awaiting sentencing phase

[JudgeJudi]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa

Items shown in photographs but not discussed during the trial:

• the jeans outside the bathroom window
• the gunshot holes in the bedroom door
• other damage to the bedroom door
• the dented bathtub plate

Lisa thinks these point to a domestic situation occurring that night and asks JG to comment.

“As a judicial officer I will tell you circumstantial evidence is the best evidence because it can’t be changed. It’s all very well saying that they want direct evidence meaning evidence of humans. Humans are prone to mendacity. Humans are prone to having bad memories. Humans are especially prone to having seen a situation in a way that didn’t actually occur quite genuinely. So circumstantial evidence is the best evidence you can have, and in this case the circumstantial evidence could not have been stronger. As I said, we can’t improve the State case by providing a video of the shooting.

The expert ballistics testimony “was completely consistent with these shots being grouped. In other words, purposeful firing as opposed to, let’s say, a gun going off in the hands of a man who has lost control completely and doesn’t even know he’s firing. When you fire that weapon, each time you pull the trigger it kicks up and it requires real control to group those shots in that way. So everything, the circumstantial evidence, the hard facts of the matter, the undeniable evidence, all is consistent only with purposeful firing of the weapon, and the judge in her judgment actually is discounting purposeful firing, and we still don’t know what her finding is. We still don’t know what the court’s finding was on the issue of what was it in Oscar’s mind, what was in his mind when he was firing. We don’t know. We know she has said what was not in his mind. … But she hasn’t told us what was his intention”.

 

[pandax81]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa

Items shown in photographs but not discussed during the trial:

• the jeans outside the bathroom window
• the gunshot holes in the bedroom door
• other damage to the bedroom door
• the dented bathtub plate

Lisa thinks these point to a domestic situation occurring that night and asks JG to comment.

“As a judicial officer I will tell you circumstantial evidence is the best evidence because it can’t be changed. It’s all very well saying that they want direct evidence meaning evidence of humans. Humans are prone to mendacity. Humans are prone to having bad memories. Humans are especially prone to having seen a situation in a way that didn’t actually occur quite genuinely. So circumstantial evidence is the best evidence you can have, and in this case the circumstantial evidence could not have been stronger. As I said, we can’t improve the State case by providing a video of the shooting.

The expert ballistics testimony “was completely consistent with these shots being grouped. In other words, purposeful firing as opposed to, let’s say, a gun going off in the hands of a man who has lost control completely and doesn’t even know he’s firing. When you fire that weapon, each time you pull the trigger it kicks up and it requires real control to group those shots in that way. So everything, the circumstantial evidence, the hard facts of the matter, the undeniable evidence, all is consistent only with purposeful firing of the weapon, and the judge in her judgment actually is discounting purposeful firing, and we still don’t know what her finding is. We still don’t know what the court’s finding was on the issue of what was it in Oscar’s mind, what was in his mind when he was firing. We don’t know. We know she has said what was not in his mind. … But she hasn’t told us what was his intention”.

I know the evidence discussed in the question is both circumstantial and "non-human".

But circumstantial evidence doesn't mean "non-human", and direct evidence doesn't mean "human". The statement that one is more reliable and unchangeable than another therefore doesn't really hold, and may confuse people.

So, circumstantial evidence can include witness testimony (e.g. saw accused running from scene, heard petrified screams of a woman before gunshots) not just photos, fingerprints, DNA. And direct evidence can be a CCTV recording, not just witness testimony (e.g. saw accused commit the crime).

I still love Judge Greenland though!

 

[JudgeJudi]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa

JG: The real point to be made about that is Mangena’s evidence confirms that the firing was grouped and therefore it was purposeful.

LS: It also supported that there was a pause because of how, because of where those bullets landed, and using the trajectories, that there had to have been a pause and that was supported – and then the screaming was supported by the medical examiner who basically made the statement that it would be incredibly unlikely that she didn’t scream. You know, all of these things pieced together were just totally rejected.

JG: They were totally rejected out of hand because the judge simply accepted the defence timeline and it would appear that she was in error in doing that, an error compounded by the fact that Gerrie Nel did not fault the timeline.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

How he had the nerve to say to Kim Myers 'I don't know how you sleep at night' I have no idea .. how does HE manage to sleep at night??

Ikr? That whole episode ignored by Masipa probably was a warning sign what was to come. I can't believe she didn't address it, even in a roundabout way. :shakehead:

What an actor!! With that said..Masipa was more than willing to be fooled!!

Yep!! He can turn it off and on like a tap.

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!"

I'm a real movie buff and your comparison is not lost on me, typical back slapping table talk. As you've brought to my attention, they all look caught out. Phfft.

Tarantino should make his next movie, KILL OSCAR, in his KILL BILL style! I'd love to see that, haha.

Scorsese could make a movie like Shutter Island with OP being fooled/hypnotised on a mystery island, revealing how that night really played out and in final scene being led away in a straight jacket. I love to see that too.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa

I can tell you that members of the legal panel that I was in association with during the course of this coverage by Carte Blanche were shocked. I was unfortunately on the panel when the verdict was being read out so I’m there live on camera. It was so difficult for me to conceal my shock and horror. I still haven’t seen the tape. I’ve got the tape of it and I haven’t dared to look at it because I’m terrified that my shocked reaction might come across as actual disgust. I’m not supposed to be that negative about a superior court decision. It was bad.

Having thought about it and thought about it and thought about it, I am utterly, utterly distressed at this decision having thought about it very calmly and carefully. And I think that I must be credited with the fact that I’ve got tremendous experience. I’ve spent over 35 years in the courts, I’ve seen it all and there is no decision that has mortified me, saddened me more than this decision.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Indeed.

Also, looking at OP's version from Reeva's perspective is beyond ludicrous :

- She is awake
- She sees OP moving the fans
- She decides to go to the bathroom
- She opens the bathroom window
- She goes to the toilet cubicle and leaves the door open
- She suddenly hears OP scream at intruders to get out

… Reeva was in the bedroom 10 seconds ago
… OP was alone in there
… She knows the bedroom door is locked with a cricket bat to prevent anyone from entering
… She knows the alarm system is ON
… She knows she is alone in the bathroom

- She hears OP screaming whilst facing in her direction AND moving towards her in the passageway
- She hears OP telling her to call the police

… She does NOT know OP assumed she was still in bed
… She knows OP knows that she was awake a few seconds ago because she talked to him
… She would assume that OP noticed she was no longer in the bedroom
… She does not know how OP knows she has her iPhone with her in the toilet

- She hears OP silently entering the bathroom breathing heavily

It's pitch dark… except for perhaps the iPhone being used as a flashlight in the toilet cubicle (which OP does not notice but could explain Stipps testimony)

… and Reeva says nothing to OP which she knows is a 1 to 2 meters away from her !!!

Ridiculous

Excellent post, AJ!!

* When she hears OP’s panicked voice and his screams to “Get the F out of my house!” (clueless to what’s going on) she’d be terrified for HIS safety. Wouldn’t the reasonable woman yell out to her boyfriend in alarm?

* Confused by OP’s “Get the F out of my house!”, she would logically assume he’s screaming at HER and indeed she would scream back “WTF are you screaming about?!!”

Cryptic OP is very sneaky, very careful not to tell Reeva WHY she must call the police (she just psychically already knows there’s an intruder in the house, so doesn’t bother ever saying jacksh#t to her “terrified” boyfriend ... plus, she NEVER bothers to call police!).

The very LAST thing OP wants is a “conversation” between him and Reeva. That would invite unwanted questions from Reeva (who has to remain silent and invisible, dammit!). It would instantly clear away any “terror”, vaporize any “mistaken identity” and shoot down his “intruder” story to hell and back.

Seriously, in what friggin universe is this crap possible?!!

Common horse sense is as crucial to the truth (and justice) as testimony and exhibits.

Masipa and her assessors were obviously sucked bone dry of any and all sense by tiny, adorable, neon-lime-green alien abductors, who are clearly enthusiastic Oscar fanboys.

Yeah, that’s it.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Judge Greenland's interview with Lisa

LS: Their entire case – so they had all of these witnesses that they like seemingly hired in like weeks prior to the trial. Some of them had reports, some didn’t, some of them were experts, some weren’t. It was like incredibly embarrassing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like that before.

JG: Lisa, I couldn’t in effect control myself live on television on the Carte Blanche channel in expressing my views at the shambolic way that defence was presented to a court and the fact that the court did not react, because I thought that the stage had long passed when the court should have said to the defence, “What’s going on here? What is the defence?” I mean it’s just unbelievable. A whole legal panel of experts over a trial that took, what, 46 days or something, 90 days, I can’t remember, for the whole time could never work out what the defence was until the very, very last moment. And in effect the court still hasn’t told us what the defence was. All the court said is that , “I unconditionally accept that he didn’t intend to kill so he’s found not guilty” but we don’t know the basis except that his story might be reasonably possibly true, but which part of the story? … I was totally unimpressed with the defence but they pulled it off and they must be commended for that. And as some people have observed, it would appear that what happened is that the strategy was to confuse the court and they succeeded spectacularly.

 

[AW2B]

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.

BRBM

WOW!

So if Masipa comes back with a suspended sentence. And if the prosecution wins the appeal changing the verdict to murder. Why would Pistorius appeal the sentence?? Based on that rule ..of course they wouldn't..so the sentence will remain unchanged! What's the point of changing the verdict to "murder"...nothing? He will simply be referred to as the MURDERER? Is that all..
Why can't the prosecution also appeal the sentence to match the new and improved verdict?! They have to wait for the defense to open the door?! WOW........... again..

 

[vansleuths]

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.

BIB & In Red

This is a bit troubling. Am I reading this right. Let's say OP doesn't have to go to prison and instead only has to do community service for his CH verdict.
The state then appeals and a higher court changes the verdict to murder.

Would this then mean that OP as a murder wouldn't have to serve any jail time?

This would seem to imply that assuming Masipa goes light with the sentence, then it really doesn't matter whether the state appeals or not, OP won't get any jail time.

 

[cottonweaver]

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

Hi Cloen,

I just had to use a general search and then they come up eg; "Miktal Juror 13"

And then when you open the page use the Command F/Find on page and type in "miktal" or whichever one you are looking up from his date list.
Hope that helps

 

[cottonweaver]

Thanks Judge Judi for transcribing some of the Greenland recordings.:cheers:

 

[cottonweaver]

BRBM

WOW!

So if Masipa comes back with a suspended sentence. And if the prosecution wins the appeal changing the verdict to murder. Why would Pistorius appeal the sentence?? Based on that rule ..of course they wouldn't..so the sentence will remain unchanged! What's the point of changing the verdict to "murder"...nothing? He will simply be referred to as the MURDERER? Is that all..
Why can't the prosecution also appeal the sentence to match the new and improved verdict?! They have to wait for the defense to open the door?! WOW........... again..

As per my post page 10 ( bottom of post) - we need to proceed with caution on JG's point about sentencing as two posters upthread - who have more knowledge on points of law than me- have recently said JG may have got it wrong on that point.

IMO I haven't a clue if he is right or wrong - but someone more knowledgeable will help clear this up.

 

[JudgeJudi]

As per my post page 10 ( bottom of post) - we need to proceed with caution on JG's point about sentencing as two posters upthread - who have more knowledge on points of law than me- have recently said JG may have got it wrong on that point.

IMO I haven't a clue if he is right or wrong - but someone more knowledgeable will help clear this up.

Up to the point where the verdict was handed down I thought I had a pretty good understanding of it all. Now my head is totally spinning and I don't have a clue either. If the legal experts and constitutional lawyers are debating the point, I prefer to leave it up to them to work it out, if they can.

Right now I want to have a big :tantrum:

 

[steveml]

Miles apart?

Didn't want to snip your long post, hence up-sizing.
You have misinterpreted the testimony here (Burger's evidence) and then come up with a fallacious argument on which you hang your beliefs and how DV operates plus point to lack of plausibility. I could say an awful lot about that but I'll resist it.

Burger never said the screams were a mockery. Do you remember B's own tears on the stand?

She was simply responding to Roux's badgering about why OP may have called "Help help help". She said she didn't know and then suggested mockery. It was a plausible answer that Roux did not want to hear at that point.

No need to resist anything, I'm happy to be questioned or challenged on any of my posts. Have you ever read such nonsense of a mocking voice being heard 150 metres away, ever, by anyone? If you cannot give me a single example you certainly cannot portray this to be typical of DV. It really is as straight-forward as that.

I never indicated that Burger said the screams were a mockery - please re-read the original post.

 

[steveml]

Heck, I still think it could have been Frank crying, "Help, help, help!" Makes as much sense as OP crying out into the night at 3 a.m. instead of calling security or pushing the panic alarm.

This will have certainly crossed the minds of the prosecution legal team. If there was the slightest chance that Frank had any involvement in the case he would have been subpoenaed - without a doubt. This will have been gone over with a fine tooth-comb by the prosecution team.

There will be a perfectly valid reason why Frank wasn't called as a witness, the fact that we haven't heard about it makes no difference one way or the other. You only get information about those witnesses that are called to trial during a case. Surely nobody expected to hear an advocate to say 'We wanted Frank as a witness but...' ? This wouldn't be allowed I'm afraid and would make a mockery of the legal system if the court could comment on those who have not been called as witnesses.

 

[lithgow1]

No need to resist anything, I'm happy to be questioned or challenged on any of my posts. Have you ever read such nonsense of a mocking voice being heard 150 metres away, ever, by anyone? If you cannot give me a single example you certainly cannot portray this to be typical of DV. It really is as straight-forward as that.

I never indicated that Burger said the screams were a mockery - please re-read the original post.

Re BIB - Do you find Masipa's finding that because OP was distraught after the event this proves he cannot have intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp to be a logical and well-reasoned conclusion?

 

[Cherwell]

This will have certainly crossed the minds of the prosecution legal team. If there was the slightest chance that Frank had any involvement in the case he would have been subpoenaed - without a doubt. This will have been gone over with a fine tooth-comb by the prosecution team.

There will be a perfectly valid reason why Frank wasn't called as a witness, the fact that we haven't heard about it makes no difference one way or the other. You only get information about those witnesses that are called to trial during a case. Surely nobody expected to hear an advocate to say 'We wanted Frank as a witness but...' ? This wouldn't be allowed I'm afraid and would make a mockery of the legal system if the court could comment on those who have not been called as witnesses.

That depends on your definition of "valid". It absolutely stinks that he wasn't even mentioned in court. Even if he had stuck to his claim of having heard nothing, there were still questions he could have answered.

But for both defence and prosecution to pretend that he wasn't even on the premises that night - something's not right. You surely must agree about that.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

O/T

www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-takes-beautiful-young-woman-to-see-his-racy-r1-5m-audi-r8/

For the record

City Press apologises to Oscar Pistorius for causing him unnecessary harm by reporting on the allegations, which later proved to be false, that he had bought a fast and expensive Audi R8 sports car and for publishing headlines and a picture of such a car that served to aggravate the above-mentioned harm.

We also apologise for reporting that he was allegedly accompanied by bodyguards and a beautiful woman (wrongly insinuating that this may have been his girlfriend) and that he had been “brash” and “demanding” at the dealership.

After we published the story this year, “Oscar takes ‘beautiful’ young woman to see his racy R1.5m Audi R8” (City Press, June 30 2013), the Pistorius family supplied the press ombudsman with evidence showing that our information regarding the Audi R8 was incorrect.

The ombudsman, Johan Retief, said we were justified to publish the information at our disposal, but that it later became clear this was incorrect and had caused Pistorius unnecessary harm.

He said Pistorius had, in fact, bought a used car that cost much less than R1.5 million and this car would probably not have been able to reach a speed of 317km/h (as we reported).

But the ombudsman would not accept that our coverage would result in an unfair trial (Pistorius stands accused of murdering his former girlfriend), as argued by his attorney. “That would indeed question the integrity of our judicial system,” said Retief.

bbm
The originally story and the explanations from family spokes person are interesting too.
Boah, this family. Fighting on all fronts with all possible excuses.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

This will have certainly crossed the minds of the prosecution legal team. If there was the slightest chance that Frank had any involvement in the case he would have been subpoenaed - without a doubt. This will have been gone over with a fine tooth-comb by the prosecution team.

There will be a perfectly valid reason why Frank wasn't called as a witness, the fact that we haven't heard about it makes no difference one way or the other. You only get information about those witnesses that are called to trial during a case. Surely nobody expected to hear an advocate to say 'We wanted Frank as a witness but...' ? This wouldn't be allowed I'm afraid and would make a mockery of the legal system if the court could comment on those who have not been called as witnesses.

Roux said exactly this re possible witnesses with an explanation of "don't want to hear their voices all over the world", haha.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

This will have certainly crossed the minds of the prosecution legal team. If there was the slightest chance that Frank had any involvement in the case he would have been subpoenaed - without a doubt. This will have been gone over with a fine tooth-comb by the prosecution team.

There will be a perfectly valid reason why Frank wasn't called as a witness, the fact that we haven't heard about it makes no difference one way or the other. You only get information about those witnesses that are called to trial during a case. Surely nobody expected to hear an advocate to say 'We wanted Frank as a witness but...' ? This wouldn't be allowed I'm afraid and would make a mockery of the legal system if the court could comment on those who have not been called as witnesses.

That's a big claim Steve, have you got proof to back it up?