Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[JudgeJudi]

In my excitement at seeing this I forgot about the 10% copyright rule. Unfortunately the most important bit was snipped. If you read my earlier post please ignore this.

It’s worth reading this article as it’s all about the bail conditions.

Published on 12 March 2013

“Arnold says banning Oscar from having alcohol is not fair”.
“It’s not relevant because he doesn’t drink alcohol at all,” Arnold said.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-s-uncle-wants-to-take-him-to-moz-1.1484657#.VB3swyxxnBx

 

[mister happy]

Let's add the sympathetic comment about not wanting him "to be punished twice".

Also, during OP's grandstanding apology when he first took the stand:
Mr. Pistorious, I don't like doing this to you, but I can hardly hear you sweetie.




Ok, I added the word sweetie for much needed comic relief.

 

[AW2B]

Yep, that and tons more .. there is tons more hard proof of OP's story being totally fabricated than there is proof for his version being true. It's amazing how selective hearing works, isn't it.

BBM

Exactly..for example..he testified that he shouted at Reeva to call the police...he shouted at the so called intruder to get out of his house..according to his testimony he shouted those sentences REPEATEDLY! Well..well..if Reeva was already in the toilet then she would have heard his REPEATED calls for her to phone the police..however she never dialed the emergency number..she had her cell phone with her..so why not? Because he lied and none of this happened..he was chasing her and she had no time to call the police..

Another example..according to him he was already up but failed to see Reeva walking to the bathroom..well well..he forgot that she would have seen him and she would have known he was fully awake getting fans and stuff..so why didn't she turn on the light in the bathroom? I think the light was indeed on as evidenced by a witness who testified she saw the bathroom light on..I think she turned the light getting ready to leave him possibly for good...but got scared and locked herself in the toilet..again he lied about walking into a pitch black bathroom to explain that he shot her by mistake..etc..etc...etc..

 

[AW2B]

By the way, I think that makes his story all the more unbelievable for him to have said that Reeva was awake .. because if she was awake, then he had even more reason to think it was her in the toilet. How STUPID could anyone be as to know that their OH is up and awake, and then upon hearing a noise in the toilet, when it is just SO likely to be your OH, to go marching down the corridor with a gun, then blast them to bits.

No, no-one is that stupid, not even Oscar.


It never happened.

The illogical/inconsistent chain of thoughts in his story indicates ------> FABRICATION

 

[Chelly]

How will this end?

Oscar and Masipa will fly off together to Mozambique to reside at Uncle Arnold's estate.
Frank will return; will be re-employed as houseboy.
And then....................

 

[delilah]

One of the key bits of evidence that was used to dis the ear witnesses was the testimony of Estelle VDM when she said she thought she heard a woman scream, only for her husband to tell her it was Oscar.
Masipa states:

"Although it was not established how her husband knew that it was the accused who was crying, this piece of evidence is enough to throw some doubt on the evidence of the witnesses who are adamant that they had heard a woman scream."

So by this statement, Masipa has assumed that somehow he knew this to be a fact, even though he didn't even give evidence.

I wonder why neither prosecution nor defence chose to call the husband to testify. This turned out to be a fairly significant bit of 'evidence' yet it sounds like hearsay to me. Perhaps I missed something: anyone know why mr VDM wasn't called?

 

[delilah]

Someone pointed out earlier that it was quite some 'coincidence' that Burger, who Masipa said clearly must have heard bat sounds not gunshots, recalled four sounds "duff...duff duff duff' which, of course, fit Mangena's forensic analysis of the four shots so perfectly. This gives us four possibilities:

1. Burger tailored her evidence to fit the pattern of gunshots. Is this even possible? She testified way before Mangena. Could she have known of his "duff...duff duff duff"s at that stage? I can't recall how much of the detailed forensics were known before the trial started. Did she include this detail even earlier, in her police statement?

2. Mangena is wrong. No, after his double tap fiasco, Roux had nothing with which to argue against Mangena's "douf"s.

3. OP hit the toilet door with the cricket bat in the exact same pattern in which he fired the four shots. That's a stretch even for Oscar.

4. Burger was right.

 

[Feynman]

Time lines can be messy, because nobody was actually there and saw it happen, and in this case it is incorrect the case for premeditated murder hung on this alone, because as you say there was much much more. It seems the judge ignored the most incriminating and objective evidence against Oscar which was the crime scene photos completely contradicted his entire excuse for getting out of bed and buying time for reeva to slip out the bathroom unseen. Without that his story cannot be possibly true.

His story of moving two fans, closing the balcony door and closing the blinds, , the duvet, the jeans on the duvet, was proven not true, which surely proved his story was untrue. It's just unbelievable this was ignored. He claimed he had two fans plugged into the extension socket, when there was no room to even plug it in!

We know OP was a terrible witness and that he lied at times. The Tasha's incident is the most obvious example to me. Let's assume that OP lied about the fans, duvet, and all that. Does that prove OP is guilty of directus? No. Accused but innocent people lie all the time on the stand. Masipa noted as much in her verdict. Judge Chris Greenland expands on this in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvdzUyQRcE4

(starting at about 1:28). Note: Greenland is no fan of Masipa's. He is very angry about the finding of CH vs. DE.

 

[vanatos]

Has anyone got a link to a youtube or something of the legal experts explaining the problems in masipa's verdict?

I feel there is many, but its hard to find a summarised explanation, and its hard to get the post-verdict interviews.

 

[wb180]

In my excitement at seeing this I forgot about the 10% copyright rule. Unfortunately the most important bit was snipped. If you read my earlier post please ignore this.

It’s worth reading this article as it’s all about the bail conditions.

Published on 12 March 2013

“Arnold says banning Oscar from having alcohol is not fair”.
“It’s not relevant because he doesn’t drink alcohol at all,” Arnold said.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-s-uncle-wants-to-take-him-to-moz-1.1484657#.VB3swyxxnBx

Hahaha these people really know how to make two totally contradictory statements.

 

[mister happy]

Hahaha these people really know how to make two totally contradictory statements.

Right on, wb180!
Why was uncle Arnie so upset about an alcohol ban if (according to him) the golden boy doesn't drink booze at all?!
Arnie & Oscar = Team Atrocious.

 

[wb180]

Right on, wb180!
Why was uncle Arnie so upset about an alcohol ban if (according to him) the golden boy doesn't drink booze at all?!
Arnie & Oscar = Team Atrocious.

Thats even excluding the fact it's a lie that OP doesn't drink alcohol haha

 

[JudgeJudi]

We know OP was a terrible witness and that he lied at times. The Tasha's incident is the most obvious example to me. Let's assume that OP lied about the fans, duvet, and all that. Does that prove OP is guilty of directus? No. Accused but innocent people lie all the time on the stand. Masipa noted as much in her verdict. Judge Chris Greenland expands on this in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvdzUyQRcE4

(starting at about 1:28). Note: Greenland is no fan of Masipa's. He is very angry about the finding of CH vs. DE.

BB: If a witness battles and even at times is, you know, shown not to be telling the truth, does that mean they can still be found innocent?

JG: In a nutshell, yes. I think it’s very important because there’s been a lot of public discussion that Oscar is doing badly in court, he’s been evasive and argumentative, and Gerrie Nel has been saying that he’s lying. Even if we accept all that, we must not assume that that will mean that automatically the judge is going to find him guilty or reject his defence because a good judge, a competent judge, will have in her memory – for instance … (the famous case of Timothy Evans was cited here where he lied, was evasive and argumentative, was found guilty and hanged but 16 years later was posthumously pardoned. He goes on and names a video of this true story).

It illustrates that telling lies in court and being bad, being evasive, doesn’t automatically mean that you’re guilty. Innocent people lie for all kinds of reasons. They lie in order to make a bad story good. They lie in order to make a weak story stronger …”

Judge Greenland does not say “innocent people lie all the time” on the stand. He says innocent people lie for all kinds of reasons. However, innocent people are not trying to get away with something but rather trying to enhance their story to bolster the fact that they’re innocent.

If you’ve watched all Judge Greenland’s videos you would know and understand why he’s so angry with Masipa’s verdict – because it goes against what he believes the proper outcome should have been based on both the facts and the law.

I put it to you that if anyone was to lie all the time it would be a guilty person who’s trying to get away with a crime they’ve committed.

 

[wb180]

BB: If a witness battles and even at times is, you know, shown not to be telling the truth, does that mean they can still be found innocent?

JG: In a nutshell, yes. I think it’s very important because there’s been a lot of public discussion that Oscar is doing badly in court, he’s been evasive and argumentative, and Gerrie Nel has been saying that he’s lying. Even if we accept all that, we must not assume that that will mean that automatically the judge is going to find him guilty or reject his defence because a good judge, a competent judge, will have in her memory – for instance … (the famous case of Timothy Evans was cited here where he lied, was evasive and argumentative, was found guilty and hanged but 16 years later was posthumously pardoned. He goes on and names a video of this true story).

It illustrates that telling lies in court and being bad, being evasive, doesn’t automatically mean that you’re guilty. Innocent people lie for all kinds of reasons. They lie in order to make a bad story good. They lie in order to make a weak story stronger …”

Judge Greenland does not say “innocent people lie all the time” on the stand. He says innocent people lie for all kinds of reasons. However, innocent people are not trying to get away with something but rather trying to enhance their story to bolster the fact that they’re innocent.

If you’ve watched all Judge Greenland’s videos you would know and understand why he’s so angry with Masipa’s verdict – because it goes against what he believes the proper outcome should have been based on both the facts and the law.

I put it to you that if anyone was to lie all the time it would be a guilty person who’s trying to get away with a crime they’ve committed.

Agreed. Trying to use Greenland's point to justify OP action is similar to all the selective use of evidence that people who agree with the judgment is doing.

 

[wb180]

Great! Now where would a scrap of evidence for that be?

What u need is direct evidence as circumstantial evidence is too low of a threshold for you.

 

[mirage1]

We know OP was a terrible witness and that he lied at times. The Tasha's incident is the most obvious example to me. Let's assume that OP lied about the fans, duvet, and all that. Does that prove OP is guilty of directus? No. Accused but innocent people lie all the time on the stand. Masipa noted as much in her verdict. Judge Chris Greenland expands on this in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvdzUyQRcE4

(starting at about 1:28). Note: Greenland is no fan of Masipa's. He is very angry about the finding of CH vs. DE.

Sure, but it depends what they are lying about. Are they lying about minor secondary issues, or about a crucial part of their case? They are very different things, and if a judge conflated the two, and simply concluded that ANY lie does not automatically mean guilt, then that would be incompetence, because some lies DO automatically mean guilt, and this did. His story cannot be true according to the photo evidence, and if it can't be true it's directus.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Just been reading through Pistorius' bail statement again. His subsequent adaptation stinks.

But I cannot get my head round the first part of his account. He closes his balcony doors and curtains on a hot, still night to a room with no air conditioning.

It is ironic that state witnesses heard events unfolding having done the opposite.

That Pistorius' version(s) is accepted by anyone is beyond me.

Just to add on to what you've stated above, some threads ago, I conducted two experiments at home that proved his story about the curtains being draped over the fan was a lie, but more importantly, the blue LED light in actual fact provides enough light for him to have seen the entire bed.

 

[mister happy]

Thats even excluding the fact it's a lie that OP doesn't drink alcohol haha

Yes! Team Atrocious is so immersed in lies, they can't even think straight. Of course, sadly, it doesn't seem to make any difference.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

In the newspapers nothing is reported about the health status of the codesigners car driver re CP's crash. This is 100 % proof, that OP (and his family) is treated very differently than the normal citizen. IMO
Only after the sentence promulgation we possibly will hear about this a little bit more.

 

[pandax81]

Right on, wb180!
Why was uncle Arnie so upset about an alcohol ban if (according to him) the golden boy doesn't drink booze at all?!
Arnie & Oscar = Team Atrocious.

Be fair now, what he clearly meant is he doesn't drink alcohol with the necessary animus :giggle: