Theory Thread - What happened at Pistorius' house on the night of Feb. 13, 2013?

Here is an article about Judge Masipa... it might have been posted before but I haven't read it. So for those too who haven't here is some interesting reading about Judge Masipa

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2014/aug/10/thokozile-masipa-world-awaits-her-verdict

Laurie A Claase @LaurieAClaase  Aug 7
@sanscrit52 I like Nel's definition of premeditation - 'The deliberate weighing up of proposed criminal conduct.'

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a more concise, eloquent definition of premeditation than this one simple sentence. I love Gerrie Nel.

At the start of all of this whole thing I felt so much sorrow for the Pistorius family, not as much obviously as I did for the Steenkamps but I did feel for them. I especially felt so sorry for Aimee as the little sister who had to carry the burden of her brothers. Carl had not long gone through a trial and now it was Oscar and she was being strong for them both and her tears and obvious distress in court seemed so real. However, the more I see that she has been playing quite a part in all of this, I'm not sure anymore. Some people were saying that she would cry out in court or do the obvious praying thing just for the cameras... I did think it was just her being genuine. More and more things came to light but when I realised that she had taken Reeva's bag from the house, possibly took one of the watches from the house, I became doubtful. Finally when I saw her acting out a scene as Reeva in the reenactment video, that's when I thought OMG how could she do that! Yes I'm sure she wants her brother to get off and not go to prison but to become an accomplice to this crime somehow, I feel I was wrong about her sadly.

Lux et Veritas said:

Laurie A Claase @LaurieAClaase  Aug 7
@sanscrit52 I like Nel's definition of premeditation - 'The deliberate weighing up of proposed criminal conduct.'

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a more concise, eloquent definition of premeditation than this one simple sentence. I love Gerrie Nel.

Click to expand...

Alas, this isn't Nel's definition. He was quoting a quote, originally in an appeal judgement by Bozalek, J:

"The concept of a planned or premeditated murder is not statutorily defined. We were not referred to, and nor was I able to find, any authoritative pronouncement in our case law concerning this concept. By and large it would seem that the question of whether a murder was planned or premeditated has been dealt with by the court on a casuistic basis. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th edition, revised, gives the meaning of premeditated as to “think out or plan beforehand” whilst “to plan” is given as meaning “to decide on, arrange in advance, make preparations for an anticipated event or time”. Clearly the concept suggests a deliberate weighing up of the proposed criminal conduct as opposed to the commission of the crime on the spur of the moment or in unexpected circumstances. There is, however, a broad continuum between the two poles of a murder committed in the heat of the moment and a murder which may have been conceived and planned over months or even years before its execution. In my view only an examination of all the circumstances surrounding any particular murder, including not least the accused’s state of mind, will allow one to arrive at a conclusion as to whether a particular murder is “planned or premeditated”. In such an evaluation the period of time between the accused forming the intent to commit the murder and carrying out this intention is obviously of cardinal importance but, equally, does not at some arbitrary point, provide a ready-made answer to the question of whether the murder was “planned or premeditated”.

All seems very sensible and sound. Until you read his judgement that the court had erred in deciding pre-meditaded murder. He concedes that the accused formed a "plan" to kill, that he went to effort to retrieve a gun from his safe, that he pronounced that his victim, his wife, was looking for trouble and was going to get it, that he struck his son who tried to dissuade him forcibly with the gun, and that he then exited his house, walked across the street and shot his wife dead as she emerged from a neighbour's house. Nevertheless, he says because the plan was rudimentary, conceived only minutes before and carried out in an emotional rage, that it cannot have been a planned and pre-meditated murder and was instead spur of the moment. (I disagree with this - if it's planned it's planned, how can it both be planned and spur of the moment, he is adding in requirements of sophistication and cold, calm, thought that he has plucked from nowhere, and though the plan may have been conceived in the spur of the moment, the carrying out of the plan was not spur of the moment - unless it was the longest, most eventful spur of the moment in history - and that is the crucial aspect... Anyway, that's just my view).

This goes to show how difficult it can be to uphold pre-meditated murder and how strong the burden is in cases like this, and why I have said before I am not sure Judge Masipa will venture there, I'm not sure I would either even if I thought it were valid. It is too easily overturned on appeal, and then sentencing is out of your hands. Robust sentence can be delivered without pre-meditation, only the minimum requirements are different.

Lux et Veritas said:

Yes! Especially since OP told the “intruder” to “Get the f##k out of my house!” He never gave them a chance - one tends to do that when one wants to murder someone.

A close, thoughtful reading of his Bail Statement does indeed damn him - especially after all the evidence and PT witnesses. The day I first read it I thought then, OP is flaming, freaking TOAST.

Geezus, he really is pathetic - he sounds like a panicked six year old trying to blame the dog (Yorkie), his sister (6 months old in her crib) and Grandpa, who’s on an oxygen tank and walker and can’t go to the bathroom without stopping for a nap - for all the missing cookies in the jar on the third shelf.

Click to expand...

BBM1: I thought that too, that the bail affidavit only really worked in the short term if he wasn't telling the truth.

IMO that bail statement was very carefully crafted by his legal team. At the time they didn't have forensics, ballistics, autopsy and phone info. and assumed he was being truthful. He signed it, even though he later threw them under the bus when he claimed they made an error.

Let us remember also that at that time he was still known as a national hero. To use Greater Than's term...IMO many people were still wearing Oscar-colored glasses.

If he had told the truth on the bail affidavit it would have been largely corroborated by all of the evidence to come. Especially since his memory would have been fresh just days after the killing.

BBM2: :silly: :floorlaugh:

kittychi said:

respectfully snipped for space...

If he had told the truth on the bail affidavit it would have been largely corroborated by all of the evidence to come. Especially since his memory would have been fresh just days after the killing.

Click to expand...

Oscar was also such a stickler for detail while on the stand.
OP: "....there is no door in the bathroom, m'lady. i don't know what Mr. Nel is referring to. oh, yah...there's a door to the toilet. ...or some lame remark along those lines.

Always pointing out the tiniest correction. I feel he is probably very much like this outside the courtroom as well. (Goes to his insecurities and always wanting to be right. IMO)

My point...I very much doubt Oscar would sign something as important as a bail statement, without catching any errors and having his defense team fix them before signing. As "kitty" has suggested, OP didn't realize until later that some of these initial statements in this bail application would come back to "bite him in the butt". And he therefore used his defense team as the scape goat for what he now referred to as incorrect, or errors, or incomplete detail, etc.

pandax81 said:

reapectfully snipped for space.."

This goes to show how difficult it can be to uphold pre-meditated murder and how strong the burden is in cases like this, and why I have said before I am not sure Judge Masipa will venture there, I'm not sure I would either even if I thought it were valid. It is too easily overturned on appeal, and then sentencing is out of your hands. Robust sentence can be delivered without pre-meditation, only the minimum requirements are different.

Click to expand...

I agree...I believe pre-meditation may not even be discussed or referenced in Masipa's reading of the verdict. A difficult level of intent in S.Africa, based on some of the appeals & verdicts that I've read. And not necessary, as there is no "death sentence" in S.A. And OP can be sentenced to life in prison without the added pre-meditation finding (my understanding).

My thoughts on the verdict:
OP will be found guilty of either "dolus directus" or "dolus eventualis (hopefully my spelling is correct for these terms, but maybe not) . . . Both are still "intent" to commit murder and OP can be sentenced up to life in prison for either one. A minimum sentence (as a 1st time conviction) could bring a lesser sentence of 15 years. Based on some of Masipa's previous harsh sentencing for the likes of murder's abusive to woman, hopefully it will be a sentence of more than the min 15 years. But I don't believe, based on the evidence presented, that OP will be found guilty of C.H.

I do not however, believe pre-meditated murder will be found. I believe it should be, but it seems to be a very difficult burden in S.Africa, as "pandex" suggests. But isn't really necessary for the same end result of a harsh life sentence to be still handed down.

Here is an interesting link to an appeal ruling handed down in S.A.. It discusses a verdict of "dolus eventualis" for murder, with a sentence given of life in prison (along with a sentence of 20 years for rape - different victim). It sounds like the judge handing down the sentence didn't even elaborate on the pre-meditation aspect. Finding that the intent was "at least dolus eventualis", and skipping over any determination with regards to a finding of premeditation or not. This victim was suffocated with a bag over her head. After a huge struggle, lots of blood and injury, victim tried to escape thru a window and was pulled back while bag still partially over head. Perpetrator then preformed the suffocation attempt yet again, this time working. Seems like pre-meditated to me, after numerous brutal attempts at trying to kill her and the deliberateness of this type of up close, hands on, murder. Regardless...person convicted of the "dolus eventualis" intent (with no pre-mediation finding) and was still sent away for life. The appeal was dismissed/denied.

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAFSHC/2011/118.rtf

4MrsB said:

Oscar was also such a stickler for detail while on the stand.
OP: "....there is no door in the bathroom, m'lady. i don't know what Mr. Nel is referring to. oh, yah...there's a door to the toilet. ...or some lame remark along those lines.

Always pointing out the tiniest correction. I feel he is probably very much like this outside the courtroom as well. (Goes to his insecurities and always wanting to be right. IMO)

My point...I very much doubt Oscar would sign something as important as a bail statement, without catching any errors and having his defense team fix them before signing. As "kitty" has suggested, OP didn't realize until later that some of these initial statements in this bail application would come back to "bite him in the butt". And he therefore used his defense team as the scape goat for what he now referred to as incorrect, or errors, or incomplete detail, etc.

Click to expand...

BBM. I have a differing view on this. I believe OP has a warped sense of right and wrong, and of holding others to account, and this leads to simmering resentment followed by outbursts of behaviour which he feels are justified in the moment, but which just look way out of line to the rest of the world and when considering his own standards. So his corrections were not born out of OP always wanting to be right, but him wanting to point out Nel was wrong and punish him (and all associated thoughts/implications such as being sloppy, incompetent, negligent and so on). We saw it in other strange outbursts - Stipp didn't seem to know what he was doing mi lady, yes I was negligent but was so Darren Fresco mi lady (I really believe he relented to risk the guilt just so he could bring Fresco down) - we saw it with OP's outburst to Kim Myers, and we saw it is a family trait with Uncle Arnold's tweets about evil will be destroyed, and Auntie Lois comments to Nel in court. (Funnily, OP himself mixed up bathroom and toilet a few times)

Ultimately, I think something similar happened with Reeva that dreadful night too.

pandax81 said:

BBM. I have a differing view on this. I believe OP has a warped sense of right and wrong, and of holding others to account, and this leads to simmering resentment followed by outbursts of behaviour which he feels are justified in the moment, but which just look way out of line to the rest of the world and when considering his own standards. So his corrections were not born out of OP always wanting to be right, but him wanting to point out Nel was wrong and punish him (and all associated thoughts/implications such as being sloppy, incompetent, negligent and so on). We saw it in other strange outbursts - Stipp didn't seem to know what he was doing mi lady, yes I was negligent but was so Darren Fresco mi lady (I really believe he relented to risk the guilt just so he could bring Fresco down) - we saw it with OP's outburst to Kim Myers, and we saw it is a family trait with Uncle Arnold's tweets about evil will be destroyed, and Auntie Lois comments to Nel in court. (Funnily, OP himself mixed up bathroom and toilet a few times)

Ultimately, I think something similar happened with Reeva that dreadful night too.

Click to expand...

You are probably spot on!

Does anyone know if it's possible for OP to be incarcerated straightaway if Masipa rules a guilty verdict on anything? Surely they don't just grant bail automatically if he's convicted. I don't want that little worm to have any space or time to try anything. Or at least process his bail if not his appeal from inside.

eimajjjj said:

Does anyone know if it's possible for OP to be incarcerated straightaway if Masipa rules a guilty verdict on anything? Surely they don't just grant bail automatically if he's convicted. I don't want that little worm to have any space or time to try anything. Or at least process his bail if not his appeal from inside.

Click to expand...

I am fairly sure if he will be allowed bail until the appeal, if this is granted.

I think/hope this will answer your question. The whole article is worth a quick read though I suspect most of us are now very aware of much of it. You will need to scroll to the end to find the para I have quoted.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/07/pistorius-guilty-can-appeal-win/

"David Dadic: I agree I believe an appeal must be applied for as it is common that trial judgments and sentences are overturned/ reduced at the appeals courts. Moreover his bail will be extended to the hearing of the appeal so assuming he is sentenced to prison he will at least buy himself a bit more time at home pending the outcome of the appeal."

Aimee Joy Pistorius @aimee_joy • 11 Apr 2011
"When a persons words don't match their actions everything seems to be a lie"

Yes, Aimee, this is exactly what we believe.


Carl Pistorius @carlpistorius • Jul 6
The epitome of ignorance is looking at the part and naively believing you have seen the whole. Could tag an army!

The epitome of ignorance is the entire Pistorius family desperately trying to convince the world that OP can do and has done no wrong, that this whole saga will all just disappear, and that everyone who believes he's guilty is wrong. There's something very, very wrong with this family. How do you all sleep at night?


Carl Pistorius @carlpistorius • May 20
Wisdom. Let us honour others, regardless of whether we think they deserve it; this is the true test of integrity.


Carl Pistorius @carlpistorius • Apr 2
the darkest sins in this world spring from self-interest, self-existence, self-glory, self-opinion, and whatsoever else there is of self.

Exactly, Carl. You and Aimee know him best and these words describe OP to perfection.


“Speak for the Silenced” indeed. Nel has done everything possible to speak for Reeva. I can hardly believe Carl could retweet a photo like this.
Retweeted by Carl Pistorius
Unashamed Impact @UnashamedImpact • Feb 1
#SpeakForTheSilenced
https://twitter.com/UnashamedImpact/status/429834030276567040/photo/1

I mean seriously, how could he post this photo. How do I loathe thee ... and the whole family ... let me count the ways.


What!!!
Carl Pistorius @carlpistorius • 29 Apr 2013
Road trippin 2 Natal, South Africa with @AimeePistorius we came across this sign @ a filling station. #sayitlikeitis https://twitter.com/carlpistorius/status/328981209436786688/photo/1

Interesting... difference between Error in Objecto and Aberratio Ictus explained here.

http://criminallawza.net/2013/02/28/what-if-you-shoot-the-wrong-person

Classic interview with Uncle Arnold

Pistorius the Peacemaker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut6-X8X7lEA

Interview before the commencement of the trial in South Africa.

Reporter
Hajra Omarjee:
How difficult has this period been for the family?

Arnold Pistorius:
Extremely difficult…uhm, you know I’m Oscar’s uncle, and err we’ve been a close family as you can see with our presence in the Court we’re there in…we fill up half the Court Room, the family, so we really …everybody it has affected everybody, and, and, you know a death of a beloved one is something you can never, never change. He won’t be able to work through it completely. It’s just there forever you will take it to your grave.

Hajra Omarjee:
We have only seen Oscar in moments how is he holding up?

Arnold Pistorius:
As you can just imagine, I can even not imagine myself being the tool that, that… that…that took my loved one away, and err so, so he is grieving, he is in extreme shock, and ,and so he grieving and I don’t expect him to get over it even soon. So he is still, he is still, in an emotionally tough time. And erm, but you know being the character that he is he tried to control himself in Court but to try to listen to this…what happened over and over again it’s a painful experience for me just to sit and listen to this. And so erm Oscar will survive. He will have a tough time going forward but he is survivor.

Hajra Omarjee:
Without going into the merits of the case because I won’t do that, do you think he seemed stronger this afternoon, do you think he is glad his side of the story has now come out?

Arnold Pistorius
I think one of the things...he only started to eat last night…and as far as I know, you know Aimee and Carl,the brother and the sister, they, they visit him. I haven’t seen him for a couple of days now because we were busy trying to, to, to collect evidence, and and,…because the State has already given a public trial by leaking evidence.. and so we have been busy all the time but Carl and Aimee tell me that they they sit with him, he erm, he erm spend a lot of time reading, especially reading his bible as his mother has taught him.

Hajra Omarjee:
He asked for a bible?

Arnold Pistorius
Yah he asked for a bible. And, and, and, Shelia his mother was extremely religious. That is perhaps the wrong word she was a genuine Christian, and fun Christian. That’s why the kids can…will…pull this through.

Hajra Omarjee:
You said that the State has conducted a public trial are you unhappy with the way they’ve handled things?

Arnold Pistorius
You know I would say the case is going… and, and you can judge for yourself... Like, light controls darkness, truth will prevail. And as you go…as we go along…because I know the truth…I know exactly what happened, and I know one thing is that the puzzle is not going to fit where the State want to fit it. It just won’t fit there. It fits there in a very tragic scenario where things happened in such a way that Oscar thought it was an intruder.

Hajra Omarjee:
Now Oscar has said that the relationship between him and Reeva was one of love and it was a tragedy, has the family been in contact with the Steenkamp family?

Arnold Pistorius
We have been in contact with the Steenkamp family and we’ve sent our condolences, and err but we also respect their privacy and we must also give them time to work through this tragic moment. And we’re respecting that, and err so, so we, we, we allow them to grieve and work through this death of their beloved daughter privately.

Hajra Omarjee:
Now all of these allegations about Oscar’s history with violence did that come as a shock to you and what is your message to the public given these allegations

Arnold Pistorius:
What are you saying?

Hajra Omarjee:
There’s all these allegations in the public domain…

Arnold Pistorius
Glad you’re saying allegations.

Hajra Omarjee:
Yes allegations, but did those allegations did they come as a shock, is it the Oscar that you know?

Arnold Pistorius
Those allegations, doesn’t come as a shock because they are allegations they are just not true. I mean this is it, he’s, he’s not a violent person, he’s a peacemaker he’s always been a peacemaker, and, and that’s his nature, he looked tough, and he looked like the superstar, and hold himself, in public domain, but he is actually a very, very kind soft person.

Hajra Omarjee:
In terms of the way forward for Oscar I’m sure this process is taking its toll on him mentally and physically do you think he will still get back onto the track and have a future?

Arnold Pistorius
Well I can tell you this, Oscar with his character is able to work through this, and the world will see a different Oscar that’s for sure, nobody can be the same ever ever again if such a tragedy. ever come over your life, but they... he will bounce back and be greater than ever.

Hajra Omarjee:
Mr Pistorius you are standing by your nephew, thank you for your time.”

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Pistorius_the_Peacemaker.html

And would you expect anything less.

“We are in a state of total shock — firstly about the tragic death of Reeva who we had all got to know well and care for deeply. Oscar — as you can imagine — is also numb with shock as well as grief. We as a family are also battling to come to terms with him being charged with murder. “After consulting with legal representatives we deeply regret the allegation of pre-meditated murder.

We have no doubt there is no substance to the allegation and that the State’s own case, including its own forensic evidence, strongly refutes any possibility of a pre-meditated murder — or indeed any murder at all.”

http://slimcelebrity.com/celebrity-athletes/aimee-pistorius-oscar-pistorius-sister-photo/

Oscar Pistorius and the Fast-Burn Excuse
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-03-24-oscar-pistorius-and-the-fast-burn-excuse

“... For too long men's fast-burn anger had been excused, but not women's slow-burn fear of abuse. ...”

Uh-oh, looks like Roux totally f##ked up his closing argument by using the “slow burn” “abuse” defense! LOL

Just a couple of thoughts on any appeal in the event of a Murder conviction.

If Judge Masipa ignores OP's defence and finds him guilty of Murder, then he will be a convicted Murderer. Given the high profile nature of this case, if he were to be ushered back into his Chauffeur people carrier on the same day, it would look terrible for South African Justice. In addition, he would immediately be a flight risk and if this happened, again South African Justice would look sham-bolic.

If he is found guilty, I am expecting Judge Masipa to send him to prison immediately, until any such appeal is heard.

Thoughts?

Hoosen_Fenger said:

Just a couple of thoughts on any appeal in the event of a Murder conviction.

If Judge Masipa ignores OP's defence and finds him guilty of Murder, then he will be a convicted Murderer. Given the high profile nature of this case, if he were to be ushered back into his Chauffeur people carrier on the same day, it would look terrible for South African Justice. In addition, he would immediately be a flight risk and if this happened, again South African Justice would look sham-bolic.

If he is found guilty, I am expecting Judge Masipa to send him to prison immediately, until any such appeal is heard.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

As much as most of us would like to see OP pay for his crime immediately, it just isn't likely to happen. He, almost certainly will appeal, and it is almost certain Judge Masipa will agree to it. If he has not broken his original bail conditions (which is a bit of a joke as most of them were rescinded) and has kept himself out of trouble (well, nearly), due to the severe overcrowding in SA prisons he will likely be allowed out on bail. I think this issue has arisen on the forum on a number of occasions and I know I posted some links about it. Also, below, I posted an article in which a legal bod said the same thing. Appeals take 18 months to come to court, unless he is fast tracked for some reason. It really doesn't seem right does it!

Interested Bystander said:

As much as most of us would like to see OP pay for his crime immediately, it just isn't likely to happen. He, almost certainly will appeal, and it is almost certain Judge Masipa will agree to it. If he has not broken his original bail conditions (which is a bit of a joke as most of them were rescinded) and has kept himself out of trouble (well, nearly), due to the severe overcrowding in SA prisons he will likely be allowed out on bail. I think this issue has arisen on the forum on a number of occasions and I know I posted some links about it. Also, below, I posted an article in which a legal bod said the same thing. Appeals take 18 months to come to court, unless he is fast tracked for some reason. It really doesn't seem right does it!

Click to expand...

It is outrageous that convicted murderers are allowed out on bail simply because they have chosen to appeal the sentence. I am fairly sure that does not happen in the UK.

Also, I think he has broken his bail conditions, but as with so many of his 'transgressions' everyone just seems to turn a blind eye. He was only supposed to be allowed to go abroad for work reasons - that is to attend athletics competitions etc. Since when does a holiday in Mozambique where he finds himself yet another teenage girlfriend fall into that category?

Interested Bystander said:

I am fairly sure if he will be allowed bail until the appeal, if this is granted.

I think/hope this will answer your question. The whole article is worth a quick read though I suspect most of us are now very aware of much of it. You will need to scroll to the end to find the para I have quoted.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/07/pistorius-guilty-can-appeal-win/

"David Dadic: I agree I believe an appeal must be applied for as it is common that trial judgments and sentences are overturned/ reduced at the appeals courts. Moreover his bail will be extended to the hearing of the appeal so assuming he is sentenced to prison he will at least buy himself a bit more time at home pending the outcome of the appeal."

Click to expand...

In my layman's view it seems to me that if he's convicted of murder his bail ought to be revoked because, with the conviction, won't the court be saying we believe your bail application (like your testimony) was a lie?