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

Mr Fossil said:

I agree. Depends what he said. Let's imagine he was two-timing Reeva and the messages were from the other person. He might say to his brother, could you get rid of them as it will look bad and paint him in a bad light. He's done nothing wrong, of course, it was an accident, but you know how it looks ...

Who the other person was or what was being discussed might also have some bearing but I could speculate all night. I'm just trying to figure a plausible scenario for what actually happened that evening that led up to Reeva's death, so am exploring a lot of possibilities. I put them up here to let others put me straight or develop them. It all helps!

I have to ask though, why else did the phone disappear unless Oldwage had it all along!

Click to expand...

Possibly Carl had it first and looked back through the messages before handing it over to Oldwage. Perhaps Carl was trying to find out if it was possible to delete the messages without being caught, but if so, I think he would have had to have done it very surreptitiously so suspicions weren't raised. 11 days is a very long time and is more than a little suspicious to me.

jay-jay said:

I wonder if I will be the only person on here who will be keeping everything switched off on 11/9 coz whatever the verdict, it will make me feel physically sick .. if he's found guilty, then that will be confirmation of what Reeva went through that night, and if he's found not guilty then I will be sickened that he's got away with it, so either way is not going to be good news and certainly isn't anything I'm looking forward to hearing.

Click to expand...

I understand how you feel, but for me this is going to be one of the absolute highlights of the trial. I can't wait to hear Masipa's reasoning on all the pieces of evidence and testimony she finds most important. We know what Reeva went through that night from the moment she was shot in the hip - the pain, the anguish and fear she must have felt. We'll never know what happened earlier in the evening or after the final shot. In my personal opinion it was dolus directus but the court may find otherwise. Whatever the result, I want him locked up for a long, long time. I find it impossible to believe he'll get away with it, and I will hugely disappointed and extremely sickened if he gets a light sentence.

sleuth-d- said:

will he not get prison time for the tasha's crime, which has gone from a plea of not guilty to an admission of guilt [by roux]? and if he does, surely that cannot be appealed. so when will he start the sentence for that crime?

Click to expand...

The normal practice in SA is that sentences run concurrently. If he appeals the verdict on the major charge and is granted bail, even if guilty of this or the other two firearm offences, it's my understanding that he'll be free until the appeal is dealt with. Don't expect any sentence for Tasha's to be added on top of any other sentence. It won't happen IMO.

Cherwell said:

They all seem to be ignoring the gun charges.

Click to expand...

The reason being that if sentenced to prison for any of the firearm offences (highly unlikely as a first offender but maybe possible re Tashas), they'll run concurrently with the murder conviction after it's gone on appeal. This is normal procedure and wouldn't be special treatment for OP. Sorry, I don't like it either.

Originally Posted by jay-jay
I wonder if I will be the only person on here who will be keeping everything switched off on 11/9 coz whatever the verdict, it will make me feel physically sick .. if he's found guilty, then that will be confirmation of what Reeva went through that night, and if he's found not guilty then I will be sickened that he's got away with it, so either way is not going to be good news and certainly isn't anything I'm looking forward to hearing.

___________________

Sad.
I agree jay-jay

jay-jay said:

BIB .. well, yes .. and that will be the main reason why I won't be watching on the actual day itself, because I cannot bear to see his smug, evil little face if/when a 'not guilty' verdict gets delivered .. which, with his family being as powerful as it appears to be, I simply cannot see any other scenario, I'm afraid. If he is found guilty, then equally I will not be cheering, I will just be relieved to hear that justice has been served .. and I'm not quite so concerned about the appeal because I do think that if Masipa is actually going to deliver a guilty verdict, then she will have made damned sure there are no grounds for appeal.

Click to expand...

I agree that she will make sure there are no grounds for appeal. My understanding is this means no grounds that she believes will succeed on appeal. However that does not mean she will not give him leave to appeal.

2013 Constitutional Court Judgment in Nabolisa v The State. Paragraph (62)

“The right of appeal in criminal matters is now entrenched in section 35 of the Constitution”.

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2013/17.html

Lux et Veritas said:

His astrological charts reveal configurations identical to all dictators and famous murderers of our time. His eyes (the windows to the soul) often reflect this coldness.
- Plutusplutus youtube

Whether you believe in astrology or not, this observation is fascinating taken in context with certain photos of OP.

View attachment 57444

View attachment 57445

View attachment 57446

Click to expand...

I'm not into astrology but I agree there's definitely a coldness about his eyes. One night my husband brought me dinner because I couldn't tear myself away from watching the trial, and the camera panned in on his face. I know this sounds dramatic, but it really was a look of pure evil. Without commenting, I asked my husband what his opinion of him was? His reply, "If he looks like that in a court room, I'd hate to come across him in the privacy of his home if he was in a rage", and that's from a man's perspective.

Judgejudi said:

The normal practice in SA is that sentences run concurrently. If he appeals the verdict on the major charge and is granted bail, even if guilty of this or the other two firearm offences, it's my understanding that he'll be free until the appeal is dealt with. Don't expect any sentence for Tasha's to be added on top of any other sentence. It won't happen IMO.

Click to expand...

Murder is one of the most serious crimes that someone can commit. If someone was convicted of murder, do courts offer up bail? Not that I'm all that familiar with court cases, but I haven't seen it...I've only seen people from inside a prison cell waiting for their chance to appeal a murder conviction, never someone on the outside trying to do that.

<Respectfully snipped>

vansleuths said:

BIB

I really hope I'm wrong, but my feelings are that CH will be the verdict. If it is CH, she will give him jail time, but this will be appealed and new judges won't have the benefit of watching witnesses, they'll only hear the PT and the DT lawyer argue points from the thousands of pages worth of trial transcript. It's at this point that any jail time given for CH could potentially be overturned.

MOO

Click to expand...

Correct, but the State can cross-appeal the sentence when the matter goes on appeal to have it increased.

Judgejudi said:

<Respectfully snipped>



Correct, but the State can cross-appeal the sentence when the matter goes on appeal to have it increased.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that does give me a bit of comfort to know this.

vansleuths said:

Murder is one of the most serious crimes that someone can commit. If someone was convicted of murder, do courts offer up bail? Not that I'm all that familiar with court cases, but I haven't seen it...I've only seen people from inside a prison cell waiting for their chance to appeal a murder conviction, never someone on the outside trying to do that.

Click to expand...

This has come up a couple of times. Another WS member gave an example of a man convicted of murdering his wife in SA who is/was out on bail pending his appeal. I've spent a lot of time looking for this unsuccessfully. The poster named the person and there was a link. I'd give a lot to find it. Notwithstanding that, if a person has been out on bail it's up to the Judge to extend bail, possibly with different conditions. Sorry I can't offer anything further.

Flight risk is one of the most important criteria as to whether or not bail is given. Yes, he has a very wealthy family, but his face is well-known all over the world now. My guess is they'd just take his passport and he'd have to turn up at the local cop shop every couple of days or once a week to prove that he's still around. IMO anyone convicted of murder should be locked up from the moment the verdict is handed down regardless of who they are. OP and his family may think he's "special", but to me a murderer is a murderer and if found guilty, I don't want him out and about.

Judge Masipa will hand down her verdict on September 11th.

I'm not sure how South Africans view this date, but in North America, there are a lot of raw emotions that come out on this date because of the tragedy that took place.

I'm just wondering why Masipa would pick date out of all the other dates available to give her verdict. Some on the radio have already begun making jokes about this such as it is Pistorius' own 911. Was Masipa looking for theatrics or was this really the only possible date available on her calender?

vansleuths said:

Judge Masipa will hand down her verdict on September 11th.

I'm not sure how South Africans view this date, but in North America, there are a lot of raw emotions that come out on this date because of the tragedy that took place.

I'm just wondering why Masipa would pick date out of all the other dates available to give her verdict. Some on the radio have already begun making jokes about this such as it is Pistorius' own 911. Was Masipa looking for theatrics or was this really the only possible date available on her calender?

Click to expand...

Why should American dates of importance be a factor in a South African courtroom? Or any courtroom in fact. There are many dates in the year that are emotional for many people from many countries. You start taking those into account then you'd never have date set.

Probably was the best date she could get regarding her schedule.

Judgejudi said:

Not to mention the fact that it would be seriously criminal, especially in the case of a murder trial. I'm not sure if even Carl would do this if he thought there was any likelihood of it being discovered.

Click to expand...

Big brother may not have heard the whole story, don't forget OP's statement to any who would listen at the beginning... something along the line of it was a mistake, I thought it was an intruder. So if big brother believed OP that he'd "accidentally" killed RS and not the big bad and I presume from all the controversy that surrounded it, black, "intruders", then you bet he was probably willing to help get anything scrubbed that would hurt both their brands and in particular OP's brand..... don't forget, it's OP and siblings that have or had all those brand companies. Also, don't forget when Nel and Moller first brought the new data in, fresh from Apple, OP was not very happy and iirc was heard to ask "can they do that?!" to which Roux replied "yes they can". I'm guessing whoever did the scrubbing thought they were homefree and since we haven't seen all that evidence, we can only hope they aren't.

Count 4: Illegal possession of ammunition

OP said his father asked if he could keep the .38 ammo in OP’s safe for safekeeping. OP was not there when his father put it in the safe. However they haven’t had any communication for many years. He has spoken to him. There hasn’t been any communication, no relationship. (In my world speaking to someone is communication) His father’s ammo was in OP’s safe that several people had access to!!!

N: Are you telling me that Mr Roux told you, you were allowed to keep your father’s ammunition in your safe if you’re not the licence holder of the .38? Did he say that?
OP: He did not say that.
N: Good. Now, I asked you when we started – your understanding of the law, did you discuss it with your legal team and you said yes. If it wasn’t Mr Roux, who did you discuss it with?
OP: It was Mr Roux I discussed it with, My Lady.
N: Are you telling me that he said on that charge that you are allowed to keep that ammunition of your father in your safe? Please think carefully.
OP: I, I, I don’t follow the question, My Lady.
N: The question is, did he tell you that you’re allowed to keep your father’s ammunition in your safe?
OP: Yes.
N: It can’t be.
OP: I said to him that that was my understanding and he confirmed it, My Lady.
N: No, it can’t be. Mr Roux would not do that. You see, it’s the third occasion that you blame your legal team because you don’t want to take responsibility. Mr Roux would not have said to you that it’s in order for you to keep your father’s ammunition in your safe. He would not have done it, I put it to you.

Nel goes on to say that he doesn't understand how OP could plead not guilty. OP repeats again for the umpteenth time that it's his understand blah, blah, blah. Nel tells him he doesn't want to take responsibility.

This exchange is a typical example of OP's obfuscating all the way through the trial. It just makes me want to gnash my teeth together.

eimajjjj said:

Why should American dates of importance be a factor in a South African courtroom? Or any courtroom in fact. There are many dates in the year that are emotional for many people from many countries. You start taking those into account then you'd never have date set.

Probably was the best date she could get regarding her schedule.

Click to expand...

Casualties of the September 11 Attacks

"The September 11 attacks resulted in 2,996 immediate deaths."

"A total of 372 people with non-US citizenship (excluding the 19 perpetrators) perished in the attacks."

"More than 90 countries lost citizens in the attacks on the World Trade Center."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

So while this tragedy occurred on American soil, I believe the effects were felt worldwide, imo.

"I can't stand here and lie" :floorlaugh:

AJ_DS said:

Hi pandax… thanks for taking the time to explain your position in such detail… much appreciated.

However I'm not sure we are any closer to understanding each other, much less agreeing…

Sorry for the lateness of my reply… I read your post several times and wanted to be sure I was not misreading anything… I agree with most of it but small things here and there make me doubt my understanding of your position and your understanding of my position.

If I had to venture a guess about the nature of our disagreement, I would say that your bowl fruit analogy could be correct… but I suspect it also could be as simple as the definition of a bowl.

I get the distinct impression that we have a problem with terminology and/or methodology.

I could reply by restating my position… but I fear we would be going round in circles.

Perhaps we can approach the problem in a different simpler manner which would isolate and reveal our problem ?

I would propose we begin with something basic, simple and straightforward…

…Private defence… (easier to address than PPD, for the moment… we will build on PD to address PPD)

Theoretical case for the purpose of our discussion : The accused (Bob) has killed the victim (Ned)… Bob shot Ned with his gun… At Trial, the Defence attorney is pleading that Bob acted in Private Defence when he shot and killed Ned.

What is the step-by-step methodology the Judge must go through during deliberations to arrive at the finding that Bob acted in private defence and that Bob is acquitted ?

I propose that there be no need to build an elaborate and specific example/scenario with details when answering this question… only the questions the Judge has to ask himself to reach that finding.

I hope you'll want to participate in this exercise with me because I find this discussion very interesting and useful as Masipa's ruling is upon us.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Yet another professor of law who totally disproves your claim

Hi AJ, thanks for your post. However, I fail to see the relevance of your question - if I were to be unkind, it looks like you are ducking the important issue at hand!

Amazingly, I have quoted and provided the links to supreme court judges, respected legal counsel, professor of criminal law - they all disprove your claim, but you ignore this. How can we all be wrong? The fact is, one can act in putative private defence and still be found guilty of culpable homicide because it is not a requirement in putative private defence for ones belief and conduct to be objectively reasonable based on what a reasonable person would have done. This accords with reason and logic too. I have explained in detail the reasoning, and given extensive legal references that prove it. If you read to the end of my previous post I do give a very brief example that may further explain this.

Pierre de Vos, Professor of Law SA, “Oscar Pistorius: Criminal Law 101”, http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/tag/oscar-pistorius/

"If this defence of putative private defence succeeds, that would not, however, be the end of the matter. A court could still find that a reasonable person would have foreseen that his actions would have caused the death of a person and would not have proceeded with his actions despite foreseeing the consequences. In such a case the accused can be convicted of culpable homicide. In other words if a court finds that a reasonable person would not have proceeded with the conduct, then he would be found guilty of culpable homicide." bbm


To answer your question anyway

"One acts lawfully in private defence if one uses force to repel an unlawful human attack, which has commenced or is imminently threatening, upon one’s or somebody else’s life, bodily integrity, property or other legally protectable interest, provided the defensive act is necessary to protect the interest threatened, is directed against the attacker and is reasonably proportionate to the attack (Burchell and Milton Principles of criminal law 230; Snyman Criminal law 103 whose definition was accepted by Satchwell J in S v Engelbrecht 2005 2 SACR 41 (W) par 228)."

Professor Le Roux, Jolandi, Private Defence: Strict Conditions to Be Satisfied (May 3, 2010). Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law, Vol. 73, p. 328, 2010.

How to proceed usefully

I am happy to continue answering your Qs working our way from the beginning if you still don’t understand the definition and use of the term putative private defence, maybe eventually we will get to the bottom of it. I know your belief is honestly held, so there must be something in your understanding that is making you disagree with all the judges, case law, professors of law. What that exactly is, I'm still really not sure.

At the moment, I am reminded of the man driving the wrong way up a busy highway. The emergency call centre lit up immediately, and someone very concerned said “Please, you’ve got to get down here straight away! There are about 50 cars here and every single one is driving the wrong way down this road!”

Judgejudi said:

The reason being that if sentenced to prison for any of the firearm offences (highly unlikely as a first offender but maybe possible re Tashas), they'll run concurrently with the murder conviction after it's gone on appeal. This is normal procedure and wouldn't be special treatment for OP. Sorry, I don't like it either.

Click to expand...

I still do not understand the logic here. Assuming he was sentenced to prison for any of the firearm offences, he would have to do the time in jail regardless of the outcome of any appeal on the murder charge.

So assuming his appeal failed and the sentences were to run concurrently - the time already spent in jail could just be deducted from the sentence for murder. Same as happens when a prisoner has been remanded in custody.

It makes no sense to me that he would be allowed to defer his jail time because of a completely separate charge.

Val1 said:

Big brother may not have heard the whole story, don't forget OP's statement to any who would listen at the beginning... something along the line of it was a mistake, I thought it was an intruder. So if big brother believed OP that he'd "accidentally" killed RS and not the big bad and I presume from all the controversy that surrounded it, black, "intruders", then you bet he was probably willing to help get anything scrubbed that would hurt both their brands and in particular OP's brand..... don't forget, it's OP and siblings that have or had all those brand companies. Also, don't forget when Nel and Moller first brought the new data in, fresh from Apple, OP was not very happy and iirc was heard to ask "can they do that?!" to which Roux replied "yes they can". I'm guessing whoever did the scrubbing thought they were homefree and since we haven't seen all that evidence, we can only hope they aren't.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to where this was originally reported? I recall it but can't find it. I have the following tweets from what I think was the same morning (24 March 2014):

09:30 Very serious-looking conversation between Barry Roux and Gerrie Nel. Roux gesturing, looks cross. #OscarTrial @eNCAnews

09:36 Defence team now consulting. Barry Roux gesturing at attorney Brian Webber with paper in his hand. Drama brewing? @eNCAnews #OscarTrial

09:40 #OscarTrial resumes. @eNCAnews

09:41 Gerrie Nel says state has been engaging with defence about certain admissions. #OscarTrial @eNCAnews