Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[ckra1000]

It's the Digital Spy forums.

There are a HUGE number of posts on there, probably more active than Websleuths to be honest.

Hope this link works for you, and you have a huge number of free hours available to read through it all

I think this is the current thread which has just started, but there are dozens more on the Digital Spy site which have thousands of posts .... http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2010453

 

[delilah]

This is one of the many things that is bothering me. Do we know if the PT checked if it was physically possible for OP to have put his arm through the toilet door after prising off the panel and pick up the key from the floor, as he said he did? From the photos that looks to me like it would have been pretty difficult. Esp in the dark...

 

[Figuring]

Was this posted already? Paralympic committee singing a new tune:
PARALYMPICS HEAD WON'T PROMOTE PISTORIUS' RETURN

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/pistorius-can-expect-cool-reception-paralympics

 

[LemonMousse]

Bit in bold: This isn't the definition or a requirement of murder dolus directus. An error in persona does not excuse dolus directus anymore than it does dolus eventualis.

Bit in red: Probable death is not a requirement of murder dolus eventualis: it can be any risk, doesn't have to be a probable risk. There is also an additional question to ask in this scenario before it can be murder - was there belief or foresight that the killing would be unlawful. The point is that even on Masipa's findings of fact and even with no foresight that it may be anyone other than an intruder, there are ways to satisfy these questions and therefore murder eventualis.

1) At no point was I talking about the legal criteria for dolus directus.

2) The questions were based on Masipa's questions in her statement.

I am not pretending to be a lawyer, Panda, and I would imagine most people would understand that I was using a layman's version of what the issue is...because that is all any of us are.

And I'd add, that it's much easier to grasp an issue when the logic for it is laid out. Too many lawfuls and henceforths can be a bit mind numbing, I find.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

From Masipa's judgement:
"This court also accepts that a person with an anxiety disorder as described by Dr Vorster, would get anxious very easily, especially when he is faced with danger."

I thought the report after the 30 day observation at Weskoppies stated that he DID NOT have GAD at the time of the murder, yet she ignores this??

 

[LemonMousse]

Just to clarify what the judge said and why it makes no logical sense:

She said....

(Page 50, dealing with DE)

"The question is, did the accused forsee the possibility of the resultant death yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the circumstances of this case, the answer has to be no.

How could the accused reasonably have forseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively forsee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time".

How does thinking Reeva was in the bedroom prevent him subjectively forseeing that there was a possibility he would kill the intruder behind the door?

It doesn't. And that's the crux of the matter.

She then goes on to say that to make this finding would be tantamount to saying that all of his reactions, as witnessed by Stipp and co afterwards were play acting.

Again, no relevance to whether he subjectively saw that he would possibly kill the intruder behind the door by shooting.

She says that Stipp had no reason to lie about Pistorius being distraught, so the court accepted it as a fact. It therefore follows that the erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus (intent).

What utter rot. Honestly.

Proof that he didn't subjectively see that he would kill the intruder? Well, he says he thought Reeva was in bed. And all his sobbing afterwards shows he didn't intend to shoot anyone.

Apart from the clear nonsense of this last statement....he was crying and distraught because he'd mistakenly shot Reeva. Not because he'd shot any old person. So, where's the relevance?

Bottom line....he thought there was a human being hiding in his toilet. There was no hint of immediate threat from them, but he chose to shoot them in circumstances that would leave them either dead or very seriously hurt.

That's murder. Nothing less. SA has a right to be furious...this judge has let them down.

 

[sleuth-d-]

From Masipa's judgement:
"This court also accepts that a person with an anxiety disorder as described by Dr Vorster, would get anxious very easily, especially when he is faced with danger."

I thought the report after the 30 day observation at Weskoppies stated that he DID NOT have GAD at the time of the murder, yet she ignores this??

i thought so too.

yet again, i also imagined being caught with ammunition in your safe was illegal if you didn't have the relevant permits/paperwork ... but it seems that it is ok to act as the middle man in the ammunition storage world... 'The accused’s version is that the ammunition belonged to his father and that he had no intention to possess it.'

 

[Sherbert]

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.

I can see exactly where you're coming from.

Naturally, the legal pundits are focusing on error of law in relation to eventualis, but this, of course, does not preclude mistake of fact in respect of directus. And I really can't see how a finding of eventualis would have satisfied Reeva's parents either.

I - like so many of us - was completely deflated when Masipa ruled each and everyone of the State's 'scream' witnesses to be unreliable because, despite the absence of a State timeline, I'd hoped she'd be as convinced by the oral evidence as I was.

The tone of the Judgement suggests to me that Masipa was anticipating and seeking to deflect criticism from the State by including statements to the effect of: 'I gave you a chance to contradict the Defence's timeline, but you didn't take it. You also failed to contradict the Defence's assertion that the shots came before the batstrikes...' (Apologies for paraphrasing, but I'm unable to copy and paste from the judgement).

Masipa goes onto say that it is 'significant' that, although the State introduced most of the timelines, it was the Defence that analysed them and 'addressed the Court on each....'.

So, I think she knew that there was another story to be told, but she accepted the Defence's timeline because, in the absence of a written timeline from the State, she simply couldn't reconcile the State's witness evidence with the Defence's timeline.

Had she been absolutely determined to get to the bottom of things, she could have asked Nel to produce his own timeline, but, unfortunately, this didn't happen and, presumably, Nel thought he'd done enough to convince her, given also the evidence of Prof Saayman and OP himself.

I definitely think that Roux and his team read Masipa better than Nel did.

And, just to clarify, I'm not talking about the failure to establish premeditation, but the failure to prove directus without premeditation.

 

[delilah]

Just to clarify what the judge said and why it makes no logical sense:

She said....

(Page 50, dealing with DE)

"The question is, did the accused forsee the possibility of the resultant death yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the circumstances of this case, the answer has to be no.

How could the accused reasonably have forseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively forsee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time".

How does thinking Reeva was in the bedroom prevent him subjectively forseeing that there was a possibility he would kill the intruder behind the door?

Bottom line....he thought there was a human being hiding in his toilet. There was no hint of immediate threat from them, but he chose to shoot them in circumstances that would leave them either dead or very seriously hurt.

snipped.

I think I now have it straight in my mind that the question Masipa should have asked was did OP foresee that he might unlawfully kill the person behind the door? Masipa omits the unlawfully bit in error. When she says he did not foresee "that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased..." she's saying he couldn't have foreseen that he would kill RS because he thought she was in the bedroom. She fails then to explain why she says he couldn't have foreseen he would kill whoever he DID think was behind the door!

Presumably, because of masipa's 'logic', she didn't think she needed to explain whether she accepted OP's putative private defence ie he thought his life was at risk, even though after the fact, objectively, it never was. No need to if she's already said he can't be guilty of murder!

My head hurts every time I try to think this through.

 

[Sherbert]

Bit in bold: This isn't the definition or a requirement of murder dolus directus. An error in persona does not excuse dolus directus anymore than it does dolus eventualis.

Bit in red: Probable death is not a requirement of murder dolus eventualis: it can be any risk, doesn't have to be a probable risk. There is also an additional question to ask in this scenario before it can be murder - was there belief or foresight that the killing would be unlawful. The point is that even on Masipa's findings of fact and even with no foresight that it may be anyone other than an intruder, there are ways to satisfy these questions and therefore murder eventualis.

BBM

Hi Pandax! Just out of interest, what do you mean when you say that error in persona does not excuse dolus directus?

 

[delilah]

Had she been absolutely determined to get to the bottom of things, she could have asked Nel to produce his own timeline, but, unfortunately, this didn't happen and, presumably, Nel thought he'd done enough to convince her, given also the evidence of Prof Saayman and OP himself.

I definitely think that Roux and his team read Masipa better than Nel did.

And, just to clarify, I'm not talking about the failure to establish premeditation, but the failure to prove directus without premeditation.

Snipped

the absence of a state timeline was a real problem, I think. But I guess Nel had good reason for not coming up with one. It would have required speculation as to what the first set of bangs was. What was surprising was OP was never questioned properly, AFAIK, about what caused the other damage in the house - the bath panel, the wall tiles (although I think there was a suggestion this was a result of the bat bangs), the alleged bullet hole in the bedroom door and the bashed in bedroom door. Why not?

 

[Cherwell]

the absence of a state timeline was a real problem, I think. But I guess Nel had good reason for not coming up with one. It would have required speculation as to what the first set of bangs was. What was surprising was OP was never questioned properly, AFAIK, about what caused the other damage in the house - the bath panel, the wall tiles (although I think there was a suggestion this was a result of the bat bangs), the alleged bullet hole in the bedroom door and the bashed in bedroom door. Why not?

Because he could have (and probably would have) come up with any old claptrap a story that it had happened on some other occasion, and probably blamed it on somebody else. Which the prosecution would have been unable to refute.

 

[soozieqtips]

From Masipa's judgement:
"This court also accepts that a person with an anxiety disorder as described by Dr Vorster, would get anxious very easily, especially when he is faced with danger."

I thought the report after the 30 day observation at Weskoppies stated that he DID NOT have GAD at the time of the murder, yet she ignores this??

I also think (can't be sure) that Dr Vorster only interviewed OP twice. Twice! It was because of her claim of an anxiety disorder that OP was sent to Weskoppies in the first place... where we all know he wasn't found to be suffering from GAD at the time of the shooting. Yet for some inexplicable reason, Masipa chose to take Dr Vorster's word for it, rather than a team of experts who monitored OP over a 30-day period. Did she even explain why? No.

 

[foxbluff]

The heart of reason in this case is that when you accept that the evidence supports the bat strikes after the gun shots the events CANNOT have happened as the state put forward. Everything else flows from that.

I fear you're right.

I'm late getting here today because I've been trying the condense the transcription of Judge Masipa's verdict down to an easy to print version... leaving out the verdict on gun/ammo charges and leaving out the space between lines in the murder verdict.

Here's a small excerpt that deals with gun and bat sounds... the underlining is by me:

It is common cause that on the morning of 14 February 2013, shortly after 3 o’clock various people heard gunshots, screams and other noises that sounded like gunshots emanating from the house of the accused. As stated before, various state witnesses heard screams that they interpreted as those of a woman in distress. They heard noises that sounded to them as gunshots.

The defence admitted that there were shots fired that morning, but added that there were also sounds of a cricket bat striking hard against the toilet door, and that the noises sounded similar and could easily have been mistaken for shots. This was not contradicted. During the course of the trial it became clear that some of the sounds that witnesses interpreted as gunshots were actually not gunshots, but sounds of a cricket bat striking against the toilet door. It was also not contradicted that the shots were fired first and that the striking of the door, using a cricket bat, followed thereafter.

That there was a misinterpretation of some of the sounds is clear from the following: It is common cause that only four gunshots were fired by the accused that morning, yet some witnesses stated that they heard more than four shorts while others heard less than four. This can only mean that some of the sounds that were heard and interpreted as shots could have been from the cricket bat striking against the door.

It could also mean that some of the witnesses missed some of the sounds that morning, either because they were asleep at the time or their focus was elsewhere. For example, a witness could have been on the phone at the time.

 

[foxbluff]

From Masipa's judgement:
"This court also accepts that a person with an anxiety disorder as described by Dr Vorster, would get anxious very easily, especially when he is faced with danger."

I thought the report after the 30 day observation at Weskoppies stated that he DID NOT have GAD at the time of the murder, yet she ignores this??

A lot of us here didn't believe everything from the Weskoppies opinion. LOL It would appear that the Judge didn't either.

She studied/listened to all evidence and then decided which witnesses she believed and/or what parts of their testimony she deemed reliable. moo

 

[aa9511]

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.

Omg I LOVE this post!! Thank you!!

 

[JudgeJudi]

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

... with killer looks.

 

[Sherbert]

Because he could have (and probably would have) come up with any old claptrap a story that it had happened on some other occasion, and probably blamed it on somebody else. Which the prosecution would have been unable to refute.

I'm not sure about this, Cherwell. IMO, as long as it's not damaging, better to get an answer that doesn't further your case, than to run the risk that the Judge doesn't clock the material at all. Given what we know about Masipa, it wouldn't surprise me if the additional damage wasn't even on her radar!

 

[Interested Bystander]

This is one of the many things that is bothering me. Do we know if the PT checked if it was physically possible for OP to have put his arm through the toilet door after prising off the panel and pick up the key from the floor, as he said he did? From the photos that looks to me like it would have been pretty difficult. Esp in the dark...

If I remember correctly he prised a panel off and removed the others which enabled him to bend over the central cross bar of the door to pick up the key (if one believes that is what he really did). I think there is a photo of it somewhere. The door was put back together for forensic photos of the bullet holes to be taken. I found the photo in Juror13's blog which shows all the panels missing.

Thanks to Lisa for this http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/oscar-trial-day-17-oscar/

 

[delilah]

Because he could have (and probably would have) come up with any old claptrap a story that it had happened on some other occasion, and probably blamed it on somebody else. Which the prosecution would have been unable to refute.

You could say that about many aspects of his version though - the fans, the alarm, the screaming, the duvet, the jeans...Nel still asked him about those.