Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[PrimeSuspect]

Silverwoods Estate witness locations (aerial) is an alternative view of the estate based on a satellite image taken on 20 May 2013. It shows the vacant plots clearly. Just need to figure which is the Johnson / Burger house now.

Does this help MrF?

 

[jay-jay]

Wouldn't surprise me if he had just dragged her out by the feet, just so that he didn't get blood on his precious socks .. I remember another part of his testimony where he was talking about how he went to help someone (in an accident, shooting? can't remember now, but it all seemed to be about bolstering his 'nice guy' image) .. anyway, this person was covered in blood and I remember OP saying how whatever it was he did (that I can't remember either) but he did it in such a way as to not get blood on him. I immediately picked up on this because it just sounds like he's always more worried about getting his own clothes dirtied rather than the welfare of the other person, whereas most of the rest of us wouldn't even consider that if we saw someone in need, we would just go and help then later realise we needed to give our clothes a bit of a wash or stick them in for dry cleaning. It just seemed to correlate with him not wanting to get Reeva's blood on him, either by attempting not to in the first place, or by washing it off as soon as he could.

 

[AJ_DS]

The timeline is of absolute significant importance...

It shows emphatically that there was no way that all the witnesses stood/sat listening for almost quarter of an hour doing nothing. This leads us to the following conclusions...

1. Mrs Stipp could not have awoke at about 3:02. That part of her testimony is unreliable, as was the fallacy that she saw a man walking across the bathroom.

It's no good people saying 'why would a witness lie', as this gives the false impression that somebody would intentionally lie. Witnesses can very easily be mistaken and often introduce things into testimony that were not strictly true once they hear information from other sources. This is exactly what Mrs Stipp did, and by doing so she could have potentially incriminated a person for a crime they may not have committed, albeit unintentionally. The erroneous nature of Mrs Stipps testimony left Masipa with no option other than to treat her as an unreliable witness. The moral of the story is that a witness should never expand over and above what they have heard/seen themselves. It helps nobody.

2. If Estelle VDM awoke around 3am it could only have been nearer to 3.10 or 3.15 am for the same reason mentioned earlier. People wrongly associated her comment with the presumption that by stating 'around 3am' she must have been referring to 3.02, the same time as Mrs Stipps claim. She wasn't.

Only Mrs Stipp attempted to give a specific time, however this unwittingly became a red-herring and Nel soon realised that he could not validate any of his theory if he believed Mrs Stipp's guesstimate to be correct. The vagueness and inability of witnesses to recollect times of events that morning ultimately backfired on the prosecution.

With regard to 'witnesses' hearing blood-curdling screams. This incorrect statement has been made so many times and provides a perfect example of my comment earlier regarding the problems experienced when people expand over and above what they actually saw/heard.

There has only ever been one witness say the oft overused phrase 'blood-curdling screams'. This became a perfect mantra for the media to self-indulge, and it certainly became the trial buzzword (or buzz-phrase) within social media. The fact that there was only ever one person to use this phrase (Michelle Burger) didn't seem to matter. It was meat and drink to the media and they obviously did a good job with it. This phrase was not even included in Michelle Burger's statement, which was taken at a time when such emotive events should have been more intensely remembered due to the shock-effect experienced at the time of such trauma.

When we remove the over-exhuberant media and public misinformation from the trial proceedings, I think a competent and sensible verdict was ultimately reached.

Your entire reasoning seems to hinge on Mrs Stipp's 3:02AM testimonial evidence.

As you correctly stated, witnesses make mistakes… perhaps Mrs. Stipp simply made a mistake :

1. The clock indicated 3:12 but in her half asleep state she read 3:02
2. The clock indicated 3:12 but in her half asleep state followed by a traumatic event she remembered 3:02
3. It was 3:02 when she looked at the clock but then dosed off for what she believed was an instant but in fact she drifted back into a light sleep for about 10 minutes

… all these things are not only possible and reasonable explanations but also probable considering the circumstances.

Does this mean Mrs. Stipp's entire testimony becomes unreliable…. I believe it doesn't

But for sake of argument, let us say it is…

If Mrs Stipp's evidence is deemed unreliable then it should be "removed" from consideration… but you, other posters, the Defence and Masipa wish to use Mrs. Stipp's 3:02 evidence to discredit other State witnesses testimony.

That cannot logically be so… if something is deemed unreliable then it is unreliable for the State and the Defence… one cannot argue that X is unreliable to prove Y but should nevertheless be used to disprove Z.

And what about Dr. Stipp… should his testimony be deemed unreliable because one single element of his wife's testimony is deemed unreliable… I think not. But you, other posters, the Defence and Masipa wish to dismiss all of Dr. Stipp's testimony… all except the part where he says OP was tending to Reeva's body, praying and crying.

Furthermore, the ONLY witnesses that heard the 2 sets of bangs are the Stipp's… so it is quite unfair and illogical to say that ALL witnesses stood and did nothing for 15 minutes whilst a woman was screaming for her life.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

I've read through all the arguments about timelines and they really are a Red Herring.

A person fired four bullets through a door, into a space he knew to be very small. Hence, that person knew he could kill the person behind the door. Under SA Law, that is illegal. It is Murder.

Timelines leading up to the shooting, after it and ear witness testimony will not change this basic fact.

That a Judge has admitted that this person should have known his actions could harm the individual behind the door, should help those having difficulty understanding SA Law. That the Judge has sought to apply a lesser charge, despite this admission, is baffling. Under SA Law, it was Murder.

What was in dispute, was the version of events. The defendants versions kept changing. Only he was there and the ear witnesses may, or may not have all been untrustworthy. He is still not allowed to fire through the door though - that is Murder.

Either he knew the person behind the door or he didn't. Whether he did or not, it was still against the law to fire his gun. That a person died, means that under SA Law, if a Judge states he should have known that was a possibility, then he is guilty of Murder.

Add in now the what he was thinking, who was actually in the toilet and all the other evidence (Prosecution or Defence) and the basic premise does not change. He was not allowed to fire his gun into that toilet cubicle.

He is therefore guilty of Murder.

As to why the Judge made a complete Hash of the verdict, well that is what needs to be investigated now. Under SA Law, this was Murder.

Anyone that thinks differently is either a fan of the accused or a wind up merchant. They cannot be positioning an independent view point.

 

[LemonMousse]

Your entire reasoning seems to hinge on Mrs Stipp's 3:02AM testimonial evidence.

As you correctly stated, witnesses make mistakes… perhaps Mrs. Stipp simply made a mistake :

1. The clock indicated 3:12 but in her half asleep state she read 3:02
2. The clock indicated 3:12 but in her half asleep state followed by a traumatic event she remembered 3:02
3. It was 3:02 when she looked at the clock but then dosed off for what she believed was an instant but in fact she drifted back into a light sleep for about 10 minutes

… all these things are not only possible and reasonable explanations but also probable considering the circumstances.

Does this mean Mrs. Stipp's entire testimony becomes unreliable…. I believe it doesn't

But for sake of argument, let us say it is…

If Mrs Stipp's evidence is deemed unreliable then it should be "removed" from consideration… but you, other posters, the Defence and Masipa wish to use Mrs. Stipp's 3:02 evidence to discredit other State witnesses testimony.

That cannot logically be so… if something is deemed unreliable then it is unreliable for the State and the Defence… one cannot argue that X is unreliable to prove Y but should nevertheless be used to disprove Z.

And what about Dr. Stipp… should his testimony be deemed unreliable because one single element of his wife's testimony is deemed unreliable… I think not. But you, other posters, the Defence and Masipa wish to dismiss all of Dr. Stipp's testimony… all except the part where he says OP was tending to Reeva's body, praying and crying.

Furthermore, the ONLY witnesses that heard the 2 sets of bangs are the Stipp's… so it is quite unfair and illogical to say that ALL witnesses stood and did nothing for 15 minutes whilst a woman was screaming for her life.

Very well said. And I agree 100%.

I have long suspected that Mrs Stipp was mistaken in her 3.02. Could easily have been 3.12.

But in any event, it is completely ridiculous on the one hand to say that the timeline is crucial, while on the other accept as facts unverified times.

If you are going to construct a second by second timeline, you MUST have absolutely 100% reliable, corroborated times. Without that, the task is impossible.

We don't have that. Mrs Stipp's 3.02 and 3.17 are uncorroborated, as is the time of Johnson's call.

All we have is the security LL. This tells us that Stipp spoke to and told security at 3.15:51 that he'd just heard shots. This is verified by security themselves and Mr Mike calling to report the same thing a couple of minutes later.

So...bangs heard at 3.15 ish.

Prior to this ALL witnesses report a woman screaming and a man yelling

After this, no one at all reports screaming, and virtually all report the unmistakeable sound of a lone male crying.

It's not actually that complicated.

Cleverest thing OP did that night was to instantly realise that he and Reeva would have been heard yelling "help", and to replicate that immediately from the balcony. Wouldn't have taken much planning...."Oh, god, oh, god - those people on the balcony probably heard everything and are calling the police. Let me shout for help again, and maybe I can say I was wanting help all along". In his panic, he may have thought security &/or the police were already on their way and would see or hear him calling for help.

Problem is, no one seems willing to consider that the fact that two sets of "help"were heard at different times might actually have the simple explanation that there were two sets of "help".

 

[LemonMousse]

I've read through all the arguments about timelines and they really are a Red Herring.

A person fired four bullets through a door, into a space he knew to be very small. Hence, that person knew he could kill the person behind the door. Under SA Law, that is illegal. It is Murder.

Timelines leading up to the shooting, after it and ear witness testimony will not change this basic fact.

That a Judge has admitted that this person should have known his actions could harm the individual behind the door, should help those having difficulty understanding SA Law. That the Judge has sought to apply a lesser charge, despite this admission, is baffling. Under SA Law, it was Murder.

What was in dispute, was the version of events. The defendants versions kept changing. Only he was there and the ear witnesses may, or may not have all been untrustworthy. He is still not allowed to fire through the door though - that is Murder.

Either he knew the person behind the door or he didn't. Whether he did or not, it was still against the law to fire his gun. That a person died, means that under SA Law, if a Judge states he should have known that was a possibility, then he is guilty of Murder.

Add in now the what he was thinking, who was actually in the toilet and all the other evidence (Prosecution or Defence) and the basic premise does not change. He was not allowed to fire his gun into that toilet cubicle.

He is therefore guilty of Murder.

As to why the Judge made a complete Hash of the verdict, well that is what needs to be investigated now. Under SA Law, this was Murder.

Anyone that thinks differently is either a fan of the accused or a wind up merchant. They cannot be positioning an independent view point.

I agree. Totally.

What I think a lawyer might say is that there is a big difference between "should" have known and "did" know.

Masipa seems to be saying he "should" have known, but didn't necessarily. That's what makes it negligent rather than intentional.

Her reasoning for concluding that he didn't - or at least, didn't consider to the degree required of intention - is because his behaviour afterwards precludes it.

Which, sorry my Lady, is nothing short of staggeringly stupid.

And on this basis, I think the State will have very good grounds for appeal.

(My usual: I am not a lawyer, etc)

 

[mrjitty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbz64-Ie0BM

00:00:40 from the start…

[op version]
op entered the toilet. knelt down over reeva. checked to see if she was breathing. she wasn’t

put my arms underneath her shoulders and i pulled her weight onto me
and i sat there crying for a.. for some time.

head on my left shoulder and i could feel the blood was running down on me.
at a point i heard her breathing.

put her weight on top of me and swivelled her around.
my bum on the floor. my back against the wall. turned her around.

to get her to the floor of the toilet so that i could pick her up.
i couldn’t pick her up, but i was on my knees and on my feet and i was pulling her into the bathroom...

........

how did op manage all this and not step in the blood? if he sat with her, where are his footprints in the toilet area?
there are dragging/blood smears on the floor but no footprints near where she fell against the toilet.

then [op version again]
1. he runs back to bedroom to get his phone/phones [and back to the bathroom]
2. he ran downstairs to open the front door [and back upstairs to the bathroom]
3. he carries reeva downstairs.

lots of blood drips on the tiles in the photos, where are the blood soaked sock prints?


all that sitting with her inside the toilet room crying... is it another lie?
did he even go more that a step or two into the toilet room - avoiding the blood? did he just prise the door panel open, unlock, and drag her out to the bathroom...

dr stipp saw him in the bathroom window at about this time... conversely it is possible op also saw the security previously talking to stipp - and/or the buggy setting off towards his house.

imo, the flurry of phone activity around this time suggests he was in a real hurry [has he been discovered] - he needs to quickly not only get help from stander to stand guard against baba and the security, but also to get reeva out of the toilet room [i.e. downstairs and away from the crime scene].

Great post

If you check the defence's reconstruction video - you will also see OP was not able to pick up "reeva" without her putting her arm around him and hanging on

Look at where he is standing in that video.

It clearly did not happen.

At the time i thought that was one of the more obvious lies and I can't understand why he put it in there.

Perhaps to cover for the fact that he dragged her out?

 

[jimmy73]

Silverwoods Estate witness locations (aerial) is an alternative view of the estate based on a satellite image taken on 20 May 2013. It shows the vacant plots clearly. Just need to figure which is the Johnson / Burger house now.

This is my guess but the distance matches that given in court and the position looks about right in terms of which houses might have been in a favourable position to hear events. Obviously, some of the adjacent properties are also candidates. I'm not sure exactly which plots were empty in Feb 2014.

 

[AJ_DS]

I've read through all the arguments about timelines and they really are a Red Herring.

A person fired four bullets through a door, into a space he knew to be very small. Hence, that person knew he could kill the person behind the door. Under SA Law, that is illegal. It is Murder.

Timelines leading up to the shooting, after it and ear witness testimony will not change this basic fact.

That a Judge has admitted that this person should have known his actions could harm the individual behind the door, should help those having difficulty understanding SA Law. That the Judge has sought to apply a lesser charge, despite this admission, is baffling. Under SA Law, it was Murder.

What was in dispute, was the version of events. The defendants versions kept changing. Only he was there and the ear witnesses may, or may not have all been untrustworthy. He is still not allowed to fire through the door though - that is Murder.

Either he knew the person behind the door or he didn't. Whether he did or not, it was still against the law to fire his gun. That a person died, means that under SA Law, if a Judge states he should have known that was a possibility, then he is guilty of Murder.

Add in now the what he was thinking, who was actually in the toilet and all the other evidence (Prosecution or Defence) and the basic premise does not change. He was not allowed to fire his gun into that toilet cubicle.

He is therefore guilty of Murder.

As to why the Judge made a complete Hash of the verdict, well that is what needs to be investigated now. Under SA Law, this was Murder.

Anyone that thinks differently is either a fan of the accused or a wind up merchant. They cannot be positioning an independent view point.

I fully agree… the Trial could have had ONLY OP as a witness and the verdict should have murder Eventualis

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Count one: not guilty of murdering Reeva Steenkamp, but guilty of culpable homicide
Count two: not guilty of firearms charge relating to sunroof incident
Count three: guilty of negligence in regards to firearms charge relating to Tashas restaurant
Count four: not guilty of firearms charge relating to possession of illegal ammunition

I snickered to myself when JMasipa said OP was guilty of the Tasha incident, the one charge that Roux obviously talked OP into conceding. :aktion1:

Will there be an appeal on the verdict?

Both sides can apply for leave to appeal if they believe the judge made an error in law. According to legal experts, the defence could form grounds for appeal arguing that the unprecedented broadcast of the court sessions rendered it an unfair trial. Others say the prosecution might argue that Masipa applied the test for dolus eventualis incorrectly. Usually an appellant will rely on numerous grounds, says David Dadic, a litigation attorney based in Johannesburg. Steenkamp's family are also expected to continue a civil claim, which has been on hold during the trial.


http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...l-there-is-still-a-missing-link#ixzz3EL6SW3ZH

Oscar Pistorius trial: 'there is still a missing link'

The parents of Reeva Steenkamp believe there is more to what happened on the night of their daughter's death than what has emerged in court.

 

[Mr Fossil]

This is my guess but the distance matches that given in court and the position looks about right in terms of which houses might have been in a favourable position to hear events. Obviously, some of the adjacent properties are also candidates. I'm not sure exactly which plots were empty in Feb 2014.

View attachment 59876

Thanks, I've updated to point to this house.

 

[LemonMousse]

For what it's worth (probably not much!) this is what I think happened that night:

3.10 - Mrs Stipp wakes and misreads her clock as 3.02. It actually reads 3.12 and is running approx 2 mins fast.

She & Dr hear bangs followed by immediate screaming. Mrs Stipp looks immediately and bathroom lights are on.

The bangs are caused by OP using the cricket bat, and Reeva is either in the bedroom or the hall. Not the toilet at this stage. The bathroom window is open.

Both Stipp's move to the balconies. Mrs Stipp hears the female screams getting closer. Reeva has run into the bathroom closer to the window.

3.11 or so, Burger & Johnson are woken by the screams.

Reeva and OP are in the bathroom and can both be heard by both couples. Reeva screams "help" OP mimics her. The further away couple can make out the words, the closer couple just hear it as male/female screaming and yells.

As the screaming continues, both couples start trying to call for help. This is around 3.13.

OP goes for his gun. Reeva's screams intensify and she locks herself in the toilet. OP shoots her through the door almost as soon as he gets into the bathroom.

Her last screams are quieter than previously because she is now in the toilet and could be described as "fading" to the further away couple.

Johnson concludes his call to the wrong security company at about 3.15. His phone is a minute fast and records this as 3.16. Moments later he hears....

3.15:30 BANG BANG BANG

3.15:30 Mikes are woken by last bang

3.15:51 21 seconds later Stipp finally gets through to security to tell them he has just heard shots and screams.

No more screams, let alone female ones, are heard by anyone that night.

3.16:50 Mr Mike calls security after quickly checking his house.

Having shot Reeva, OP is instantly aware of the Stipp's - probably hears Mrs Stipp calling to her husband, and maybe even sees their silhouettes on the balcony. He knows they'll call police & security. In panic, he rushes to the balcony to shout "help".

He runs downstairs and calls Stander. He blurts out the only thing he can think of, "I thought it was a burglar". Having settled on this he then calls Netcare. I do not believe that he had a conversation with them, nor that they told him to take Reeva to hospital. I think he dialled the number for appearances sake, left it to ring on the counter while opening the front door and then went back and hung up. He tried to call Stander again, perhaps to tell him the door was open, and accidentally dialled Security which was next to Stander in the phone book. In his panic, he was all fingers and thumbs with the phone and misdialled several times. When security called him back, he did not want them there so told them everything was fine.

(The reason for us not hearing about the call to Medicare is, I believe, because they simply have no record of it. It is inconceivable that, if there was a witness who could say that Pistorius called and told them what had happened and was advised to put her in his car, Roux would 100% have put them on the stand. No question. Nel cannot put them on the stand to say they have no record of a call, or any employee who recalls talking to him because if the evidence that he did in fact make a call. They weren't calked because they had nothing whatsoever to say).

At this stage, I believe that OP was planning to tell Stander that he shot Reeva by accident and to ask him to help cover that up, because the police would never believe that. He was hoping the Standers would somehow support a tale that had someone breaking in and using his gun to shoot Reeva.

He realised that the state of the bathroom showed a fight and he did not want Stander to see that, so ran upstairs to bring Reeva down.

Going into the bathroom, he picked up the bat again, prised out a panel and opened the door. He dragged her instantly out into the bathroom, picked her up and carried her downstairs.

As he got to the landing, he paused because he could hear voices and realised that there was more people outside than just Stander. When he saw Carice he began walking down the stairs again.

I believe his distress was real - but I believe it was mostly for himself. I think his resuscitation efforts were for effect...if he'd actually wanted to resuscitate her, he would have done it in the bathroom.

Dr Stipp showing up prevented him from trying to cook up a cover story with the Standers. Who, incidentally, I don't believe would have gone along with it....but he was hoping at that stage that they would.

I may be a few seconds or more out here and there, but this is more or less what I think happened that night.

 

[jimmy73]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbz64-Ie0BM (snipped)
dr stipp saw him in the bathroom window at about this time... conversely it is possible op also saw the security previously talking to stipp - and/or the buggy setting off towards his house.

imo, the flurry of phone activity around this time suggests he was in a real hurry [has he been discovered] - he needs to quickly not only get help from stander to stand guard against baba and the security, but also to get reeva out of the toilet room [i.e. downstairs and away from the crime scene].

That's a brilliant point regarding whether Pistorius might have seen the security guards at the Stipp's house. I haven't read that suggested by anyone else.

If Pistorius is guilty of murder, as I believe he is, he would definitely have wanted to keep people from seeing the scene as it was. Had Stipp attended to Reeva (dead or alive) in the toilet cubicle, the placement of the toilet rack couldn't have been disputed in court, nor the position of the bathroom or toilet windows.

 

[Sherbert]

I've read through all the arguments about timelines and they really are a Red Herring.

A person fired four bullets through a door, into a space he knew to be very small. Hence, that person knew he could kill the person behind the door. Under SA Law, that is illegal. It is Murder.

Timelines leading up to the shooting, after it and ear witness testimony will not change this basic fact.

That a Judge has admitted that this person should have known his actions could harm the individual behind the door, should help those having difficulty understanding SA Law. That the Judge has sought to apply a lesser charge, despite this admission, is baffling. Under SA Law, it was Murder.

What was in dispute, was the version of events. The defendants versions kept changing. Only he was there and the ear witnesses may, or may not have all been untrustworthy. He is still not allowed to fire through the door though - that is Murder.

Either he knew the person behind the door or he didn't. Whether he did or not, it was still against the law to fire his gun. That a person died, means that under SA Law, if a Judge states he should have known that was a possibility, then he is guilty of Murder.

Add in now the what he was thinking, who was actually in the toilet and all the other evidence (Prosecution or Defence) and the basic premise does not change. He was not allowed to fire his gun into that toilet cubicle.

He is therefore guilty of Murder.

As to why the Judge made a complete Hash of the verdict, well that is what needs to be investigated now. Under SA Law, this was Murder.

Anyone that thinks differently is either a fan of the accused or a wind up merchant. They cannot be positioning an independent view point.

The problem is that the Judge appears to have accepted that it is reasonably possibly true that OP didn't actually foresee the possibility that he would kill anyone. How she arrived at this baffling conclusion is a mystery. Nevertheless, it has enabled her to downgrade the crime to culpable homicide on the basis that he shot without intent to kill.

And, for good measure, she has also accepted that he acted in putative private defence, thus cancelling the dolus needed for murder.

The timelines may well be no more than a distraction, but, unfortunately, red herring or not, they have provided the Judge with the means to find that OP's intruder story was reasonably possibly true.

I agree that her blatant selective treatment of the evidence merits investigation. Let's hope that her press embargo has now ended - otherwise, she might be blissfully unaware that the police officers stationed outside her residence are part of a Tactical Response Team charged with protecting her from the fall out created by her verdict.

 

[Estelle]

I agree. Totally.

What I think a lawyer might say is that there is a big difference between "should" have known and "did" know.

Masipa seems to be saying he "should" have known, but didn't necessarily. That's what makes it negligent rather than intentional.

Her reasoning for concluding that he didn't - or at least, didn't consider to the degree required of intention - is because his behaviour afterwards precludes it.

Which, sorry my Lady, is nothing short of staggeringly stupid.

And on this basis, I think the State will have very good grounds for appeal.

(My usual: I am not a lawyer, etc)

Talking about an appeal by the State, I found this article which you might like to read:

http://www.iol.co.za/pretoria-news/opinion/oscar-should-thank-his-lucky-stars-1.1755639#.VCPCVme1Yto

"In the Pistorius case, the prosecution might well be in a position to appeal against both legal and factual findings by the court. Yet if there is an appeal, the prosecution may raise only legal issues."

"A Justice Department spokesperson says a bill “has been prepared” and is “in the process of being submitted” to the justice minister that would give the prosecution the right to appeal against an acquittal based on questions of fact as well as law."

"Because a full 14 years ago, in 2000, the South African Law Reform Commission completed a detailed report on exactly this issue, recommended changes that would allow appeals on fact as well as law, and prepared and submitted a draft bill to the justice minister. If the authorities had acted promptly, the law could long have been changed."

"Perhaps there’s one more prayer that Pistorius might consider, namely that if the law is finally changed in South Africa, we don’t follow the example of Mauritius, where the new law on appeals applies even where the accused was convicted or acquitted before the law was changed."

So what legal issues could be raised on appeal?

 

[wb180]

I will accept this over-reliance on accuracy of minute detail on one condition.

It is applied equally to Pistorius.

In which case his constant self-contradiction with himself and forensic evidence means the court cannot believe him.

Hence he should be tried for murder.

This is the elephant in the room, if you wish to be this exact, that's fine, but you apply it fairly, which just results in a murder conviction for Pistorius.

If you start to accept inaccuracy in testimonies and try to extract a common thread, ala Pistorius consistently stated an intruder theory in his multiple contradictory versions.

Then multiple eyewitnesses heard Reeva scream together with the actual experts stating it would be wierd if Reeva did not scream from a hip-wound.

Agreed. Double standards by Masipa and other OP supporters. State witnesses mistakes time, and they dismiss their testimony. OP is a proven liar and they confirm that his story is 'reasonably true'. Hahaha

Beginner websleuthers. They still need to learn how to websleuth properly.

 

[AW2B]

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.

BBM

-The witnesses who heard a woman screaming is evidence of ----> PREMEDITATED MURDER

-Oscar's version is evidence of --------------------------------------> MURDER

Masipa found him NOT guilty on BOTH charges..she's wrong!

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

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...........................................................................................

What is photo 55? Can you please post a link to it? Thank you.

 

[AJ_DS]

2 things are quite interesting about the witnesses :

- The testimony of a group of them convinced a majority of people that OP knew he was shooting at Reeva when he fired his gun

- The testimony of another group of them contradicted OP's version of events

… but "somehow" all the testimonial evidence was not analyzed or even considered by the Judge who gave no explanation or reason for not doing so.

Furthermore, some evidence was used in making pro-Defence findings that contradicted OP's version of events.

According to OP, the basic chronology was : gunshots ; Help-Help-Help ; bat-strikes

Mr. Mike and his wife, who's bedroom window was a mere 9 meters away from OP's open bathroom window, heard only 1 bang :

1- If that bang was the last gunshot, they completely missed hearing the bat strikes which according to Defence were heard by Dr. Stipp, Mrs. Stipp, Johnson and Burger and mistaken for gunshots because OP was striking the toilet door with all his might. Not only that, but Mr. Mike and his wife completely missed all of OP's loud screaming at the intruders and at Reeva after the gunshots… they only heard the Help-Help-Help and some loud crying.

2- If that bang was the last bat-strike, then OP's chronology is directly contradicted… after the toilet door is broken down, OP does not scream at all … OP is silent, he cradles Reeva's body, cries over her body and makes several phone calls.

… so either :

1- The testimony of Mr. Mike and his wife are unreliable, or

2- OP's version of events is fabricated

Interestingly enough, Carice Stander's testimony has the same problem : Carice only heard a man screaming Help-Help-Help, no bangs whatsoever… she was woken up by barking dogs… AND she is the witness who is located the furthest away from OP's house and the Defence argues that closer witnesses could not possibly hear what they say they heard even less differentiate between a male and female voice.

As for Rica Motshuane and husband, they heard NOTHING of the events… the only thing they heard was OP crying loudly moments before the Stander's arrived in the mini-cooper… so according to phone records, they woke up AFTER 3:22AM…

So basically…OP was talking on the phone from 3:19 to to 3:22… this means that after 3 minutes of relative composure and silence, OP starts crying loudly again after 3:22

 

[Sherbert]

Ooops! Slight technical hitch with access security to Silverwoods Estate witness locations. Please try again. It's open to anyone who has the link, you shouldn't need to request access from me. Sorry.

Mr Fossil, I hereby nominate you for the title of 'Websleuth Extraordinaire'. Thank you so much for the work you have shared.