Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[Deleted member 102539]

Twitter Carl P.

Amongst the Joe Soaps of this world is chap called @realDonaldTrump. Ignorance is inexcusable. #notevery1isanexpert

 

[buntspecht]

Posted on 20 February after the bail hearing:

“As you can just imagine – I cannot even imagine myself – being the tool that, that, that, that took my loved one away”

Unfortunately for you Arnold we think (read know) you and your family are all tools.

“Oscar will survive. He will have a tough time going forward but he’s a survivor”.

No Arnold, he did survive. He had a tough time until a few weeks later when he went to Mozambique and was photographed out partying with friends and picked up a new girlfriend 52 days later. Yeah, he’s a survivor. Reeva is not.

“I haven’t seen him for a couple of days now because we were busy trying to collect evidence …”

Since when is it a family member’s position to collect evidence. This is so wrong.

Speaking about Sheila, OP’s mother, he says “She was a genuine Christian”.

Arnold and his family are the antithesis of genuine Christians IMO.

“You know, I would say the case is going and, and you can judge for yourself. Like light controls darkness, truth will prevail and as you, as we go along – because I know the truth – I know exactly what happened”

How does Arnold know the truth. He wasn’t there. All he knows is OP's version.
If Arnold knows the truth, why does he believe Oscar.
If Arnold knows the truth, why does he let a murderer stay in his home.

video view original

Just like everybody else, you’re entitled to your views. I guess the most respected legal experts in SA and around the world are all wrong, including the vast majority of people who’ve been following this trial.

well done. This dialog will apear in my book
thank you. judgjudi

 

[jay-jay]

I don't remember OP's exact words but when giving evidence (or telling lies as I prefer to call it), he said something along the lines of "if Reeva had just spoken to me............. it wouldn't have happened". Now, if you believe his 'version' that could mean that if she had shouted, he would have realised it was Reeva and not an intruder in the bathroom. If you agree with the Judge that he is a liar, then it could mean that she had locked herself in the bathroom and was refusing to come out and speak to him, and he lost the rag. Along with that other comment "I just wanted Reeva...to ask...................why.................... was she calling the police" then it may give us an idea of what really happened that night. I think OP may have convinced himself that it was Reeva's fault. Just my thoughts.

Oh, most definitely .. yes!

 

[jay-jay]

Twitter Carl P.

Amongst the Joe Soaps of this world is chap called @realDonaldTrump. Ignorance is inexcusable. #notevery1isanexpert

View attachment 59179

Yes, I saw that cartoon on CP's twitter feed .. what he doesn't seem to realise is that very many of those 'Joe Soaps' have actually followed this trial in quite some detail, and are very intelligent people .. they aren't just shouting all those things without any knowledge to back it up. But of course, it suits the Pistorius clan's position, so they will make a meal out of anything like this ..

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Yes, I saw that cartoon on CP's twitter feed .. what he doesn't seem to realise is that very many of those 'Joe Soaps' have actually followed this trial in quite some detail, and are very intelligent people .. they aren't just shouting all those things without any knowledge to back it up. But of course, it suits the Pistorius clan's position, so they will make a meal out of anything like this ..

Certainly you have seen the tweets of CP's several friends also. They all are on his/OP's side and are supporting him. Why, I wonder.

 

[Jamtart]

I hope Carl P is just as quick to praise the wisdom and experience of the state prosecutors and appeal judges if an appeal is lodged and successful. Will he and Uncle A still be singing JM's praises if she sentences OP to 15 years in prison? Or are they not worrying about that because they somehow already know what his sentence will be? They always win. As Reeva's parents said, the jubilation of the Pistorius family regarding the verdict is shocking and insensitive. Horrible, horrible family, not to mention dangerous.
Edited to add: Is he dismissing the opinion of the legal experts who are questioning the verdict too? Does he think Judge Greenland deserves to be depicted as a dirty ignorant slob?

 

[turaj]

This documentary is now on Youtube.

Oscar Pistorius murder trial The Truth BBC Documentary 2014

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hef-ixYyS7E

Thank you so much...i have that on bookmark for tonight...I can count on the latest from everyone here!

 

[Interested Bystander]

so you could be my girlfriend.

OT We have all three varieties of woodpeckers (buntspecht) visiting our garden. I am wondering whether you chose your forum name because you felt you were banging your head against a hard object during the trial; or is it because of your love of colourful woodpeckers?

 

[turaj]

Yes, I agree Kitty. I really think OP is the kind of guy who would bury the truth inside.

At this point, he’s told the lie so often and to so many people, enlarged, embellished and fine-tuned it, that no doubt he himself believes he never murdered Reeva in cold blood ... he’s actually convinced himself it was a terrible “accident”.

He MUST keep up the lies because it’s the only thing that allows him to look in the mirror - if he dares.

I do think this intent vs accident is so key and maybe it is just this simple. At the time of the "incident (hate that word they use) he did intend to kill either Reeva or whoever he thought was in there (if he did not he would have done things much differently) but after the fact and seeing what happened he then really inside of him deems it a tragic accident. I don't even know in his totally scrambled brain if he can sort out the difference so of course he goes with accident. He is guilty of murder in my eyes but I do see where there may be a blur in his eyes...but that is what a judge is there for to sort out the facts and I don't agree with her conclusion. I think you can pehink exactly how I have done and still convict him of murder as any reasonable person would have known the outcome.

 

[808]

I hope Carl P is just as quick to praise the wisdom and experience of the state prosecutors and appeal judges if an appeal is lodged and successful. Will he and Uncle A still be singing JM's praises if she sentences OP to 15 years in prison? Or are they not worrying about that because they somehow already know what his sentence will be? They always win. As Reeva's parents said, the jubilation of the Pistorius family regarding the verdict is shocking and insensitive. Horrible, horrible family, not to mention dangerous.

I doubt there will be any positive concession of the legal process should it not favour SA'a favourite former legless runner.
Carl was born with "Beast Mode" on baby. Nuthin's gonna bring him or his extremely privileged family down ...just check his twitter page.
https://twitter.com/search?q=carl pistorius&src=typd

The laws an *advertiser censored* for Pistorians to whip into the best shape "reasonably possibly" available with the best $$counsel etc etc :yes:

Not a fan at all..:scale:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Carl was born with "Beast Mode" on baby. Nuthin's gonna bring him or his extremely privileged family down ...just check his twitter page.
https://twitter.com/search?q=carl pistorius&src=typd

The laws an *advertiser censored* for Pistorians to whip into the best shape "reasonably possibly" available with the best $$counsel etc etc :yes:

Not a fan if you were in any doubt.:justice:

I am sure you noticed this on his twitter page. Again the Pistorius family show no thought for Reeva who has no chance of restoration due to her murder. The family motto should be "Me First, Me Last"

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/democracy/3759-assessors-can-decide-pistorius-s-fate

In an article about the importance of assessors in high courts, published by the Southern African Legal Information Institute, he explains that the expert assessor's role developed out of the judges' inability to competently preside over complex cases. Assessors are skilled in the matters they are presiding over and can therefore help avoid a miscarriage of justice. "A second head with the requisite knowledge, experience and skill of reasoning in the relevant field will serve as a potential benefit, saving litigation costs and raising public confidence in the judicial system," Lerm adds.

The assessor's role

Both Mazibuko and Henzen-du Toit sit with Judge Masipa during the proceedings and listen to all the evidence presented to her. However, Witz says assessors are only there to help the judge decide the verdict. "They are only meant [to] try on the facts and can overrule the judge. But they can only overrule her on the facts. When it comes to sentencing they play no role whatsoever."

Unfortunately at least one assessor agreed with MyLady.

 

[Interested Bystander]

http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/democracy/3759-assessors-can-decide-pistorius-s-fate

In an article about the importance of assessors in high courts, published by the Southern African Legal Information Institute, he explains that the expert assessor's role developed out of the judges' inability to competently preside over complex cases. Assessors are skilled in the matters they are presiding over and can therefore help avoid a miscarriage of justice. "A second head with the requisite knowledge, experience and skill of reasoning in the relevant field will serve as a potential benefit, saving litigation costs and raising public confidence in the judicial system," Lerm adds.

The assessor's role

Both Mazibuko and Henzen-du Toit sit with Judge Masipa during the proceedings and listen to all the evidence presented to her. However, Witz says assessors are only there to help the judge decide the verdict. "They are only meant [to] try on the facts and can overrule the judge. But they can only overrule her on the facts. When it comes to sentencing they play no role whatsoever."

Unfortunately at least one assessor agreed with MyLady.

I think she said when she was deliberating that they were unanimous in their findings. Maybe that was to avoid any consternation in the public arena.

 

[aa9511]

Oscar would have to tell someone,it's human nature, he'd tell his brother, he's also had his brush with the Law and time in Court - Oscar phoned him that night and he got in touch with his Lawyer, Oldwage, I believe, Oldwage turned up at the house and that's probably when Intruder version kicked into gear and the PR machine started - OJ Simpson's Defence Lawyer was interviewed about this Case and he said had he been Oscar's Lawyer the first thing he'd have done to tell Oscar 'SPEAK TO NOONE, ANYTHING YOU SAY FROM NOW ONWARDS WILL COME VIA ME< AND ME ONLY' , that's why I reckon when the police showed up at Silverwoods, Oscar did not answer Rensburg when he asked him what happened, because he'd already spoke to the brother and then Oldwage.

Yes, exactly. If he had been in such a state of shock and distress as Masipa stated he was, then HOW did he have the clarity of mind to make sure to call his lawyer??

 

[PrimeSuspect]

It was downhill from the start.....:tantrum:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Yes, exactly. If he had been in such a state of shock and distress as Masipa stated he was, then HOW did he have the clarity of mind to make sure to call his lawyer??

Exactly!!! Who does that??!! The guilty, that's who!

OP has had trouble with the law so many times, and many more to come! He's an expert shot, an expert liar, an expert manipulator but a rotten boyfriend. JMO

 

[aa9511]

I think she said that she could definitely hear two separate voices...although I don't think she said they were intermingled like the Dr did.

Will check though.

EDIT: Yes, she did. It was on the basis of this that she told her husband that she thought there must be a family murder.

Both couples mistook a male voice for a female one, and one voice for two! Yeah, right. What are the odds of that. But of course Masipa ignored that entirely.

And if Masipa chose to discount the witnesses as they might have been "mistaken," then WTH were any of the witnesses called to testify during the trial? Of course, no one saw the murder, they only heard things, and of course there is always the chance that people who hear things might have heard "wrong." So that kind of discounts ANY ear witnesses in this case in the first place, if we go by Masipa's logic.

 

[aa9511]

New blog post from James Grant explaining why those who are trying to defend the Masipa ruling are wrong. (In his opinion).

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/18/unsuccessful-attempts-to-justify-masipas-errors/comment-page-1/#comment-1012

Oh, gosh...sorry. Hadn't realised this link had already been posted twice!

Oh well, so good we said it thrice, eh?

I understand that there has to be a lot of legal mumbo jumbo and did A kill B but intend to kill C, etc., etc.. But, what it all boils down to, IMO, is did Oscar know that it was Reeva in the toilet or not when he was shooting into the toilet room?

For that, it's necessary to take into account all the evidence in the case, including forensics, witnesses, Oscar's testimony, and all other evidence.

I find it almost impossible to believe that he did not know that it was Reeva who was in the toilet room.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Quite a few articles here on how this judgement has affected South Africans' opinion of the law and the rife injustice in their country.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/oscar-pistorius

 

[LemonMousse]

Masipa's Law for Beginners 101

When a person lies, believe them anyway.

Ignore any evidence you can't explain (two voices; lights on that shouldn't have been; ballistics testimony of a pause between shots; medical testimony that the deceased would probably have screamed when shot in the hip .... that kind of thing)

"I am scared of you" is a perfectly normal part of a loving relationship

If you really want to know whether an accused intended to kill someone ask yourself this....did he cry afterwards?
If yes....he's not guilty.
If no....he's probably in a state of shock and not guilty

Occasionally defence lawyers posses uncanny psychic abilities. An example: The accused cannot remember making a call to security...can't remember dialling, let alone what he said. The lawyer, however, puts it on record that he actually said to them "I'm fine". Don't ask how he knows that....ours is not to reason why. Just believe.

Sometimes, the evidence at the scene does not accord with the accused's version. At all. This does not matter one little bit. If you must take account of it, assume that the entire police force is corrupt rather than that the accused is a liar. But really, your best bet is to dismiss it as "insignificant".

If a defence lawyer tries to explain the law to you, or gives you citations that support his argument, be aware that he's only doing it out of the goodness of his heart, not trying to sway you or anything like that. You can just go ahead and accept what he says - it saves you a lot of work, eh?

Conversely, if a state prosecutor does a similar thing with a large amount of scientific research that comes close to proving when someone ate - just ignore it. Science doesn't know everything, does it?

When arriving at your judgement, please ensure you leave common sense at home. The application of law has nothing to do with common sense. An example: it is highly, highly improbable that a man can sound like a woman, one voice can sound like two and a cricket bat can sound like a gunshot all within the space of a few minutes of each other. But so what? That the most likely explanation is that a woman sounds like woman, two voices sound like two voices and a gun shot sounds like a gunshot should not worry you one little bit. You have more important evidence available....the obvious innocence of a crying man, for starters.

I shall charge you exactly what Masipa's Law is worth to take this course.

Nothing.