No Fear No Favour No Character Assassination please........
2014-02-21 10:19
IF SO, THEN, WHY DOES GERRIE NEL NOT GET AN INTERDICT AGAINST THESE
"ANONYMOUS DEFAULTERS" WHO ARE PRECEDING THE TRIAL?
2014-02-21 10:19
Johannesburg - Investigators have managed to access a large part of the information on Oscar Pistorius's iPhone, but still need assistance from Apple in the US to access the rest.
Beeld reported on Friday that police still need help in unlocking several accounts on the iPhone.
They have obtained a court order in California which will oblige Apple to decode encrypted data, but have experienced bureaucratic delays.
Pistorius, who is accused of murdering his girlfriend,Reeva Steenkamp, on Valentine's Day last year, told police at the time that he had forgotten his phone's Apple ID password.
An Apple ID is a user's access to most Apple services, such as iCloud online storage, iTunes, and the App Store. According to Apple, a user can have more than one Apple ID.
Investigators are still looking at the information on the phone, and hope to present evidence during his trial, which starts in the North Gauteng High Court on 3 March 2014.
Beeld earlier quoted a source close to the investigation saying that while it would be a bonus if police were able to decode the data on the phone, this is not considered vital evidence as the State has a good prima facie case against Pistorius.
EWN recently reported that investigators took three phones from the crime scene, and have been unable to analyse the message history and data from messaging applications on an iPhone 5.
News24
Oscar surfed porn on night of shooting
2014-02-23 07:20
Oscar Pistorius at the Pretoria Magistrate's Court. (AFP)
Pretoria - Only hours before the fatal shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, Oscar Pistorius allegedly visited porn sites while using his cellphone to surf the web, reported the Sunday Times.
According to an unnamed source, with intimate knowledge of the investigation, data recovered from one of Pistorius’s phones recovered at the scene shows he visited the sites while Steenkamp was at his house.
Pistorius previously stated that he and Steenkamp were in a loving relationship.
Pistorius, who goes on trial on 3 March, denies the charge of murder and says he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder.
The state is expected to call witnesses to the stand who will reveal that all was not rosy between the two at the time of the Valentine’s Day shooting.
According to an unnamed source, with intimate knowledge of the investigation, data recovered from one of Pistorius’s phones recovered at the scene shows he visited the sites while Steenkamp was at his house.
Pistorius previously stated that he and Steenkamp were in a loving relationship.
Pistorius, who goes on trial on 3 March, denies the charge of murder and says he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder.
The state is expected to call witnesses to the stand who will reveal that all was not rosy between the two at the time of the Valentine’s Day shooting.
NEWS24
COMMENTS BY SONNY
IF THE STATE IS RELYING ON CHARACTER ASSASSINATION ON "OP" TO PROVE THEIR "PREMEDITATED" MURDER BEYOND ANY DOUBT!
WHY RUN A TRIAL BY MEDIA IF THEY WERE IN POSSESSION OF "THE GOODS?"
DOES THE PROSECUTOR KNOW THE DEFINITION OF MENS REA?
Mens Rea
As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.
A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.
The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.
Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.
Sometimes a statute creates criminal liability for the commission or omission of a particular act without designating a mens rea. These are called Strict Liability statutes. If such a statute is construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of committing a crime. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal.
Occasionally mens rea is used synonymously with the words general intent, although general intent is more commonly used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. Specific Intent, another term related to mens rea, describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
OR EVEN SUB JUDICE?
What does 'sub judice' mean?
Offending
against the sub judice rule - when matters are "before the court" -
refers mainly to the crime of contempt of court: that which is not in the
interest of the better administration of justice.
John Milton,
a leading South African authority on the matter, says that publishing evidence
a witness intends giving to court before he or she is called to do so
constitutes contempt of court.
Simply put,
the sub judice rule is in place to prevent media coverage or other comment
published in a way that could influence the outcome of a court matter. Should
the media transgress the sub judice rule, they could conceivably prejudice a
trial and could then be prosecuted for contempt.
Contempt is a
common-law offence - in other words, it is not contained in a statute - and
presiding officers themselves have to decide what is contemptuous.
In this, the
judge or magistrate is led by the public mores of the day, meaning that what
was seen as contempt 50 years ago may not be considered so any more.
However,
certain actions are most certainly contemptuous, such as the publishing of
facts that a judge or magistrate is not allowed to know while a trial is
pending.
For example,
a presiding officer may not know if an accused person has any previous
convictions - facts which may only be introduced after judgment.
In recent
years, the South African media have often flouted the sub judice rule, to the
chagrin of the courts.
"Judges
are getting slightly upset with the way in which newspapers are acting in
contempt. This is so flagrant, this might be the one the State is going to use
(to act against the media)," said advocate Jacques Louw, a Cape Town media
law expert.
"ANONYMOUS DEFAULTERS" WHO ARE PRECEDING THE TRIAL?
OBVIOUS WE'D SAY!!
THE STATE HAS BEEN ON A FISHING EXPEDITION FROM THE VERY START AND WILL RESORT
TO ANY UNETHICAL TACTICS POSSIBLE!
THERE IS ONLY ONE JUDGE IN THIS MATTER - LET HER DO HER JOB!
TO ANY UNETHICAL TACTICS POSSIBLE!
THERE IS ONLY ONE JUDGE IN THIS MATTER - LET HER DO HER JOB!
No comments:
Post a Comment