in which the accused had made just one or 2 mistakes in his testimony and been hanged?
Yet on his YouTube channel there's a video in which he explains that judges are trained not to assume that an accused who gives his evidence badly or lies must be guilty and explains why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvdzUyQRcE4
It's as though he has theory but then doesn't feel it should apply in practise.
True, and that's just one of the pairs of Masipa's knickers she got in a legal twist