|
Post by femalebusiness on Dec 3, 2015 15:13:36 GMT
I haven't heard about this latest news but my opinion is that he murdered Reeva in a fit of tantrum that he was throwing. She died terrified, huddled in that bathroom. He should never ever get out of jail.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Dec 3, 2015 17:12:21 GMT
Am I understanding correctly that in this case, the prosecution appealed the verdict/sentence?
I'm not all that up on the legal system - can the prosecution appeal in the US, or just the defense?
This is a really interesting discussion!
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Dec 3, 2015 18:21:40 GMT
Am I understanding correctly that in this case, the prosecution appealed the verdict/sentence?
I'm not all that up on the legal system - can the prosecution appeal in the US, or just the defense?
This is a really interesting discussion! You are correct. Over here, the State / prosecution has a restricted right to appeal the verdict and sentence: they may not rehash the facts. They may only attack errors in law. Misdirection by the presiding officer and so on. I cannot comment on the US
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Dec 3, 2015 18:31:18 GMT
I haven't heard about this latest news but my opinion is that he murdered Reeva in a fit of tantrum that he was throwing. She died terrified, huddled in that bathroom. He should never ever get out of jail. You may be right. Especially about the terrified part. This was not able to be proved though. Some of the harshest commentators here say the state's insistence on trying prejudiced them in achieving a straight murder verdict the first time.
|
|
|
Post by rainangel on Dec 3, 2015 20:07:07 GMT
I only recently learned details about this case, after briefly skimming the headlines at the time the first trial was happening. So I knew little, and a few weeks ago I learned a little bit more.
This must be a difficult case for either side to argue. There is just so little factual, hard evidence. It all comes down to witness testimony, our personal beliefs if it is plausible for a woman to be fully dressed in a small bathroom with her phone in the middle of the night, and also, how paranoid are you allowed to be about intruders in South Africa. These are all very subjective things that makes it difficult for either side to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, what actually happened.
The ONLY person who knows what happened, and will ever know, is Pistorius himself. And he seemed SO repentant and heartbroken at the first trial. But that can either be taken as hom being completely devestated that he killed his girlfrien, og his tears could be because for the first time in his life, he got caught.
My personal belief is that Oscar Pistorius is an entitled brat who threw a temper tantrum and killed Reeva. Although I DO believe he was paranoid about intruders, because narcissists are often thinking of themselves as victims. And the intruder excuse was a damn good excuse in a country rampant with home invasions.
I hope Reeva's family will get some closure now. Or is this just the next step in a series of trials happening over the next 20 years...?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 1:23:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2015 20:35:28 GMT
I'm a little confused too ScrapsontheRocks Was the original charge manslaughter or was it murder and reduced to manslaughter having heard all the evidence? The bit I'm unsure of is ...he was found guilty of manslaughter and now on appeal he's been found guilty of murder so where has the new evidence come from to prove it was murder. To me murder has to be premeditated whereas manslaughter means you didn't actually intend to kill them. I can understand an appeal being granted if the prosecution thought the sentence was too harsh or to lenient but I'm having difficulty in understanding the change in the charge unless there was further evidence to back it up.
|
|
QueenoftheSloths
Drama Llama
Member Since January 2004, 2,698 forum posts PeaNut Number: 122614 PeaBoard Title: StuckOnPeas
Posts: 5,955
Jun 26, 2014 0:29:24 GMT
|
Post by QueenoftheSloths on Dec 4, 2015 2:02:02 GMT
I found this whole case just so sad, for everyone involved.
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Dec 4, 2015 4:44:59 GMT
I'm a little confused too ScrapsontheRocks Was the original charge manslaughter or was it murder and reduced to manslaughter having heard all the evidence? The bit I'm unsure of is ...he was found guilty of manslaughter and now on appeal he's been found guilty of murder so where has the new evidence come from to prove it was murder. To me murder has to be premeditated whereas manslaughter means you didn't actually intend to kill them. I can understand an appeal being granted if the prosecution thought the sentence was too harsh or to lenient but I'm having difficulty in understanding the change in the charge unless there was further evidence to back it up. The original charge was murder. A competent verdict, if the evidence does not support murder, is culpable homicide (manslaughter.) The High Court accepted Pistorious' convoluted, internally inconsistent evidence about 1. The intruder 2. His generalized anxiety disorder 3. He didn't intend to discharge the weapon 4. He fired before he thought about it 5. He didn't fire a warning shot in case the ricochet killed him 6. The deceased was in the bedroom 7.... 8.... In fact the High Court Judge, sitting with her assessors, cobbled together a combination of all this, and more, called him a shocking witness but gave him the benefit of the doubt. She also disregarded/ skipped over a whole bunch of evidence: she praised the ballistics expert, for example, in her judgement, but then didn't rely on his UNDISPUTED findings! The Supreme Court of Appeal (could have been a panel of 3, but they allocated it to 5 senior judges) cut through the confusion and refused to cobble together all of the disparate excuses. Instead, bottom line, they emphasized that his firing four shots into a small space, no matter who was in that cubicle, must have been done with the knowledge someone would be killed, he couldn't rely on self defence because the evidence was just not there, so that is murder. A reasonable man would know this, an expert in guns knew this. It was not a matter of new evidence, but correctly interpreting his own evidence in a logical way. The Original judge, IMHO was overawed by the whole thing, knew it would inevitably be appealed, and abdicated her responsibility, leaving our law in a very undesirable mess . Yesterday's correction was a unanimous verdict of the full bench, no confusion.
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Dec 4, 2015 4:56:01 GMT
I only recently learned details about this case, after briefly skimming the headlines at the time the first trial was happening. So I knew little, and a few weeks ago I learned a little bit more. This must be a difficult case for either side to argue. There is just so little factual, hard evidence. It all comes down to witness testimony, our personal beliefs if it is plausible for a woman to be fully dressed in a small bathroom with her phone in the middle of the night, and also, how paranoid are you allowed to be about intruders in South Africa. These are all very subjective things that makes it difficult for either side to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, what actually happened. The ONLY person who knows what happened, and will ever know, is Pistorius himself. And he seemed SO repentant and heartbroken at the first trial. But that can either be taken as hom being completely devestated that he killed his girlfrien, og his tears could be because for the first time in his life, he got caught. My personal belief is that Oscar Pistorius is an entitled brat who threw a temper tantrum and killed Reeva. Although I DO believe he was paranoid about intruders, because narcissists are often thinking of themselves as victims. And the intruder excuse was a damn good excuse in a country rampant with home invasions. I hope Reeva's family will get some closure now. Or is this just the next step in a series of trials happening over the next 20 years...? I hear you! I will comment, if I may, on the series of trials thing. Brace yourself. This man has showed his colours many times. I emphasize that this next remark is highly subjective, totally my opinion: I knew how this would play out when he originally announced his choice of his legal team. Don't for a second fall for the "he has no money" thing, his uncle is down to his last billion . Had the original sentence not been so very lenient, he would have appealed it. The original court will now sentence him on the corrected verdict, I fully expect him to appeal that OR to try a Constitutional Court challenge to say he was unfairly tried in the glare of all the media, his human rights have been forever compromised yada yada.
|
|
|
Post by anniefb on Dec 4, 2015 5:12:57 GMT
I couldn't believe the verdict last time round. Seems like the right verdict this time. Yeah that ^^
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 1:23:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2015 9:27:03 GMT
Thanks ScrapsontheRocks I wasn't/couldn't remember what the original charge was so was getting confused. Much clearer now A very sad situation all round. A beautiful young woman has tragically lost her life and a man who has, in the past, overcome such adversity ends up in the position he is in now. Just to clarify, I don't mean that I feel sorry for him but that it's sad that he threw all he had away and took someone's life in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by gillyp on Dec 4, 2015 13:41:45 GMT
So much more interesting than reading about it in the newspapers! Thanks for the thread and the insightful posts.
|
|
|
Post by uksue on Dec 4, 2015 14:07:44 GMT
So much more interesting that reading about it in the newspapers! Thanks for the thread and the insightful posts. I agree- thank you for clarifying, ScrapsontheRocks! My daughter has an English and Spanish law degree but for once, I knew a little more about something than she did Certainly one I will continue to follow.
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Dec 4, 2015 15:13:05 GMT
I found the trial judge so confusing. After everything she said I couldn't believe he didn't get Murder. Reeva's family have been so dignified- I hope this helps them a little. In the beginning her mother came off as though she supported Oscar's innocent plea or wouldn't say otherwise, I wonder what made her change her mind? Was it public opinion?
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Dec 4, 2015 15:17:32 GMT
how paranoid are you allowed to be about intruders in South Africa. T This is a real concern in South Africa. However don't you ask who's there before shooting??? My mother once spent the night and got up in the middle of the night to use my bathroom. That noise of the door opening and closing woke me up and in my sleep I forgot I had a guest so I just instinctively barged into the bathroom thinking I had an intruder scaring the mess out of her! lol So I can see how you forget to check if your partner is in bed with you and act without thinking in your sleep.
|
|
|
Post by rainangel on Dec 4, 2015 15:43:21 GMT
how paranoid are you allowed to be about intruders in South Africa. T This is a real concern in South Africa. However don't you ask who's there before shooting??? My mother once spent the night and got up in the middle of the night to use my bathroom. That noise of the door opening and closing woke me up and in my sleep I forgot I had a guest so I just instinctively barged into the bathroom thinking I had an intruder scaring the mess out of her! lol So I can see how you forget to check if your partner is in bed with you and act without thinking in your sleep. If I was Pistorius' defense attorney I would argue that he was scared, because of a real threat, and acted on instinct. I know I have hit people almost as a reflex when they have jumped out and scared me. I didn't ask who they were first. So yeah, I can relate to the instinct of fight, instead of flight. I am sure the prosecutor brought up the fact that Pistorius lived in a gated community, and that his fright of being intruded should be less than the average South African. Like I said in my last post; there are no right or wrong here. This case can so easily be argued for AND against Pistorius. It's all subjective. If there had been a surveillance cideo of his bedroom that night, there would have been actual evidence of any domestic dispute. That is the only type of evidence I can come up with that could solve the case. He shot her through a door, forensic evidence is non-existent in regards to his intent, or knowledge of who was behind the door.
|
|
|
Post by ScrapsontheRocks on Dec 4, 2015 19:10:14 GMT
This is a real concern in South Africa. However don't you ask who's there before shooting??? My mother once spent the night and got up in the middle of the night to use my bathroom. That noise of the door opening and closing woke me up and in my sleep I forgot I had a guest so I just instinctively barged into the bathroom thinking I had an intruder scaring the mess out of her! lol So I can see how you forget to check if your partner is in bed with you and act without thinking in your sleep. If I was Pistorius' defense attorney I would argue that he was scared, because of a real threat, and acted on instinct. I know I have hit people almost as a reflex when they have jumped out and scared me. I didn't ask who they were first. So yeah, I can relate to the instinct of fight, instead of flight. I am sure the prosecutor brought up the fact that Pistorius lived in a gated community, and that his fright of being intruded should be less than the average South African. Like I said in my last post; there are no right or wrong here. This case can so easily be argued for AND against Pistorius. It's all subjective. If there had been a surveillance cideo of his bedroom that night, there would have been actual evidence of any domestic dispute. That is the only type of evidence I can come up with that could solve the case. He shot her through a door, forensic evidence is non-existent in regards to his intent, or knowledge of who was behind the door. A couple of the aspects that never made sense to me, right from the beginning: the couple went to sleep with the balcony door open so that the fans could ventilate the room. February is brutally hot here and the air con was broken. Seems like they felt totally secure. In addition, one of the ground floor windows was broken and Oscar P had left it like that for weeks. These facts were undisputed. His so-called hyper vigilance is at odds with how he behaved. A little murkier, not totally clear from what came out in the trial: it seems they did not activate the alarm when they went up to the bedroom. If it was activated, all they would have had to do, on hearing noises in the night, would be to activate it and the security company would have been there asap. There was speculation that the alarm was activated but that Reeva turned it off when she went downstairs to eat late at night (small meal of vegetables, touched on in the gastric contents evidence, which was disputed by the defence).
|
|
|
Post by shevy on Dec 4, 2015 19:38:14 GMT
I work in the criminal justice system here in the states and I love hearing about the ins and outs of other systems. I would love to bring some new ideas here, but the system is a hard one to put a new step into. Thanks for sharing ScrapsontheRocks and everyone else!
|
|
|
Post by moosedogtoo on Dec 4, 2015 21:45:58 GMT
I see that his earlier Manslaughter verdict has been overturned! He now has to await a new sentence. ScrapsontheRocks - how will people feel about this on the whole, do you think? I feel like I'm grateful that I live in the USA where this can't happen. Seriously scary!
|
|