Der Prozess Oscar Pistorius und der Tod von Reeva Steenkamp

Thus the state had to prove that in fact, he did have the necessary mental element or belief that he was in possession. For example, if you allow someone to put something in your car, it does not necessarily follow in law, that you are in possession of the item. It must also be shown that mentally, you believe yourself to be in possession of the item.

Da stimmt was nicht, nach solchen Überlegungen sollten alle Narkoesel unbestraft bleiben!

Auch für 'the dolus eventualis issue' habe Nel wenig Chancen:

Ultimately, I am of the view that the state’s chances of success on the ammunition charges are very slim. On the dolus eventualis issue, Nel will have to do better than he did in the High Court. Ultimately, the decision will lie on whether firing 4 four shots through a door means Oscar intended to kill. In my view, the evidence in this regard remains scant, but then again the Supreme Court of Appeal might find differently.

Weiter folgt timeline, if ...

If permission to appeal is granted, if we are likely it will probably be heard in November and judgment given mid December or early next year. If we are unlucky, then it might only be heard in January of February 2015 and judgment given sometime in March or Apri.

obskur schrieb:Dann ist das Ding also gelaufen, denn aus welchem Grund sollte sie dem zustimmen... dann würde sie sich selber widersprechen, abgesehen davon will sie in Rente gehen und sich nicht noch Jahre damit beschäftigen.

So ist es, zum Glück bleibt noch der Präsident des Supreme Court´s.

"ANC Women's League spokeswoman Jacqueline Mofokeng spent much time with June Steenkamp over the course of the trial. The organisation has been instrumental in raising sponsorship to enable the couple to attend the proceedings in Pretoria.

Mofokeng said June was furious at the judgment and told her: "We can't take this lying down.

"She never believed Oscar killed her by mistake, no matter how many times Oscar said it in court," said Mofokeng.

She said the Women's League had also ensured that June had access to professional counselling because the death of her daughter and the trial had been extremely traumatic.

Mofokeng said: "I will never forget the day when we were sitting behind the court building and chatting to each other when June screamed: 'Reeva is here!'

"We thought she had lost it. But she pointed at a white dove, sitting in one of the windows, waved at the dove, and said: 'Hello Reeva, I'm OK.'"

Mofokeng said June later told them the dove had always been a kind of symbol between her and her daughter.

Yesterday, De Bruyn said the couple had not returned yet to their Port Elizabeth home.

Barry Steenkamp appeared frail this week, after suffering a stroke earlier this year.

De Bruyn said: "He still has some issues and they are both exhausted. They are resting now."

http://www.timeslive.co.za/special/oscarpistorius/2014/09/14/oscar-judge-under-fire-while-state-is-urged-to-appeal

@Ahnungslose
Ja zum Glück gäbe es noch eine weitere Chance... die Frage ist, ob es dann letztendlich trotzdem zurück zu Masipa geht, ich vermute schon, sie wäre im Zugzwang, aber viel darf man sich dann auch nicht erhoffen. Es müsste komplett an ein anderes Gericht gegeben werden, meiner Meinung nach.

Die Anklage muss versuchen gegen dieses Fehlurteil Berufung einzulegen, umso mehr als diesem Unterfangen mehrheitlich gute Chancen eingeräumt wird.
Sie können dadurch nur gewinnen, vielleicht wird Reeva und ihren leidgeprüften Eltern doch noch sowas wie Gerechtigkeit zuteil, auch wenn dies nur ein kleiner Trost ist. Bisher ist das nichts davon geschehen, nicht so lange dieser feige Gewalttäter in Freiheit und damit straflos bleibt.

@muscaria
Wie gut, dass auch die Karikaturisten es so treffend auf den Punkt bringen.

Hier auch:

http://de.toonpool.com/user/10926/thumbs/dont_do_it_193401.jpg

Das meinte ich.:-)

.. Und bezieht sich natürlich hier drauf.

Wenn das stimmt, wars das dann wohl

http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/gen/oscar-verdict-a-done-deal/ (Archiv-Version vom 14.10.2014)

Ich hab noch nicht alles nachgelesen, sorry wenn das schon gepostet wurde. Scheinbar ist es nicht so einfach, Berufung bzw. Revision gegen das Urteil einzulegen.

Hat noch jemand einen grünen Eimer???

@Evidence1
Aber das ist doch Satire, oder??????

HILFE!!! Das ist doch SATIRE, ODER??????????????

@TruthLove
Das wird schon Satire sein. Hab zwar keine hohe Meinung mehr von der Richterin, aber so naiv wird sie ja wohl dann nicht sein.

@Robert80
Danke... Puh!!
Das fehlte noch. Passen würde es ja... Leider.

Aber sehr gute Satire ,made my day!!! N

Ein Interview mit Reevas Bruder Adam

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-s-histrionics-a-grotesque-pantomime-1.1750675#.VBcFYhbp-y4

Danke, @muscaria!

Jetzt, solche Texte lesend, kommen meine Hoffnungen, dass ich mich doch irre, erneut lebend vor:-(
Wahrscheinlich haben viele so was erlebt, wo man denkt, vor der Tatsache stehend - das ist doch nicht wahr, das kann nicht wahr sein:-(

Oscar verdict ‘a done deal’
A32-YEAR-OLD Supreme Court of Appeal decision may scupper the state’s chances of appealing the not guilty of murder verdict in paralympian Oscar Pistorius’s favour, say two men who have dedicated their lives to prosecuting criminals.

Judge Thokozile Masipa last week convicted Pistorius of the lesser crime of culpable homicide after he shot and killed his model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Paralympic track star Oscar Pistorius (C) leaves after hearing the verdict of his trial at the high court in Pretoria.

While criminal law experts around the globe are already betting on the chances of a successful appeal, two men – who between them have chalked up more than six decades in the prosecuting business – believe a 1982 decision by the then Appellate Division (AD), which later became the SCA, may be an insurmountable obstacle.

The reported case, which seems to have escaped the notice of so many, deals with the state’s right to appeal on a point of law against an acquittal.

The state’s right to appeal is limited to start with, said Eastern Cape deputy director of public prosecutions Advocate Malherbe Marais, SC.

“The state can only appeal on a point of law as opposed to the right of an accused person who can appeal on a point of law or on the facts.”

But the SCA case, S v Seekoei, limits the state’s right of appeal even further.

A former Eastern Cape Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Les Roberts, SC, said in that case, the SCA – in interpreting the relevant section of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) – found the state could only appeal a decision where there had been a “complete” acquittal. It ruled that if there was a competent verdict on a lesser charge, then the state may not appeal.

In S v Seekoei, the accused had been found guilty of housebreaking with intent to steal, rather than the more serious crime of housebreaking with intention to rob, with which they had been charged.

Roberts explained the CPA’s “hierarchy” of crimes. At the top is murder, followed by lesser crimes such as culpable homicide, assault with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm, common assault and pointing a firearm.

Ironically, even if Pistorius had been convicted of pointing a firearm rather than the crime of murder – with which he was charged – the state would not be in position to appeal says Roberts.

Roberts prosecuted for some 32 years, serving as deputy DPP in KwaZulu-Natal and later as DPP in the Eastern Cape. On his retirement, he lectured criminal procedure in the Rhodes University law faculty for some nine years.

Marais, who has served in the National Prosecuting Authority for 37 years, agreed.

“The SCA has ruled that the right of the state to appeal on a question of law is only in the event of what it termed an algehele or total acquittal. In my understanding, Pistorius was not totally acquitted on a charge of murder. He was convicted of culpable homicide, which is a competent verdict to murder. So in terms of [S v Seekoei] it seems unlikely that the state can appeal.”

Marais said there were moves afoot to put the state on a more equal footing with an accused when it came to appealing, which might then enable the state to appeal on the basis of both factual and legal findings by a judge.

But any future amendments to the CPA will not change anything in the Pistorius case. The NPA has indicated it will only announce its intentions regarding an appeal after Pistorius has been sentenced.

http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/gen/oscar-verdict-a-done-deal/ (Archiv-Version vom 14.10.2014)

Ein Link aus den Kommentaren von Juror13

The world held its breath as Judge Thokozile Masipa delivered the first part of her verdict in court today, surprising the majority of South Africans and leaving us on the cliff-hanger that Oscar Pistorius’ actions on 14 February 2013 resulting in Reeva Steenkamp’s death qualified from a legal viewpoint as ‘negligent’ acts.

After being cleared of the charge of Murder (including Premeditated Murder) Judge Masipa left a clue as to which way her argument may continue the next day by resting on that key piece of terminology, which is typically used in Culpable Homicide charges. She may therefore feasibly finish her verdict tomorrow by finding Pistorius guilty under the charge of Culpable Homicide. Alternatively she would have to clear him of any responsibility in the murder case altogether, leaving only minor charges relating to firearms misuse against him (which still, however, carry heavy prison sentences as possible sentencing options).



But it is quite unlikely that the judge would acquit Pistorius of the bigger crime while focusing on these finer points only, pointing yet again in the direction of Culpable Homicide. While some law experts have remarked that she might want to use his celebrity status to make an example of him and hand out the utmost sentence available to her discretion under this route, Masipa herself conceded that she will take Pistorius’ disability and celebrity into consideration throughout her verdict, possibly hinting at a degree of leniency.

So what outlook does this leave the blade runner with?

Prison

Masipa could hand out prison time of up to 15 years – the length of the sentence would be left to her sole discretion. However, the majority of contemporary verdicts of Culpable Homicide in South Africa have only ever received lesser prison sentences, such as four years’ imprisonment (Mapipa vs The State), five years’ imprisonment (Nikelo vs The State) or eight years’ imprisonment (The State vs Nesane). These sentences have largely been justified on account of mitigating circumstances in each one of the cases. With Judge Masipa already acknowledging a host of extenuating circumstances in the case of Oscar Pistorius, it would be difficult to justify giving him the maximum prison sentence of 15 years. The Pistorius defense team would also fight appeals on any front available if a harsh prison sentence was given.

Suspended Sentence

Masipa could still find Pistorius heinously guilty on principle but not find it justifiable to send him to jail, forcing him to report to parole officers for years to come under a Suspended Sentence. Pistorius would have to spend years under strict parole controls, but by giving him a Suspended Sentence, Judge Masipa would basically leave Pistorius to show that he is indeed capable of walking on the right side of the law. With three firearms charges still hanging over him, doling out this sentence could qualify as Masipa’s way of telling Pistorius that he can never do so much as touch a gun again, leaving Pistorius to prove – by the benchmark of his future behaviour – that he had never held any ill intentions against Reeva Steenkamp and is indeed suffering utmost remorse. In other words, Masipa would have find Pistorius reformed of his potential of committing a crime like this again following the trauma of Steenkamp’s murder and its ensuing trial. With South Africa’s prisons being filled well beyond capacity she may have further grounds for keeping Pistorius at bay this particular way, sticking to her word of giving Pistorius’ special status extra consideration. Yet this is still an unlikely outcome, as it would send the signal that Judge Masipa did all but let him walk off scot-free.

Correctional Supervision

In the wake of the end of apartheid, alternative methods of punishment were introduced to the South African legal framework, which are all clustered under the umbrella term of Correctional Supervision. These options can even be taken into consideration in Murder trials under the discretion of the presiding judge. Under these guidelines, Judge Masipa could use her discretion to come up with a more creative solution in dealing with the case against Oscar Pistorius. Taking his hardships as a double amputee into consideration (as well as his fame), Masipa could hand out house arrest and/or a community service sentence with a few years of prison time potentially built in as part of the package deal. However, with its inbuilt tendency towards clemency a sentence under Correctional Supervision might tempt Pistorius’ lawyers to file all sorts of appeals in a bid to prove that the Judge would only have had so little evidence to convict Pistorius that she was forced to go easy on him this way.

The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) says: “Supervision takes the form of direct monitoring of the offender’s movements and compliance with the sentence’s conditions, as well as regular support sessions with Department social workers. Conditions of the sentence may include a period of house arrest; the requirement that the person be home between specified hours of the day; that he or she attends a treatment programme; abstinence from alcohol or drugs; prohibition from leaving a magisterial district; or a certain number of hours of community service. Any or all of these conditions may be imposed.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thesouthafrican.com/culpable-homicide-possible-verdicts-and-sentencing-for-pistorius

Ich denke, damit wären wir auch zufrieden. Irgendwie kann ich mir nicht vorstellen, dass Masipa ihn einfach so mit ner kleinen Geldstrafe belegt...wo bliebe da die Gerechtigkeit?