awaiting sentencing phase

[Cherwell]

No, I strongly disagree. The whole idea of a 'witness' is entirely that - you're supposed to have witnessed something. There's obviously a cast-iron alibi that he was elsewhere and both prosecution and defence are entirely happy with that. As both parties have no disagreement about this person, why on earth should they pointlessly bring him into court. They're not going to waste time and resources just to satisfy public curiosity - at the expense of taxpayers. The groundwork investigating an alibi is done before the trial commences.

Cast-iron alibi, you say? OK.

:nevermind:

 

[vanatos]

but Masipa never said this proves OP cannot have intended to kill Reeva. She alluded to the fact that witnesses indicated that they believed he was genuinely distraught, which is entirely different.

false, she used it as justification that it supports OP not murdering Reeva.

Oh the melodrama. Since when have a judge and assessors become 'toast' for making a decision, which by all accounts may not even be appealed?

Judges up and down the country often have verdicts challenged and sometimes overturned - they still carry on their job as normal. This isn't a topic of national security we're dealing with here - it's a shooting. A regular daily occurrence in SA.

To explain to you the importance of the highest function of law, that is must be seen to be done, which Judge Greenland repeatedly stresses.

When a common person, or one of low social status, who has witnessed a great atrocity and wrong, feels they need to correct it, if they feel they have no viable avenue to do so, then very often they resort to physical violence and trying to kill people.

This is because for these people they feel it is the only thing left to them, and if you look at the middle-east and many 3rd world countries, you can see this is obvious.

Law is important because it must provide an avenue for people to settle wrongs, without resorting to trying to kill each other, but for the people to depend on it, they must believe it can administer justice, they must believe it works.

If you show the people the justice system does not work, on what basis would they trust it? more importantly, on what basis SHOULD they trust it?

If you show the people that justice, in this court case at this stage for an easy case, fails abysmally, on what basis should they trust it will be amended in the future?

Is it fair to demand the people to simply trust, blindly, this system, whereby you have demonstrated it does not work?

I don't think you understand the importance of law and order.

 

[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.

Originally Posted by FromGermany

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

BIB

Not sure what that means?

...but you've totally missed the point.

But in a surprise disclosure on Tuesday, defence counsel Barry Roux said: "We put on record, not that the court can do anything about it but just so it's on the record, that we were unable to call a number of witnesses who simply refused to testify because they said they didn't want their voices all over the world."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ppeal-witnesses-refuse-testify-media-coverage

 

[PrimeSuspect]

No, I strongly disagree. The whole idea of a 'witness' is entirely that - you're supposed to have witnessed something. There's obviously a cast-iron alibi that he was elsewhere and both prosecution and defence are entirely happy with that. As both parties have no disagreement about this person, why on earth should they pointlessly bring him into court. They're not going to waste time and resources just to satisfy public curiosity - at the expense of taxpayers. The groundwork investigating an alibi is done before the trial commences.

Steve, where are your facts? Do you have link with the information that is relevant to this case, not what proper procedure is normally?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

many thanks.

"• A bullet wound to her right hip, 92cm from the ground. Small 5mm hole found on shorts."

just wondering... how does a 9mm bullet make a 5mm hole on shorts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×19mm_Parabellum#mediaviewer/File:9x19mm_Parabellum.svg

IIRC, a poster a few months back explained it might have something to do with blasting through the door first before hitting Reeva. Not sure if that's correct sleuth-d, was just a theory I think.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

More interesting tidbits from the article I referenced in #403.

The defence did have the right to subpoena witnesses but chose not to do so. A legal expert suggested that Roux was paving the way for an appeal should Pistorius be found guilty. "The song and dance about not calling witnesses is clearly setting up an argument, 'It's impossible for a fair trial in these circumstances,'" said the expert, who did not wish to be named.


Who killed Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model and law graduate, on Valentine's day last year has never been in doubt, but the why has been tested over and over again. Legal analysts say Pistorius, a double amputee sprinter who starred at the 2012 London Olympics, has hurt his case by appearing to offer two different defences. He testified that he feared an intruder was coming through the toilet door at his home in Pretoria and that his life was in danger when he shot four lethally expanding bullets in quick succession. He also testified that he fired accidentally as a result of deep-seated anxiety caused by his disability and did not mean to kill anyone.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ppeal-witnesses-refuse-testify-media-coverage


"A lot of the question revolves around Oscar's credibility and I don't think he did himself any favours with the legal strategies he adopted," said Altbeker. "The judge has to believe Oscar has taken her into his confidence. He's done the exact opposite and I think he'll live to regret that.



Couldn't be more wrong, like we all were. He had her at 'hello'.

 

[elfie]

Farm Inn Wildlife Sanctuary is ½ MILE (730 metres) from OP’s house.
Stipps house - 72m.
EVDM house - 98m.
Burger/Johnson house - 177m.

Yet Masipa declares that all five State ear witnesses are “mistaken” - that they could never have heard a loud, lengthy fight (across the street), a woman’s multiple, piercing, blood-curdling screams for her life (across an empty lot).

Hell, even Carice Stander testified she heard a man yelling help help help - and she lives farther from OP than the Stipps, EVDM and Burger/Johnson!

Masipa’s shockingly irrational garbage, this entire insane verdict (save the correct ruling on Tasha’s - how did that happen?)... I want to know who got to her.* They either paid her off big time, threatened her or both. Surely she could not be such a hopelessly biased OP fangirl that she would willingly toss the law on its azz, present the Verdict from Neverland to become the world’s judicial laughingstock, practically offering up an appeal on a silver platter on Nel’s behalf?

It is surreal.

* I’m thinking beyond the Pistorius family; there are multiple powerful entities (with varied agendas) who could also have vested interests in keeping OP out of prison - most of it no doubt involving very large sums of cash.

MAPS below: The Farm Inn is in the lower left corner.

View attachment 60257

View attachment 60258

Not only that, vested interests were able to subvert the judicial process, but discredit Judge Masipa as well. Unless she was truly bound and determined to single handedly restore him to his former esteem.

 

[AW2B]

BIB - The 'fact' is that OP said he found her phone in the toilet, but as we know, just because he says something doesn't make it fact - unless he's telling Judge Masipa of course.

BBM

LOL..you're absolutely right..

So it was Pistorius who claimed her cellphone was in the toilet..

IIRC.. it was found on the bathroom floor..I wonder if he checked her cellphone to see if she was able to call/reach someone before he shot her...

 

[AW2B]

BBM - In a stretch I suppose it's possible, but I don't think it's very probable. IIRC the expert testifying that the cricket bat strikes came after the gunshots due (?or in part due) to there being a crack in the toilet door running through one of the bullet holes, was pressed further into agreeing that this only proved for sure that a bat strike came after that particular bullet hole.

I think the testimony about the bat strikes was much better for the DT than the PT which is probably why Nel didn't mention it in his HoA.

BRBM

This would confirm that bat strikes came after the shooting..HOWEVER..it wouldn't refute the possibility that bat strikes also came before the shooting..

 

[JudgeJudi]

No, I strongly disagree. The whole idea of a 'witness' is entirely that - you're supposed to have witnessed something. There's obviously a cast-iron alibi that he was elsewhere and both prosecution and defence are entirely happy with that. As both parties have no disagreement about this person, why on earth should they pointlessly bring him into court. They're not going to waste time and resources just to satisfy public curiosity - at the expense of taxpayers. The groundwork investigating an alibi is done before the trial commences.

Excuse me? You have no understanding of what a witness is. A witness in a trial doesn’t have to have seen anything at all. A witness is simply a person who testifies under oath that has either first-hand knowledge or is providing expert evidence to the court.

“Obviously a cast iron alibi that he was elsewhere”? Not at all. Elsewhere????? He was dressed and outside on the driveway talking to the security guards when Carice Viljoen arrived. There are two very obvious reasons why neither side was prepared to call him.

1. The defence – if the ear witnesses, Berger and Johnson, who lived 170m away heard any sounds, whether they be bangs, gunshots or screams from the house, it’s absolutely impossible he could not have heard nothing. In other words he’d have to be prepared to get in the witness box and lie that he heard nothing. If he said anything other than that, Nel would have made mincemeat of any testimony he gave. The defence knew that and wouldn’t run the risk of calling him.

2. The State – there’s nothing to be gained by calling a hostile witness. Other than him repeating, “I didn’t hear anything” how would calling or subpoenaing him possibly advance their case.

As to “They’re not going to waste time and resources just to satisfy public curiosity – at the expense of taxpayers”, isn’t this precisely what Roux did after a 2 week adjournment when he said his next witnesses weren’t available and that he thought Nel would have asked more questions. Oh, but of course, he needed extra time for Dr Vorster. Nhlegenthwa and Motshuane testified on 6 May and Dr Vorster was seeing OP on 7 May. She then needed to prepare her report before testifying on Monday, 12 May. Roux hadn't even seen her report when she entered the courtroom.

Finally, "The groundwork investigating an alibi is done before the trial commences". And how precisely can the prosecution do that when basically all they know is what type of weapon he used and he thought it was an intruder?

Rather than only give your opinions, why don't you back some of them up with something of substance to support your views?

 

[lithgow1]

Not at all. I wouldn't presume anything of the sort - but Masipa never said this proves OP cannot have intended to kill Reeva. She alluded to the fact that witnesses indicated that they believed he was genuinely distraught, which is entirely different.

She may as well have used the word 'proves' as it was essentially part of her 'logic' in finding him not guilty. It was more than a mere allusion - her finding was he was upset that Reeva Steenkamp was dead so he cannot have intended to kill her. We can play with the wording as much as we want but the basic premise is still naive to the extreme on the part of this judge IMO.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I agree..................but

He didn't need too surely!

He stated early on that it didn't matter who was behind the toilet door.
OP fired 4 shot's at a 'human being' and it resulted in that human being dying from said shots.................that's Murder whether it was Reeva or an Intruder.
OP knew the rules because he took the tests and signed the forms.
Masipa and the assessors are toast after this ridiculous travesty of justice and I really do feel sorry for them.
But they have no one to blame but themselves................surely they were taking advice?
Are they allowed to consult with 'superior' minds during the trial?
I doubt it but.................?

The verdict will be over ruled without doubt IMO

My understanding is that judges can consult with other judges provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the record.

 

[delilah]

Not at all. I wouldn't presume anything of the sort - but Masipa never said this proves OP cannot have intended to kill Reeva. She alluded to the fact that witnesses indicated that they believed he was genuinely distraught, which is entirely different.

"How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, letalone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time. To find otherwise would be tantamount to saying that the accused’s reaction after he realised that he had shot the deceased was faked; that he was play acting merely to delude the onlookers at the time."

 

[Deleted member 102539]

"How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, letalone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time. To find otherwise would be tantamount to saying that the accused’s reaction after he realised that he had shot the deceased was faked; that he was play acting merely to delude the onlookers at the time."

I would say, OP had to realize absolutely nothing after his 4 shots into the toilet cubicle. He had to know, that Reeva would have been in this little room and that there was no way to escape the bullets. The only question was, whether she may be dead or nearly dead. "Nearly dead" would have been a great threat to him as an offender; "dead" would have been very okay for him. Therefore he could wholeheartedly begin to cry with relief (me lucky Oscar, this had gone well in the last second), when he found her dead at the end, after he had put his fingers in her mouth to obstruct breathing and to obstruct stammer out her last dangerous words.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

BBM

LOL..you're absolutely right..

So it was Pistorius who claimed her cellphone was in the toilet..

IIRC.. it was found on the bathroom floor..I wonder if he checked her cellphone to see if she was able to call/reach someone before he shot her...

bbm
IMO for OP this was the most important thing at all, everything depended on this.

 

[mirage1]

How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, letalone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time. To find otherwise would be tantamount to saying that the accused’s reaction after he realised that he had shot the deceased was faked; that he was play acting merely to delude the onlookers at the time."

It is quite scary for a judge to be so naive, to say the least...just amazing.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

No, I strongly disagree. The whole idea of a 'witness' is entirely that - you're supposed to have witnessed something. There's obviously a cast-iron alibi that he was elsewhere and both prosecution and defence are entirely happy with that. As both parties have no disagreement about this person, why on earth should they pointlessly bring him into court. They're not going to waste time and resources just to satisfy public curiosity - at the expense of taxpayers. The groundwork investigating an alibi is done before the trial commences.

bbm
But "why on earth" was his name listed on the PT witness list? I don't understand at all ....

 

[Deleted member 102539]

BIB

Not sure what that means?

...but you've totally missed the point.

bbm = Of all things, that is important to emphasize.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

No, no, the armed guard is most likely there to stop OP from rushing out and shooting somebody else. Can't be too careful!

After the verdict the number of body guards must have been increased, because of Mylady's tip to uncle Arnie, that he will have to ensure no upcoming incidents with his nephew.

 

[lithgow1]

"How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, letalone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time. To find otherwise would be tantamount to saying that the accused’s reaction after he realised that he had shot the deceased was faked; that he was play acting merely to delude the onlookers at the time."

Thanks for coming up with the exact quote! Re the BIB - yes, it could have been play acting to confuse those present or it COULD have been that he was genuinely distressed at what his extreme anger and loss of control had led to and what the repercussions of all that was going to be or it COULD have been a combo of the two - genuinely upset but also 'bunging it on' to an extent in order to try and convince the people there that he never intended to do what he had in fact just done. My personal feeling would be that it was the latter - a combination of genuine and thought out.