Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~

[Mr Fossil]

OMG, I was just looking at Lisa's screenshots from the "Sunday Night" program again. It then struck me ... Reeva's right arm was virtually amputated, and this is the arm that Aimee has around OP's neck. Bear in mind the re-enactment was done at Arnold's home and the staircase is the mirror reverse of OP's, i.e. the railing is on the left in his home when you walk down the stairs. Reeva's head was on the side with the railing so her right arm had to have been the one around his neck. Just the thought of him carrying her with that shockingly injured arm in that position makes me want to be sick.

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/screen-shots-of-sunday-night-program/

I'd guess that in reality he had Reeva's right arm laying across her body when he carried her downstairs since she'd have been unable to use it.

In the same Sunday Night Evidence Room footage there are a few differences to the evidence that OP gives in court.

For instance,

- the large fan is shown with all its legs on the balcony
- Reeva's jeans are shown covering the LED
- Scott Rider tells us OP hears a "loud screech and a bang" when the bathroom window is opened. He can only have got this from OP.
- the second startle (toilet door slamming) isn't included although OP does refer to a noise from the toilet and he could mean the second or third startle
- he turns the bathroom light on before going on the balcony and putting his prostheses on
- he yells "Help, help, Jesus please help, call an ambulance. Please help me" on the balcony (actual recording of his voice)
- the gun is already placed on the bathroom mat before he returns to the bathroom with the cricket bat (he has it on the balcony)
- the cricket bat hits the door four times (OP says about three times in the trial - he's always vague about this)

I'd love to see the whole thing (the Sunday Night programme only shows a very small part of what was animated by the Evidence Room and I'll bet they have considerably more footage of OP showing and telling them how things happened).

You need to be careful watching the programme as Sunday Night also provides its own at times inaccurate re-enactment and the presenters say one or two things which are incorrect.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I'd guess that in reality he had Reeva's right arm laying across her body when he carried her downstairs since she'd have been unable to use it.

In the same Sunday Night Evidence Room footage there are a few differences to the evidence that OP gives in court.

For instance,

- the large fan is shown with all its legs on the balcony
- Reeva's jeans are shown covering the LED
- Scott Rider tells us he hears a "loud screech and a bang" when the bathroom window is opened. He can only have got this from OP.
- the second startle (toilet door slamming) isn't included although OP does refer to a noise from the toilet and he could mean the second or third startle
- he turns the bathroom light on before going on the balcony and putting his prostheses on
- he yells "Help, help, Jesus please help, call an ambulance. Please help me" on the balcony (actual recording of his voice)
- the gun is already placed on the bathroom mat before he returns to the bathroom with the cricket bat (he has it on the balcony).

I'd love to see the whole thing (the Sunday Night programme only shows a very small part of what what animated by the Evidence Room and I'll bet they have considerably more footage of OP showing and telling them how things happened).

You need to be careful watching the programme as Sunday Night also provides its own at times inaccurate re-enactment and the presenters say one or two things which are incorrect.

I agree, there are a number of things wrong with the re-enactment. I also took the opportunity of timing how long it took to hit the door with the bat as opposed to firing the shots. The bat took virtually twice as long. It was also stated that the shots were fired in quick succession, the same as he originally said at the trial, but then Roux said it was double taps. Mangena said that would have been impossible for OP. Of course then OP blamed Roux for "mistakenly" saying it was double taps. The more I listen, the more infuriated I become, and then to have Masipa buy his version. No wonder we can't let it go.

 

[Interested Bystander]

This is an old write up on a blog comment on what the TV Judge Judi would have made of the OP Case. Light entertainment really, though I agree with much of it.

http://pistoriusontrial.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/pistorius-verdict-would-judge-judy-have.html

 

[Mr Fossil]

The other thing to watch out for with the Sunday Night programme is that the interview with Scott Roder (SR) is a lot later (e.g. probably June or July 2014, after OP had testified) than when the Evidence Room filmed OP (September 2013) and made the animation (October 2013+).

So we hear SR explain that the noise from the toilet (another screech) is the magazine rack (which OP only added in cross examination) but when they play the animation it sounds more like OP's earlier description of wood against wood e.g. when he tells the court about how the door sticks against the door frame when it's opened and closed. It certainly doesn't sound like a wooden magazine rack moving across a tiled floor. In this instance, Sunday Night's own re-enactment of the magazine rack moving gives a clearer impression of the sound it would make.

SR then explains that the magazine rack moves when Reeva seeks cover behind the toilet as she perceives that the danger is getting closer to the toilet. He obviously gets this bit wrong as the evidence shows that she was standing behind the door when the first shot was fired and hit her in her right hip.

 

[44ALLAN]

Seems workmen have been seen in OP's prison shower in the hospital section this weekend!

Carls legs are still a bit dodgy so they've been fitting another handrail in there in case they want to shower together

 

[JudgeJudi]

Seems workmen have been seen in OP's prison shower in the hospital section this weekend!

Carls legs are still a bit dodgy so they've been fitting another handrail in there in case they want to shower together

Hahahaha. Good one Allan. Here's Carl's latest tweet re being charged for the auto accident and a couple of responses.

Carl Pistorius ‏@carlpistorius · 7h 7 hours ago
Shot every1 4 the msgs of camaraderie. Unwavering! Despite the bizarre, don't sling mud on my behalf (but if u do.. hurl it).
#haha #kidding

Christina Siesling ‏@xtinasiesling · 5h5 hours ago
@carlpistorius very VERY bizarre that YOU were the driver charged. Nonetheless I am glad to see you keeping your head up! #wishinguthebest

Angela Yates ‏@IslandJelli · 5h5 hours ago
@carlpistorius Think of us as the safety net under the crazy trapeze that the NPA circus keeps dangling you from

Naturally all the people who responded support him.

 

[JudgeJudi]

OP said during the trial, “That ammunition was my father’s for a firearm that he had registered or has registered in his name and he simply had it at my house for safekeeping. It was not mine, it was not in my possession”.

Well that’s pretty interesting. So if his father had stolen money from a bank or robbed a jewellery store and gave those goods to OP and the police found them, OP would be charged with goods in custody. How Masipa was happy with his explanation is yet another example of her complete and utter bias. What an absolutely ludicrous thing for him to say.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Carl Pistorius @carlpistorius Jan 5
Just try love somebody 2day... try love them as much as you love yourself. Just try.

How much did Carl love the other badly injured driver?

If his twitter is any indication, not one damn bit.

All his accident-related tweets were all about blessed Carl, Carl, CARL.

A decent, caring (innocent) human being - especially one who loudly proclaims to be a Christian - would have plastered his twitter account with well-wishes and calls for prayers for the driver's speedy recovery.

Just like Reeva, Mr. Tshabalala is all but invisible.

No doubt Oldwadge advised Carl to "take the 5th" but Carl's silence screams.

In my view, there’s no more offensive and dangerous human than a religious zealot who hides behind his religion, false humility (and money) as some “flawed-but-blessed” paragon of virtue, a self-righteous sociopath.

 

[JudgeJudi]

How much did Carl love the other badly injured driver?

If his twitter is any indication, not one damn bit.

All his accident-related tweets were all about blessed Carl, Carl, CARL.

A decent, caring (innocent) human being - especially one who loudly proclaims to be a Christian - would have plastered his twitter account with well-wishes and calls for prayers for the driver's speedy recovery.

Just like Reeva, Mr. Tshabalala is all but invisible.

No doubt Oldwadge advised Carl to "take the 5th" but Carl's silence screams.

In my view,there’s no more offensive and dangerous human than a religious zealot who hides behind his religion, false humility (and money) as some “flawed-but-blessed” paragon of virtue, a self-righteous sociopath.

And if anyone didn't know or think about that before, they sure know about it now after the events in Paris.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Carl Pistorius @carlpistorius  Jan 8
RT “@karynmaughan: BREAKING: Oscar Pistorius brother Carl charged over the horror car crash that nearly killed him. @eNCAnews”
#bizarre

So, Carl thinks it’s “bizarre” that he’s being charged for the accident (ie How could I be guilty?! I almost died!) ... but he doesn’t think it’s bizarre that he’s never, ever mentioned the other driver and refuses to cooperate / produce any statement to the police.

Perhaps he’s terrified of pulling an Oscar - making a sworn statement of the “truth” and later being nailed as a LIAR by multiple witnesses who all say otherwise.

 

[Estelle]

So, Carl thinks it’s “bizarre” that he’s being charged for the accident (ie How could I be guilty?! I almost died!) ... but he doesn’t think it’s bizarre that he’s never, ever mentioned the other driver and refuses to cooperate / produce any statement to the police.

Perhaps he’s terrified of pulling an Oscar - making a sworn statement of the “truth” and later being nailed as a LIAR by multiple witnesses who all say otherwise.

I have been wondering whether Carl expected his colleague who was following him in another car to lie to get Carl off the hook. But he has refused to do so.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I have been wondering whether Carl expected his colleague who was following him in another car to lie to get Carl off the hook. But he has refused to do so.

Estelle, I missed that point. Do you have a link or would you mind pointing me to the appropriate post number. I pop in only occasionally at the moment and have read quite a few of the recent comments but confess I did not see that. Was it the friend who was following him or one of the two passengers who were in his car?

 

[AJ_DS]

This is NOT an attempt to defend Carl… far from it… just a rational analysis of the situation regarding the absence of a statement from Carl

Preliminary observations :

A. Carl's interview with police investigators was likely conducted some time after the accident because he had to be unincarcerated from the wreckage and was badly injured.

B. In all likelihood, Police had already gathered several statements from less severely injured persons implicated in the crash and bystander witnesses. A preliminary forensics report on the crash scene was probably available to investigators.

C. Crash forensics can provide much information about the mechanics of accident (speed, direction, braking, etc&#8230 much more nowadays with onboard engine management computers which record a plethora of invaluable information. Add to that the contents of the cars (such as cellphones, alcohol bottles, drugs, etc) and medical tests on the victims (blood alcohol levels, drugs, etc). Add to that the possibility of traffic cameras which may have recorded all or part of the incident. Basically, investigators can infer with some accuracy how and why things went down the way they did.

D. One must keep in mind that ALL witness statements are invariably biased by 2 things : one's own limited observations of the event and one's own memory of the events… considering the celerity and violence of the event, it is more than expected for witnesses to wrongly infer circumstances and draw incorrect conclusions.

E. The State charges an individual when they personally believe in that individual's guilt AND believe they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt… both concepts of Justice and Law must be met for charging someone with a crime.

Possible scenarios regarding the crash :

1. Carl believes he is beyond reproach in this matter : eg. Carl was not intoxicated, not distracted, he was driving at the speed limit, etc… when other driver swerved into his lane

2. Carl believes he shares responsibility with the other driver : eg. Carl was going too fast but the other driver swerved into his lane.

3. Carl believes he is fully responsible : eg. Carl was going too fast, he was distracted because texting and swerved into oncoming traffic.

… these beliefs may be genuinely held BUT ultimately prove incorrect considering aforementioned point D and C

4. Carl does not remember how it happened : shock, trauma, concussion, surgery, pain meds, etc...

Possible scenarios regarding a statement to Police :

i) Carl makes an honest statement

ii) Carl makes a false statement

iii) Carl does not make a statement


Hindsight shows us that even without a statement from Carl, The State with points B and C (witnesses & forensics) had met the requirements of point E and decided to charge Carl.

This indicates the investigators were not attempting to gather additional information to understand what happened when they approached Carl… they were hoping to get either :

- Points i-3 or i-2 so they could strengthen the State's case against Carl, i.e. an admission of guilt by the accused.

- Points ii-1 or ii-2 or i-1 or i-2 so they could strengthen the State's case against Carl, i.e. a statement contradicted by the State's evidence or perjury.

- Points i-4 or ii-4 so they would limit Carl's Defence, i.e. if Carl says he can't remember what happened he cannot contest State's evidence by testifying.

Consequently, ALL scenarios lead to Carl being charged but ONLY one scenario does not assist the State's case against Carl or impedes Carl's Defence : Point iii (not giving a statement).

Why would someone volunteer a statement in these circumstances ?… there is no up side in doing so, IMO

 

[kittychi]

How much did Carl love the other badly injured driver?

If his twitter is any indication, not one damn bit.

All his accident-related tweets were all about blessed Carl, Carl, CARL.

A decent, caring (innocent) human being - especially one who loudly proclaims to be a Christian - would have plastered his twitter account with well-wishes and calls for prayers for the driver's speedy recovery.

Just like Reeva, Mr. Tshabalala is all but invisible.

No doubt Oldwadge advised Carl to "take the 5th" but Carl's silence screams.

In my view, there’s no more offensive and dangerous human than a religious zealot who hides behind his religion, false humility (and money) as some “flawed-but-blessed” paragon of virtue, a self-righteous sociopath.[/B]

BBM: Amen :yesss:

 

[Estelle]

Estelle, I missed that point. Do you have a link or would you mind pointing me to the appropriate post number. I pop in only occasionally at the moment and have read quite a few of the recent comments but confess I did not see that. Was it the friend who was following him or one of the two passengers who were in his car?

There have been different reports about whether Carl had passengers in his car or not. One of his colleagues was following him in another car. Knowing how OP operates, I wondered whether Carl would have asked the colleague to protect him and to lie about it.

 

[Greater Than]

Hi everyone! I hope OP was absolutely miserable behind bars for the holidays.

I had to take a break and put some distance between myself and this case, but wanted to check if there was any word on when the appeals court will hear the appeal?

 

[Mr Fossil]

Hi everyone! I hope OP was absolutely miserable behind bars for the holidays.

I had to take a break and put some distance between myself and this case, but wanted to check if there was any word on when the appeals court will hear the appeal?

RULES REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/rules.html

If I have the correct rules and understanding of same then it looks like it will be a lengthy process:

7(b) Lodge Notice of Appeal with registrar within one month of the granting of leave to appeal (can be extended with agreement to a maximum two months)

8 Provide 6 copies of the Record of proceedings within three months of lodging Notice of Appeal (can be extended with agreement to a maximum five months)

10(a) Appellant to lodge 6 copies of main Heads of Argument within 6 weeks of lodging the Record (can be extended)
10(b) Respondent to lodge 6 copies of the main Heads of Argument within one month of receiving Appellant's HoA (can be extended)

13 The registrar then notifies the parties of the date of the hearing

The key word appears to be'within' and we don't know the actual timetable being worked to. The above adds up to six and a half months. Then the date has to be set to fall in the appropriate Court Term.

2. Court Terms.—(1) Terms.—There shall be four terms in each year as follows—
15 February to 31 March, inclusive;
01 May to 31 May, inclusive;
15 August to 30 September, inclusive;
01 November to 30 November, inclusive.

So, starting with leave to appeal being granted in mid-December 2014, this suggests the date of the hearing could be issued at the end of June 2015, making the earliest term in which it could be heard 15 August to 30 September assuming there is a suitable slot and availability of all parties.

Is the above correct or does anyone have a better understanding of the timetable?

 

[JudgeJudi]

I agree with all the above. I believe Ulrich Roux said some time ago that it would probably take about 18 months from conviction. I've also read where it can be anywhere between 12 to 18 months. Nathi Mncube, the prosecution spokesman, said he hopes it will be expedited but acknowledged that the process can take a long time. So it's just a case of waiting now.

I had to laugh when I read this:

“When the Appellate Division is approached in a criminal matter, the trial judge who convicted the accused must prepare a report giving his or her opinion upon the case in order to assist the Appellate Division to reach a just decision.

For example, it may be necessary for the Appellate Division to know what was in the mind of the trial judge at the time of the hearing so that it can decide whether he or she was right or wrong”.

Good luck with the appeal court judges trying to work out what was in Masipa’s mind. She’s not likely to report “Mr Pistorius is a double amputee, and he was on his stumps when he heard a noise. He was terrified that an intruder had broken into his home. He said it was an accident, a mistake. He was so remorseful. I’ve never seen such a broken man. He cried while he tried to save her life and cried all the way through the trial. He even retched into a bucket for days on end. His whole life has now been completely destroyed. He’s gone from being an icon to an ex-con. That in itself is punishment for his crime. I was just trying to ensure that my favourite murderer spent the minimum amount of time in prison because I didn’t want to punish him twice”.

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=6400430

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I agree with all the above. I believe Ulrich Roux said some time ago that it would probably take about 18 months from conviction. I've also read where it can be anywhere between 12 to 18 months. Nathi Mncube, the prosecution spokesman, said he hopes it will be expedited but acknowledged that the process can take a long time. So it's just a case of waiting now.

I had to laugh (NOT ONLY) when I read this:

“When the Appellate Division is approached in a criminal matter, the trial judge who convicted the accused must prepare a report giving his or her opinion upon the case in order to assist the Appellate Division to reach a just decision.

For example, it may be necessary for the Appellate Division to know what was in the mind of the trial judge at the time of the hearing so that it can decide whether he or she was right or wrong”.

Good luck with the appeal court judges trying to work out what was in Masipa’s mind. She’s not likely to report “Mr Pistorius is a double amputee, and he was on his stumps when he heard a noise. He was terrified that an intruder had broken into his home. He said it was an accident, a mistake. He was so remorseful. I’ve never seen such a broken man. He cried while he tried to save her life and cried all the way through the trial. He even retched into a bucket for days on end. His whole life has now been completely destroyed. He’s gone from being an icon to an ex-con. That in itself is punishment for his crime. I was just trying to ensure that my favourite murderer spent the minimum amount of time in prison because I didn’t want to punish him twice”.

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=6400430

Size 4 bbm
Thank you very much, JJ!! :great:

 

[Lux et Veritas]

This is NOT an attempt to defend Carl… far from it… just a rational analysis of the situation regarding the absence of a statement from Carl

Preliminary observations :

A. Carl's interview with police investigators was likely conducted some time after the accident because he had to be unincarcerated from the wreckage and was badly injured.

B. In all likelihood, Police had already gathered several statements from less severely injured persons implicated in the crash and bystander witnesses. A preliminary forensics report on the crash scene was probably available to investigators.

C. Crash forensics can provide much information about the mechanics of accident (speed, direction, braking, etc…) much more nowadays with onboard engine management computers which record a plethora of invaluable information. Add to that the contents of the cars (such as cellphones, alcohol bottles, drugs, etc) and medical tests on the victims (blood alcohol levels, drugs, etc). Add to that the possibility of traffic cameras which may have recorded all or part of the incident. Basically, investigators can infer with some accuracy how and why things went down the way they did.

D. One must keep in mind that ALL witness statements are invariably biased by 2 things : one's own limited observations of the event and one's own memory of the events… considering the celerity and violence of the event, it is more than expected for witnesses to wrongly infer circumstances and draw incorrect conclusions.

E. The State charges an individual when they personally believe in that individual's guilt AND believe they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt… both concepts of Justice and Law must be met for charging someone with a crime.

Possible scenarios regarding the crash :

1. Carl believes he is beyond reproach in this matter : eg. Carl was not intoxicated, not distracted, he was driving at the speed limit, etc… when other driver swerved into his lane

2. Carl believes he shares responsibility with the other driver : eg. Carl was going too fast but the other driver swerved into his lane.

3. Carl believes he is fully responsible : eg. Carl was going too fast, he was distracted because texting and swerved into oncoming traffic.

… these beliefs may be genuinely held BUT ultimately prove incorrect considering aforementioned point D and C

4. Carl does not remember how it happened : shock, trauma, concussion, surgery, pain meds, etc...

Possible scenarios regarding a statement to Police :

i) Carl makes an honest statement

ii) Carl makes a false statement

iii) Carl does not make a statement


Hindsight shows us that even without a statement from Carl, The State with points B and C (witnesses & forensics) had met the requirements of point E and decided to charge Carl.

This indicates the investigators were not attempting to gather additional information to understand what happened when they approached Carl… they were hoping to get either :

- Points i-3 or i-2 so they could strengthen the State's case against Carl, i.e. an admission of guilt by the accused.

- Points ii-1 or ii-2 or i-1 or i-2 so they could strengthen the State's case against Carl, i.e. a statement contradicted by the State's evidence or perjury.

- Points i-4 or ii-4 so they would limit Carl's Defence, i.e. if Carl says he can't remember what happened he cannot contest State's evidence by testifying.

Consequently, ALL scenarios lead to Carl being charged but ONLY one scenario does not assist the State's case against Carl or impedes Carl's Defence : Point iii (not giving a statement).

Why would someone volunteer a statement in these circumstances ?… there is no up side in doing so, IMO

BRBM

Silence alone is never proof of guilt (as it should be). However, in certain circumstances, it does raise even more questions. On the flip side, spilling one’s guts is not proof of innocence, as OP illustrates.

OP felt 100% confident enough to voluntarily present a statement at his bail hearing - he was the only eye witness.

Carl doesn’t have that luxury as the accident was crawling with other parties and witnesses.

While defendants are certainly entitled to silence, I would think most innocent people would want to give their statement - what could possibly be the down side to a genuinely innocent person telling the truth up front?

Carl saw what happened at his brother’s trial. OP had to furiously backtrack, tailor and contradict himself after State’s witnesses nailed him to the wall. Carl wants to find out first what the other driver and witnesses said before he tells his “story”.

Alone, invoking one’s right to silence and not providing a statement wouldn’t necessarily be a big deal.
However, together with the ordinarily very vocal “Christian” Carl’s total media silence regarding the other (badly injured) driver, it paints a less than believable picture of his alleged innocence. His strategy is likely this: the less said the better. As they say, knowledge is power - and Carl wants every scrap he can get before he opens his mouth.