Pistorius Trial, Will he Walk????

[SPUDMASHER]

Whether anyone thinks he is guilty or not has absolutely no relevance to the verdict.

The verdict has to be dispassionate and related back to the reported facts and testimony offerred in the courtroom. The simple fact in this case is that the prosecutuion could not make a sufficient case to prove murder and he was therefore rightly acquitted of it. The burden of proof could never be satisfied in that situation and he was never going to be found guilty of the most serious charge from day one.
The lesser charge was always on the table as nobody could reasonably claim that they did not envisage the possibility that someone can die when they've been shot! For me this has been the logical result from day one. The burden of proof for this is wholly subjective and as such goes against the grain when you consider the principal of innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't been proven guilty at all. It is just the judges opinion (and probably that of every sane person across the world) that he knew there was a danger to life.

I think the outcome is legally just but does not seem to be adequate given that a young woman in her prime was cut down in such a manner.

I only hope that she didn't know anything about it and didn't suffer, and that her family can find some consolation in the knowledge that her killer is going to face some punishment for it.


What's the betting that the family now raise a civil claim for compensation from his estate as a result of the verdict!

[goonersid]

Whether anyone thinks he is guilty or not has absolutely no relevance to the verdict.

The verdict has to be dispassionate and related back to the reported facts and testimony offerred in the courtroom. The simple fact in this case is that the prosecutuion could not make a sufficient case to prove murder and he was therefore rightly acquitted of it. The burden of proof could never be satisfied in that situation and he was never going to be found guilty of the most serious charge from day one.
The lesser charge was always on the table as nobody could reasonably claim that they did not envisage the possibility that someone can die when they've been shot! For me this has been the logical result from day one. The burden of proof for this is wholly subjective and as such goes against the grain when you consider the principal of innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't been proven guilty at all. It is just the judges opinion (and probably that of every sane person across the world) that he knew there was a danger to life.

I think the outcome is legally just but does not seem to be adequate given that a young woman in her prime was cut down in such a manner.

I only hope that she didn't know anything about it and didn't suffer, and that her family can find some consolation in the knowledge that her killer is going to face some punishment for it.


What's the betting that the family now raise a civil claim for compensation from his estate as a result of the verdict!

Spuddy, he basically concocted a story and stuck to it, based on the premise that he knew that there were only 2 people present and with one of them dead, it was nigh on impossible to prove he was lying, no matter hoe far fetched and unbelievable his story was.
If this is a satisfactory verdict, then what is there to stop any one accused in similar circumstances doing the same? nothing! except there wouldn't be the same pressure on a judge trying joe bloggs.
Pistorious in my opinion is guilty as hell, and there he deserves to burn.

[SPUDMASHER]

I agree, I think he is guilty too, but as it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt the verdict is the right one.

Incidentally, if some Joe Bloggs tried the same thing now the pressure on the judge would be even more than in this case as there is now a legal precedent. If a judge convicted now with the same circumstances this ruling today would give automatic rise to an appeal.

[OneBardGooner]

I notice he didn't have a spring in his step when he left the court last friday!

[northbank123]

Regardless of what common sense said, it was plainly obvious all along that in a legal context he was never going to be found guilty. Not even would not find him guilty, COULD not find him guilty.

Culpable homicide is surely a banker though.

Can I have that translated into English please?

Of course, it reads "give me a break you little Oirish prick"

[DB10GOONER]

Regardless of what common sense said, it was plainly obvious all along that in a legal context he was never going to be found guilty. Not even would not find him guilty, COULD not find him guilty.

Culpable homicide is surely a banker though.

Can I have that translated into English please?

Of course, it reads "give me a break you little Oirish prick"

Which arm?

[GranadaJoe]

Whether anyone thinks he is guilty or not has absolutely no relevance to the verdict.

The verdict has to be dispassionate and related back to the reported facts and testimony offerred in the courtroom. The simple fact in this case is that the prosecutuion could not make a sufficient case to prove murder and he was therefore rightly acquitted of it. The burden of proof could never be satisfied in that situation and he was never going to be found guilty of the most serious charge from day one.
The lesser charge was always on the table as nobody could reasonably claim that they did not envisage the possibility that someone can die when they've been shot! For me this has been the logical result from day one. The burden of proof for this is wholly subjective and as such goes against the grain when you consider the principal of innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't been proven guilty at all. It is just the judges opinion (and probably that of every sane person across the world) that he knew there was a danger to life.

I think the outcome is legally just but does not seem to be adequate given that a young woman in her prime was cut down in such a manner.




I only hope that she didn't know anything about it and didn't suffer, and that her family can find some consolation in the knowledge that her killer is going to face some punishment for it.


What's the betting that the family now raise a civil claim for compensation from his estate as a result of the verdict!

Your point isn't correct.
The British test in cases such as this is that of 'a reasonable man' (the fabled 'man on the Clapham omnibus), but the South African system appears to be a weird mix of 'objective' test and 'subjective' test, i.e. what would the reasonable man believe, overlayed with what did the accused truly believe at the time. The judge found that Oscar did not foresee that firing four shots into a tiny toilet was likely to kill or seriously injure someone.
The culpable homicide conviction was dependant on negligence alone, not what was going through his mind, nor foreseeability.

Precedents are only on points of law not on points of fact and the judge was meticulous in saying she was religiously following existing precedents, therefore this case does not set any new precedents.

Reaction in South Africa is mixed. Many lawyers believe the judge did not interpret the precedents correctly, giving undue weight to the 'subjective' element of the test. Others, quite reasonably in my opinion, argue that is was very strange that the judge dismissed Oscar as unreliable, evasive and untruthful but then accepted what he said about his 'belief' at the time of the shooting.

[northbank123]

Whether anyone thinks he is guilty or not has absolutely no relevance to the verdict.

The verdict has to be dispassionate and related back to the reported facts and testimony offerred in the courtroom. The simple fact in this case is that the prosecutuion could not make a sufficient case to prove murder and he was therefore rightly acquitted of it. The burden of proof could never be satisfied in that situation and he was never going to be found guilty of the most serious charge from day one.
The lesser charge was always on the table as nobody could reasonably claim that they did not envisage the possibility that someone can die when they've been shot! For me this has been the logical result from day one. The burden of proof for this is wholly subjective and as such goes against the grain when you consider the principal of innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't been proven guilty at all. It is just the judges opinion (and probably that of every sane person across the world) that he knew there was a danger to life.

I think the outcome is legally just but does not seem to be adequate given that a young woman in her prime was cut down in such a manner.




I only hope that she didn't know anything about it and didn't suffer, and that her family can find some consolation in the knowledge that her killer is going to face some punishment for it.


What's the betting that the family now raise a civil claim for compensation from his estate as a result of the verdict!

Your point isn't correct.
The British test in cases such as this is that of 'a reasonable man' (the fabled 'man on the Clapham omnibus), but the South African system appears to be a weird mix of 'objective' test and 'subjective' test, i.e. what would the reasonable man believe, overlayed with what did the accused truly believe at the time. The judge found that Oscar did not foresee that firing four shots into a tiny toilet was likely to kill or seriously injure someone.
The culpable homicide conviction was dependant on negligence alone, not what was going through his mind, nor foreseeability.

Precedents are only on points of law not on points of fact and the judge was meticulous in saying she was religiously following existing precedents, therefore this case does not set any new precedents.

Reaction in South Africa is mixed. Many lawyers believe the judge did not interpret the precedents correctly, giving undue weight to the 'subjective' element of the test. Others, quite reasonably in my opinion, argue that is was very strange that the judge dismissed Oscar as unreliable, evasive and untruthful but then accepted what he said about his 'belief' at the time of the shooting.

The notional 'reasonable man' doesn't apply to murder cases here, it's generally a civil law concept and the mens rea for murder is subjective intent to kill or inflict GBH, nothing to do with reasonableness or what the reasonable man would have thought.

The question of reasonableness only arises when considering if the Defendant's version of events is so implausible that the Prosecution's case has consequently been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Granted I didn't sit through 2 days of that old woman reading out her judgment but to me there is reasoning for a not guilty verdict, just not in the way it has been reported. The Prosecution evidence - varying witness accounts on screams and gunshots, her probably eating within the last few hours, him having bouts of treating her sharply, etc - it was all circumstantial at best and a top lawyer would drive a coach and horses through most of it. And forget knowing it would kill whoever was in there or whatever - the whole case turned on whether or not he knew it was her in that bathroom or not.

The fact that the causation wasn't argued was massive - that is a much easier ground to prove because gunshot residue reports etc are exponentially more conclusive than the arguments put forward in this case re intent. Somebody says they didn't shoot the gun and they're found with gunshot residue all over their hand and clothing - they're screwed. Here they couldn't even satisfy the court completely that the screams were hers, never mind establish the timings, lengths etc and certainly not make the link between that and proving that he knew it was her in that toilet. Short of an incriminating conversation where he tells her or somebody else he's going to kill her, there's no smoking gun (pardon the pun).

There is also the cultural context. In this country the mere fact of him buying and keeping a gun would be well out of the ordinary - why would he buy a gun unless he intended to use it on somebody illegally? In South Africa it's completely normal and that took away a massive line of argument for the Prosecution.

If you asked me to put my head on the block I would definitely say he looks guilty but the actual evidence re intent was shit, underpinned by the police case being a mess. But I don't think for a minute that a similar trial would have been as radically different in this country as most people seem to think.

[GranadaJoe]

The reasonable man is a test in civil and criminal cases. It's a key component in areas such as criminal negligence.

I know very lttle about the details of South African law, though it is clearly similar to English law.

I watched a lot of the verdict as the judge read it out and she specifically looked to objective and subjective tests.

Clearly, interpretation of the facts in line with the Penal Code and precedent is the key, and the judge had a very difficult task. However, I, and many others, think that anybody who hobbles round the bed, gets their gun, moves towards the toilet and then fires four shots from close range into a very small space is probably intending to kill of cause serious harm.

[northbank123]

To be honest the entire area over here of gross negligence manslaughter is confused and probably unnecessary.

The whole intending to do serious harm thing seemed overplayed. As you say clearly there are massive differences in the law over there. The argument would be made over here but ultimately you'd have a hard time convincing a court that you didn't know what you were doing in a blind panic and ultimately the judge rejected his automatism argument.

To my his core defence on those facts is he thoughts it was a dangerous intruder and therefore he acted in (reasonable) self-defence by firing.

[DB10GOONER]

Wow. This has been quite enlightening tbh.

I had absolutely no idea we had so many wánky wannabe lawyers on here!

[LeftfootlegendGooner]

Wow. This has been quite enlightening tbh.

I had absolutely no idea we had so many wánky wannabe lawyers on here!

Oh trust me, I did

[DB10GOONER]

Wow. This has been quite enlightening tbh.

I had absolutely no idea we had so many wánky wannabe lawyers on here!

Oh trust me, I did

[northbank123]

Wow. This has been quite enlightening tbh.

I had absolutely no idea we had so many wánky wannabe lawyers on here!

Oh trust me, I did

Is nobody else going to threaten to sue

[DB10GOONER]

Wow. This has been quite enlightening tbh.

I had absolutely no idea we had so many wánky wannabe lawyers on here!

Oh trust me, I did

Is nobody else going to threaten to sue