Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[buntspecht]

now I'm watching this:
ANN7 Special (full documentary): Triumph to Tragedy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daJoXkohmQo

still on the search of Exclusive BBC Three documentary of murder trial
some of you watched it on channel 11. But says nothing to me

 

[sleuth-d-]

.. 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 ..

absolutely.

and before the shooting oscar was aware of two possible threats [window and toilet] but no threats after the shooting. because his version is to convince the court of one 'intruder', as a replacement for the one person he shot.

unfortunately for him, and using his version, at the time he could not have known there would be just one intruder.

 

[Mr Fossil]

now I'm watching this:
ANN7 Special (full documentary): Triumph to Tragedy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daJoXkohmQo

still on the search of Exclusive BBC Three documentary of murder trial
some of you watched it on channel 11. But says nothing to me

Not sure if this will work:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b045bvg6/oscar-pistorius-the-truth

 

[buntspecht]

Not sure if this will work:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b045bvg6/oscar-pistorius-the-truth

Oh thanks, so fast reply. But its only playable in the UK. But now I know more things to do a search!

 

[buntspecht]

every time I do a Google search on OP whithin the last 24 hours, there is an Wikipedia entry among other answers.

It's well worth going to 'Trial of Oscar Pistorius wiki'. A lot of references!

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

I'd like more information as to the real sentiment of the south africans.

From public newspeople, they use safe language like 'their dissapointed' but boy i hear some serious anger when for example
Masipa needs security because of so much angry people writing angry letters to her.

And judge greenland is angry, probably displayed more anger then any other legal person i have seen on his twitter.

Wonder if anyone lives in South Africa can comment on the mood.

Hi Vanatos,
I am South African (although I live in the States now), but I am in contact with many of my friends and family who still live in SA and I asked them this exact question. They say that people are not only disappointed, but downright outraged, ashamed that the legal system let them down, and in utter shock about this travesty!! Here in the USA, the OP trial was just mentioned briefly on the news radio on Friday, and then was quickly forgotten in the shadow of the ISIS crisis news, but in SA the OP trial is consistently discussed, and still in the headlines. People are truly very upset and very angry about this.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

every time I do a Google search on OP whithin the last 24 hours, there is an Wikipedia entry among other answers.

It's well worth going to 'Trial of Oscar Pistorius wiki'. A lot of references!

Every time I do a Google search on Henke+manager+dispute, there are only entries about OP+dispute (other than with his father), so Google is like all sources: always Oscar, Oscar, Oscar -sigh.

 

[KarenUK]

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.

That the term "First Offence" can be used in such a serious case sums up what a shambles the verdict was. "Yes he killed someone but it's ok, he's never done it before....."

 

[PrimeSuspect]

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?

Why doesn't he just call Frank? :thinking:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

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'.

OP - Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

sorry jay-jay, I couldn't help myself. :blushing:

 

[eimajjjj]

A couple of considerations with appeals:

- if DT appeal a custodial sentence on the CH charge, I know the sentence can actually be increased but can the verdict be changed to murder?

- if PT choose to appeal a small custodial sentence on the CH charge to make it murder, does OP have to stay incarcerated during said appeal?

Hopefully yes on both counts but perhaps wishful thinking.

Ideal situ:

- Masipa gives OP 3 years on CH.
- OP has to serve 1.5 years,
- State appeals for different verdict.
- OP serves 1 year inside and is about to apply for parole.
- State appeal upheld.
- Another 15 years added on new murder charge just as Uncle Arnie pulls up to pick up OP.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

~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.

BBM
Yes, I fully agree. A reasonable person have said " Who is there...is that you, Reeva" and then if she didn't answer, they would have said "I have a gun! Come out now, I am calling the police!!"

 

[pandax81]

With respect to the Professor, it appears s310 does not apply to a high court case. s319 is the relevant section. It is expressly stated in the Act. http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1977-051.pdf

See my post earlier where I demonstrate the Act does not exclude or even seek to exclude an appeal where a competent verdict was found, and therefore Seekoei, as case law only, should be no barrier to an appeal.

Professor Grant has now corrected his mistake meaning there is a big first hurdle in raising an appeal:

https://twitter.com/CriminalLawZA/status/511766884560437248
James Grant @CriminalLawZA
Doing extra research on State's right to appeal - found that s 319 does govern appeals from high Court (not s310 as I stated - apologies)

He is however now of the same opinion as me, that if the Seekoei case blocks an appeal by the state, it can and should be overruled:

https://twitter.com/CriminalLawZA/status/511786019646373888
James Grant @CriminalLawZA
The SCA could overrule a 1982 decision of the AD. IMO, if Seekoei required, for state appeal, the accused walk free, it will be overturned.

 

[turaj]

Brought tears to my eyes soozie. :cry:

Is there any link to this BBC3 program...I would really like to watch and am in US and really can't find anything on it. Thanks.

 

[Hatfield]

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'.

Right. The whole story OP gave is just nonsense and would not happen. And I have proof of what a "reasonable" person would do when hearing what they think is a break in in middle of night. Myself. In over 20 years, I have only left my bed 2 times to actually retrieve my gun and parade through the house to check out the noise because it was loud enough that I really thought we may have an intruder.

On BOTH those occasions, I made darn sure my spouse was woken up by me and I made darn sure she would not leave the bedroom as I grabbed my handgun and went to investigate. There is no way I would have left that room without her being fully aware of what I was fixing to do. And I made darn sure she would stay in the bedroom so I knew where she was.

It just does NOT happen the way OP says it did.

 

[jay-jay]

OP - Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

sorry jay-jay, I couldn't help myself. :blushing:

:lol:

 

[RosieC]

A couple of considerations with appeals:

- if DT appeal a custodial sentence on the CH charge, I know the sentence can actually be increased but can the verdict be changed to murder?

- if PT choose to appeal a small custodial sentence on the CH charge to make it murder, does OP have to stay incarcerated during said appeal?

Hopefully yes on both counts but perhaps wishful thinking.

Ideal situ:

- Masipa gives OP 3 years on CH.
- OP has to serve 1.5 years,
- State appeals for different verdict.
- OP serves 1 year inside and is about to apply for parole.
- State appeal upheld.
- Another 15 years added on new murder charge just as Uncle Arnie pulls up to pick up OP.

I hate to repeat myself as have posted earlier, but it's more than possible that the state cannot appeal at all, even were Pistorius to get a non-custodial sentence. Supreme Court of Appeal case S v Seekoei limits the state’s right of appeal so ONLY possible IF accused was acquitted, and not if found guilty of a lesser charge.

But Oscar found guilty of Culpable Homicide. Therefore no appeal. It would mean that Oscar is now BETTER OFF with Masipa's verdict than he would have been had the verdict been putative self defence. That would be a not guilty charge and the state could then appeal.

If you want to read it for yourselves see http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/gen/oscar-verdict-a-done-deal/

Let's see if this is picked up and analysed by wiser heads than mine.

 

[akp]

What is the general impression about Botha?

I didn't follow the bail hearing closely, I didn't watch him at that hearing and don't even know what exactly took place there (was not a member here then!), but just heard that Roux tore him apart.
But just from the fact that
1. he was removed as the lead investigator on the ground that there were pending murder charges against him,
2. he was not called by the Prosecution Team as a witness, and
3. he was not called by the Defense Team either,
my conclusion is that he was the one in the Police Team who was compromised. For the following reasons:
a) That there were pending charges against him could not have been unknown to the Police Department when he was assigned the job in the first place - so to me the removal was for some other reason, it was just a convenient ground on which he was removed.
b) surely he could have something significant to contribute on behalf of the State, being at the scene quite early and being the investigator during the initial days. There has to be some reason for not putting him up as a witness. They must have thought he has the potential to completely spoil their case when at the stand,
c) Defense team could have used him to establish that the scene was definitely contaminated and possibly other things in their favor (if my conclusion is correct), but then why didn't they call him? Because they were also equally worried that under cross examination from Nel, he might be exposed.

Is this a reasonable conclusion? Or was there anything during the initial stages or during the bail hearing that points to the contrary? Would love to have your views on this.

 

[turaj]

.. I wouldn't be so sure about that :-/

OP has many gun toting friends who will be happy to share with him...he will have as much access to a gun as he wants in he future. I assume he will be prohibited from owning one which frankly means nothing.

 

[pandax81]

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'.

Absolutely right! We should start at the beginning. This fact alone has serious doubt as to whether the story could reasonably possibly be true. It needed at least some attention and explanation in a judgement. It probably requires exploration of the bedroom scene and story, instead this was dismissed as paling into insignificance without any reasoning. The best we had was "well the window was in fact open"!

People who say - he would have asked Reeva 'did you hear that?' are giving the story too much credit. It was not a smashed window downstairs, it was a perfectly expected and ordinary sound, and you would have just gone to sleep or maybe at most asked 'Reeva?' and checked it was her.

This judgement goes beyond the usual realms of differing views, there are genuine questions of competency, absurd or absent reasoning, actual or perceived bias. I am furiously exploring if any avenues are available to appeal on such grounds. Even the level of what is "reasonably possible" is of course flexible, but been stretched well past breaking point. Stick with the simple stuff to see this - for example the finding that OP could have reasonably been safekeeping something with a view to return it to somebody he hadn't spoken to for years and didn't get along with. He got trapped and was caught out red-handed there with that line of questioning, and was deemed an untruthful witness elsewhere, but still got away with a ludicrous story.