Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[PrimeSuspect]

Yes. It is positively Hitchcock-ian to murder someone in a blind rage, be crapping yourself about your next move and calling your handlers, decide to buy time/vacate the crime scene by driving the body to the hospital, have your car running and the front door open, and seconds before, in walks a DOCTOR!!!

Oh lawd, you crack me up! :giggle:

 

[JudgeJudi]

I'm just wondering - could the re-enactment video be used as an aggravating factor during the next phase? It would be brilliant if it could and raise the stakes even higher. I'd give anything to see the faces of the judge and assessors.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

In post #1480 in Trial Discussion Thread #53 PrimeSuspect wrote, in response to me,

"I don't know what trial you listened too but that isn't true. In fact Nel ALWAYS used Reeva's name."

That's quite a claim. Always? That's setting the bar at audacious Pistorian levels. I mean, all you had to do was a basic search on the internet. If you had, you'd find that your claim is not even close to being true. In fact, in doing a little research, I would now wager that Nel used "the deceased" in court more often, perhaps much more often, than "Reeva". That would be laborious to prove. Here's what I can prove:

In talking to witnesses, Nel uses "the deceased" a lot. Examples are all over the place.

----“But that led, on your version, to the killing of the deceased,” Nel said. Derman said he could not comment on this.----

----Nel to Wolmarans: The deceased could not have fallen flat on the floor, because we have to take into account the arm and heard wound.----

--Nel to Van Zyl: Yesterday you gave evidence on what you knew on the relationship between the accused and the deceased? … You also indicated yesterday that the deceased was the first girlfriend that the accused wanted to take his girlfriend overseas?----

----Nel to Lundgren: If the deceased was involved in a long argument with the accused before death, that would delay her gastric emptying?----

Etc. etc. Beyond this, we have Nel addressing Masipa, and even Roux, where he uses "the deceased" often. Why would this even be surprising? A few examples:

----(Opening statement): We argue that the accused version cannot be possibly true and should be rejected. The only inference from the circumstantial evidence is that the accused shot and killed the deceased. There are no eyewitnesses, just the circumstantial evidence.----

----To Roux: The shot at 3.17am caused the deceased's death. Before that, she was screaming. After that, there was no scream. That's my case. (Mar. 6)----

----(Closing statement, aka HOA): We have, if there’s no perceived intruder, the deceased, 3 o’clock in the morning, locking herself into her toilet,” Nel said. “We have the deceased, 3 o c’lock in the morning, taking her cell phone with her to the toilet. We have the deceased, 3 o’clock in the morning, standing upright, fully clothed, and shot four times. There’s no intruder. There’s no noises. That is our argument.----

But what about the crossex of OP? It's true Nel uses "Reeva" here. But he uses "the deceased" as well:

----Nel to OP: The deceased for no reason opened the window. Why? It didn’t happen.----

----Nel to OP: My argument will be that spatter came from when you carried the deceased.----

---Nel: You see Mr Pistorius, it was never moved, that door was open when you and the deceased got into an argument, the fan was there, the duvet was there, the curtains were in that exact position, nobody moved anything.----

----Nel: The only reasonable inference is that the deceased ran screaming from there, that's why we heard screams, and the door was never closed. OP: That's not true M'lady.----

----Nel: you heard the window slide open. You didn’t hear the deceased get up? Nothing on the bed? OP: No.----

----OP: The fan couldn't possibly have been there because it's in the way of the doors opening.
Nel: Indeed, indeed. I agree. Because your version is a lie. You never closed the curtains in the first place ... That door was open when you and the deceased got into an argument.----

Sorry PrimeSuspect, but your claim is not reasonably possibly true.

As for links, I haven't included one for each quote. But you can search on google for [Nel Pistorius "the deceased"] and get lots of hits. You'll be able to verify the above without too much effort.

LOL Feynman, your reply cracks me up too, I don't know if you meant it to. :wink:

I think you missed the point, you said Gerrie Nel hardly used Reeva's name? Is that reasonably possibly true? Also, imo, when Nel is talking to the 'experts', he must run it home she is the 'deceased'. It is a trial about her murder after all. Masipa is the person I have issues with.

FYI- even though it doesn't mean much.

gerrie nel pistorius deceased - About 119,000 results (0.34 seconds)

gerrie nel reeva - About 351,000 results (0.29 seconds)

Nel Pistorius "the deceased" - About 14,500 results (0.30 seconds)

 

[PrimeSuspect]

This pic should have been shown to Masipa, OP shooting his black talon bullets at a watermelon. How can she believe he didn't know 4 such bullets in a confined space of a toilet would not inflict the same damage?!

I'm blathering on as usual but another bone I have to pick with J Masipa.


If she believed Dr Stipps description of OP's display of remorse over Reeva's body, why is his account of the actual noises and voices he heard becomes unreliable? :waitasec:

 

[808]

 

[808]

This pic should have been shown to Masipa, OP shooting his black talon bullets at a watermelon. How can she believe he didn't know 4 such bullets in a confined space of a toilet would not inflict the same damage?!

I'm blathering on as usual but another bone I have to pick with J Masipa.


If she believed Dr Stipps description of OP's display of remorse over Reeva's body, why is his account of the actual noises and voices he heard becomes unreliable? :waitasec:

The gun he is firing there is one he had on order. It's a 500 or the largest handgun you can buy. It is just firing conventional rounds there but they are a huge calibre.
I think OP's choice of hollow points was lost on old "OP coloured glasses wearing" Masipa.
To me it sounds like if you choose those bullets you know when you fire you are almost surely likely to kill.

In war it's handy for the enemy for you to have to pick up a bleeding injured comrade rather than a one shot kill.
(They use NATO or conventional rounds in War and most police forces cannot use HP's by law.)

Dollus Eventualis right there Judge :twocents: :moo:

 

[Datchery]

I didn't pay as much attention to the details of the trial as a lot of you did, but one of the things that strikes me as so bizarre about Masipa's verdict is that it seems like she adopted a line of reasoning that even the defense wasn't arguing.

From what I could tell, Roux's primary strategy seemed to be to go for some sort of diminished capacity ruling. He knew that OP wasn't going to meet the clinical definition of insanity, but by emphasizing his fear and his disability, he was arguing he shouldn't be judged as one would an ordinary person. It was a good tactic, too, because by any ordinary standards, OP's explanations for his behavior are absolutely absurd. On this reasoning, Roux had two main jobs:
1. Cast enough doubt on the earwitnesses/timeline that it couldn't be proven that Oscar and Reeva were arguing, as if they were, it would be obvious that the murder was intentional and

2. Suggest that understandable vulnerability borne of his disability had induced in him an instinctive, physiological fear that makes his mistake in shooting Reeva - or anyone - through a locked bathroom door a tragic but reasonable response to circumstances.

The thing is, Masipa didn't buy any of that. She didn't accept the garbage about the "startle," or suggest that OP's disability makes him unable to be judged on ordinary standards. Yet, she acquitted him anyway - and that is a much more dangerous verdict that one that simply accepted Roux's version of events. In that case, at least the reasonable person standard would still hold, and killers would at least have to show that they had some difference from the norm that made them an exception to the standard. As it is, Masipa is basically saying that the reasonableness of a person's beliefs NEVER matters in determining the plausibility of their explanation.

Under Masipa's reasoning, a parent would be fully justified in shooting their child if the kid jumped into bed after a nightmare, because how can we say that the parent DIDN'T think they were under attack by an intruder? Of course, if a parent wanted to kill their child, it would be pretty smart of them, if M's precedent holds, to wait until nightfall and then CLAIM that the kid had jumped into bed and startled them. Similarly, any time two people in a private residence get into a fight that turns deadly, as long as they can produce the most outlandish claim, it apparently has to be respected without question.

That wasn't what Roux was arguing, and of course he wasn't, because Roux realized that no reasonable person who is aware that he is not alone in the house hears a noise in the bathroom and immediately assumes that there is an intruder. If OP had any doubts, all he had to do is look over and see whether or not Reeva was still in bed or not. His claims are completely bogus, and I'm just gobsmacked that anyone accepted them.

 

[vanatos]

I'd like more information as to the real sentiment of the south africans.

From public newspeople, they use safe language like 'their dissapointed' but boy i hear some serious anger when for example
Masipa needs security because of so much angry people writing angry letters to her.

And judge greenland is angry, probably displayed more anger then any other legal person i have seen on his twitter.

Wonder if anyone lives in South Africa can comment on the mood.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Has there been any video or talk from judge greenland on Masipa's verdict?

Chris Greenland, a retired South African high court judge, said this was a serious inconsistency.
He told MailOnline: 'I am utterly bemused that this mistake was made.
'I can't wrap my head around it. I have never seen a judge make such a big mistake especially when she had so much time to arrive at a judgement.
'It's inexplicable.
'She has misinterpreted herself with regard to the law because she herself said previously that Oscar Pistorius's defence was that he was not guilty of murder because he killed her by mistake thinking that he was shooting at an intruder.

'Now, during her verdict, she made a statement that was inconsistent because she found that he had not foreseen that he would kill the human being on the other side of the door.
'That was erroneous - she had already set out the law.
'It was a fundamental mistake.'
He believes the state would have a strong case on appeal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ring-lover-Reeva-Steenkamp.html#ixzz3DSW3mzqv

I searched for video, not one yet, hopefully soon.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

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.

And - previously OP was upstairs while a witness (Dr. Stipp?) feared OP would shoot himself. (my memory)

 

[Deleted member 102539]

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.

Never ever OP has tried to rescue Reeva, ON THE CONTRARY, just as you think! IMO

 

[BritsKate]

I agree with you. The only good that is going to come out of this whole trial, is that OP will never be allowed to have a gun with him. This is surely going to save someone's life in the future, more than likely a girlfriend.

Considering how law abiding Oscar Pistorius has shown himself to be...you'll forgive me for having little faith something so simple as a ban could quell his passion for firearms. Said as the ex-wife to a felon who owned two guns despite being prohibited from doing so.

 

[jay-jay]

I agree with you. The only good that is going to come out of this whole trial, is that OP will never be allowed to have a gun with him. This is surely going to save someone's life in the future, more than likely a girlfriend.

.. I wouldn't be so sure about that :-/

 

[katydid23]

I was really upset with this verdict and was ranting a bit and my husband calmly reminded me to think about the OJ SIMPSON verdict. I was very upset about that too. But several years later, he got his due. :jail:

 

[KarenUK]

Never ever OP has tried to rescue Reeva, ON THE CONTRARY, just as you think! IMO

I'm surprised no one at the trial queried OP's 'fingers in the mouth' method of airway clearing / resuscitation

 

[katydid23]

I'm surprised noone at the trial queried OP's 'fingers in the mouth' method of airway clearing / resuscitation

The judge probably counted that as one of her reasons for believing his version. After all, he wouldn't have been trying to clear her airways, if he was guilty, now would he? :facepalm:

 

[Hazy]

I agree with you. The only good that is going to come out of this whole trial, is that OP will never be allowed to have a gun with him. This is surely going to save someone's life in the future, more than likely a girlfriend.

Well according to Masipa if he can keep bullets in his safe that are not his and he has no intention to use them he can therefore keep someone else's gun there too presumably.

All he needs is an excuse to use it again.

Such is the idiocy of her judgement there.

 

[jay-jay]

And - previously OP was upstairs while a witness (Dr. Stipp?) feared OP would shoot himself. (my memory)

Yes, someone was saying on here yesterday that they weren't sure if OP made the trip upstairs once or twice, and then decided it was only the one occasion .. but it was definitely twice/two separate occasions .. the first was when Dr Stipp was there, before the paramedics arrived because he was worried that OP had gone back up to kill himself with the gun, and then the second time was when the paramedics arrived and OP trotted back off upstairs once again to get Reeva's purse (for her ID). The court really, really should've looked much more closely at details like this .. they are all part of the 'mosaic' that proves he murdered Reeva. I'm aware of the possibility that all of these things together may not have provided sufficient proof for convicting him of knowingly and intentionally killing Reeva (although I happen to think there was enough evidence for this, there were tons of it!), but there was surely enough for Masipa to have understood that he did kill her (Reeva, not an intruder) with intent, but that if she was not able to convict him of that in law, then she should've then convicted him of knowingly and intentionally killing his perceived intruder. To convict him of manslaughter is just a total nonsense, and by her attitude, it's clear to me that Masipa completely bought his fake tears and retching, and his lies otherwise she would've gone for the middle conviction at the very least .. she did actually have that within her power to do, in law, as there was most certainly enough proof for that one, but no ...

 

[Lux et Veritas]

This pic should have been shown to Masipa, OP shooting his black talon bullets at a watermelon. How can she believe he didn't know 4 such bullets in a confined space of a toilet would not inflict the same damage?!

Looking at that screenshot, looks like some terrific recoil to OP’s 9mm.

“A ... B,C,D” was the “grouping” of shots that night.

One of the cartridges was found away from the other three.

Putting this screenshot, the bullet grouping and the cartridge placements all together into a “mosaic” - he absolutely aimed, fired, repositioned (walked forward?), re-aimed and fired three more times.

It's common cause Reeva was first shot in the hip (yet, stunningly, Masipa ignores all of Saayman's detailed evidence to zero in on the one fact that after the head shot, Reeva would have been immediately incapacitated and unable to scream ... but conveniently ignores the fact that she was NOT incapacitated vocally before that shot).

Yes, this was Masipa's "proof" that Reeva never screamed!! ALL the ear witnesses were mistaken, "unreliable", delusional, liars, take your pick!!

Forget any accusation of incompetence - Masipa sounds like a cherry-picking fraud who knew her verdict before she reviewed the entire case ... hell, probably before she ever walked into that courtroom on March 3.

Geezus. If WE can glue all the little pieces together (Reeva SCREAMED, making OP a murderous liar) why couldn't Masipa and her assessors?!!

 

[jay-jay]

Looking at that screenshot, looks like some terrific recoil to OP’s 9mm.

“A ... B,C,D” was the “grouping” of shots that night.

One of the cartridges was found away from the other three.

Putting this screenshot, the bullet grouping and the cartridge placements all together into a “mosaic” - he absolutely aimed, fired, repositioned (walked forward?), re-aimed and fired three more times.

It's common cause Reeva was first shot in the hip (yet, stunningly, Masipa ignores all of Saayman's detailed evidence to zero in on the one fact that after the head shot, Reeva would have been immediately incapacitated and unable to scream ... but conveniently ignores the fact that she was NOT incapacitated vocally before that shot).

Yes, this was Masipa's "proof" that Reeva never screamed!! ALL the ear witnesses were mistaken, "unreliable", delusional, liars, take your pick!!

Forget any accusation of incompetence - Masipa sounds like a cherry-picking fraud who knew her verdict before she reviewed the entire case ... hell, probably before she ever walked into that courtroom on March 3.

Geezus. If WE can glue all the little pieces together (Reeva SCREAMED, making OP a murderous liar) why couldn't Masipa and her assessors?!!

Absolutely, Lux!

* to your whole post that is, not just your bolded bit!