Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[sleuth-d-]

It proves to me that that particular bullet hole came before that particular crack in the wood which was ascribed to a bat strike by experts for both sides. Given the undisputed evidence of two and only two sets of similar, closely grouped sounds I think the reasonable and fair conclusion is that there were a set of bat strikes and a set of gunshots. Even the state's expert said at first that he concluded that the bat strikes (plural) came after the gun shots. Shortly after that he qualified that it was only one strike that proved that and he couldn't say anything conclusive about the other two he examined. But that first phrasing I think indicates how the conclusion that they happened together really does flow pretty naturally from the facts. Do you have Masipa's written judgement? It lays out the accepted timeline pretty well.

thanks.
yes i do have masipa's written judgement. and commented here previously how disappointed i was to spot an error within a couple of minutes of looking at her timeline.

 

[steveml]

I think they were flung out the bathroom window, as they were lying opened out, with a belt still on them. If they had fallen, they would have fallen downwards below the bathroom window,into a heap, instead they were found just below the toilet window. Masipa ignored this photo, or gave it little meaning.

...but that's exactly the point. Masipa did exactly what was expected with the photograph - nothing - and rightly so. A photograph was submitted that showed a pair of jeans. Nothing more, nothing less. If the prosecutor doesn't say a word about the photograph Masipa will disregard it, just like a jury should. There appears to be some confusion at times regarding the judge's role - she's not an investigator nor a detective. It's the advocates responsibility to offer evidential explanation, and upon receiving such explanation the judge will then decide whether to accept or disregard such evidence. It's a fundamental principle that the judge and presiding assessors will not speculate, therefore this photograph will and should have been totally ignored.

 

[mister happy]

We heard him get high pitched in court.

We certainly did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxZYtDsMhIE
1h20m-1h21m

IMO, this was one of Oscar's phoniest moments in court. He first responds to Nel's question in his normal man's voice, "Get the **** out of my house!" Then, as if he remembered to do it for a feminine effect, he puts on a miserable "falsetto" voice and repeats the response. I didn't buy the theatrics.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Peggy Drexler
Author, research psychologist and gender scholar

“Is anyone shocked?

Sadly, I can't say I am. This decision reflects a culture-wide challenge to hold accountable abusers and others who perpetrate domestic violence. In finding that there were not "enough facts to support a murder charge," the judge basically put girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp at fault for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. In this case, the "wrong place" was the other side of Pistorius's bathroom door, through which Pistorius "blindly" fired four shots, believing it was an intruder, and not the woman who very often shared the apartment and who, earlier that night, had retreated into the bathroom during an argument. He used a 9mm pistol that he kept under his bed.

Should we be surprised Pistorius was not convicted of the greater crime? Hardly--that seems to be the pattern with domestic abusers, and especially celebrity ones. Look at O.J. Simpson. Ray Rice. As one Guardian writer notes, the Pistorius trial attracted more attention than Mandela's funeral.

Even if Steenkamp's killing was not pre-meditated--even if it was, rather, a serious mistake, double emphasis on the "if"--it is a mistake that reflects a culture of violence, a tendency to resort to attack first, think later. This is a culture that will not change until we begin to hold abusers accountable, even for their "mistakes." And even if they are celebrities. Indeed, the verdict comes as Janay Palmer Rice stands by her husband, former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, and talks about "her part" in the elevator punch that has since gotten Ray Rice fired. I wish I could say that was shocking, too, but it's sadly, these days, something closer to the norm".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/pistorius-negligent-but-n_b_5810288.html

 

[OZe]

It was tragic to me. Fateful, needless, heartbreaking and tragic. But not murder. A terrible, momentary misperception with sad and tragic precedents in the very country in which they lived.

Hi JB, thanks for your posts.

I've been following the reasoning that we need to look dispassionately at the evidence and resist drawing conclusions that are not supported by fact. It's a sobering approach given that this case has triggered a deep well of emotion around subjects like partner abuse (particularly of women), inequities in the treatment of the rich and famous, and a reflexive recourse to violence.

Shouldn't that same, sober approach also compel us to resist concluding that Reeva's death was due to a momentary misperception by a man who has much to lose by conceding otherwise?

Asked respectfully.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Published on 12 March 2013

Pretoria - Oscar Pistorius wants a court to allow him to drink alcohol if he wants and maybe even visit the sunny shores of Mozambique before his trial starts.

Less than a month after he paid R1 million bail money and was allowed to go home, Pistorius now wants more freedom.

He had to hand over all his firearms and agree to not leave the country or drink any alcohol.

Speaking through his personal assistant, Arnold said being stuck at home is one of the first bail conditions Oscar wants changed.

<modsnip>

WHAT? Arnold, as the patriarch of the Pistorius clan, has certainly taught them well. So he knows nothing about the disgusting behaviour at the rock concert or the Vaal River incident where plenty of empty bottles of alcohol were found on his boat to name but two.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-s-uncle-wants-to-take-him-to-moz-1.1484657#.VBze-ixxnBw

 

[JuneBug67]

Hi JB, thanks for your posts.

I've been following the reasoning that we need to look dispassionately at the evidence and resist drawing conclusions that are not supported by fact. It's a sobering approach given that this case has triggered a deep well of emotion around subjects like partner abuse (particularly of women), inequities in the treatment of the rich and famous, and a reflexive recourse to violence.

Shouldn't that same, sober approach also compel us to resist concluding that Reeva's death was due to a momentary misperception by a man who has much to lose by conceding otherwise?

Asked respectfully.

I don't have any larger agenda than agreeing with the conclusion of the court that Oscar believed he was shooting at an intruder based on the evidence that was presented. So no, I don't think we should resist following the evidence no matter where it leads or who it benefits.

 

[JuneBug67]

thanks.
yes i do have masipa's written judgement. and commented here previously how disappointed i was to spot an error within a couple of minutes of looking at her timeline.

I missed most of the discussion of Masipa's timeline, so I'm not sure where error or errors may have been discovered or how material they might be to her conclusions. I'll try to find the discussions and catch up.

 

[Feynman]

There are huge problems with determining whether a sound is audible or not and from what distance. The biggest being not knowing how acute the hearing of the witnesses was but that could have been tested. It may be that those who heard from the longest distance had incredibly good hearing.

To demonstrate this I relate my own experience in this area. My husband does not have very good hearing and hears much less than I. I consider I have very good hearing but my son has very acute hearing and when he was younger could hear the electronic sound created by lights etc in stores which was so uncomfortable he had to cover his ears (known as hyperacusis). Whilst the very worst of his problem has subsided as he has grown older he still has incredibly good hearing and commonly hears approaching noises way before anyone else in the family or his circle of friends. Whilst I am not suggesting the the Burgess's suffered from this condition, as it would be unusual for two people in the same household to do so, it does lend weight to the possibility of extreme variations in hearing ability. I think the Burgess's heard exactly what was happening, regardless of Mr Lin's explanation, and the fact that he could only generalise, and I find Judge Masipa's complete disregard of earwitness testimony quite alarming.

If Dr. Stipp, with his military/gun training, could not distinguish between gun and bat sounds - and we know he couldn't because he said he heard 6 or more gunshots, and that's impossible - then Burger, who insisted she knew what a gun sounded like (she was always insisting) - because she had been to a "driving range" once in her life - was probably even more prone to mistaking that sound, her innate musical brilliance* notwithstanding. Now Stipp was quite a bit closer to OP's house than was "golden ears" Burger, so that's a few more flies in the ointment. People who think they heard things clearly are often mistaken.

* proof: she and her husband said so

 

[aa9511]

We'll probably go round in circles so I wont pursue beyond this. It is my view that with Pistorius as sole witness to the events, if he is guilty of murder, it is entirely possible, and indeed necessary to tailor a story that fits ear witness accounts, especially with regard to sequence. As such, it does not credit his version. You may not agree with me but it is not an outlandish position to hold, and not difficult to understand. There is evidence that supports his version, but as I have tried to elucidate above, not because it is true.

There was no objective evidence presented that measured the audibility of bat strikes at distance, particularly that of the witnesses whom the defence relied on.

You won't convince me, or I you so let's not waste each other's time. I find Pistorius' version illogical in the extreme and both common sense and circumstantial evidence suggests it was plain old domestic violence.

ITA and I understand your point (about Oscar tailoring his story, etc.).

Judge Masipa kept saying, the prosecution didn't prove otherwise. Well, like I said in earlier post of mine, there were only 2 people who were there and one of them is dead. That leaves us with only one person's story. Also, since it was Oscar's house and it's his story, anything of evidence in his house could also be easily tailored to suit him. For example - I slept on that side of the bed because of my back, blah, blah (whatever excuse he used for that).

 

[aa9511]

You'd have to make a case for this being flawed logic. This is a shared universe: the state based a premeditation case to a great degree on Reeva screaming between the first and second sets of sounds as per their own witnesses. The evidence of both sides is that a bullet hole was bisected by a bat strike. Within the bounds of the evidence produced by both sides in this trial I can't see the flaw in the conclusion that the bat strikes came after at all.

Gunshots first, bat second - why does that PROVE that Oscar did not know that it was Reeva in the toilet room and that he did not know that he was shooting at Reeva??

Could it not have been a scenario where he was enraged, he grabbed the gun, shot it through the door at Reeva? Then he panicked and wanted to see what he had done to her, how bad the damage was? Was she dead or not dead? The issue of her being dead or not was CRUCIAL for him either way. Do you think he would shoot at Reeva, and then not want to see if she was still alive or not, or what had happened to her??

There is also another scenario where he could have intentionally shot her, yet regret that he shot her after he did it. To which it is plausible that he did intentionally shoot her, and yet still yell "help, help" and still be panicked and still want to break the door open to get to her.

I am not understanding your position.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

"The judgement has been deeply puzzling; one hopes that Judge Masipa will soon clarify the decision that took our breath away. It’s logic is far from obvious, and demands further explanation.

Nel must surely appeal this as a misinterpretation of the law, to a higher court, or as a precedent it could cause serious problems in the legal system. Asking for a verdict of Premeditated Murder was a stretch too far, unlikely to succeed, and she rightly rejected that option. The Prosecution’s version may, of course, be true, but the State didn’t and couldn’t, prove it. I don’t recall anyone suggesting it was entirely faked, what had it to do with guilt or innocence? "

I thought murder was a slam dunk like many others and the "pistorius defence" will have to be addressed. (This is a great article.):moo:

http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Is-Judge-Masipa-letting-Oscar-get-away-with-murder-20140912

One of the assessors several times interrupted the Judge with whispers, twice leading to a short adjournment : one must wonder what this was about. It’s really unusual, and not explained. "

They left a lot of us scratching our heads.



- The judge took it as fact that the light in the toilet was out. Why were the police and others not asked about this?

Can you imagine how that would have blown OP's story to smithereens? Now that is a tragedy if it was overlooked.


- Oscar fell asleep with lights on, why did he suddenly want total darkness to the extreme extent of wanting to hide the tiny blue LED light?

Yes, I totally agree. In Roux's CA he said OP was bothered about the blue light once he was up?! What the hell, Roux just making that up on the spot I suspect, he probably couldn't get a reasonable answer from OP.


- Did she conclude that Oscar couldn’t have known that firing four highly destructive bullets at someone would not be likely to kill them?

The most incredible comment, this is where I believe J Masipa is out of touch with reality.


- Was it not believable when considering a charge of murder, but obvious when considering Culpable Homicide?

As many have suggested before, J Masipa worked her way backwards. She believed it was CH, and set out to prove that's what it was disregarding evidence that conclude otherwise.


- Why was she quoting evidence of Oscar’s distress, as somehow establishing innocence?

This, personally got my goat the most. She doesn't understand people at all. I'm afraid religion has played a huge part here, and OP played her like a fiddle.


Great post 808, just giving my opinion about those puzzles. Nel tried to put them together, but obviously, J Masipa can't or won't look at the big picture. JMO

 

[Scand]

PrimeSuspect: I didn't quite get your point about the broken toilet light. How would that fact have "blown OP's story to smithereens"?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Interested Bystander]

If Dr. Stipp, with his military/gun training, could not distinguish between gun and bat sounds - and we know he couldn't because he said he heard 6 or more gunshots, and that's impossible - then Burger, who insisted she knew what a gun sounded like (she was always insisting) - because she had been to a "driving range" once in her life - was probably even more prone to mistaking that sound, her innate musical brilliance* notwithstanding. Now Stipp was quite a bit closer to OP's house than was "golden ears" Burger, so that's a few more flies in the ointment. People who think they heard things clearly are often mistaken.

* proof: she and her husband said so

Whilst people can be mistaken you seem to forget that three sets of people who did not know each other or OP all heard what they thought were shots and screaming or arguing. It is beyond belief that three sets of earwitnesses were totally ignored.

I think Nel needed to conduct bat noise and gunshot noise tests in situ. It could be that as the Stipps were so close that the bat noises did sound very like gunshots. There would have been a great deal of echo/reverberation in the bathroom which had tiled walls and floor. The damage to the metal plate on the bath was never satisfactorily solved. Maybe he hit that three times with the cricket bat. That would have produced a very different noise from hitting a softwood door. Interestingly the Burgess's only claim one set of gun noises; possibly the bat shot sounds did not travel quite so well but without tests Nel was totally in the dark. Also we must not forget that hearing tests taking half an hour can determine how well someone can hear.

 

[Interested Bystander]

One of the assessors several times interrupted the Judge with whispers, twice leading to a short adjournment : one must wonder what this was about. It’s really unusual, and not explained. "

They left a lot of us scratching our heads.



- The judge took it as fact that the light in the toilet was out. Why were the police and others not asked about this?[/B]

Can you imagine how that would have blown OP's story to smithereens? Now that is a tragedy if it was overlooked.


- Oscar fell asleep with lights on, why did he suddenly want total darkness to the extreme extent of wanting to hide the tiny blue LED light?

Yes, I totally agree. In Roux's CA he said OP was bothered about the blue light once he was up?! What the hell, Roux just making that up on the spot I suspect, he probably couldn't get a reasonable answer from OP.


- Did she conclude that Oscar couldn’t have known that firing four highly destructive bullets at someone would not be likely to kill them?

The most incredible comment, this is where I believe J Masipa is out of touch with reality.


- Was it not believable when considering a charge of murder, but obvious when considering Culpable Homicide?

As many have suggested before, J Masipa worked her way backwards. She believed it was CH, and set out to prove that's what it was disregarding evidence that conclude otherwise.


- Why was she quoting evidence of Oscar’s distress, as somehow establishing innocence?

This, personally got my goat the most. She doesn't understand people at all. I'm afraid religion has played a huge part here, and OP played her like a fiddle.


Great post 808, just giving my opinion about those puzzles. Nel tried to put them together, but obviously, J Masipa can't or won't look at the big picture. JMO

B underligned

If I remember correctly, during cross examination the fact that the toilet (not the bathroom) light was broken was confirmed.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Pierre de Vos @pierredevos · Sep 17

Was problem with Oscar judgment not perhaps that Judge required state to prove guilt beyond ANY doubt instead of beyond reasonable doubt?

(Deputy Dean, University of Cape Town Law Faculty )

 

[Deleted member 102539]

It is a tragedy though, and I understand why the Pistorius family gravitates to the word. What word would you choose to capture the needless loss of a woman with so much ahead of her? It is to me utterly and completely tragic. I doesn't in my mind provide any softening of the shocking and misplaced gun violence. The Pistorius family though has the additional context of knowing and loving their family member, which is a completely valid one. I do have empathy for that as well. It's tragic for them in a different way.

Reeva's is a terrible story with a terrible, fateful unfair ending in that tiny room. The truth alone is enough suffering for her. I can't understand the motivation to step so hard around the evidence and make it even more terrible.

bbm
:dramaqueen:
Uncle Arnold always means HIS tragedy, OSCAR'S tragedy, PISTORIUS FAMILY'S tragedy, not once Steenkamp's tragedy - that is exactly the point. He certainly loves this specific expression, because a tragedy always has a tragic hero - Oscar.
IMO

 

[delilah]

If Dr. Stipp, with his military/gun training, could not distinguish between gun and bat sounds - and we know he couldn't because he said he heard 6 or more gunshots, and that's impossible - then Burger, who insisted she knew what a gun sounded like (she was always insisting) - because she had been to a "driving range" once in her life - was probably even more prone to mistaking that sound, her innate musical brilliance* notwithstanding. Now Stipp was quite a bit closer to OP's house than was "golden ears" Burger, so that's a few more flies in the ointment. People who think they heard things clearly are often mistaken.

* proof: she and her husband said so

I'm not sure why you need to be so patronising and insulting towards Burger. It's perfectly possible to criticise her evidence without resorting to that.

I myself have a problem with her (and Johnson's) testimony for other reasons. I find it difficult to understand how two people could hear what they describe as a woman screaming in fear of her life and then gunshots, only to roll over and go back to sleep after making a phone call to the wrong security company to report it. AFAIK, the conversation that Johnson had with the security company did not end in 'OK we'll call the police/the right security company' it was just left handing, with no action agreed. He later stated that he heard what he thought to be a security vehicle and assumed someone else had called for help, but that was some time after they heard the screaming and 'gunshots'.

I don't think Roux pushed Burger or Johnson on this. He could have made a good point that this suggested they might have misremembered what they had heard, esp in relation to the 'bloodcurdling screams'.

I'm not saying this proves or disproves their testimony. I just find it odd.

 

[WilliamMunter]

September 20 2014 at 09:21am

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has set in motion a process that will widen prosecuting authorities’ scope when appealing court findings.

This comes as the State decides whether to appeal against the Pretoria High Court findings that led to Pistorius being cleared of murder.

Department spokesman Mthunzi Mhaga said this week that a bill, aimed at amending the Criminal Procedure Act to give the Director of Public Prosecutions the right to appeal on questions of fact, had been prepared.

I wonder that if this bill is passed, it can be applied to this case.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/reeva-s-parents-may-still-sue-oscar-1.1753858

 

[PrimeSuspect]

PrimeSuspect: I didn't quite get your point about the broken toilet light. How would that fact have "blown OP's story to smithereens"?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm thinking if the toilet light worked, Reeva would have turned it on, there is no way imo, an intruder would have turned the light on so that would smash OP's whole 'intruder in the toilet' story. Why would they come through the bathroom window in darkness and hide in the toilet with the light on? Meh, it's a moot point, Interested Bystander says it was confirmed the light didn't work.