awaiting sentencing phase

[JudgeJudi]

Thank you!!! Then I may stop my hours long searching? I haven't found the newspaper article yet and got despair in the meantime.
Yes, early on Labuschagne was present at court (bail hearing etc.).

What I don't understand at all: Of all people, Labuschagne was later an important observer for the prosecution??? IMO this doesn't fit together at all. Ridiculous. What a game is played there, I want to know.

Pistorius, 27, will be watched closely throughout his testimony by Col Gerard Labuschagne, the head of the South African Police Service’s investigative psychology section, who will look for weaknesses and mannerisms that could be exploited to the prosecution’s advantage in cross-examination.

By Aislinn Laing, Johannesburg

6:59PM BST 05 Apr 2014

Telegraph (link doesn't work)

This is the reason he was at OP's home - and it wasn't to help OP.

"Other crimes that he has extensive experience in the investigation of include: child molesters, intimate partner murders, sexual-murders, multi (cultural) murders and stalking to name a few. He has vast experience in case linkage based on modus operandi, identifying staging of crime scenes, and other investigative techniques and processes.

http://www.ia-ip.org/index.php?page=91

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't think it's lack of legal experience as a judge..I don't think it's lack of social experience as a person..I think she is simply BIASED!

RSBM

Re the new Juror 13 Judge Greenland audio interviews- IMO, he gives impression that Masipa is naive and inexperienced ie over-promoted beyond her experience/legal knowledge. ( Apols to the Judge if I have paraphrased him incorrectly.) This chimes with what Apples ( SA expat) and MrJitty were both saying over last few weeks. In addition, he talks about his vast experience of people and says she is basically naive. OP is the worst defendant he has ever encountered, on a credibility level and has seen defendants hanged in Zimbabwe in his early career, for fewer fibs on the stand.

He doesn't blame anyone for thinking there may be corruption as, in his view the judgment was so poor, on so many fronts. However he doesn't appear to suspect that - just total incompetence.

Really recommend his interview - poor audio - better with headphones.

Audio track 2 is also good- all sorts of content - his background as a soldier; as a "coloured " man who has experienced prejudice now because he is not black in the new SA; and his opinion on the grouping and the recoil of the weapon; on being a victim himself of intruder scenario although it sounds like a politically motivated attack; that it's a DV scenario in his view, that Masipa was ridiculous not to take the Reeva text "I'm scared of you sometimes" text as evidence of this; ISIS and the danger of passionate beliefs without basis in truth.

He was planning to write a book on the trial but he is so indignant that he is not bothering as it will make SA justice system even more discredited.
I can really see why JudgeJudi admires him so.

However as two posters have recently pointed out - he may actually have got it wrong on issue of any potential appeal on sentencing- I dunno but caution advised until that's cleared up.

( Greenland is the new Nel! I am poking fun at myself there.)

 

[Cloen]

Can anyone point me to a post that shows the inaccuracies in Roux's timeline ,please.

 

[mister happy]

She barely spoke, except to declare "break for Tea" and not wanting to punish him "twice".
I could have done that without a law degree.[emoji15]

When I read the pretrial PR blurbs about Masipa, I thought she was another Judge Judy -- tough as nails, sharp as a tack, no nonsense, blah blah. Little did I know that the opposite would be true. It seems she wants to adopt Oscar as her special grandchild.

 

[soozieqtips]

Agreed. OP said he smashed the door and saw the key on the floor. But if you looked at the hole and the floor, it looks very hard to stick your arm and grab the key on the ground. I don't think there was a key at all from the inside.

I'm really surprised that more of OP's claims weren't actually tested to see if they were even possible.

 

[RosieC]

One would expect that the jeans would have been shown to family or friends for identification. I doubt that June would necessarily know if they were Reeva's, since Reeva didn't live with her parents. But the Myers sisters would probably recognise them if they were hers. So perhaps they were asked.

Sniffer dogs would know in a trice.

 

[AW2B]

RSBM

Re the new Juror 13 Judge Greenland audio interviews- IMO, he gives impression that Masipa is naive and inexperienced ie over-promoted beyond her experience/legal knowledge. ( Apols to the Judge if I have paraphrased him incorrectly.) This chimes with what Apples ( SA expat) and MrJitty were both saying over last few weeks. In addition, he talks about his vast experience of people and says she is basically naive. OP is the worst defendant he has ever encountered, on a credibility level and has seen defendants hanged in Zimbabwe in his early career, for fewer fibs on the stand.

He doesn't blame anyone for thinking there may be corruption as, in his view the judgment was so poor, on so many fronts. However he doesn't appear to suspect that - just total incompetence.

Really recommend his interview - poor audio - better with headphones.

Audio track 2 is also good- all sorts of content - his background as a soldier; as a "coloured " man who has experienced prejudice now because he is not black in the new SA; and his opinion on the grouping and the recoil of the weapon; on being a victim himself of intruder scenario although it sounds like a politically motivated attack; that it's a DV scenario in his view, that Masipa was ridiculous not to take the Reeva text "I'm scared of you sometimes" text as evidence of this; ISIS and the danger of passionate beliefs without basis in truth.

He was planning to write a book on the trial but he is so indignant that he is not bothering as it will make SA justice system even more discredited.
I can really see why JudgeJudi admires him so.

However as two posters have recently pointed out - he may actually have got it wrong on issue of any potential appeal on sentencing- I dunno but caution advised until that's cleared up.

( Greenland is the new Nel! I am poking fun at myself there.)

You snipped part of my post which would back up my opinion about Masepa being biased. You must agree that most of us have less experience than her in the legal profession..yet we can see the OBVIOUS truth about Pistorius's guilt..

I admire Judge Greenland..but I don't expect him to accuse another judge "Masipa" of bias..that's a very strong accusation that would make her look less honorable..

 

[AW2B]

I just had another thought about the toilet door. You know the grains of truth contained within lies – OP said he heard the toilet door slam shut. We know it wasn’t an intruder and Reeva couldn’t slam it shut because the door opens outwards. I think there’s a good possibility that Reeva ran into the toilet with OP chasing her, cricket bat in hand. OP himself slammed the door shut, not her, and then hit the bath plate. At this point she certainly wouldn’t have opened the door knowing he was going crazy with the bat. While she was talking/pleading with him he got the key and locked her in. At this point she started screaming the blood-curdling screams, knowing he was in the midst of a rage. I believe that after being shot in the hip she put her hands in a defensive position up to her head because she knew it wasn’t an intruder and did know it was him trying to kill her. After being shot in the hip like that, wouldn’t your natural reaction be to put your hands where that injury was, not up to your head?

BBM

I'm just addressing this point. Even if the door opens outwards..if Reeva was being chased by Pistorius with a gun..she would QUICKLY pull the door with FORCE to lock it (she was fighting for her life)..IMO..that would make the same sound as slamming the door would.

 

[Cloen]

Apropos OP's friends and associates. Lisa's blog (Juror13) has some interesting posts by people who seem to know the circles he moves in. This cannot be proved, of course, but worthy of a few minutes of your time to read what they had to say.

These are the relevant dates and posting times:

Miktal - 8/26/14 @ 2:30pm
Miktal - 8/27/14 @ 7:54am
Jakes - 8/29/14 @ 2:59pm

Thank you Lisa for your help.

where on Juror#13 blog are these comments, which section?
thanks

 

[JudgeJudi]

BBM

I'm just addressing this point. Even if the door opens outwards..if Reeva was being chased by Pistorius with a gun..she would QUICKLY pull the door with FORCE to lock it (she was fighting for her life)..IMO..that would make the same sound as slamming the door would.

Not to me it doesn't. Try it for yourself. I did.

 

[mister happy]

OscarTrial ‏@OscarTrialNews Apr 2
#OscarPistorius has lunch with his legal team in Sandton. pic.twitter.com/A7xg1s1YmI

OscarTrial ‏@OscarTrialNews Apr 2
#OscarPistorius seen wearing a cream formal jacket while having lunch in Sandton earlier. JM pic.twitter.com/TWl2LpEeCM


Notice how OP's demeanor changes when he's been told he's been spotted by the media. A minute before he's laughing his head off.

The demeanor of everyone at that table changed. But the first photo looks like a scene from a Tarantino or Scorsese film -- as if they were horsing around and saying, "Yeah Oscar, you really fooled that ol' judge!"

 

[JudgeJudi]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa

“Firstly, timelines don’t win the case. What won the case was the court’s misappreciation of the legal approach and assessment of evidence. What won the case was that the court failed in its duty to settle the facts of Oscar’s story as advanced – as he elaborated on it, as he particularised it. Having accepted that it had no option but to run only with that story, there having been no eye witnesses to the incident, that is what won the case, or shall I say, lost justice in the process. So the timeline was not the critical factor as regards the result. … There seems to have been an enthusiasm to accept defence counsel’s timeline without seriously scrutinizing it”.

He then goes on to criticise the State for not having scrutinized Roux’s version of the timeline and having unearthed the fundamental defect in Roux’s postulations. He says even if you dispense with all the independent witnesses – they were wrong, mistaken etc, their version in which they claimed to have heard a woman screaming before the shots, “You’re still left with the incontrovertible fact that Oscar pointed that gun in the direction … where he fired 4 shots, 3 of which found their mark and killed her”.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa.

“The strongest portion of their argument were the undeniable facts, what I call the facts that were beyond dispute. This young lady was … after three bullets hit her. That could not be denied. … He is the person that pulled the trigger at least four times of a gun armed with lethal bullets which found their mark. Those incontrovertible facts, those undeniable facts, those facts that were beyond dispute was the strongest part of the case. As cases go, as murder cases go, you actually cannot have a stronger case than that. You could say that the State case would not have been improved even if it had a video recording of the shooting … And this is where the absurdity becomes manifest. Had the State produced a video recording of that shooting, this court would have still have acquitted OP. That’s how absurd this decision is”.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa

“I as a judge, I would have rejected the whole of Oscar’s defence I think for any number of reasons, especially on critical issues. I would have said to Oscar, “You have not taken this court into your confidence. All the court can find is that you pointed the gun knowing you were pointing it at a human being and you pulled the trigger four times and killed a human being in a hail of bullets. That’s all this court can safely accept. The rest the court is still bemused and confused about. So I am not going to accept your version as to why you killed her, and that being the case, there isn’t a lawful excuse that you have advanced for this killing and you’re found guilty of murder”. So my decision would have been radically different from the court because I would have rejected Oscar’s defence entirely as opposed to just rejecting it on the narrow or very specific basis of foreseeability at the time that he pulled the trigger. That would have been my decision”.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa

“She’s now stuck with her finding. She is stuck with her finding that at the time that he pulled the trigger he did not understand that he might kill a human being. This now makes the killing a terribly unfortunate accident and the critical issue is what then is a moral (?) in relation to the killing. His blameworthiness – it’s very, very difficult to then assess his thinking other than low. You certainly can’t assess it as high, and if you can’t assess it as high, a custodial sentence is not indicated so she is hoisted with her own petard”.

 

[Cloen]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa

“She’s now stuck with her finding. She is stuck with her finding that at the time that he pulled the trigger he did not understand that he might kill a human being. This now makes the killing a terribly unfortunate accident and the critical issue is what then is a moral (?) in relation to the killing. His blameworthiness – it’s very, very difficult to then assess his thinking other than low. You certainly can’t assess it as high, and if you can’t assess it as high, a custodial sentence is not indicated so she is hoisted with her own petard”.

CH Charge for OP's sentence carries a prison term, because of the level of negligence when he killed Reeva -
As Nel said - OP was 'grossly negligent' , and key word is 'grossly'. The State may still Appeal to get the Charge of Murder yet too.

 

[pandax81]

The more I look over the judgment, the more astonished I become.

Masipa dismisses the WhatsApps because she says the state claimed this proved motive for murder - the relationship was on the rocks and this was why he wanted to kill Reeva.

Was this anybody else's understanding of the state case? It wasn't mine. I checked the state's HoA, and they certainly never argue it there. They say the WhatsApps work together in the mosaic with van der Merwe and the meal time, to show what actually transpired that evening - a domestic argument, in a troubled relationship, ending in murder. The state is saying the WhatsApps are evidence that explains what happened, not evidence of a motive.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa

“I have no doubt the State has a right and a basis to appeal the judgment because we can be satisfied ? that the court misdirected itself in applying law, in applying the test known as dolus eventualis because she stated very, very clearly, and indeed that, that she was finding him not guilty on the basis that it could not be found that when he fired he might foresee that he would kill Reeva Steenkamp. That was a misdirection, a complete utter misdirection on her part. The fact that she came back the very next day and changed the wording formulation of that test will not save the misdirection on appeal. As a judicial officer you can correct yourself immediately after you say something because it can be assumed that you just simply either misread your notes or you misstated what you intended to say, but in this case it is obvious that the court made a fundamental mistake, a misdirection in law, and as a result of the hoo-ha that happened that night of all the legal eagles and legal world, then came back and attempt to retrieve the situation. The Appeal Court in my respectful view cannot allow that. It has to say the court made a mistake – it was confused about what test to apply”.


So it sounds like you think there’s a good chance it might win on appeal?

“I have no doubt that the correct course for the Appeal Court to take is to correct that verdict and change it to one of murder on the basis of dolus eventualis. I have no doubt about that at all in my mind. It has to do it.


If they make that decision and his judgment is switched, do they go to sentencing again?

The Court of Appeal will not be charged with his sentence. The court will correct the verdict in my respectful view and that’s it. It cannot interfere with the sentence. It can only interfere with the sentence if OP appealed his sentence and the State cross-appealed for an increase in the sentence. So let us say that the unlikely event plays out that the judge imposes a meaningful custodial sentence here, OP will be on the horns of quite a bad dilemma because if he appeals his sentence, that opens the door for the State to cross-appeal to have his sentence increased to match the then corrected verdict of murder on the basis of dolus eventualis.

 

[pandax81]

CH Charge for OP's sentence carries a prison term, because of the level of negligence when he killed Reeva -
As Nel said - OP was 'grossly negligent' , and key word is 'grossly'. The State may still Appeal to get the Charge of Murder yet too.

It's good to have an optimist on board, but unfortunately, Nel doesn't hand down the sentence.

Masipa has delivered her judgment. OP is not found negligent on the grounds of believing it was an intruder or believing he must be under attack from the toilet. I've said it before and I'll say it again - in the judgment, he has been found negligent as though there really was an intruder he killed. He was apparently just a little hasty in going to the bathroom and fired a few too many shots.

Once you understand Masipa thinks a reasonable person would have assumed it was an intruder and a reasonable person would have assumed he was under attack from the toilet, the judgment on the murder charge makes more 'sense'. OP's story relied on a triad of mistakes so unreasonable and improbable that they multiply to create a tale which cannot reasonably possibly be true. All the more so when combined with a deceitful testimony where he was found to have even lied about why he shot at all. But for Masipa, the supposed mistakes are not even on her radar, she thinks they are reasonable and not to be doubted. This is why there is no discussion of them at all. The triad of mistakes: OP mistakenly believed the window opening could only be an intruder, Reeva mistakenly believed OP mistakenly confronting the intruder was OP retreating from a different intruder who broke in from the other side, OP then further mistakenly believed he was under attack from the toilet.

 

[Interested Bystander]

where on Juror#13 blog are these comments, which section?
thanks

Hope this is what you wanted. Sorry I should have posted this link before rather than just post the dates and times. You will still need those too unless you wish to read all the comments.

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/oscar-trial-how-did-the-state-do/


Miktal - 8/26/14 @ 2:30pm
Miktal - 8/27/14 @ 7:54am
Jakes - 8/29/14 @ 2:59pm