Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[Really?]

Riddle me this.....

One fan, two fan
LED is bright

Window slide, window slam
Who put out the light?

 

[KarenUK]

THE PISTORIUS TRIAL IS OVER, BUT HAS JUSTICE BEEN SERVED?

“I can’t believe that they believe it was an accident.”

Respectfully snipped for space.

Her poor parents, June sat through that trial listening to all those horrible details, watching OP's attention grabbing antics of crying and retching - and this is the verdict they get. Her father looked like a broken man sat in court during the verdict.

 

[whiterum]

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.

Exactly what is the point of the law on illegal possession. If discovered just say 'Oh that's not mine it my Da's , end off !!

Also very accommodating since he hadn't spoken to the man for years, absolute *advertiser censored*! ,

 

[KarenUK]

You have described the "big question" perfectly, Datchery:

"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."

That's the start of his fairy tale, and you're right, this one simple, obvious fact, is impossible to ignore.

There are so, so many holes in OP's version, let me add one that I'm not sure has been mentioned:

According to his testimony, OP had to turn to the bed to grab his gun from beneath it. It was so dark at that point, allegedly, that he couldn't see that Reeva was no longer in bed. So, he must have been fumbling around for the gun. He then proceeded through the corridor to the bathroom, in total darkness, towards a perceived threat, screaming his head off.

Again, he must have been fumbling his way down the hall. But surely, if he really believed there was a dangerous intruder in the bathroom, at this point he would have crept silently down the corridor. Otherwise, his own screams would: prevent him from hearing any further noises/alert the intruder to his exact whereabouts. Since it was pitch black, this would give the alleged intruder every opportunity to sneak out of the bathroom and shoot him. Reeva would be next.

Although in movies we’re accustomed to seeing people in fear approaching imminent danger, screaming, in real life, in a cat-and-mouse situation, fear causes you to be quiet - as a mouse.

Without any question, if the scenario were indeed as he had said, he would have told Reeva to get out of the house as quickly as possible, since she had a perfect escape route downstairs, and he had now positioned himself in the corridor, between Reeva and the alleged intruder.

Of course, his version is pure fabrication.

:goodpost:

And the idea that after the shots (when the "threat" had been nullified by four black talons) that he would still staggering about without turning on a light is absurd.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

OP claims to have heard sounds in the bathroom. At that point, he's supposedly in the bedroom right by Reeva, who he says was in bed. Now, what person, in this situation, would not immediately whisper to their partner: "did you hear that?" and expect a response. I've been in exactly that situation many times, and it's always what I do. After all, it's not uncommon to hear a strange unidentified sound in the middle of the night. In my case, it's never been an intruder, always an animal, door banging in the breeze, etc. I even had a fox in the house once (lots of fox attacks in my area!)

With your partner right there beside you, why would you go gung-ho towards the perceived danger, without eliciting a response from your partner first?

No one would, regardless of disability.

Hi and :welcome: Pirate Doug So very true. It's also quite telling in his original affidavit - No mention of Reeva being awake or speaking to him. He changed that later after being advised imo, because he had to KNOW she was in the bed before the rest of the fairytale begins.


I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.

During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.

I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.

I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.


Pistorius’s original affidavit in full: http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...ial-affidavit-bail-hearing-full#ixzz3DTPytyZb

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Here is a short audio clip of Judge Greenland talking after the first day of the verdict. I didn’t upload it before because often the original video clips are uploaded to his YouTube channel. If this discussion does get uploaded to his channel I will delete this recording.

https://soundcloud.com/giles-10/greenland/s-9cebu

Thank you Giles.

Greenland tries to reconciles it with himself, "that Masipa looked at it subjectively, she looked at Oscar, his upbringing, background, his problems etc and assesses him as OSCAR!"

She excuses him of murder ??!! But objectively, he is guilty of CH for being negligent. (Slap on the wrist then!)

How can she come to that conclusion? Nel brought up OP's background, the violent run-in with Taylor-Memmory, his threats to break Batchelor's legs, the boating accident (boat loaded with alcohol), the sunroof incident and the Tasha's debacle where he lied, on the stand no less! So she thinks she KNOWS Oscar???!!!

 

[sleuth-d-]

That's exactly how I read it when I was persuaded it was two trips. If you listen to the actual testimony you'll see that Stipp doesn't relate the tale in one go, he is interrupted by Nel and starts talking about when he was looking for a house on the estate etc. He also uses vague phrases like "I was in and out of the house" and "at one stage". The sequence he gives cannot IMO be taken to be strictly chronological. But when I correlate the content of the testimony with Stander's I see one trip.

stipp saw oscar going upstairs and also coming back downstairs.

the later part of his evidence appears to be chronological:

the ambulance arrives at the gate. 3:41 so would be at the house a couple of minutes after that.
stipp says he saw the quick response car and then the ambulance. they rushed by. he is then no further use. exchanged numbers with stander. got in his car and drove home.

medics requested id after this.

stipp would not have been there to see op going upstairs minutes after this to get id at the request of the medics. more so, stipp would not have been around to see oscar return back downstairs - which he said he saw.

also worth pondering; the 'id trip' involved carice... stipp doesn't mention oscar coming back down with carice does he? he was particularly worried because op went up alone,,,,

 

[Ginro]

Interesting reading what some of the verdict predictions were for this case pre-trial last year:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225125

 

[whiterum]

It's unbelievable IMO that the Judge showed such confidence and belief in the testimony of the defence witnesses, OP's friends, the Standers. Didn't the daughter originally roll over in bed and close the curtains and then later wasn't the wife overheard at the scene saying something to the effect of 'we can't let the media get hold of this '. Was this just her own opinion or the reason why this family were called to the scene in the first place. More importantly , why the hell should anyone be worrying about the media when the main cause of concern should have been Reeva who was lying right there on the floor.

Beats me how this lot were believed to be reliable witnesses over the testimony of the good Brave Dr Stipp for one, who got up from his bed and risked his life rushing over to the house to help.

He too should have rolled over and closed the curtains for all the thanks he got !

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here is a short audio clip of Judge Greenland talking after the first day of the verdict. I didn’t upload it before because often the original video clips are uploaded to his YouTube channel. If this discussion does get uploaded to his channel I will delete this recording.

https://soundcloud.com/giles-10/greenland/s-9cebu

Thanks Giles. Another good one although a bit worrying. CG clearly says that Masipa believed everything OP said and therefore there was no intent. So no directus or eventualis. :scared:

The following is my opinion not CG's. Unless Nel can bring a case such as incompetency against Masipa, I cannot see how the state can argue against her verdict but I hope I am wrong. That is a big blow for me. OP was so obviously a liar and she alludes to this in her judgement, but goes on to submit that she and the assessors thought his story was true. It doesn't stack up. CG goes on to explain why, whilst believing OP's story is true, she can hand down CH because all she needs to do is judge him against a reasonable man. I hope there is some way Nel can do something about this judgement. IMO there has been a total miscarriage of justice here.

I thought CG's comments with respect to the importance of whether Roux/DT had seen that video of OP walking, which completely contradicted Denman's testimony, and still allowed the court to believe that OP was as immobile as suggested, interesting. CG stated that if Roux had viewed the video he could be disbarred, due to dishonesty. Of course, Roux would never agree that he saw it, even though I am sure most of us would find that almost impossible to believe. I cannot see it happening but it sums up Roux's desperate defence IMO.

 

[Mr Fossil]

stipp saw oscar going upstairs and also coming back downstairs.

the later part of his evidence appears to be chronological:

the ambulance arrives at the gate. 3:41 so would be at the house a couple of minutes after that.
stipp says he saw the quick response car and then the ambulance. they rushed by. he is then no further use. exchanged numbers with stander. got in his car and drove home.

medics requested id after this.

stipp would not have been there to see op going upstairs minutes after this to get id at the request of the medics. more so, stipp would not have been around to see oscar return back downstairs - which he said he saw.

also worth pondering; the 'id trip' involved carice... stipp doesn't mention oscar coming back down with carice does he? he was particularly worried because op went up alone,,,,

It remains a possibility in my mind. It may well tally with when Stipp and Carice were outside talking to Netcare, leaving OP alone in the house, and OP's 0020 phone activation. But I'm uncertain still because when I listen to Stander's evidence he relates the content of Stipp's evidence as being when he goes in to ask Carice where OP is going etc.

The problem with people not saying things doesn't confirm anything for me. An example would be Carice, who never mentions going outside to talk on the phone to NetCare and yet her father says she does. You'd have thought she'd have mentioned it! You'd also have thought Nel would have asked her, given she followed her father on the stand.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Interesting reading what some of the verdict predictions were for this case pre-trial last year:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225125

Yes very. After the initial evidence, I have always believed it was murder but I chose to vote for CH because we were asked to vote for what we thought would happen. I felt strongly the trial would be mishandled and IMO it has proved to be the case.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Here is a short audio clip of Judge Greenland talking after the first day of the verdict. I didn’t upload it before because often the original video clips are uploaded to his YouTube channel. If this discussion does get uploaded to his channel I will delete this recording.

https://soundcloud.com/giles-10/greenland/s-9cebu

towards the end of that clip greenland is starting to emit that exasperated tone that i recognise - and have seen in others - when trying to reconcile some of the contradictions with masipa and op and the verdict.

 

[sleuth-d-]

It remains a possibility in my mind. It may well tally with when Stipp and Carice were outside talking to Netcare, leaving OP alone in the house, and OP's 0020 phone activation. But I'm uncertain still because when I listen to Stander's evidence he relates the content of Stipp's evidence as being when he goes in to ask Carice where OP is going etc.

The problem with people not saying things doesn't confirm anything for me. An example would be Carice, who never mentions going outside to talk on the phone to NetCare and yet her father says she does. You'd have thought she'd have mentioned it! You'd also have thought Nel would have asked her, given she followed her father on the stand.

one more section from stipp's evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFZA03eu9NM
44.52-46.05

nel starts with...
'you said you saw the accused go upstairs and then downstairs again, what happened after that'
stipp then describes the ambulance arriving. [amongst other things, but in a linear fashion, and uninterrupted]


when weighing up their versions one could ask the question: were stander and carice - defence witnesses, and friends of op - giving evidence to support the op version, and/or to cloud, confuse or mitigate the state version?

then ask the question, why was stipp giving evidence?

 

[vanatos]

towards the end of that clip greenland is starting to emit that exasperated tone that i recognise - and have seen in others - when trying to reconcile some of the contradictions with masipa and op and the verdict.

I remember Greenland getting exasperated with the female umm interviewer/anchor (whom i find annoying).

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Interesting reading what some of the verdict predictions were for this case pre-trial last year:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225125

LOL, I chose guilty of murder :kickcan:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Thanks Giles. Another good one although a bit worrying. CG clearly says that Masipa believed everything OP said and therefore there was no intent. So no directus or eventualis. :scared:

The following is my opinion not CG's. Unless Nel can bring a case such as incompetency against Masipa, I cannot see how the state can argue against her verdict but I hope I am wrong. That is a big blow for me. OP was so obviously a liar and she alludes to this in her judgement, but goes on to submit that she and the assessors thought his story was true. It doesn't stack up. CG goes on to explain why, whilst believing OP's story is true, she can hand down CH because all she needs to do is judge him against a reasonable man. I hope there is some way Nel can do something about this judgement. IMO there has been a total miscarriage of justice here.

I thought CG's comments with respect to the importance of whether Roux/DT had seen that video of OP walking, which completely contradicted Denman's testimony, and still allowed the court to believe that OP was as immobile as suggested, interesting. CG stated that if Roux had viewed the video he could be disbarred, due to dishonesty. Of course, Roux would never agree that he saw it, even though I am sure most of us would find that almost impossible to believe. I cannot see it happening but it sums up Roux's desperate defence IMO.

Obviously, Roux wasn't in the 'loop', he looked annoyed and exasperated most of the time, and his CA, he was whingy and whiny, and pleading like HIS life depended upon it. The 'loop' being Masipa, Uncle Arnie & co. and OP. jmo

 

[vanatos]

I heard some poll in SA showed almost 80% of SA being angry with her.

Its a shame there's basically no poster here from SA, would be lovely to hear whats actually happening down there.

 

[Mr Fossil]

one more section from stipp's evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFZA03eu9NM
44.52-46.05

nel starts with...
'you said you saw the accused go upstairs and then downstairs again, what happened after that'
stipp then describes the ambulance arriving. [amongst other things, but in a linear fashion, and uninterrupted]


when weighing up their versions one could ask the question: were stander and carice - defence witnesses, and friends of op - giving evidence to support the op version, and/or to cloud, confuse or mitigate the state version?

then ask the question, why was stipp giving evidence?

Yes, I have heard this and, as I say, it remains a possibility. Whether OP goes upstairs once or twice doesn't affect my overall thinking on what happened. I don't think it matters. He went upstairs at least once. We know that for sure. And he went in the bathroom.

There are inconsistencies between all the witness testimony but there are also commonalities which I don't think should be ignored.

Because of the inconsistencies, my timeline has focused on the period outside 03:00-03:17 where I've been investigating what led up to Reeva's death and what OP does afterwards and whether it shows there may be both a reason for what happened and a need to cover it up. I'm concentrating on objective facts and then tallying them with testimony / affidavits etc. This has proven fruitful because it has convinced me that some of OP's version is untruthful or, as Nel puts it, "it did not happen". But I will also cover the 03:00-03:17 period in my timeline, albeit that there will be times, sequences and events which cannot be stated with absolute certainty. This won't matter so much when the whole picture is considered. I'm categorising evidence as being factual, almost certainly true, reasonably possibly true through to speculative/conjecture. Factual has been my starting point.

But because Masipa's chronology was very much the basis for her dismissing any evidence that doesn't fit it, I'm just doing a little exercise to test her timeline and to show where it can be trusted and where it is conjecture (and why). Of course, I'm mindful that she has access to more (and more accurate) information than me ... but it's interesting to note that so does Nel and Roux and so when a fact is stated for which I have no other evidence if it doesn't tally with the same fact that Roux states, it's worth checking out! I'll put something up on this when it's ready.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Another interesting comment made by J. Masipa -

Steenkamp died in “very peculiar circumstances”.

peculiar

adjective
1.
different to what is normal or expected; strange.

synonyms: strange, unusual, odd, funny, curious, bizarre, weird, uncanny, queer, unexpected, unfamiliar, abnormal, atypical, anomalous, untypical, different, out of the ordinary, out of the way; : strange, unusual, odd, funny, curious, bizarre, weird, uncanny, queer, unexpected, unfamiliar, abnormal, atypical, anomalous, untypical, different, out of the ordinary, out of the way; exceptional, rare, extraordinary, remarkable; puzzling, mystifying, mysterious, perplexing, baffling, unaccountable, incongruous, uncommon, irregular, singular, deviant, aberrant, freak, freakish; suspicious, dubious, questionable; eerie, unnatural; unco; outré; fishy, creepy, spooky.


My conclusion, J. Masipa speaks with a forked tongue.