Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[PrimeSuspect]

I heard some poll in SA showed almost 80% of SA being angry with her.

Its a shame there's basically no poster here from SA, would be lovely to hear whats actually happening down there.

We have a few from SA, probably in a state of shock. :wink:

 

[buntspecht]

Thanks Giles. Another good one although a bit worrying. CG clearly says that Masipa believed everything OP said and therefore there was no intent. So no directus or eventualis. :scared:

The following is my opinion not CG's. Unless Nel can bring a case such as incompetency against Masipa, I cannot see how the state can argue against her verdict but I hope I am wrong. That is a big blow for me. OP was so obviously a liar and she alludes to this in her judgement, but goes on to submit that she and the assessors thought his story was true. It doesn't stack up. CG goes on to explain why, whilst believing OP's story is true, she can hand down CH because all she needs to do is judge him against a reasonable man. I hope there is some way Nel can do something about this judgement. IMO there has been a total miscarriage of justice here.

I thought CG's comments with respect to the importance of whether Roux/DT had seen that video of OP walking, which completely contradicted Denman's testimony, and still allowed the court to believe that OP was as immobile as suggested, interesting. CG stated that if Roux had viewed the video he could be disbarred, due to dishonesty. Of course, Roux would never agree that he saw it, even though I am sure most of us would find that almost impossible to believe. I cannot see it happening but it sums up Roux's desperate defence IMO.

BIB one incopmetency is to say "digesting is not an exact science, could be 8 hours or one".

What about all the labour, Grissom(CSI) did with those little animals kreeping and evolving on a body to testify the time within hours?

She could say: "Ha you see, OP could not even hear her going down to eat", but her argument is incompetent.

 

[buntspecht]

Yes, I have heard this and, as I say, it remains a possibility. Whether OP goes upstairs once or twice doesn't affect my overall thinking on what happened. I don't think it matters. He went upstairs at least once. We know that for sure. And he went in the bathroom.

There are inconsistencies between all the witness testimony but there are also commonalities which I don't think should be ignored.

Because of the inconsistencies, my timeline has focused on the period outside 03:00-03:17 where I've been investigating what led up to Reeva's death and what OP does afterwards and whether it shows there may be both a reason for what happened and a need to cover it up. I'm concentrating on objective facts and then tallying them with testimony / affidavits etc. This has proven fruitful because it has convinced me that some of OP's version is untruthful or, as Nel puts it, "it did not happen". But I will also cover the 03:00-03:17 period in my timeline, albeit that there will be times, sequences and events which cannot be stated with absolute certainty. This won't matter so much when the whole picture is considered. I'm categorising evidence as being factual, almost certainly true, reasonably possibly true through to speculative/conjecture. Factual has been my starting point.

But because Masipa's chronology was very much the basis for her dismissing any evidence that doesn't fit it, I'm just doing a little exercise to test her timeline and to show where it can be trusted and where it is conjecture (and why). Of course, I'm mindful that she has access to more (and more accurate) information than me ... but it's interesting to note that so does Nel and Roux and so when a fact is stated for which I have no other evidence if it doesn't tally with the same fact that Roux states, it's worth checking out! I'll put something up on this when it's ready.

A shame that Nel didn't had a graphical timeline. Your thoughts are really important.

 

[Cherwell]

For what it's worth, I've emailed the NPA in SA expressing my concern for the thousands of South Africans whose lives have been put at risk by the dangerous precedents set by Masipa's inexplicable verdicts.

 

[buntspecht]

For what it's worth, I've emailed the NPA in SA expressing my concern for the thousands of South Africans whose lives have been put at risk by the dangerous precedents set by Masipa's inexplicable verdicts.

I dont't have this concern. Because this must be present: you have to be a woman of a rich man, must ignore all signs of bad bad behaviour, be a woman of an absolute hero in the country.
I underestimated last point, I think.

due to my limited English , want to emphasize BIB. Didn't mean, it was Reeva's mistake. Not at all. Learn for the future: kick those people out of your live!

 

[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

Wow .. that petition is going at a rate of knots .. it was only on something like 250 when I posted the link this morning and in the space of a few hours is almost up to 700.

Sorry, IB, but I couldn't see any way to be able to contact the author/petition starter so as to put the spelling error right .. but .. it's good to see that so many people are posting so many messages in support in such a coherent, responsible and clued-up way and that there aren't too many of the 'lock the b'std up' type ones because although that might be how many of us feel, basically anyone could say that, and what people (and the petition as a whole) need to be able to do is provide proper reasons why they feel this judgement was erroneous.

 

[Cherwell]

I dont't have this concern. Because this must be present: you have to be a woman of a rich man, must ignore all signs of bad bad behaviour, be a woman of an absolute hero in the country.
I underestimated last point, I think.

You underestimate, or perhaps misunderstand, the implications of this judgement on the law.

 

[Jake18]

For what it's worth, I've emailed the NPA in SA expressing my concern for the thousands of South Africans whose lives have been put at risk by the dangerous precedents set by Masipa's inexplicable verdicts.

I think i'm about to do the same. Ive never even written to the paper - I'm not a complainer by nature - but this is all just so wrong. It's the ammunition charge that tips me over, Arnie's grubby prints are all over this trial somehow, IMO.

 

[Cherwell]

I think i'm about to do the same. Ive never even written to the paper - I'm not a complainer by nature - but this is all just so wrong. It's the ammunition charge that tips me over, Arnie's grubby prints are all over this trial somehow, IMO.

Yes, I've specifically referred to that charge as well. Her verdict on that is surely not sustainable, it opens the doors to all sorts of abuse.

 

[buntspecht]

You underestimate, or perhaps misunderstand, the implications of this judgement on the law.

OK, I'm still believing Nel will appeal. This can't be the final verdict.
And if not, hoping OP goes at least 12 years to prison/jail (which one?).

 

[akp]

Oscar's going upstairs once or twice is really irrelevant. He had the whole house to himself between when he shot Reeva and the time Stander, Stipp etc arrived. And from from what he told Baba, he was clearly buying time.

 

[KarenUK]

You underestimate, or perhaps misunderstand, the implications of this judgement on the law.

It's wide reaching, and I don't think it just applies to South Africa. I think we will see a new trend of people using the "Oscar Pistorius defence".

 

[Giles]

OK, I'm still believing Nel will appeal. This can't be the final verdict.
And if not, hoping OP goes at least 12 years to prison/jail (which one?).

This was what I was hoping for, a lengthy sentence for culpable homicide. The more I read though the less likely this seems. The fact that it is his first offence is in his favour and his disability may factor in considerably.

It seems logical to me that if the minimum sentence for eventualis is 15 years and the maximum for culpable homicide is 15 years and there is such a fine distinction between them that he should be looking at a lengthy sentence for CH.

I wondered whether Masipa thought about his sentence for CH, when she ruled on eventualis. Although this seems logical to me I don't think that is how it will work in law.

 

[jay-jay]

I still don't think that CH is the right or correct verdict though, even if she does jail him for the 15 years .. imo, he is guilty of intentional murder, and not just 'of a person' but of Reeva Steenkamp .. and this is what he ought to be convicted of, for justice to truly prevail.

 

[buntspecht]

Oscar Pistorius free to compete if given suspended sentence, says South African Olympic committee

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/athleti...-committee-20140916-10he5i.html#ixzz3DUAfXrUm

I made a joke about that earlier, but I cant believe it is even being discussed!
Do you remember one soccer-hero biting a little bit, and then getting massiv suspension?

 

[sleuth-d-]

from masipa's verdict:

"He did not know whether the intruder or intruders were on a stepladder outside the bathroom window or where inside the toilet"


so, he is in fight mode.
he is assuming the intruder or intruders in the toilet have climbed in through the window. there may be an intruder or intruders. he shoots 4 bullets at the intruder or intruders in the toilet. and then...

[1] how does he know some of the intruders are still not going to come out of the toilet?

[2] equally, the window is still open. the imaginary ladder still exists, other imaginary intruders still exist, about to climb in through the window just as the first one did... why does he not immediately check the window to nullify the secondary threat? why does he go into flight mode and leave the bathroom. he goes back to the bedroom - allowing the secondary intruders the very advantage that he went to great lengths to prevent the primary intruder from having?

 

[Mr Fossil]

from masipa's verdict:

"He did not know whether the intruder or intruders were on a stepladder outside the bathroom window or where inside the toilet"


so, he is in fight mode.
he is assuming the intruder or intruders in the toilet have climbed in through the window. there may be an intruder or intruders. he shoots 4 bullets at the intruder or intruders in the toilet. and then...

[1] how does he know some of the intruders are still not going to come out of the toilet?

[2] equally, the window is still open. the imaginary ladder still exists, other imaginary intruders still exist, about to climb in through the window just as the first one did... why does he not immediately check the window to nullify the secondary threat? why does he go into flight mode and leave the bathroom. he goes back to the bedroom - allowing the secondary intruders the very advantage that he went to great lengths to prevent the primary intruder from having?

Umm, because it isn't true? JMO etc etc.

 

[jay-jay]

Just going back to basics, I'm still struggling to work out why OP would even think any of the noises he heard while he was in the bedroom would've been that of an intruder, let alone go into combat mode upon hearing them. Basically, he wouldn't have .. nobody would .. it's just a total nonsense.

In the words of Mr Nel .. 'because it didn't happen .. it didn't happen'.

 

[jay-jay]

Umm, because it isn't true? JMO etc etc.

.. yet the judge believed all that nonsense .. she actually believes that OP believed an intruder had:

1) made the ridiculous decision to enter his house on the first floor with a noisy ladder, risking the window being locked when he got to the top of the ladder, instead of making his entry somewhere else on the ground floor or even via the open balcony doors which would've been their obvious point of entry if they really existed and if they really were going to use the ladders (and not only that but this intruder would've had to have scaled the outer wall of the housing complex without first being detected by security/cameras).

2) managed to use prop up the ladder against the wall without making any noise whatsoever

3) and then having climbed in through the window, gone straight into the toilet cubicle and locked themselves in .. in what weird world would anyone think that an intruder is going to do that? If it was an intruder, they would've gained entry and come straight in (and OP knows that) .. they would not have locked themselves in the bathroom, and the sound of a person doing that would NOT have indicated to someone that it was an intruder .. what it WOULD'VE indicated is that it was the person you were, just seconds before, sharing your bed with.



.. it never happened ..

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Does anyone know why OP is estranged from his father? maybe his father has distance himself from OP because he knows he (OP) is a sick sadistic person or some other information? Just pure speculation of course, nothing based in fact here! Also, I wonder about Aimee's distress in court. I bet she knows OP is guilty and was so emotional because she was scared that the truth would come out?

As a manager of his son OP, Henke got into a violent dispute with "Golden Boy" and OP separated definitively from him. No wonder, considering a distrustful, money grubbing Wise guy OP (with much more bad characteristics).

I found no better link than that below:
http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/oscar-pistorius-from-the-podium-to-purgatory/
Or his strained relationship with Henke, who was briefly his manager at the start of his career, but is now relegated to the status of “mate,” for pathos.