awaiting sentencing phase

[Deleted member 102539]

We have 10 guests looking on here.

:greetings:

 

[Mr Fossil]

You're right, so there is .. that is really odd then because I seriously do not think Reeva would've have 3 pairs of jeans in total with her .. at least one of those pairs of jeans (either the ones outside, or the ones on the floor in the bedroom) were not hers.

I've asked Mrs F to take a look in Reeva's bag and she tells me she thinks she can see a pair of knickers as well as a bra there too. If correct, would these have been what Reeva was wearing when she arrived back at OP's house and before she changed? Not sure whether this helps or not in determining whether she had already decided to stay?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Bateman was the first journalist on the scene of the shooting.

I didn't know before.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I haven't followed the Jub Jub case .. is this a first offence?

I've been likening the seriousness of what OP did (if I take it in terms of the CH verdict) to what Mick Philpott did over here in the UK .. he was convicted of manslaughter for killing six of his children in a house fire, and is currently serving a LIFE SENTENCE (with a minimum of 15 years to be served) .. then again, he did have 'previous' (served a 7 year custodial sentence for attempted murder/GBH/ABH ). Or is what OP did not as serious because he 'only' killed the one person? IMO, it doesn't matter that he killed 'just' the one person, the negligence (to me) is on a par with what Philpott did (again, if you take the CH as being correct .. which I don't, but that is what the judge has decided).

No previous convictions. When OP was found guilty of CH, there was a hue and cry that Jub Jub should not have been found guilty of murder as he had no intent to kill anyone. In a nutshell here's what the case is about.

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-10-08-jub-jubs-murder-conviction-overturned

 

[Deleted member 102539]

There are interesting e-books from Nick van der Leek, about Reeva and about Oscar, total 5.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I have often wondered how potent he really was as he probably sublimated his sex drive and put all his energy into running and became accustomed to pleasuring himself by watching *advertiser censored* as it is less intimate.

What I've learned about athletes especially ones on restrictive diets, they are pretty horny most of the time, this is male and female athletes. OP probably would have had much more fun with a fellow sportswoman but then again, she might be too much for him. :scared:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Since I moved my files to OneDrive earlier I've been able to see stats on the number of accesses each file is getting and from what part of the world. Fascinating to see that they've had hits so far from UK, Germany, Australia, USA, Canada, Netherlands, Switzerland, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Denmark and Bulgaria ... and the day is still young!

Cool Mr F.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I'd love to know about the hair band that is seen at the entrance to the passage way. Was Reeva wearing it when she was shot and it fell off when Pistorius carried her down? If not, I doubt Reeva would have left it lieing around.

Do ladies wear those sorts of bands in bed? I see it was bagged up for evidence and assume was examined for blood.
http://ewn.co.za/Features/behindthedoor#gallery

That's a good question, I don't personally like to sleep with a head band, but Reeva might have, depends how long her hair was, the longer and bulkier her hair is the harder it is to sleep with a head band.

If Reeva had it on when she was shot it should be covered in blood and brain and bone tissue, if it had fallen off onto the tiles while running to the toilet being chased, it should only have a slight splatter of blood if OP carried her over the top of it. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Mr Fossil]

My theory has OP firing whilst wearing his prostheses and Mangena's testimony says to me that he fired holding the gun at elbow height (126cm versus laser at 130cm), exactly how I would expect him to hold the gun in the circumstances (e.g. he doesn't need line of sight, he isn't 'aiming' over any great distance). Firing on stumps at 7cm above shoulder height simply doesn't make sense. I can't understand how this was the conclusion in court.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I have often wondered how potent he really was as he probably sublimated his sex drive and put all his energy into running and became accustomed to pleasuring himself by watching *advertiser censored* as it is less intimate.

I agree. In addition, even though he always had girlfriends, there seemed to be dramas with all of them. Apart from his fame and money, quite frankly I don't see what really attractive girls/women see in him at all. Reeva said he was a "very sexy boy" on her first date with him at the Sports Awards. "Boy" was a good choice of word, not that she would have known that at the time. To me he has no sex appeal whatsoever, but that's just me.

 

[JudgeJudi]

That's a good question, I don't personally like to sleep with a head band, but Reeva might have, depends how long her hair was, the longer and bulkier her hair is the harder it is to sleep with a head band.

If Reeva had it on when she was shot it should be covered in blood and brain and bone tissue, if it had fallen off onto the tiles while running to the toilet being chased, it should only have a slight splatter of blood if OP carried her over the top of it. Hope that makes sense.

Well I belong to the group that believe she never went to sleep that night. If in fact she did do yoga exercises, I can well imagine she'd wear the headband, and as it was a hot night and she was awake, that's why she would still have been wearing it.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Well I belong to the group that believe she never went to sleep that night. If in fact she did do yoga exercises, I can well imagine she'd wear the headband, and as it was a hot night and she was awake, that's why she would still have been wearing it.

I'm in that group too jjudi :wave: , I probably worded it badly, she was definitely awake and the head band, with all the other evidence proves it in my mind.

 

[sleuth-d-]

My theory has OP firing whilst wearing his prostheses and Mangena's testimony says to me that he fired holding the gun at elbow height (126cm versus laser at 130cm), exactly how I would expect him to hold the gun in the circumstances (e.g. he doesn't need line of sight, he isn't 'aiming' over any great distance). Firing on stumps at 7cm above shoulder height simply doesn't make sense. I can't understand how this was the conclusion in court.

http://resources1.news.com.au/image...3569-8767fd7e-a02d-11e3-a562-7581a373430e.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BFuZhq7NDM
see how when targeting the hand is raised to eyeline... above shoulder height.
also the shot mangena used for these measurements was the miss [either shot 2 or shot 3]...
notice how the gun rears up after each shot, and that op's first shot into the door was a little lower - subsequent shots were higher.

i looked at the distance and the angle, and mangena's measurements of op. it looks to me like both options are equally possible [on prostheses, or on stumps - and there are so many variables; angle of grip; leaning forward; leaning back; one-armed shooting; bent elbow; leg bend].

it was also possible to place op firing one-handed with his non-firing arm/hand against the back wall.

so imo inconclusive... it could have been either way to me - stumps or prostheses. it did surprise me that mangena chose one option, i.e. was so sure to put that shots were fired by op on stumps.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I agree. In addition, even though he always had girlfriends, there seemed to be dramas with all of them. Apart from his fame and money, quite frankly I don't see what really attractive girls/women see in him at all. Reeva said he was a "very sexy boy" on her first date with him at the Sports Awards. "Boy" was a good choice of word, not that she would have known that at the time. To me he has no sex appeal whatsoever, but that's just me.

Would she have only resisted him, poor Reeva!

 

[Sherbert]

On the issue of her taking his behavoir after the killing into account, had the prosecution been able to produce evidence of the sneaking away of the phone and bag, any arrangement made to wipe the phone or indeed any other little plots to cover up evidence directly after the shooting, then the addition of the remorseful crying and wailing, dedication to god (gah) etc over a dead Reeva might have cemented a picture of a devious, cunning individual intent and willing to go to any lengths to avoid justice, so the inclusion of this testimony was relevant I think.

Despite the theorising, I do think he should have been convicted of eventualis and the thought of a killer getting away with it makes me very uneasy.

Except that Masipa J didn't seem to be very receptive to that type of allegation against the Defence. Didn't she respond to Nel at one point along the lines of 'Well, it doesn't assist to go into that again...'. Maybe, someone will remember the context better than I, but I seem to recollect that it was to do with the broken chain of custody relating to OP's mobile.

 

[jay-jay]

http://resources1.news.com.au/image...3569-8767fd7e-a02d-11e3-a562-7581a373430e.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BFuZhq7NDM
see how when targeting the hand is raised to eyeline... above shoulder height.
also the shot mangena used for these measurements was the miss [either shot 2 or shot 3]...
notice how the gun rears up after each shot, and that op's first shot into the door was a little lower - subsequent shots were higher.

i looked at the distance and the angle, and mangena's measurements of op. it looks to me like both options are equally possible [on prostheses, or on stumps - and there are so many variables; angle of grip; leaning forward; leaning back; one-armed shooting; bent elbow; leg bend].

it was also possible to place op firing one-handed with his non-firing arm/hand against the back wall.

so imo inconclusive... it could have been either way to me - stumps or prostheses. it did surprise me that mangena chose one option, i.e. was so sure to put that shots were fired by op on stumps.

BBM .. the thing for me that makes me believe that OP was wearing his prostheses was that Mangena said that, on his stumps, he would've put his arms straight out directly in front of him (I'm picturing Mangena showing this to the court with his own arms) .. so, if OP was on his stumps that might work and be the right height for the holes in the door. The only thing is that OP himself said that he did not have his arms straight out like that and that he had his arm bent, in which case, if he was on his stumps that arm would be too low to have placed the holes in the position they were in the door and therefore if we go by OP's testimony, i.e. shooting with a bent arm (and it was really quite bent, Roux made him go into quite some detail on this, I remember .. he had him with the top half of his arm by his side and just his forearm towards the front pointing the gun) then he has to have been on his prostheses in his version, he cannot possibly say he was on his stumps AND have a bent arm like that, the measurements do not add up. As I said before, Mangena only had him on his stumps if he had his whole arm outstretched, but according to OP that was not actually the case.

 

[WilliamMunter]

This reminds me that we have already had one member write a list of people who could speak on OP's behalf before sentencing so whom do you think will speak on RS behalf?

Gina Myers
Kim Myers
Cecil Myers
Darren Fresco
Reeva's cousin
Warren Lahoud
Sam Gruyvenstein?

I think it would be good for Reeva's parents to talk too but they claim they are not going to be there.

Who else?

I too would dearly love to hear from Reeva's parents and how her death has impacted their lives.

We have heard from Pistorius and how he is "fighting for his life", trying to rebuild his career and how the Steenkamps are the first people he thinks of when he wakes up and when he prays. Likewise we hear from the rest of the Pistoriuses on a regular basis through press releases and conferences. I think it's time to hear June or Barry's voice. They have, apart from a few interviews, maintained a dignified silence.

However, from what I have also read, they may not even attend the sentencing.

All they wanted was the truth. And of this they were denied.

 

[LemonMousse]

I don't post often but have followed this trial closely, and this forum. I think personally that it is likely that they did have the argument and the red mist came down etc. However, I can actually see why the judge has come to the decision she did (or the court did).

Firstly though, I think there have been a couple of cases that might have skewed people's interpretation of the law. In the Rudi Visage case, he wasn't prosecuted simply because he would have had to have been found guilty of eventualis. He fired, with intent, directly at the car driving away to stop the so called burglar, and he admitted that. It was felt that the loss of his daughter was suffering enough but he had the requisite intent for eventualis, with its mandatory sentencing. The 'Jub Jub case was another case that influenced people re OP's trial. This case was wrongly decided, and that has now been put right. Yes he was reckless but he did not have the requisite intent for eventualis. He can still get a stiff sentence for CH comensurate with the recklessness he demonstrated. Plenty of people kill people driving their cars, sometimes recklessly, but few if any get in their cars to intentionally harm others, so cannot be convicted of murder.

Therefore, it is clear from these cases, that what distinguishes eventualis from CH is intent and this is a subjective test, not what any of us might think, the intent of the defendent. Masipa wasn't satisfied that it had been proven BRD that OP had the requisite intent towards anyone, not necessarily of killing but there has to be some intent of causing harm, and therefore eventualis was not available to her. Now, many may not agree of course but that is the court's decision - it was just badly worded in the judgement and didn't include the so called intruder properly. I am not sure an appeal would suceed, as the appeal court wouldn't be able to re examine facts, just the application of the law - i.e. it wouldn't be able to look at the intent of OP again and disagree with the lower court finding on that. It would just look at the test that the court applied, and I am not sure it was an incorrect one, it was just that she didn't clarify it properly and made things probably worse the second day.

I agree with your analysis, but if the father would have been guilty of eventualis for pointing the gun at a car and firing, how is this different from pointing a gun at a door and firing four times?

OP's case never had much in common with the Jub Jub case, totally different scenario. The main purpose of a car is not to kill anyone, although obviously this can happen.

The main purpose of a gun is to kill. It is very, very hard to excuse anyone from intent to kill when they do something like this. So, for me, his intent is a given. The issue should have been was it justified? And, no, I can't see that it was, no matter how scared he was on his stumps.

 

[sleuth-d-]

BBM .. the thing for me that makes me believe that OP was wearing his prostheses was that Mangena said that, on his stumps, he would've put his arms straight out directly in front of him (I'm picturing Mangena showing this to the court with his own arms) .. so, if OP was on his stumps that might work and be the right height for the holes in the door. The only thing is that OP himself said that he did not have his arms straight out like that and that he had his arm bent, in which case, if he was on his stumps that arm would be too low to have placed the holes in the position they were in the door and therefore if we go by OP's testimony, i.e. shooting with a bent arm (and it was really quite bent, Roux made him go into quite some detail on this, I remember .. he had him with the top half of his arm by his side and just his forearm towards the front pointing the gun) then he has to have been on his prostheses in his version, he cannot possibly say he was on his stumps AND have a bent arm like that, the measurements do not add up. As I said before, Mangena only had him on his stumps if he had his whole arm outstretched, but according to OP that was not actually the case.

yep, if his shooting upper arm [i.e. right arm] was tight to his body the shots would not have been possible on stumps - too low to fit the trajectories.

i was thinking more of these images for the positioning of his arms:
http://static1.nydailynews.com/polo...derivatives/article_970/pistorius6n-2-web.jpg
http://images-2.domain.com.au/2014/07/06/5573935/1404650438193.jpg-620x349.jpg

 

[sleuth-d-]

I agree with your analysis, but if the father would have been guilty of eventualis for pointing the gun at a car and firing, how is this different from pointing a gun at a door and firing four times?

OP's case never had much in common with the Jub Jub case, totally different scenario. The main purpose of a car is not to kill anyone, although obviously this can happen.

The main purpose of a gun is to kill. It is very, very hard to excuse anyone from intent to kill when they do something like this. So, for me, his intent is a given. The issue should have been was it justified? And, no, I can't see that it was, no matter how scared he was on his stumps.

bbm
especially when - beyond picking up the gun and taking all the safety mechanisms off - the person fires four times.
and re: justification... looking at sample firing range videos, a startle might make a person pull the trigger once... there were not three more startles to justify three more shots.

in a couple of sentences, you have described the crux of it. a very clear, simple explanation. one wonders why the trial has taken 8 months.