awaiting sentencing phase

[44ALLAN]

If only we could have access to the original photos of all the items and crimes scenes instead of the pics on a tv screen that is then set as an image.
I hope JM and the assessors saw the original photos. :whistle:

JM and the assessors totally ignored the original photos IMO.

Photo 55 'PROVES' beyond all doubt that OP is lying...................not a doubt about that at all.
Nel also made the point several times to OP that the photo disproved his version of events and that his own defence did not even question it in XE. OP agreed !

By ignoring this one very significant fact JM and her assessors are saying the police and in particular the photographer are all liars............each and every one of them.
Why should the police bother taking photos in future if Judges are going to totally reject them and disbelieve their evidence?
It truly does beggar belief...............she should stand down immediately and the prosecution should demand a mistrial.

 

[mrjitty]

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”.

As someone who has read/analysed maybe a couple of thousand judgements in my former legal life - this was the aspect that confused me the most about the judgment.

I argued about a month ago that Nel's laser focus on OPs testimony was sensible for a prosecutor who needs to stay in the heart of the case.

OP's pleaded defence was that the killing was lawful due to (mistaken) self defence.

The only evidence that such a mistake was made was the testimony of OP.

Therefore if Nel could show OP was an unreliable and deceptive witness, then one could expect OP's evidence to be rejected In Toto except where supported independently.

So in simple terms, given that the accused failed to offer any reliable, truthful account as to how he shot the victim (lawfully) in self defence it must follow that the killing was not lawful and he is guilty of murder.

Judge Greenland seems to have expected the same approach - and it is of course the standard approach for appraising witness testimony.

There is no point for Nel to wander off in the weeds of the case which of course are unclear, when he has a dead body and a man holding a smoking gun with no arguable defence as to how he came to shoot the victim.

Yet Judge Masipa escaped this inexorable legal logic by finding a strange side exit.

Namely that OP intentionally shot someone 3 times - but somehow had no foresight they might be killed.

This is clearly bizarre because it prefers unreliable testimony to clear circumstantial evidence.

 

[mrjitty]

JM and the assessors totally ignored the original photos IMO.

Photo 55 'PROVES' beyond all doubt that OP is lying...................not a doubt about that at all.
Nel also made the point several times to OP that the photo disproved his version of events and that his own defence did not even question it in XE. OP agreed !

By ignoring this one very significant fact JM and her assessors are saying the police and in particular the photographer are all liars............each and every one of them.
Why should the police bother taking photos in future if Judges are going to totally reject them and disbelieve their evidence?
It truly does beggar belief...............she should stand down immediately and the prosecution should demand a mistrial.

Is this the duvet photo?

I tend to agree

 

[AJ_DS]

I'm referring to the mocking tone of 'help, help, help'. Do you seriously believe that this was directed in a sarcastic tone towards Reeva, yet was heard the length of two football pitches away? These words were obviiously screamed at the top of his voice, intending to attract attention. This is the exact opposite of a manipulative DV perpetrator, who's actions would be specifically directed at their partner, making conscious effort to conceal his/her manipulative ways from those outside of the relationship.

If people are going to quote typical DV patterns of behaviour, as they did frequently during the trial in an effort to validate their theories regarding OP, then it would be interesting to do likewise with this particular action, and see if this appears on any of the websites. I suspect you know the answer without needing to look.

BiB… seriously flawed reasoning.

When Reeva screamed H-H-H at 3AM loud enough to have been heard "two football pitches away", attention to the DV situation was already attracted whether OP wanted it or not… concealment was no longer an option for OP… the ONLY alternative remaining was misdirection : i.e. screaming H-H-H as well to change the dynamic from aggressor and victim to 2 victims… and it worked because at the time Burger and Johnson believed they were witnessing a home invasion not a DV scene.

When Reeva had screamed H-H-H loud enough to have been heard "two football pitches away"… why would OP softly say H-H-H after that ??… that would be pointless… OP would have to match Reeva's intensity for it to make any sense.

If OP had stayed silent after Reeva screamed H-H-H : Burger and Johnson would have believed in either a home invasion or a DV scene... but since 2 people would be found in that house… DV would eventually be obvious conclusion.

 

[Jake18]

It's not really surprising that her knowledge of criminal law was shown up.

Top professors will typically have significantly superior and up to date knowledge to Judges who are many years out of law school.

And this Judge never had a big background in criminal anyway and is a lightweight by international standards.

Often the judges rely on their clerks and counsel to understand this stuff.

She clearly relied upon the dodgy submissions by defence counsel as they have been virtually cut and pasted in.

IMO the greatest concern is the intellectual laziness revealed by that.

BIB : Exactly.

My SA friends here in Australia maintain that anything can be bought in their home country. And, like I said earlier, they're by definition a potentially biased group because they were so disillusioned that they emigrated but it does seems to be a consistently held view.

I think Uncle Arnie bought the trial inasmuch as he managed to ensure that the Judge was legally not that sound and would therefore rely heavily on her assessors on points of law and *takes deep breath* I think one or both assessors were influenced.

This is why :
1) When the judgement was read out Masipa seemed unfamiliar with it; she stumbled and wasn't fluent. After a month of working on a document I'd expect her to be possibly nervous but still very familiar with its contents and in many ways it seemed as if she as reading it for the first time. Other posters have speculated that maybe one of the assessors wrote it and I also wonder this.

2) There was a point on the first day when it became obvious that *something* irregular had happened. There was a prolonged meeting with Nel and Roux in chambers and a strangely abrupt ending to the first day. There was also a lot of whispering with the assessors. I think this is very irregular. Although they should have assisted her in making her decision the assessors were, in essence, still her assistants and on the final day, the judgement day, I would have expected the judge to make a confident decision and stand by that. It looked unprofessional to me and also made her look unsure.

To use a medical analogy : most public hospitals are effectively run by junior staff. After hours especially, it is these doctors who make most decisions on behalf of their specialised bosses. How much depends on their level of experience and clinical ability. However, ultimately, even if something's gone wrong or the situation is complicated, the consultant pretty much always steps up and takes responsibility for all decisions made in his/her name. If there's a clinical meeting where one of their patients is discussed - especially if their management is being questioned - they certainly shouldn't be muttering to the junior doctors in that meeting for clarification. It's not professional and it's not that competent. While it goes without saying that junior doctors have day to day input into clinical decisions ultimately it's their bosses who should be in charge and, accordingly, they need to act like it. Judge Masipa didn't look in charge on day one of the verdict, IMO.

3) The "cut and paste" from the Defence HOA looks dodgy and there was certainly no balanced and reasoned argument of all the evidence, as we'd been expecting. (Ballistics, anyone?) It very much looked like a CH verdict had been reached first and then the evidence had been "cherry picked" to fit.

4) Of the lesser gun charges the only guilty verdict was the one Roux pretty much gave permission for.

5) The ammunition verdict. I'm sorry, but that really makes the whole trial just reek. Even people who talk about the judge's "common sense" need to conveniently forget about this aspect of the trial. I'll accept that the judge fell for Oscar's weepy, snotty, vomiting, praying "remorse" and wanted him to avoid serious conviction but that verdict has effectively redefined possession law and should have been questioned by a competent assessor.

The irony is that in securing a more Oscar-friendly verdict by these means it may well have transpired that the legal reasoning is not sound. Sort of the opposite of the concept of "You get what you pay for".

I still don't really want to believe in this, so once again, all sensible posts refuting this will be considered. I'm unlikely to get back to reply for another 24 hours but i'll read when I can.

 

[Sherbert]

BiB… seriously flawed reasoning.

When Reeva screamed H-H-H at 3AM loud enough to have been heard "two football pitches away", attention to the DV situation was already attracted whether OP wanted it or not… concealment was no longer an option for OP… the ONLY alternative remaining was misdirection : i.e. screaming H-H-H as well to change the dynamic from aggressor and victim to 2 victims… and it worked because at the time Burger and Johnson believed they were witnessing a home invasion not a DV scene.

When Reeva had screamed H-H-H loud enough to have been heard "two football pitches away"… why would OP softly say H-H-H after that ??… that would be pointless… OP would have to match Reeva's intensity for it to make any sense.

If OP had stayed silent after Reeva screamed H-H-H : Burger and Johnson would have believed in either a home invasion or a DV scene... but since 2 people would be found in that house… DV would eventually be obvious conclusion.

BBM

Beautifully put, AJ! I agree.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

BiB… seriously flawed reasoning.

When Reeva screamed H-H-H at 3AM loud enough to have been heard "two football pitches away", attention to the DV situation was already attracted whether OP wanted it or not… concealment was no longer an option for OP… the ONLY alternative remaining was misdirection : i.e. screaming H-H-H as well to change the dynamic from aggressor and victim to 2 victims… and it worked because at the time Burger and Johnson believed they were witnessing a home invasion not a DV scene.

When Reeva had screamed H-H-H loud enough to have been heard "two football pitches away"… why would OP softly say H-H-H after that ??… that would be pointless… OP would have to match Reeva's intensity for it to make any sense.

If OP had stayed silent after Reeva screamed H-H-H : Burger and Johnson would have believed in either a home invasion or a DV scene... but since 2 people would be found in that house… DV would eventually be obvious conclusion.

Makes a sin! For that OP had to be pretty sophisticated, not to say criminal. And perhaps even experienced?

 

[Cherwell]

Makes a sin! For that OP had to be pretty sophisticated, not to say criminal. And perhaps even experienced?

Sophisticated or experienced? Not necessarily. The mind can process thoughts in fractions of seconds, as someone (I think jay-jay) has described.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

"Justice? You get justice in the next world. In this one you have the law."

― William Gaddis, American novelist.

 

[JudgeJudi]

[For the sake of completeness I've added this, omitting a few unnecessary words]

JG: Maybe. My answer has to be maybe. The law is a little bit iffy on this. If I had to put a bet on it, I would say probably. I find it very difficult to accept that in those circumstances the judge was right in finding that the intention to possess was absent because the fact of the matter is that he had the ammunition in his possession for an appreciable length of time, unconditionally it would appear. It's not like there was an arrangement that this ammunition was going to be collected that afternoon or the day after or whatever, and he had reconciled himself, to use that term, reconciled himself to that state of affairs. In those circumstances I cannot see how it can be said jurisprudentia that you don't have animus, or intention to possess. And the implications are that I can now go buy a firearm on the street illegally, have it in my car. The police catch me. I've just got to say, “Lisa visited me from the States and she left it here” and I'm off the hook. So I think my answer has to be I think she's probably got it wrong, but I have to say that it might just be a legal loophole. I'm not inclined to agree that that's correct, but without researching it myself properly, I can't take a substantive stance on it.

LS: Personally for me the two pieces where I felt like it was incorrect were Oscar himself testified that he and his father were estranged and hadn't talked for years, and yet then he turns around and says that this ammunition was his dad's and that his dad placed it there himself. And of course that begs the question, “Well, if you don't talk to him, how did he get in your house?” But then secondly, there was also evidence presented via Sean Rens that he had purchased a .38 Special and this was .38 Special ammunition. So would that not be animus to use ammunition if you actually just purchased a gun that could use that ammunition? So for me, I just was blown away that she actually gave him a pass on that one.

JG: I'll take your first point first. If you don't have intention to possess, why are you keeping ammunition of a person whom you don't have a relationship with? Because if you did not have an intention to possess it, you would return the ammunition. You would at least have a record of having demanded that he come and collect his ammunition. So I think that is where the reasoning of the judge was fallacious.

 

[mirage1]

JM and the assessors totally ignored the original photos IMO.

Photo 55 'PROVES' beyond all doubt that OP is lying...................not a doubt about that at all.
Nel also made the point several times to OP that the photo disproved his version of events and that his own defence did not even question it in XE. OP agreed !

By ignoring this one very significant fact JM and her assessors are saying the police and in particular the photographer are all liars............each and every one of them.
Why should the police bother taking photos in future if Judges are going to totally reject them and disbelieve their evidence?
It truly does beggar belief...............she should stand down immediately and the prosecution should demand a mistrial.

This was the smoking gun imo, not sure how it did not lock up an easy murder conviction. Nel listed 5 items that the police must have moved in order for OP's story to be true, something which is just not reasonably possible, especially considering the matching blood splatter on the jeans, and carpet, plus the fans coincidently being moved to block the balcony door, as if they were never moved. Since this proves OP is clearly lying about a core aspect of his story, then how could it not prove guilt?

 

[AJ_DS]

Makes a sin! For that OP had to be pretty sophisticated, not to say criminal. And perhaps even experienced?

Sophisticated or experienced? Not necessarily. The mind can process thoughts in fractions of seconds, as someone (I think jay-jay) has described.

Don't now what j-j described but OP mimicking Reeva's screams for help is a common phenomena that is "instinctive" and can be observed from childhood.

eg.1 : "Moooom, Jake hit me"… Reply : "Moooom, Jenny pinched me"

eg.2 : "I'm telling dad"… Reply : "No, I'm telling dad"

eg.3 : Driver-A rear-ends driver-B… Driver-A feels fine but sees that driver-B gets out of his car whilst grimacing and holding on to his neck… Driver-A suddenly and "inexplicably" also has an injury.

eg.4 : "If you don't stop, I'm calling the police"… Reply : "Fine by me, I'll even call the police myself"

eg.5 : "Stop it or I swear I'll scream for help"… Reply : "Help! Help! Help!"

… nobody wants to be identified as the perpetrator/aggressor, better to be seen as a victim.

 

[JuneBug67]

How can people STILL be talking about Reeva screaming when direct physical evidence proves it can't have been her? When does this stop being about Oscar and start being about the minds of others?

 

[AJ_DS]

This was the smoking gun imo, not sure how it did not lock up an easy murder conviction. Nel listed 5 items that the police must have moved in order for OP's story to be true, something which is just not reasonably possible, especially considering the matching blood splatter on the jeans, and carpet, plus the fans coincidently being moved to block the balcony door, as if they were never moved. Since this proves OP is clearly lying about a core aspect of his story, then how could it not prove guilt?

IMO, I don't believe these elements were enough to remove reasonable doubt on their own… one can imagine that OP was stressed and very agitated after the shooting : things were moved/bumped without realizing it. i.e the duvet

But put them all together (especially the small fan fiasco*) in an already improbable tale also with much corroborated independent contradicting evidence… one would be looking at reasonable doubt in the rearview mirror.

* : stuff does not unplug itself, move itself, other stuff plug itself in its place, by accident.

 

[AJ_DS]

How can people STILL be talking about Reeva screaming when direct physical evidence proves it can't have been her? When does this stop being about Oscar and start being about the minds of others?

… to what "direct physical evidence" are you referring to which proves Reeva never screamed ????

I saw NO such evidence… perhaps you do not understand what "direct physical evidence" is ?

 

[RosieC]

Makes a sin! For that OP had to be pretty sophisticated, not to say criminal. And perhaps even experienced?

Well no. For the mind to process THIS kind of response in seconds, he would have had to be a psychopath, in my view. My knowledge is common sense plus reading forensic profilers and psychiatrists.

 

[jay-jay]

How can people STILL be talking about Reeva screaming when direct physical evidence proves it can't have been her? When does this stop being about Oscar and start being about the minds of others?

How can this stop being about Oscar? Oscar is the one who killed Reeva, Oscar is the one who is/was on trial for murder, Oscar is the one who we believe (with tons of evidence to back it up) is lying. This is a sleuthing forum, and sleuthed we have, and many of us cannot match up the evidence before us with Oscar's version of events, sorry if that riles you.

 

[AJ_DS]

BBM

Beautifully put, AJ! I agree.

Thanks…

Makes me think this would be another reason to scream Fire! Fire! Fire! instead of Help! Help! Help!

 

[RosieC]

[underlining and bolding by me]

Somehow, I doubt it was naivete. Masipa was absolutely on a mission. Whether it was a profoundly biased mission of "mercy" in favor of saving the Blade Runner (those days are over!), who's been "punished" enough or whether it was a mission under dire threat from outside forces, we're likely never to know.

Defense's evidence, witnesses and most especially OP himself were so dismal and ridiculous, the ONLY thing Masipa could put forth to "absolve" OP of dolus eventualis was his "remorse" ... she surely could not absolve him under the law. And even though remorse after the fact is zero indicator of absence of intent to commit murder ... PLUS the fact that remorse is used at sentencing, not judgement. LOL What a freakin mess.

While she reviled the State's witnesses out of hand, she very curiously relied on the suddenly highly credible testimony of Dr. Stipp as eye witness to Ozzie's hysterics (even while she condemned the good doctor as "mistaken" about everything else that night). :lol:

This rotten cherry-picked verdict should be catapulted into the Appeals Court.

Does anyone know if Judge Masipa is a devout Christian? Oscar appeared as a devout Christian.

Are any other of JM's judgements published online? If so, links please.

Cherry picked evidence is very bad, but I don't see that as an error in law, except in a very general sense. And I can't see what the Appeals Court could do. Wouldn't the entire case have to be re-tried?

Thanks!

 

[AJ_DS]

Does anyone know if Judge Masipa is a devout Christian? Oscar appeared as a devout Christian.

Are any other of JM's judgements published online? If so, links please.

Cherry picked evidence is very bad, but I don't see that as an error in law, except in a very general sense. And I can't see what the Appeals Court could do. Wouldn't the entire case have to be re-tried?

Thanks!

If OP is a devout Christian, Christianity is in serious trouble !!

To me at least, OP is like so many others : pick and choose which bits are convenient in the moment and disregard the bits which are inconvenient in the moment.

"Only God can judge thee" : Very convenient when one has committed a crime and is facing Man's Justice