Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[jay-jay]

Looking at that screenshot, looks like some terrific recoil to OP’s 9mm.

“A ... B,C,D” was the “grouping” of shots that night.

One of the cartridges was found away from the other three.

~rsbm~

.. and how strange is it that Michelle Burger heard exactly *that* ..


BANG ...... BANG, BANG, BANG ..

I'm still mystified as to how Masipa arrived at all four shots in rapid succession, there is no proof for that whatsoever. There is far more proof for the BANG ... BANG, BANG, BANG ... waaaay more proof! Yet it was all just totally discounted :-/

.. and as for the fiasco where Roux was trying the old 'two double tap' malarky earlier on in the trial .. isn't is just soooo obvious what the defence were trying to do?? (along with trying to confuse her with the timeline, and also mixing up the photos to make them look as if the crime scene had been contaminated) .. that woman needs a flupping good shake, to make her wake up and smell the coffee!

 

[Pirate Doug]

You have described the "big question" perfectly, Datchery:

"If OP had any doubts, all he had to do is look over and see whether or not Reeva was still in bed or not."

That's the start of his fairy tale, and you're right, this one simple, obvious fact, is impossible to ignore.

There are so, so many holes in OP's version, let me add one that I'm not sure has been mentioned:

According to his testimony, OP had to turn to the bed to grab his gun from beneath it. It was so dark at that point, allegedly, that he couldn't see that Reeva was no longer in bed. So, he must have been fumbling around for the gun. He then proceeded through the corridor to the bathroom, in total darkness, towards a perceived threat, screaming his head off.

Again, he must have been fumbling his way down the hall. But surely, if he really believed there was a dangerous intruder in the bathroom, at this point he would have crept silently down the corridor. Otherwise, his own screams would: prevent him from hearing any further noises/alert the intruder to his exact whereabouts. Since it was pitch black, this would give the alleged intruder every opportunity to sneak out of the bathroom and shoot him. Reeva would be next.

Although in movies we’re accustomed to seeing people in fear approaching imminent danger, screaming, in real life, in a cat-and-mouse situation, fear causes you to be quiet - as a mouse.

Without any question, if the scenario were indeed as he had said, he would have told Reeva to get out of the house as quickly as possible, since she had a perfect escape route downstairs, and he had now positioned himself in the corridor, between Reeva and the alleged intruder.

Of course, his version is pure fabrication.

 

[vanatos]

Chris Greenland, a retired South African high court judge, said this was a serious inconsistency.
He told MailOnline: 'I am utterly bemused that this mistake was made.
'I can't wrap my head around it. I have never seen a judge make such a big mistake especially when she had so much time to arrive at a judgement.
'It's inexplicable.
'She has misinterpreted herself with regard to the law because she herself said previously that Oscar Pistorius's defence was that he was not guilty of murder because he killed her by mistake thinking that he was shooting at an intruder.

'Now, during her verdict, she made a statement that was inconsistent because she found that he had not foreseen that he would kill the human being on the other side of the door.
'That was erroneous - she had already set out the law.
'It was a fundamental mistake.'
He believes the state would have a strong case on appeal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ring-lover-Reeva-Steenkamp.html#ixzz3DSW3mzqv

I searched for video, not one yet, hopefully soon.

Thanks, i surely hope someone interviews judge greenland about this, only his reasoned response could calm me down.

 

[jay-jay]

You have described the "big question" perfectly, Datchery:

"If OP had any doubts, all he had to do is look over and see whether or not Reeva was still in bed or not."

That's the start of his fairy tale, and you're right, this one simple, obvious fact, is impossible to ignore.

~rsbm~

BBM .. not only that but if he truly believed there was an intruder in the toilet cubicle, then he had a duty to shout out to them before shooting in order to verify exactly who was in the toilet .. and seeing as he had another person staying with him overnight in pretty close proximity that night, he had a duty to first ensure that it was not them in the toilet.

.. of course, most of us know that's not what happened anyway, but just that this is what any normal person would do in such a situation, and thus makes his intruder story more and more unbelievable .. and in the words of Mr Nel, so improbable as not to be true.

I do not believe for one minute that OP would've said 'Get the **** out of my house .. get the **** out of my house' .. immediately, if he truly thought he had heard an intruder, he would've shouted out 'Who is in there .. is that you, Reeva?' first, just to make absolutely sure it wasn't her.

 

[jay-jay]

You have described the "big question" perfectly, Datchery:

"If OP had any doubts, all he had to do is look over and see whether or not Reeva was still in bed or not."

That's the start of his fairy tale, and you're right, this one simple, obvious fact, is impossible to ignore.

There are so, so many holes in OP's version, let me add one that I'm not sure has been mentioned:

According to his testimony, OP had to turn to the bed to grab his gun from beneath it. It was so dark at that point, allegedly, that he couldn't see that Reeva was no longer in bed. So, he must have been fumbling around for the gun. He then proceeded through the corridor to the bathroom, in total darkness, towards a perceived threat, screaming his head off.

Again, he must have been fumbling his way down the hall. But surely, if he really believed there was a dangerous intruder in the bathroom, at this point he would have crept silently down the corridor. Otherwise, his own screams would: prevent him from hearing any further noises/alert the intruder to his exact whereabouts. Since it was pitch black, this would give the alleged intruder every opportunity to sneak out of the bathroom and shoot him. Reeva would be next.

Although in movies we’re accustomed to seeing people in fear approaching imminent danger, screaming, in real life, in a cat-and-mouse situation, fear causes you to be quiet - as a mouse.

Without any question, if the scenario were indeed as he had said, he would have told Reeva to get out of the house as quickly as possible, since she had a perfect escape route downstairs, and he had now positioned himself in the corridor, between Reeva and the alleged intruder.

Of course, his version is pure fabrication.

Completely agree with all of this, especially the BIB.

 

[mirage1]

Maybe I'm slower than others but I've finally worked out what all the legal dispute is regarding Eventualis and perhaps sharing my layman interpretation may help:

- If I want to kill A but kill B instead by mistake, then this in the past wasn't a valid defence against murder as the intent to kill is being transferred from one person to another ("transfer of intent"). This though is no longer the case UNLESS if when B dies instead of A there was at least a small % chance that when I went out to kill A there was a chance I'd kill B. If that's the case, I am convicted of murder (dolus eventualis).

- Masipa rules out premeditated and Dolus Directus (direct murder) as she believes OP thought there was an intruder (or that's the only 'reliable' evidence left in her eyes and so has to).

- Thus, as OP kills Reeva (B) instead of intruder (A) then he still gets murder ("Dolus Eventualis") as there was a CHANCE that either A or B would die no matter what story you go with.

- Well, Masipa says this can't be the case as how could he carry intent to kill Reeva when he thought she was in bed.

- This is flawed as it only accounts for B (Reeva) and ignores the fact that even though it wasn't B, there was still a chance (which brings intent) to kill A (intruder) so his thought of Reeva in bed is irrelevant and so the test is flawed in its limit to B.

BUT THEN..

- Masipa includes the "didn't intend to kill anyone behind the door, let alone Reeva, as the deceased was in bed". So people and a couple of articles think she's covered her bases BUT she hasn't as the only reasoning she's given for the 'anyone behind the door' is the "deceased being in bed" which is still irrelevant to person A (intruder) and only includes B. In fact, her reasoning for the culpable homicide seems to provide the necessary reasoning needed to PROVE there was intent carried for A. Either way, there is a giant chasm of judgement missing on the chance of A being killed during her Eventualis test.

- And on top of this, OP's contradictory and ambiguous defences have excluded him from a valid PPD defence which would at least ADMIT intent against A but deem it lawful intent which would resolve all the above problems. However, Masipa herself has thrown this defence out so it leaves only Eventualis as option on table.

Anyway, just thinking aloud, sorry if late to the party on this one!

From what I understand she accepted PPD by believing his story and that he genuinely feared for his life, but concluded his actions were still unreasonable thus convicting him of culpable homicide.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Yes, someone was saying on here yesterday that they weren't sure if OP made the trip upstairs once or twice, and then decided it was only the one occasion .. but it was definitely twice/two separate occasions .. the first was when Dr Stipp was there, before the paramedics arrived because he was worried that OP had gone back up to kill himself with the gun, and then the second time was when the paramedics arrived and OP trotted back off upstairs once again to get Reeva's purse (for her ID). The court really, really should've looked much more closely at details like this .. they are all part of the 'mosaic' that proves he murdered Reeva. I'm aware of the possibility that all of these things together may not have provided sufficient proof for convicting him of knowingly and intentionally killing Reeva (although I happen to think there was enough evidence for this, there were tons of it!), but there was surely enough for Masipa to have understood that he did kill her (Reeva, not an intruder) with intent, but that if she was not able to convict him of that in law, then she should've then convicted him of knowingly and intentionally killing his perceived intruder. To convict him of manslaughter is just a total nonsense, and by her attitude, it's clear to me that Masipa completely bought his fake tears and retching, and his lies otherwise she would've gone for the middle conviction at the very least .. she did actually have that within her power to do, in law, as there was most certainly enough proof for that one, but no ...

That was me jay-jay. I originally thought he went upstairs once, then was persuaded it was twice, but have reverted to once having examined the witness testimony more closely. The reason I changed to twice was after checking out what Dr Stipp says, and I agree, it does look like the sequence is as you describe. But it is also quite a vague sequence, containing phrases like "at one point" and "at some point". If you check out Stander's testimony though you will see that what Stipp testifies correlates with what Stander testifies when he is referring to the time that OP goes upstairs after the paramedics have arrived. This is after Reeva has been pronounced dead at 03:50. We only have Carice's testimony for this latter point, but it seems reasonable that the medics would only ask for ID after they'd attended to Reeva and there was nothing further they could do. We also know from Carice's testimony that he entered the bathroom on this occasion.

If I may quote from Juror#13's blog (thanks Lisa), which accurately reflects the testimony:

Stipp's testimony

"At one time when Dr. Stipp was outsidetalking to Mr. Stander, Oscar went back upstairs. Dr. Stipp asked Mr. Standerwhere the gun was located because he was afraid that Oscar was going upstairsto kill himself. Mr. Stander said he didn’t know where the gun was. Oscar cameback a few minutes later. Mr. Stander’s wife arrived at some point. They wereall outside talking and Mrs. Stander made a comment that she hoped this didn’tget out to the papers. The ambulance arrived a short while after. Dr. Stipp told Mr. Stander that he was no longer of use so he would go back home and theyexchanged phone numbers. Dr. Stipp got in his car and drove back home."

Stander's testimony

"The ambulance arrived shortly after that and declared Reeva dead. Stipp was standing outside with Stander at this point. He asked Stipp what he had heard, because Stipp had previously mentioned his house was behind Oscar’s, and Stipp said he heard 4 shots, silence, screams, and 4 shots again. Then Stipp mentioned that he couldn’t do anything more, so he was going to leave. Stander asked Stipp for his telephone number to give to the police in case they asked for it.

Just before he left, Stipp said to Stander that he saw Oscar going up the stairs. Stander saw this as well; he walked inside and asked Carice where Oscar is going. Carice jumped up, went up the stairs and was calling Oscar’s name. Stander then says that he had gone upstairs because the ambulance people were asking for ID for the lady."

Footnote

It is possible that OP went upstairs twice but I don't think the above testimony proves it. However, OP certainly had the opportunity. The evidence for this is that we are told by Stander that when he called Netcare 911 (as it is known) Stipp came out and explained Reeva's injuries to them followed by Carice, who gave them directions. The call was at 03:27:06 and lasted about 5 minutes. I would suggest this leaves OP alone in the house between at least 03:31 and 03:32. I have an 0020 phone activation that probably coincides with this.

If you can point to any further evidence supporting either version I'd be really interested.

 

[jay-jay]

OK, will have to investigate further!

Meanwhile, I have spotted this on Gerrie Nel's FB support page .. someone has set up an online petition, so please 'like and share' this around to get as many names on the petition as possible (I'm not entirely sure about the wording of the petition, because I'm not sure that what they are asking is possible, under law .. but, it's the only petition going around that I know of, and any kind pressure all helps! ) http://www.change.org/p/national-pr...r-reeva-steenkamp-murdered-by-oscar-pistorius

 

[sleuth-d-]

That was me jay-jay. I originally thought he went upstairs once, then was persuaded it was twice, but have reverted to once having examined the witness testimony more closely. The reason I changed to twice was after checking out what Dr Stipp says, and I agree, it does look like the sequence is as you describe. But it is also quite a vague sequence, containing phrases like "at one point" and "at some point". If you check out Stander's testimony though you will see that what Stipp testifies correlates with what Stander testifies when he is referring to the time that OP goes upstairs after the paramedics have arrived. This is after Reeva has been pronounced dead at 03:50. We only have Carice's testimony for this latter point, but it seems reasonable that the medics would only ask for ID after they'd attended to Reeva and there was nothing further they could do. We also know from Carice's testimony that he entered the bathroom on this occasion.

If I may quote from Juror#13's blog (thanks Lisa), which accurately reflects the testimony:

Stipp's testimony

"At one time when Dr. Stipp was outsidetalking to Mr. Stander, Oscar went back upstairs. Dr. Stipp asked Mr. Standerwhere the gun was located because he was afraid that Oscar was going upstairsto kill himself. Mr. Stander said he didn’t know where the gun was. Oscar cameback a few minutes later. Mr. Stander’s wife arrived at some point. They wereall outside talking and Mrs. Stander made a comment that she hoped this didn’tget out to the papers. The ambulance arrived a short while after. Dr. Stipp told Mr. Stander that he was no longer of use so he would go back home and theyexchanged phone numbers. Dr. Stipp got in his car and drove back home."

Stander's testimony

"The ambulance arrived shortly after that and declared Reeva dead. Stipp was standing outside with Stander at this point. He asked Stipp what he had heard, because Stipp had previously mentioned his house was behind Oscar’s, and Stipp said he heard 4 shots, silence, screams, and 4 shots again. Then Stipp mentioned that he couldn’t do anything more, so he was going to leave. Stander asked Stipp for his telephone number to give to the police in case they asked for it.

Just before he left, Stipp said to Stander that he saw Oscar going up the stairs. Stander saw this as well; he walked inside and asked Carice where Oscar is going. Carice jumped up, went up the stairs and was calling Oscar’s name. Stander then says that he had gone upstairs because the ambulance people were asking for ID for the lady."

Footnote

It is possible that OP went upstairs twice but I don't think the above testimony proves it. However, OP certainly had the opportunity. The evidence for this is that we are told by Stander that when he called Netcare 911 (as it is known) Stipp came out and explained Reeva's injuries to them followed by Carice, who gave them directions. The call was at 03:27:06 and lasted about 5 minutes. I would suggest this leaves OP alone in the house between at least 03:31 and 03:32. I have an 0020 phone activation that probably coincides with this.

If you can point to any further evidence supporting either version I'd be really interested.

bbm
the two pieces in bold suggest two trips to me. op could not have gone upstairs to answer the netcare request for id before the ambulance arrived.

 

[Greater Than]

I am still so damn angry about this verdict.

I bet if it was Masipa behind that toilet door that night she would have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the guy on the other side was shooting with intention to kill.

 

[Interested Bystander]

OK, will have to investigate further!

Meanwhile, I have spotted this on Gerrie Nel's FB support page .. someone has set up an online petition, so please 'like and share' this around to get as many names on the petition as possible (I'm not entirely sure about the wording of the petition, because I'm not sure that what they are asking is possible, under law .. but, it's the only petition going around that I know of, and any kind pressure all helps! ) http://www.change.org/p/national-pr...r-reeva-steenkamp-murdered-by-oscar-pistorius

I don't belong to facebook but if you do it might be an idea to let someone know that it should be formally not formerly. Looks a tad uneducated to me.

 

[Pirate Doug]

~rsbm~

BBM .. not only that but if he truly believed there was an intruder in the toilet cubicle, then he had a duty to shout out to them before shooting in order to verify exactly who was in the toilet .. and seeing as he had another person staying with him overnight in pretty close proximity that night, he had a duty to first ensure that it was not them in the toilet.

.. of course, most of us know that's not what happened anyway, but just that this is what any normal person would do in such a situation, and thus makes his intruder story more and more unbelievable .. and in the words of Mr Nel, so improbable as not to be true.

I do not believe for one minute that OP would've said 'Get the **** out of my house .. get the **** out of my house' .. immediately, if he truly thought he had heard an intruder, he would've shouted out 'Who is in there .. is that you, Reeva?' first, just to make absolutely sure it wasn't her.

OP claims to have heard sounds in the bathroom. At that point, he's supposedly in the bedroom right by Reeva, who he says was in bed. Now, what person, in this situation, would not immediately whisper to their partner: "did you hear that?" and expect a response. I've been in exactly that situation many times, and it's always what I do. After all, it's not uncommon to hear a strange unidentified sound in the middle of the night. In my case, it's never been an intruder, always an animal, door banging in the breeze, etc. I even had a fox in the house once (lots of fox attacks in my area!)

With your partner right there beside you, why would you go gung-ho towards the perceived danger, without eliciting a response from your partner first?

No one would, regardless of disability.

 

[Mr Fossil]

bbm
the two pieces in bold suggest two trips to me. op could not have gone upstairs to answer the netcare request for id before the ambulance arrived.

That's exactly how I read it when I was persuaded it was two trips. If you listen to the actual testimony you'll see that Stipp doesn't relate the tale in one go, he is interrupted by Nel and starts talking about when he was looking for a house on the estate etc. He also uses vague phrases like "I was in and out of the house" and "at one stage". The sequence he gives cannot IMO be taken to be strictly chronological. But when I correlate the content of the testimony with Stander's I see one trip.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

THE PISTORIUS TRIAL IS OVER, BUT HAS JUSTICE BEEN SERVED?

“I can’t believe that they believe it was an accident.”

That’s what Reeva Steenkamp’s mother June told NBC in her first interview after the verdict. Judging by social media, by callers to talk radio, by people on the street, she was not alone.

But Oscar Pistorius walked out of the North Gauteng High Court on Friday cleared of murder. He is officially not a murderer. Whatever happens to him now, his name, his reputation – his all-important brand – will not suffer that taint. Oscar Pistorius did not murder anyone.

Instead, he was “negligent”. He was “reckless”. Reeva Steenkamp died because Oscar Pistorius was negligent and reckless.

This law business is a funny one. When many of us think of “culpable homicide”, we think of a driver accidentally hitting someone with their car. We don’t think of someone walking up to a tiny toilet door and blasting four bullets through it. Four closely-grouped bullets, not a wild spray. A toilet so small that there was literally nowhere to hide.

That sounds a lot more like murder to many of us.

The law, in Judge Masipa’s interpretation, thinks otherwise. Judge Masipa also thinks that Pistorius’s post-shooting behaviour – crying, praying to God, screaming for help – is a sign that he did not foresee that his actions could lead to death.

Many acts of murderous rage are followed by just this kind of penitence, but that’s the kind of thing we have to let go now.

But we have to maintain our faith in the law, even while we who are not legal experts gesture in hopeless frustration to the fact that a rhino poacher was sentenced in July to 77 years in prison, while Oscar Pistorius sleeps in his uncle’s house. We can’t always get the verdict that seems intuitively “right”.

No verdict could have brought Reeva Steenkamp back to life. But at the end of all of this, it is hard not to feel exhausted, and jaded. It is hard to imagine what the Steenkamp family must endure, to accept that their daughter died from “negligence”. The sight of Reeva’s cousin Kim collapsing into sobs as the final verdict was read was testament enough to their pain.

http://ewn.co.za/2014/09/15/OPINION...ius-trial-is-over-but-has-justice-been-served


I am a strong advocate against poaching but it doesn't make sense that Reeva's life is worth less than the rhinos and her murderer is free.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

PHIYEGA DISAPPOINTED WITH OSCAR PISTORIUS VERDICT

JOHANNESBURG – National Police Commissioner Riah Phiyega has told Eyewitness News she is disappointed with the verdict in the Oscar Pistorius trial.
She says her detectives were confident they had enough evidence to prove a murder charge.

Phiyega says it’s up to the prosecutors to argue the case in court.

“If I were them, with my little knowledge of the law, I’ve heard of something called an appeal. I would go and appeal."

http://ewn.co.za/2014/09/16/Oscar-Pistorius-Phiyega-disappointed-with-Oscar-Pistorius-verdict

 

[Giles]

Here is a short audio clip of Judge Greenland talking after the first day of the verdict. I didn’t upload it before because often the original video clips are uploaded to his YouTube channel. If this discussion does get uploaded to his channel I will delete this recording.

https://soundcloud.com/giles-10/greenland/s-9cebu

 

[KarenUK]

I'm so glad I have you guys to share my ranty-outrage with :loveyou:

 

[jay-jay]

OP claims to have heard sounds in the bathroom. At that point, he's supposedly in the bedroom right by Reeva, who he says was in bed. Now, what person, in this situation, would not immediately whisper to their partner: "did you hear that?" and expect a response. I've been in exactly that situation many times, and it's always what I do. After all, it's not uncommon to hear a strange unidentified sound in the middle of the night. In my case, it's never been an intruder, always an animal, door banging in the breeze, etc. I even had a fox in the house once (lots of fox attacks in my area!)

With your partner right there beside you, why would you go gung-ho towards the perceived danger, without eliciting a response from your partner first?

No one would, regardless of disability.

Exactly .. even though (in his version) he was not actually in bed with her, he was by the stereo just about to cover the LED light with a pair of Reeva's jeans .. he would still have turned to her where he thought she was on the bed, just as an automatic reaction .. and when he went for his gun, he would still have said that very thing to her as he retrieved it from under the bed (i.e. 'did you hear that' .. and not just simply whispering 'phone the police') and the very 'fact' (in his version) that he got absolutely no response when he did actually whisper for Reeva to phone the police while getting his gun, and he thought absolutely nothing of there being no response from Reeva, speaks volumes .. i.e. it's total BS! The whole thing is just so absurd! How can anyone, let alone a qualified judge, believe this BS! It's just beyond me, it really is ..

 

[lithgow1]

Snipped from Pirate Doug's excellent post: 'He then proceeded through the corridor to the bathroom, in total darkness, towards a perceived threat, screaming his head off' is just one more instance IMO of Pistorius's version attempting to cover all the bases of what the neighbours may have heard. As PD says, you would be VERY quiet in order to hear what the 'intruder' was up to, where they were etc. You wouldn't be screaming your head off. It's just not possible that Masipa could have examined and dissected Pistorius's version to any depth and still concluded that it was all reasonably, possibly true. It sounded like BS right from the start and never got any more believable and yet she bought it all in its entirety. And from someone she admitted was an evasive and dishonest witness. I still don't get how dishonest + evasive does not = lying his *advertiser censored* off in order to save it.

 

[Really?]

"

~rsbm~

BBM .. not only that but if he truly believed there was an intruder in the toilet cubicle, then he had a duty to shout out to them before shooting in order to verify exactly who was in the toilet .. and seeing as he had another person staying with him overnight in pretty close proximity that night, he had a duty to first ensure that it was not them in the toilet.

.. of course, most of us know that's not what happened anyway, but just that this is what any normal person would do in such a situation, and thus makes his intruder story more and more unbelievable .. and in the words of Mr Nel, so improbable as not to be true.

I do not believe for one minute that OP would've said 'Get the **** out of my house .. get the **** out of my house' .. immediately, if he truly thought he had heard an intruder, he would've shouted out 'Who is in there .. is that you, Reeva?' first, just to make absolutely sure it wasn't her.

Well said....I am still in the rabbit hole....with her saying if the beautiful Reeva had hovered over him in bed he could have blasted her then...wth?......she did say that right?....I'll never get out of this hole until she explains her reasoning. Boom