Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[mrjitty]

Then why did he admit into evidence the broken tiles/broken bath panel/jeans outside the window photo/broken bedroom door/hole through bedroom door.................need I go on?
None of this was mentioned or discussed during the trial so why waste court time and money taking photos and putting it into evidence...............WHY ?

Well that is a bit different

When you admit a photo of a the broken bath panel etc - they are all now in evidence before the Court. And states witness did discuss the panel but could not offer an explanation for it.

Pistorius in his EIC did offer a (laughable) explanation for the door. He did not mention the bath panel or the jeans. It's easy to see why Nel leaves these hanging.

The trouble with Frank is simple. He exists in the evidence. But what can Nel do with it?

If he puts in Frank's police statement - then that is evidence that Frank heard nothing - and in any event - the Court will expect frank to be called.

Nel clearly did not feel confident about what Frank might say. But it is not bad to leave Frank hanging.

Only it seems the Court forgot about him?

 

[jilly]

Well that is a bit different

When you admit a photo of a the broken bath panel etc - they are all now in evidence before the Court. And states witness did discuss the panel but could not offer an explanation for it.

Pistorius in his EIC did offer a (laughable) explanation for the door. He did not mention the bath panel or the jeans. It's easy to see why Nel leaves these hanging.

The trouble with Frank is simple. He exists in the evidence. But what can Nel do with it?

If he puts in Frank's police statement - then that is evidence that Frank heard nothing - and in any event - the Court will expect frank to be called.

Nel clearly did not feel confident about what Frank might say. But it is not bad to leave Frank hanging.

Only it seems the Court forgot about him?

Right. Never ask a question that you don't know what the answer will be.

 

[Cherwell]

Well that is a bit different

When you admit a photo of a the broken bath panel etc - they are all now in evidence before the Court. And states witness did discuss the panel but could not offer an explanation for it.

Pistorius in his EIC did offer a (laughable) explanation for the door. He did not mention the bath panel or the jeans. It's easy to see why Nel leaves these hanging.

The trouble with Frank is simple. He exists in the evidence. But what can Nel do with it?

If he puts in Frank's police statement - then that is evidence that Frank heard nothing - and in any event - the Court will expect frank to be called.

Nel clearly did not feel confident about what Frank might say. But it is not bad to leave Frank hanging.

Only it seems the Court forgot about him?

BIB
But was Frank's statement admitted as evidence? I think not, and if that was the case then the Court had no knowledge of his existence.

If the Court had the statement, then why would Nel state inaccurately that only OP and RS were in the house?

Something seems very wrong here.

 

[44ALLAN]

BIB
But was Frank's statement admitted as evidence? I think not, and if that was the case then the Court had no knowledge of his existence.
If the Court had the statement, then why would Nel state inaccurately that only OP and RS were in the house?
Something seems very wrong here.

Quote Originally Posted by 44ALLAN View Post
Bloody exactly.....................WHY did NEL not tell the court there was a housekeeper who lived within the residence and was there the night in question because he was seen by witnesses and police shortly after the incident 'dressed' and outside the house with the Standers and paramedics etc..................WHY?
He could then have said..............this guy /Frank heard nothing etc etc..........................
It had to be put into evidence surely?
Well having said that they ignored photo 55................................................ ...........................................

mrjitty
The trouble is all evidence at trial needs to be admitted somehow.
So it would be hard for Nel to make a song and dance over Frank without calling him.
It really seems like the Judge forgot he was there.

Well my opinion only..............44ALLAN.
NEL and the prosecution knew FRANK was not only on the scene straight after the murder but they also knew he /not only resided in OP's property/but he was 'probably there that night in his bed no more that a few yards away from hearing arguing and gunshot /door smashing sounds with cricket bat and was a witness to the killing and heard everything for the hours leading up to the execution.
For the prosecution to not even mention his existence would haunt me for the rest of my life if Reeva was my daughter I cannot imagine what Barry and June are going through I really can't !!.................SOMETHING STINKS bigtime here.................it runs deep as a regular once used to say

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Its not so simple as that article makes out.

This has been argued back and forth by the law boffins.

It seems likely the state can appeal on points of law.

See the time line of @CriminalLawZA

https://twitter.com/CriminalLawZA/with_replies

 

[steveml]

It is possible perhaps to argue that the prosecution could have handled a few things better, still what they did do should have been good enough to get Dolus directus comfortably. But once I go through the verdict document, it tells me that nothing would have been good enough. It is so incoherent and self-contradictory at places that even if OP had admitted to killing Reeva knowingly, the verdict would have probably read: `the witness was untruthful; I am not persuaded that the admission made by him can be entirely relied upon'!

I really don't understand the confusion regarding the verdict as it seems very straightforward to me :-

Once judge Masipa and/or her associated assessors accepted OP's version as reasonably possibly true, it had to be accepted that there was reasonable doubt that Pistorius may not have committed the crime the prosecution charged him with. It's absolutely impossible for one to accept the former without accepting the latter. If it was was reasonably possible that he might be innocent of murder with intent, by law she could not find him guilty. It really is as clear cut as this.

 

[Sherbert]

I agree she will have increased her experience during her time as a judge. (obviously).

The question is more - has she the right calibre of legal brain to be a high court judge?

Here is a comparison to a recent appointment in England.

The difference is night and day.



Again - over 20 years experience before appointment. Made Silk.

High Court judges elsewhere are the cream of the county's legal talent.

Now I know District Court judges who have served for 25 years and who will never be promoted to the High Court because they are not up to it. As such they never would be entrusted with such a case which always start in the High Court where the elite judges sit.

So to say Masipa can handle a case like this just because she as been a judge for 16 years cuts no ice with me.

I think many, if not, most, of us are frustrated with the Judge.

However, the reality is that the trial, although a high profile murder trial, was not massively technical or cutting-edge, requiring exceptional expertise or experience.

As you point out, there are experienced district judges who will never be promoted beyond the County Court. The converse, of course, is also true - if a lawyer is brilliant, that brilliance tends to emerge quite early on. So, if Masipa J were in possession of a laser-sharp brain, I don't think we'd be here, debating whether or not she lacks experience.

However, in this case, in my humble opinion, what was needed was not brilliance, but a competent judge of average ability, with plenty of common sense and a willingness to work through and grasp the detail, with a view to arriving at an honest verdict.

Unfortunately, I don't think we got that.

 

[steveml]

Well that is a bit different

When you admit a photo of a the broken bath panel etc - they are all now in evidence before the Court. And states witness did discuss the panel but could not offer an explanation for it.

Pistorius in his EIC did offer a (laughable) explanation for the door. He did not mention the bath panel or the jeans. It's easy to see why Nel leaves these hanging.

The trouble with Frank is simple. He exists in the evidence. But what can Nel do with it?

If he puts in Frank's police statement - then that is evidence that Frank heard nothing - and in any event - the Court will expect frank to be called.

Nel clearly did not feel confident about what Frank might say. But it is not bad to leave Frank hanging.

Only it seems the Court forgot about him?

...but it's not sufficient to just submit a photograph in evidence without explanation. The judge isn't an investigator or detective by any stretch of the imagination and will not speculate or draw conclusions on what the photograph may or may not be depicting. It was really quite lame for Nel to just submit photographs without any explanation or interpretation as to their meaning or relevance. In essence, he was basically saying 'here are a couple of photographs. Neither SAPS, myself nor any of my legal team are prepared to suggest what they may mean because we don't really know.' If they don't know how on earth do they expect the judge or her assessors to know?

If Masipa gave the photos more than a passing glance I'd be extremely surprised.

 

[Chelly]

BIB
But was Frank's statement admitted as evidence? I think not, and if that was the case then the Court had no knowledge of his existence.

If the Court had the statement, then why would Nel state inaccurately that only OP and RS were in the house?

Something seems very wrong here.

Only OP and RS were IN the house.
I believe Frank slept in a separate room/structure attached to the house (most likely with a separate entrance). So he wasn't technically IN the house.

 

[steveml]

Yet she ignored and totally sidestepped photo 55......................get real mate your here only to entice and antagonise IMO.
Where is #Rumpole btw...............is it you?
Why in your opinion did she totally disregard the police photographers evidence?
She didn't even bring it up.................photo 55 showed OP to be the lying that he is and you come back on here.................'AFTER' the verdict to antagonise.................haha yeah rite.
Where have you been all during the trial?
mmmmmmm

Whoa...steady on now. Please don't make patronising personal comments or similar as I find those absolutely unnecessary. I also don't believe the forum was created purely for those who may agree with your opinion.

I have the right to disagree with you and agree with the decision of a judge, a judge who is far more qualified to make decisions of this nature than either you or I.

I have always respected the views of others on this forum. I think my whereabouts are my business, and would appreciate it if you kept it that way.

Thank you.

 

[JudgeJudi]

This article shows a photo of OP’s reaction to the verdict.

“… which we hoped might reveal whether that verdict was correct. It didn’t and couldn’t. If he had a gold medal round his neck rather than a shirt collar he could be standing on the winner’s podium, overcome with emotion as he listens to the South African national anthem”.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119561/photo-oscar-pistorius-reaction-murder-trial-verdict

 

[vanatos]

First up - thank you for this wonderful resource.

So this may appear lazy - but i have posted timelines elsewhere until blue in the face.

How do you believe the Johnson call can be reconciled to the timelines of Stipp/Mr N?

To put my cards on the table - I believe the shots come 2nd, and are heard by Stipp & Mrs Nhlengethwa in the mins before the security calls.

I believe only the Stipps hear the first sounds - indeed they are the only people to confuse the bat strikes in the bathroom with gunshots.

To my mind this was Roux's great finesse.

There never were 4 bat strikes on the toilet door. No one ever got confused.

Your timeline seems to support the Roux version?

Timelines a red herring, in fact i consider it a failure of common-sense for Masipa to put so much weight on it.

Because at 3am, with some witnesses half asleep, or in fact asleep, you don't expect them to remember the exact timing of minute detail like some bangs or shots,
but you do expect them to remember, vividly, blood curling female screams.

The proper competent judgement is that reeva did scream, but that establishing the timeline of bat/gunshot is too problematic.

Indeed if you go by the forensics experts, they do not even agree the bat must have happened after, some of them even state they believe
Pistorius was on his stumps, yet Pistorius version is with prosthetics.

And this is all if we assume the door and the pieces was somehow in pristine condition, with absolutely no tampering of small wooden pieces...

and were told the handling of the door was not particularly done well..

 

[JudgeJudi]

For Oz viewers there's a show on tonight, Thursday, on the Foxtel Crime & Investigation channel starting at 7.30pm and repeated at 11.30 called "Oscar Pistorius: Burden of Proof".

"This report unpicks the forensic investigation at the heart of the case. "The entire trial will be fought on one issue, intention", says criminal law professor Steve Tuson. A man who overcame all obstacles to become an international icon, Oscar Pistorius used words like "horror", "fear" and "grave danger" to describe his state of mind on that fateful night. Disabled, subject to death threats and living in a nation where a sense of ever-present danger is said to have altered the national psyche, his defence will claim Oscar thought he was protecting Reeva from an intruder. An analysis of bullet entry, blood spatter and mobile phone evidence will help distinguish lies from cold facts. "Innocence or guilt can hang on a tiny detail", says Tuson".

 

[Lux et Veritas]

BIB No, as I understand it, they are different people. Frans Stander was Estate Manager until Oct/Nov 2009 when he was replaced by Eugene St Leger Denny, who is still in this position and was on 13/14 Feb 2013 (I think Stipp refers to him). Johan Stander was on the Estate Management Committee until Jan 2013.

http://www.lombardyhoa.co.za/Imaging/Newsletters/November 2009 Lombardy Newsletter.pdf (see page 7)

http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?showcontent&global[_id]=95895

So much confusion with all these ‘Johans’, ‘Standers’, etc.!! :scared:
This trial is over and I’m still learning new details! :lol:
Thank you, Mr Fossil for the link and setting me straight.

This new info just leads to another question!

Why didn’t OP call the actual Estate Manager, Eugene St. Leger Denny?

“I phoned Johan Stander (“Stander”) who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance.”
- Oscar Pistorius, Bail Statement

“Involved in the administration of the estate” - OP threw this little falsehood in to make his very FIRST phone call seem like it was to someone “official” - when Stander was nothing but a real good buddy (with zero authority and zero threat) he could manipulate as first witness on the scene (along with Carice).

“I saw the truth that morning. I saw it, and I feel it.”
- Johan Stander testimony

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Oh no, not abandoning the case at all!....Just mulling over the best way to achieve justice for Reeva, if the law fails her completely.

Incidentally, don't know if any of you know, but a supreme egotist amateur runner named Ganesh 'Remy' Ramsaran (a computer worker who managed to reactivate his Facebook while in jail) quoted the Oscar Pistorius camp word for word in his testimony in his New York murder trial: 'I'm fighting for my life here'.

It went down like a lead weight with a New York jury and he was found guilty of the murder of his wife, Tuesday. Facing 25 to life.

Just thought it was worth mentioning, in case any other murderers out there should happen to view Oscar as an 'inspirational' model.

Hi Z, :wave: I've been keeping an eye on the Rasmaran thread, so glad he was found guilty, such a relief for family and Jennifer's support group that justice has prevailed. Thank you for keeping the tweets coming as you so diligently have done here. I had a few lol moments reading through the thread, Remy's a legend in his own mind. Poor Jen.

I'm sure I read the state objected 25 times while Remy was on the stand 'fighting for his life'? If only OP wasn't treated with such kid gloves, Nel might have actually made progress. Once OP started crying every time Nel asked a difficult question, how on earth could he get to the truth? I felt the courtroom was being manipulated by OP and his bizarre behaviour. jmo

We'll see what sentence JM gives him, I'm not feeling confident, OP got away with the ammo in his safe after all. :facepalm: :cuckoo:

:sigh:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Just wondering if Oscar can own firearms after being convicted of culpable homicide?

That's the million dollar question mister happy, I'm waiting with bated breath. :sigh:

 

[Mr Fossil]

So much confusion with all these ‘Johans’, ‘Standers’, etc.!! :scared:
This trial is over and I’m still learning new details! :lol:
Thank you, Mr Fossil for the link and setting me straight.

This new info just leads to another question!

Why didn’t OP call the actual Estate Manager, Eugene St. Leger Denny?

“I phoned Johan Stander (“Stander&#8221 who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance.”
- Oscar Pistorius, Bail Statement

“Involved in the administration of the estate” - OP threw this little falsehood in to make his very FIRST phone call seem like it was to someone “official” - when Stander was nothing but a real good buddy (with zero authority and zero threat) he could manipulate as first witness on the scene (along with Carice).

“I saw the truth that morning. I saw it, and I feel it.”
- Johan Stander testimony

Johan Stander was on the Estate Management Committee until he resigned in January 2013 (e.g. the month before). OP may not have known this, as he was often away from home. That's why, incidentally, I think OP's phone had another entry for Stander under 'Johan(n) Pretorius' for when perhaps Stander had the site mobile. He may even have had it in twice, also under Security, but didn't think to remove the obsolete entry. JMO.

 

[Mr Fossil]

First up - thank you for this wonderful resource.

So this may appear lazy - but i have posted timelines elsewhere until blue in the face.

How do you believe the Johnson call can be reconciled to the timelines of Stipp/Mr N?

To put my cards on the table - I believe the shots come 2nd, and are heard by Stipp & Mrs Nhlengethwa in the mins before the security calls.

I believe only the Stipps hear the first sounds - indeed they are the only people to confuse the bat strikes in the bathroom with gunshots.

To my mind this was Roux's great finesse.

There never were 4 bat strikes on the toilet door. No one ever got confused.

Your timeline seems to support the Roux version?

My timeline isn't intended to support any version, just to represent what the witnesses said. Some events (e.g. those outlined in dotted boxes) are therefore moveable. The chart is just to aid visualisation of everyone's evidence. Remember that times are often vague in witness testimony but the sequence of events ought to be more reliable.

I too have always believed the shots came second but I keep an open mind when exploring possibilities. I also like to follow OP's version when testing theories, because I believe it contains a version of the truth but not necessarily in the right order or the whole truth.

There is certainly an apparent mismatch between testimonies. It is possible that Stipp got his sequence wrong (as per Masipa). Moving his testimony about seems to allow everything else to fit and supports bangs at or just after 03:17. That sorts Johnson. Mr N then doesn't hear the second bangs because he's on the phone, with Mrs N listening to him talking.

But did the Stipps really get things that wrong? Certainly Mrs Stipp's recollection differs from her husband's (she says he told her about the person moving in the bathroom earlier in the sequence than he has it and, elsewhere in testimony, says her husband returned at 04:20 and Stander called at 04:40 - Dr Stipp says he leaves OP's before the police arrive at 03:55 and receives the call from Stander at about 04:17, which makes more sense).

I'm not giving up on the Stipps' evidence yet. I'm exploring another possible interpretation of everyone's evidence which may lead to less discrepancy. I'll post more later if I figure it to be a plausible scenario which is supported by the evidence.

 

[mrjitty]

...but it's not sufficient to just submit a photograph in evidence without explanation. The judge isn't an investigator or detective by any stretch of the imagination and will not speculate or draw conclusions on what the photograph may or may not be depicting. It was really quite lame for Nel to just submit photographs without any explanation or interpretation as to their meaning or relevance. In essence, he was basically saying 'here are a couple of photographs. Neither SAPS, myself nor any of my legal team are prepared to suggest what they may mean because we don't really know.' If they don't know how on earth do they expect the judge or her assessors to know?

If Masipa gave the photos more than a passing glance I'd be extremely surprised.

First that isn't what happened, and second State must operate within the rules of the law.

Nel cannot pontificate/speculate about matters not shown by evidence. The witnesses provided comment as far as they were able. E.g. They found the damaged bath cover but could not determine with what instrument it was broken in. Nevertheless it was broken in. They found blood on the wall behind the bed. They found the bedroom door damaged.

Nel already provided his interpretation of the evidence - namely a domestic dispute.

Only OP is able to offer a cogent explanation.

The fact that he failed to do in respect of multiple physical evidence points allows any sensible Court to make critical inferences.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Here are links to the following spreadsheets in google docs:

Phone usage charts (3 tabs, one for each phone)

Witness testimony analysis

They are set up to share and allow comments, though I'm guessing you may need a gmail account to comment (only takes a few minutes to set up). If you'd rather post your thoughts on here that's fine or alternatively email me (montgomery.fossil@gmail.com) Please feel free to copy and do with them what you wish but I will generally only make changes that are based on firm evidence.

I've haven't used this facility before so it may need some tweaking!

Monty Fossil (in truth it took me longer to figure a name I liked that hadn't been used than to set the account and spreadsheets up!)

WOW, seriously impressive, Mr Fossil!!!

Excellent job.

We all really appreciate all your hard work.

I'm giving this its own bookmark! I know I'll be referring to it all the time!