Guest Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 I imagine the lawyers for both sides will ask their questions based on the type of trial it is. Judge only, or Judge and Jury. I don't think he had much chance with either. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 It's a bit beside the point I guess but I did see an interesting piece today (I think CNN) that gave a bit of the background of the judge in this case. She's not exactly a "spring chicken" and she harks from SOWETO. Anyway it was nice to see this success story. She has had her work cut out for her with this case for sure. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Posted September 11, 2014 I really think that it can go either way. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Guest Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 I can't imagine the judge buying his version of events. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 On the other hand, (and contrary in a way to my previous post, he was hopelessy ambidextrous) the fear factor could perhaps offset how you or I might sensibly handle a gun under the circumstances. I have spent time in SA (not Pretoria but Jo berg and others) and it does have a fairly high crime rate. If I had to weigh in, I'd say he is going down. We shall see soon enough. Quote
Rue Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 He walks. His defence appears to have raised sufficient doubt in the Judge's mind but this will be appealed. I do believe there have been some errors of law that can be appealed in terms of what evidence was and was not admitted. . Quote
Guest Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 I can't imagine the judge buying his version of events. Shows how much I know... Quote
Big Guy Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 Looks like the prosecution did not have a leg to strand on. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Rue Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 Shows how much I know... Its a suprising decision. Not withstanding the media which tends to distort things in favour of the accuser, the evidence seemed pretty solid. I would be interested to see what raised doubt in the Judge's mind as to his guilt. Now remember there can be no doubt at all..not just reasonable doubt, but any doubt. The standard in criminal law is beyond reasonable doubt not just reasonable doubt which means the Judge felt there was something...anything that caused them doubt. So with due fairness to you, its hard to know what the Judge felt created that doubt. The media makes for example circumstantial evidence seem overwhelming. One would have to read the full decision to see what influenced the Judge. Quote
Rue Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 Looks like the prosecution did not have a leg to strand on. Uh yah they went out on a limb. Quote
guyser Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 I imagine the lawyers for both sides will ask their questions based on the type of trial it is. Judge only, or Judge and Jury. I don't think he had much chance with either. He caertainly doesnt have any chance w a jury pool. SA law does not have them. Quote
guyser Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 Im not too surprised, Evidence was mishandled from the get go , the prosecution did not secure it bringing in all sorts of doubt. The judge has to deliver all the reasons she feels so and so was not honest, why she rejects some evidence, why she feels he should stay/go. Just have to wait, but....he wont get life unless the Judge goes off the charts. Quote
Solidarity Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 The max if he's guilty of culpable homicide is 15 years from what I've read. Quote
guyser Posted September 11, 2014 Report Posted September 11, 2014 SO much for the wintnesses hearing the cries, the Judge referenced experts who said that from the distance involved (+ 175 M) there is NO way anyone would know who let alone what was being said. Quote
Argus Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 Its a suprising decision. Not withstanding the media which tends to distort things in favour of the accuser, the evidence seemed pretty solid. I would be interested to see what raised doubt in the Judge's mind as to his guilt. I think you'd need to find out what the number of her Swiss bank account is to know that. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 I think you'd need to find out what the number of her Swiss bank account is to know that.Or you could just read her account, as she has to according to law account for her actions, but probably better to just castigate the Judge because of your extremely prejudiced view of them. Quote
Argus Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 Or you could just read her account, as she has to according to law account for her actions, but probably better to just castigate the Judge because of your extremely prejudiced view of them. If by 'extremely prejudiced' you mean I have an active distaste for murderers then I plead guilty. Apparently you're more tolerant. Or maybe you just don't like blondes anyway. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 If by 'extremely prejudiced' you mean I have an active distaste for murderers then I plead guilty.One can see by your idiotic use of murderer , when in fact he isnt one..... No I mean by your repeated and constant attack on any judge giving out a sentence that you disagree with. The words used are full of vitriol against the judge, in other words you lack credibility when discussing these issues. Apparently you're more tolerant. Or maybe you just don't like blondes anyway.Not more tolerant, I just dont go all stupid first, I read the report and see what the judge is getting at. They are judges, they are learned , and in legal matters, they are a hell of a lot smarter than you. Yes ...and me. Quote
Argus Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 One can see by your idiotic use of murderer , when in fact he isnt one..... I'm going to repeat this just the one more time. As a person who has lived alone, as a person who has lived with others, I have absolutely no doubt of the difference in reaction when one hears a strange noise in the middle of the night. Pistorious lived with a woman. Upon hearing a sound the natural inclination was to assume it was her, not to leap from his bed, stump across the floor, and open fire through a closed bathroom door on a presumed burglar. Anyone who believes he did should not be allowed to breed. Anyone who believes him should not be permitted any responsible job or position in life. The judge in question should henceforth be cleaning public toilets -- with close supervision as I doubt her even capable of that on her own. He is a murderer, flat out, regardless of what some either crooked or moronic judge has to say. He should be executed, and if he doesn't get a very long sentence I truly hope someone with a gun 'mistakes him for a burglar'. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Wilber Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 The point is, the prosecution didn't prove 1st degree murder and the judge is explaining why. The judge doesn't have the luxury of your outrage, she has to follow the law. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
guyser Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 I'm going to repeat this just the one more time. As a person who has lived alone, as a person who has lived with others, I have absolutely no doubt of the difference in reaction when one hears a strange noise in the middle of the night Says the guy in sleepy Ottawa.....who hasnt the faintest clue of what life is like in SA. Pistorious lived with a woman. Upon hearing a sound the MY natural inclination was to assume it was her, not to leap from his bed, stump across the floor, and open fire through a closed bathroom door on a presumed burglar.FIFY. Anyone who believes he did should not be allowed to breed. Anyone who believes him should not be permitted any responsible job or position in life. The judge in question should henceforth be cleaning public toilets -- with close supervision as I doubt her even capable of that on her own.Someone so sure of himself to post that claptrap could work for the govt. We know they dont want thinkers in the PS. He is a murderer, flat out, regardless of what some either crooked or moronic judge has to say. He should be executed, and if he doesn't get a very long sentence I truly hope someone with a gun 'mistakes him for a burglar'.Nice viewpoint. But the Judge, the one with the power, doesnt agree. Quote
Rue Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) Im not too surprised, Evidence was mishandled from the get go , the prosecution did not secure it bringing in all sorts of doubt. The judge has to deliver all the reasons she feels so and so was not honest, why she rejects some evidence, why she feels he should stay/go. Just have to wait, but....he wont get life unless the Judge goes off the charts. I think you are right and that its a question of how the evidence was obtained and then preserved and whether certain evidence not considered should have been. That's a good guess without the actual Judge's decision. It might be as well she bought his story about panicking. Edited September 12, 2014 by Rue Quote
Big Guy Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high threshold, especially if you are judging while starting from a neutral position. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 The point is, the prosecution didn't prove 1st degree murder and the judge is explaining why. The judge doesn't have the luxury of your outrage, she has to follow the law. Bullshit. It was absolutely proven. She wasn't following anything but her own warped, incompetent, or paid for judgement. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 12, 2014 Report Posted September 12, 2014 Says the guy in sleepy Ottawa.....who hasnt the faintest clue of what life is like in SA. Human nature is human nature. Someone so sure of himself to post that claptrap could work for the govt. Which has to do with what, exactly? I get it, though. You're happy for him. You've basically made it clear all along you have no issue with violence against women and he's one of you. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.