Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[akp]

What do people feel about Oscar's attempt to `resuscitate' Reeva?
To me, it was more of an attempt to make absolutely sure that she can not disclose her killer's identity to others (Stander, Stipp) before she is dead. I know, this is speculation, but Oscar's action after the shooting (calling Stander, calling Netcare but God knows conveying what - no one could have told him to move her body if given the right information, telling Baba that everything was fine) together with this novel resuscitation technique lead me to believe that this speculation is more reasonable than the Judge's conclusion on the same facts that he could not have intended to kill Reeva.

 

[IndianSummer]

A lot has been said about how agonising the verdict must be for Reeva's family and friends, and of course I agree.

It must also be terrible for the state's ear witnesses, who did their best in very stressful circumstances. Masipa seemed to dismiss their evidence as worthless. Oscar was a ventriloquist. The bat strikes were quick thunderbolts, louder than gunshots. The witnesses just failed to appreciate the reality of what they thought they heard.

I don't think that I could have stood up nearly as well as they did. I can think of some sharp interchanges, like when on cross examination, Barry Roux asked Michelle Burger, Why would he [Pistorius] scream "help help help", and she replied, I don't know, you'd have to ask Oscar. I heard it. Then was it she who suggested that maybe she was mocking Reeva's "help help help"? I thought that quite astute and maybe Roux wished he hadn't asked.

Excellent point about the mocking.


The ear witnesses
Kudos to them
If there is an appeal...
Would they be asked everything all over again?

 

[Mr Fossil]

i am interested to know - in the light of all the work you did on the calls/timeline - whether you are in agreement with roux's timeline, and/or masipa's timeline?

No, but then I believe I have attempted to apply my mind to all the information available rather than dismiss anything that makes it hard to figure, or conveniently interpret things to fit a preconceived solution, or latch on to one that has been offered to me. I prefer to test and question everything. For instance, if OP rang Security deliberately (which is a reasonable thing to do) why did he not speak having gone to the trouble of looking them up in his Contacts? Why disconnect? He had already spoken to Stander and Netcare (for over a minute). He was then called back, so he has a second opportunity, but not only did he not say what was wrong but says "Everything is fine" and disconnects. And then he can't recollect either call! That doesn't make sense and therefore must be for a reason.

I believe the shots were fired just after 03:15 and before Dr Stipp calls security.

Johnson's phone time isn't verified (the Defence HoA para 228 misleadingly refers to "his statement and telephone data (Exhibit N)" but Exhibit N is his statement. The time is from his notes (Exhibits O1-O3). There is no 'telephone data'.

For me the bat comes before the shots, the crack in the door (through the bullet hole) comes from tearing the panel out.

The discrepancies in witness testimony re. timings are to be expected but the core facts re. arguments, a woman's screams, the 'sounds' (x2) and calling for help largely corroborate each other if you reasonably assume that people who hear less of the sequence must be hearing the end of the sequence (unless they're otherwise distracted on the phone or have shut their window). It isn't reasonable to think they hear the beginning and then, when awake and alert, hear nothing more. And those that hear something have their windows open and those that don't, don't (which proves nothing).

I also believe that we shouldn't assume that everything that happened, happened in the sequence or for the reason OP says. He doesn't have to pull Reeva out of the toilet then fetch his phone(s) (I think one phone), then call, then run downstairs etc. The bedroom door damage comes from earlier IMO but I can't prove it and he probably had his phone on him (he carries it everywhere).

Masipa made little effort in my opinion to assimilate the facts and was easily misled by Roux's timeline and argument in spite of it being based on the multiple contrived and at times contradictory versions and defences of a 'poor', 'unreliable' and 'untruthful witness' (her words).

Then we have the phone data itself, which I believe may play a big part in the what led to Reeva's death and reveal a little more of what really was going on. I have posted elsewhere about this, but I include queries about the 15 minute Cousin Binge WhatsApp conversation with no GPRS activation, the activations before midnight and the 01:48 activation just before the argument that was heard at 01:56, the call to Security that was possibly meant for Stander, the activations when OP is left alone, the reason for the phone disappearing and OP 'forgetting' the password. I have my thoughts on what is happening here but I don't have enough to substantiate everything yet.

I'll put my new timelines up when they're complete, along with what I think happened that night.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

What do people feel about Oscar's attempt to `resuscitate' Reeva?
To me, it was more of an attempt to make absolutely sure that she can not disclose her killer's identity to others (Stander, Stipp) before she is dead. I know, this is speculation, but Oscar's action after the shooting (calling Stander, calling Netcare but God knows conveying what - no one could have told him to move her body if given the right information, telling Baba that everything was fine) together with this novel resuscitation technique lead me to believe that this speculation is more reasonable than the Judge's conclusion on the same facts that he could not have intended to kill Reeva.

The fact that he tried to resuscitate Reeva, IMO should have been chalked up as a lie by Masipa, since she ruled that Reeva couldn't have breathed for a few seconds after the last shot, and therefore she couldn't have screamed, but yet she claims that because he tried to resuscitate her, it proves that he was remorseful, thus innocent.

 

[soozieqtips]

I emailed the NPA spokesperson to express my outrage at Masipa's verdict, saying she had basically given anyone an excuse to kill with impunity, and got a nice reply stating that my "sentiments are shared by many in this country" and not to lose hope, but to allow the process to run its course, after which they will consider their options.

 

[Cherwell]

Oscar verdict cannot be overturned - expert

OSCAR PISTORIUS VERDICT A DONE DEAL. THIS IS A 'MUST READ': http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/gen/os...t-a-done-deal/ CPA APPEAL MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE - AT ALL. NOT EVEN IF HE IS GIVEN A NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCE.

Do any South African criminal law experts know if evidence of incompetent reasoning by judge on matters of fact and law can be grounds for review or re-trial? (God forbid the latter.)

From the above link (my bold):

"the state could only appeal a decision where there had been a “complete” acquittal. It ruled that if there was a competent verdict on a lesser charge, then the state may not appeal."

What about an incompetent verdict? :facepalm:

 

[Susza]

Oscar verdict cannot be overturned - expert

OSCAR PISTORIUS VERDICT A DONE DEAL. THIS IS A 'MUST READ': http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/gen/os...t-a-done-deal/ CPA APPEAL MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE - AT ALL. NOT EVEN IF HE IS GIVEN A NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCE.

Do any South African criminal law experts know if evidence of incompetent reasoning by judge on matters of fact and law can be grounds for review or re-trial? (God forbid the latter.)

Thank you, Rosie. But, hm, link doesn't work for me.

 

[geevee]

The fact that he tried to resuscitate Reeva, IMO should have been chalked up as a lie by Masipa, since she ruled that Reeva couldn't have breathed for a few seconds after the last shot, and therefore she couldn't have screamed, but yet she claims that because he tried to resuscitate her, it proves that he was remorseful, thus innocent.

I also think he only stuck his hand in her mouth to be sure she couldn't speak, by the time Carice arrived it was clear Reeva was dead but OP even had her stick her fingers in Reeva's mouth - how was that supposed to help her breath anyways? Blocking air from getting into her mouth? Such a sham but the judge bought it, hook, line and sinker.

I'm wondering if possibly Masipa always knew she couldn't convict him of a murder charge and the reason she seemed to be reading the verdicts for the first time was because she had her assessors write them up and is possibly blaming them for her looking like such a contradictory (if not corrupt) fool worldwide now.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I seem to recollect that Carice was concerned that he was taking longer that he should - just to pick up Reeva's handbag and come back down, that is.

Yes, she was getting freaked out about the fact that she couldn't see him, could hear him walking in the bathroom and he'd told the paramedics that was where the gun was. I don't think anyone could reliably predict 30-40 seconds. Stipp told Stander, Stander saw, Stander came inside, spoke to Carice, she followed him up. He speculates it's difficult to say the time in minutes or seconds then says 30-40 seconds IIRC. So it could be a little longer. Whatever it was, he went in the bathroom, which is not where Reeva's bag was (according to OP).

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thank you, Rosie. But, hm, link doesn't work for me.

Try this cached link

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...erdict-a-done-deal/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

[cottonweaver]

What do people feel about Oscar's attempt to `resuscitate' Reeva?
To me, it was more of an attempt to make absolutely sure that she can not disclose her killer's identity to others (Stander, Stipp) before she is dead. I know, this is speculation, but Oscar's action after the shooting (calling Stander, calling Netcare but God knows conveying what - no one could have told him to move her body if given the right information, telling Baba that everything was fine) together with this novel resuscitation technique lead me to believe that this speculation is more reasonable than the Judge's conclusion on the same facts that he could not have intended to kill Reeva.

Judge actually said :common cause
- Op was seen trying to resuscitate the deceased
- OP accused called for help

Seemed very odd to me that anyone could conclude that those events should be read at face value. Apparent vs inetntion!!

shouting " help" is not = calling for help in my book
Fingers down someone's mouth in front of witnesses, after an admitted crying over body delay is not= to someone trying to resus someone using a credible technique

 

[Interested Bystander]

It would be good to hear the opinion of the principal earwitnesses and what they feel about Masipa's judgement. They didn't have to come forward, they didn't know each other and yet they reported very similar experiences. I am stunned at how she dismissed them totally. Are they allowed to comment before the case is totally dead? Though, as professional people, they probably would not indulge the press. It may be that they will never get involved again if they hear somebody screaming. Very sad.

 

[KarenUK]

I'm so glad we have Websleuths and each other to vent our dissatisfaction about the verdict. :grouphug:


I get so angry, makes me want to go out for a drive and shoot a gun through the roof of my car. Joking, joking I don't have a sunroof.





I don't have a gun.

Love you guys for keeping me sane during the last few days.... glad its not just me being some mad woman shouting in the street. :tyou:

Edit - a mad woman shouting that turns out to actually be a man shouting, despite what you might have heard!

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

It would be good to hear the opinion of the principal earwitnesses and what they feel about Masipa's judgement. They didn't have to come forward, they didn't know each other and yet they reported very similar experiences. I am stunned at how she dismissed them totally. Are they allowed to comment before the case is totally dead? Though, as professional people, they probably would not indulge the press. It may be that they will never get involved again if they hear somebody screaming. Very sad.

Also, during Michelle burger's testimony she was extremely emotional and traumatized, yet her crying and emotion was ignored by the judge, but OP crocodile tears got applauded!!

 

[Scand]

I have a question for someone who knows SA law. I am guessing that prosecutors can't bring up previous convictions at trial, because this would be character evidence, but can this or out-of-court settlements be brought up during sentencing?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cottonweaver]

RSBM

For me the bat comes before the shots, the crack in the door (through the bullet hole) comes from tearing the panel out.

Masipa made little effort in my opinion to assimilate the facts and was easily misled by Roux's timeline and argument.

Sadly, everything comes down to the bat gun kick debate in her chronologies. What a terrible, awful, shame that States forensics ( door- cracks vs bullets first issue guy - Rens?) account was firstly badly translated and then never pursued as bat first. From thereon she bins almost every ear witness.

And agreed, find it staggering that the 3 of them up there did not absolutely pore over Roux's sneaky misinterpretations in his timeline in the Closings.

According To Masipa
"It was also not contradicted that the shots were fired first and that the striking of the door, using a cricket bat, followed thereafter....

"The time of the screams and the reasons for the screams make sense when one has regard to the chronology of the events of that morning. The screams were heard just after four shots were fired
and before the three sounds from a cricket bat were heard…"

There is a lot of weird reasoning in her judgment - but I am refraining from a long post - and the weirdness stands out even more as you read it.

 

[sleuth-d-]

No, but then I believe I have attempted to apply my mind to all the information available rather than dismiss anything that makes it hard to figure, or conveniently interpret things to fit a preconceived solution, or latch on to one that has been offered to me. I prefer to test and question everything. For instance, if OP rang Security deliberately (which is a reasonable thing to do) why did he not speak having gone to the trouble of looking them up in his Contacts? Why disconnect? He had already spoken to Stander and Netcare (for over a minute). He was then called back, so he has a second opportunity, but not only did he not say what was wrong but says "Everything is fine" and disconnects. And then he can't recollect either call! That doesn't make sense and therefore must be for a reason.

I believe the shots were fired just after 03:15 and before Dr Stipp calls security.

Johnson's phone time isn't verified (the Defence HoA para 228 misleadingly refers to "his statement and telephone data (Exhibit N)" but Exhibit N is his statement. The time is from his notes (Exhibits O1-O3). There is no 'telephone data'.

For me the bat comes before the shots, the crack in the door (through the bullet hole) comes from tearing the panel out.

The discrepancies in witness testimony re. timings are to be expected but the core facts re. arguments, a woman's screams, the 'sounds' (x2) and calling for help largely corroborate each other if you reasonably assume that people who hear less of the sequence must be hearing the end of the sequence (unless they're otherwise distracted on the phone or have shut their window). It isn't reasonable to think they hear the beginning and then, when awake and alert, hear nothing more. And those that hear something have their windows open and those that don't, don't (which proves nothing).

I also believe that we shouldn't assume that everything that happened, happened in the sequence or for the reason OP says. He doesn't have to pull Reeva out of the toilet then fetch his phone(s) (I think one phone), then call, then run downstairs etc. The bedroom door damage comes from earlier IMO but I can't prove it and he probably had his phone on him (he carries it everywhere).

Masipa made little effort in my opinion to assimilate the facts and was easily misled by Roux's timeline and argument.

Then we have the phone data itself, which I believe may play a big part in the what led to Reeva's death and reveal a little more of what really was going on. I have posted elsewhere about this, but I include queries about the 15 minute Cousin Binge WhatsApp conversation with no GPRS activation, the activations before midnight and the 01:48 activation just before the argument that was heard at 01:56, the call to Security that was possibly meant for Stander, the activations when OP is left alone, the reason for the phone disappearing and OP 'forgetting' the password. I have my thoughts on what is happening here but I don't have enough to substantiate everything yet.

I'll put my new timelines up when they're complete, along with what I think happened that night.

thanks for the reply, and compelling. i very much agree with all that.
i had narrowed down between 3:15:51-03:16:13 for the shots.
[after stipps call, and before the neighbour's first failed call]

 

[pandax81]

Oscar verdict could be overturned – expert

"Prosecutor Gerrie Nel will only be able to appeal at the sentencing of Pistorius, if he intends to appeal."

http://citizen.co.za/243043/oscar-verdict-overturned-expert/

Thanks for this link, a bombshell. It all rests on s322(4) where the Criminal Procedure Act refers to "acquittal". I've looked into it, and I don't care what the case law says - set a new precedent if necessary. The Act itself clearly only intends one thing when it refers to "acquittal" even if restricted to complete acquittal. It means in such a case, the appeal court can order a RETRIAL if it so wishes. That's all it is saying, and it is clear to me at least that this is what the lawmakers intended. It does not intend whatsoever that the state cannot appeal and the judgement be remedied in the usual way if there was a guilty charge on a competent verdict.

Criminal Procedure Act http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1977-051.pdf

Powers of Court of Appeal

s322(1)(b)
In the case of an appeal against a conviction or of any question of law reserved, the court of appeal may give such judgment as ought to have been given at the trial or impose such punishment as ought to have been imposed at the trial

s322(4)
Where a question of law has been reserved on the application of a prosecutor in the case of an acquittal, and the court of appeal has given a decision in favour of the prosecutor, the court of appeal may order that such of the steps referred to in section 324 be taken as the court may direct.

s324
Institution of proceedings de novo when conviction set aside on appeal

 

[lithgow1]

Good article that I don't think has been linked to before but apologies if so:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/15/south-africa-disappointed-pistorius-verdict

 

[RosieC]

Thank you, Rosie. But, hm, link doesn't work for me.

Here's a cut and paste of the gist.

While criminal law experts around the globe are already betting on the chances of a successful appeal, two men – who between them have chalked up more than six decades in the prosecuting business – believe a 1982 decision by the then Appellate Division (AD), which later became the SCA, may be an insurmountable obstacle.

The reported case, which seems to have escaped the notice of so many, deals with the state’s right to appeal on a point of law against an acquittal.

The state’s right to appeal is limited to start with, said Eastern Cape deputy director of public prosecutions Advocate Malherbe Marais, SC.

“The state can only appeal on a point of law as opposed to the right of an accused person who can appeal on a point of law or on the facts.”

But the SCA case, S v Seekoei, limits the state’s right of appeal even further.

A former Eastern Cape Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Les Roberts, SC, said in that case, the SCA – in interpreting the relevant section of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) – found the state could only appeal a decision where there had been a “complete” acquittal. It ruled that if there was a competent verdict on a lesser charge, then the state may not appeal.


In S v Seekoei, the accused had been found guilty of housebreaking with intent to steal, rather than the more serious crime of housebreaking with intention to rob, with which they had been charged.

Roberts explained the CPA’s “hierarchy” of crimes. At the top is murder, followed by lesser crimes such as culpable homicide, assault with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm, common assault and pointing a firearm.

Ironically, even if Pistorius had been convicted of pointing a firearm rather than the crime of murder – with which he was charged – the state would not be in position to appeal says Roberts.
Roberts prosecuted for some 32 years, serving as deputy DPP in KwaZulu-Natal and later as DPP in the Eastern Cape. On his retirement, he lectured criminal procedure in the Rhodes University law faculty for some nine years.

Marais, who has served in the National Prosecuting Authority for 37 years, agreed.

“The SCA has ruled that the right of the state to appeal on a question of law is only in the event of what it termed an algehele or total acquittal. In my understanding, Pistorius was not totally acquitted on a charge of murder. He was convicted of culpable homicide, which is a competent verdict to murder. So in terms of [S v Seekoei] it seems unlikely that the state can appeal.”

Marais said there were moves afoot to put the state on a more equal footing with an accused when it came to appealing, which might then enable the state to appeal on the basis of both factual and legal findings by a judge.

But any future amendments to the CPA will not change anything in the Pistorius case. The NPA has indicated it will only announce its intentions regarding an appeal after Pistorius has been sentenced.