Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[Cherwell]

This is my understanding of it too Rosie, and have been wondering if JM found him guilty of a lesser charge to prevent an appeal. If she had cleared him on all charges then the state could have appealed it. Seems as though she has done her best to ensure that OP is not punished once, never mind twice (as she was so worried about when instructing an outpatient psych assessment.

If that's so, then no wonder she needs armed guards around her.

 

[soozieqtips]

Reeva Steenkamp's parents request meeting with athlete in emotional new interview after verdict.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...sentencing-for-culpable-homicide-9735566.html

Does anyone think OP would give them the time of day? I don't.

 

[KarenUK]

Seen the BBC documentary now. Her parents are better people than I could be!
But it reminds me of when a woman I knew fairly well's daughter was murdered when I asked how angry she was at the person who did it - her words will always stay with me - "It's horrible enough being full of grief, I won't add full of hate to it".

 

[turaj]

Reeva Steenkamp's parents request meeting with athlete in emotional new interview after verdict.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...sentencing-for-culpable-homicide-9735566.html

Does anyone think OP would give them the time of day? I don't.

I feel pretty sure that he will sit down with them and he should. As for timing not sure if his PR people will want that before or after the sentencing. He may do it prior as his team will hope that it can be used in his favor in front of the judge for sentencing. It will also help him to unload some of his guilt in some sort of strange way. Yes I think he will do that no question.

 

[mirage1]

I don't think nel ever asked Oscar, why he never considered that it was reeva who went to the toilet and made the noise considering she was awake at the time. It would have been the most natural assumption for Oscar rather than intruder. Regardless, to not even check and just go in a shoot is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Figuring]

Found a good doc on the State's right to appeal -- a report from 2000 that recommends they be able to appeal on both Fact and Laws. While that recommendation is still non-binding, I find this a really useful document that gives an overview of what is and isn't allowed, and the process involved. Still reading... it can be found here:

http://www.justice.gov.za/salrc/reports/r_prj73_appeal_2000dec.pdf

Also. I was looking at the Wiki for the Criminal Procedure Act of SA in order to get links and came across this line from two case rulings:
"The effect of false testimony by the accused is usually equivalent to his giving no evidence."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_procedure_in_South_Africa)

--So now I need to go and review how she characterized OP's testimony...I know she said he was "evasive" which to me equals deception = lying, but who knows because the law really splits hairs...

 

[turaj]

I don't think nel ever asked Oscar, why he never considered that it was reeva who went to the toilet and made the noise considering she was awake at the time. It would have been the most natural assumption for Oscar rather than intruder. Regardless, to not even check and just go in a shoot is beyond ridiculous.

Again just common sense...no bullet tradjectory needed...no reconstruction of "toilet" etc. common sense is you say who is there...I have a gun or something and you glance at the bed...I guess all this common sense is suspended if you are OP and a double amputee.

 

[geevee]

Reeva Steenkamp's parents request meeting with athlete in emotional new interview after verdict.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...sentencing-for-culpable-homicide-9735566.html

Does anyone think OP would give them the time of day? I don't.[/QUOTE]

BBM

Only if he thinks it'll improve his chances at sentencing. Which I fully expect a veiled 'affluenza' pleading for no jail term.

 

[cottonweaver]

In looking at OP's exes there was one that he dated on and off for five years ...bio seemed like she had a very good job and of course beautiful. She would be more along the lines of Reeva. Early on when this happened she came to his rescue and said no way could he murder someone etc. and remained very quiet ever since. She definitely is in the Pistorius corner...in general Sam Taylor I think is totally managed in ALL aspects of her life by her mother who is definitely no fool judging from the interview. As I have said before she is clearly profiting off this but I think it would be a stretch to think she is making up the stuff they say about OP...it seems consistent with his treatment of Reeva (as much as we know with only texts etc to go by). Sam does fit the "dumb" blonde imagine but I thought held together pretty well on the stand. This new "squeeze" is really young and again her parents are backing the relationship and I assume it is like Sam another family on the take with any $$(or rand) that OP will throw their way.

BIB this is jenna Edkins. In the new Sam Taylor book, her mum Trish mentions that she knew that Op had been seeing JE DURING the relationship OP had with her daughter PLUS says she knew that OP saw (not platonically) JE whilst he was with Reeva.
I haven't bought book and found that in an online extract a few days ago - so no PROOF of this.
Maybe this is why JE is very quiet but supportive. something to hide. ?
So the Erin Stear suspicions may have been a Bum Steer?!! It was a lot closer to home...Jenna!?
Not saying this was the source of the row that night.

Will try and look for link later

 

[pandax81]

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!

Hi, This isn’t really right, but you certainly are not slow, it has all been very confusing. Let me try and explain the law simply (forget Masipa for now).

If you hit your target

• Then it is not directly relevant if the identity of the actual victim turns out to be someone other than who was intended
• The legal jargon for such a scenario is “error in persona” or “error in objecta”
• Whether you had direct intention (dolus directus - wanted to do it) or legal intention (dolus eventualis - foresaw and took risk you may do it) or even direct intention with pre-meditation all forms can still apply despite the victim turning out to be someone else
• The key question relates to what you intended to do to the human body in space and time concerned. If you intended to unlawfully kill this human body, then it is murder.
• This has always been the law in SA
• There is no transfer of intent legally speaking, because the intent in this crime relates to the human body in space and time that was struck, not the identity of said human being
• This is not some legal technicality - it accords with common sense and moral reasoning and is vital to define murder properly

You can stop here for the OP case if you like. However...

If you miss your target and the blow hits someone else

• The legal jargon for this scenario is "aberratio ictus"
• By definition you attempted to kill the human body in space and time which was missed and if the attempt was to unlawfully kill then it is attempted murder
• By definition you did not have direct intention to kill the human body in space and time which was struck
• You may however have foreseen and took the risk that the blow may go astray and unlawfully kill the human body which was struck - in this case, you had legal intent or dolus eventualis and then you are guilty of murdering the victim
• If you did not foresee such a risk concerning the body which was struck then you are not guilty of murdering the victim
• The above is current SA law and we can see that we are not transferring any intent legally speaking, we are treating each human body in space and time separately and assessing the intent for each one separately
• The old SA law was different. It accepted transferred intent and allowed one to say that even without any foresight of the blow going astray, one still had dolus directus - direct intent - to murder the eventual body in space and time that was struck, because we can legally transfer the intent directed at one body in space and time to another.

 

[soozieqtips]

I feel pretty sure that he will sit down with them and he should. As for timing not sure if his PR people will want that before or after the sentencing. He may do it prior as his team will hope that it can be used in his favor in front of the judge for sentencing. It will also help him to unload some of his guilt in some sort of strange way. Yes I think he will do that no question.

I think he'll feel they're of no use to him, so why bother?

 

[turaj]

Reeva Steenkamp's parents request meeting with athlete in emotional new interview after verdict.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...sentencing-for-culpable-homicide-9735566.html

Does anyone think OP would give them the time of day? I don't.[/QUOTE]

BBM

Only if he thinks it'll improve his chances at sentencing. Which I fully expect a veiled 'affluenza' pleading for no jail term.

I would assume that one of the Steenkamps will speak or have a statement read at that sentencing...I think he will meet with them so they cannot say he has not really apologized to them etc. and who knows they may buy some of what he says in terms of sorrow. He will try but only for once again his own gain. I think if he meets with them it will continue the judge's feeling of poor OP. If I were the Steenkamps I would not do it until after the sentencing where he has less to gain...and I assume their legal consul will advise the same.

 

[turaj]

I think he'll feel they're of no use to him, so why bother?

don't you think that would look good at the sentencing?

 

[KarenUK]

Might have taken my rant to Change.org.....
https://www.change.org/p/internatio...icide-to-compete-in-the-olympics-paraolympics

 

[Interested Bystander]

Found a good doc on the State's right to appeal -- a report from 2000 that recommends they be able to appeal on both Fact and Laws. While that recommendation is still non-binding, I find this a really useful document that gives an overview of what is and isn't allowed, and the process involved. Still reading... it can be found here:

http://www.justice.gov.za/salrc/reports/r_prj73_appeal_2000dec.pdf

Also. I was looking at the Wiki for the Criminal Procedure Act of SA in order to get links and came across this line from two case rulings:
"The effect of false testimony by the accused is usually equivalent to his giving no evidence."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_procedure_in_South_Africa)

--So now I need to go and review how she characterized OP's testimony...I know she said he was "evasive" which to me equals deception = lying, but who knows because the law really splits hairs...

BiB

This is the one I posted yesterday evening - post 158. I too hoped this might be of some use but I am not sure it has been written into law yet. It appears to be an interim report on Project 173. Pages 105 to 107 are pertinent. I am hoping that this is somehow now law but I think Pandax81 would have found it, if it were. I still haven't totally given up hope that something will be found that will allow Nel to appeal.


EDIT This comes under Section 322 of the CPS Act. I have read this again and I feel it only applies to the criminal and is not available to the Prosecution. Section 319, as Pandax18 points out is the relevant section.

 

[pandax81]

I was reading the article RosieC posted about chances for appeal. Thanks for that. It says, essentially, where there was "a competent verdict," the state cannot appeal. According to the ruling, the state can only appeal if there was a "complete acquittal."

To me, the key words here are "competent verdict". If the judge did NOT make a competent verdict, there could be grounds for appeal.

I for one have questions about the judge's state of mind... Her logic was so convoluted as to be frightening. She also appeared not to be fluent with a document she ostensibly created over a period of weeks. Editing it on live tv and whatnot. I believe there may be some genuine cognitive issues at play with the judge (bias aside). It seems the state could appeal on these grounds.

Has anyone found statues pertaining to SA's definitions of and exclusions to "competent conviction"? I'm looking...

Unfortunately, "competent verdict" doesn't refer to the competency of the judgement. When charged with certain crimes e.g. murder, then a court can convict on what is known as a competent charge instead, e.g. culpable homicide. This is what is intended by the term "competent verdict".

 

[Figuring]

BiB

This is the one I posted yesterday evening - post 158. I too hoped this might be of some use but I am not sure it has been written into law yet. It appears to be an interim report on Project 173. Pages 105 to 107 are pertinent. I am hoping that this is somehow now law but I think Pandax81 would have found it, if it were. I still haven't totally given up hope that something will be found that will allow Nel to appeal.

Ah thanks, sorry for the duplicate! I am reading some case law there, re: appealing due to bias. I've got to get to school but will resume tonight.

 

[east2west]

I'm still on the fence if the night of 13 February that Reeva was actually sharing Oscar's bedroom. I can not expel the possibility that she was actually intending to utilize the guest bedroom for her slumber as well as for the reworking of her speech via her Ipad. I could go either way. I know her tote bag was in his bedroom however it was cleanly packed and does not look like it was in any way utilized.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Reeva Steenkamp's parents request meeting with athlete in emotional new interview after verdict.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...sentencing-for-culpable-homicide-9735566.html

Does anyone think OP would give them the time of day? I don't.

I don't think he'll do it either.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

I'm still on the fence if the night of 13 February that Reeva was actually sharing Oscar's bedroom. I can not expel the possibility that she was actually intending to utilize the guest bedroom for her slumber as well as for the reworking of her speech via her Ipad. I could go either way. I know her tote bag was in his bedroom however it was cleanly packed and does not look like it was in any way utilized.

Would certainly explain why the alarm was disarmed, and the stomach contents that was still in her body!