Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~

[jay-jay]

BIR

I never understood how Masipa swallowed his lies. What was also quite extraordinary was her interpretation that his behaviour in the dock showed remorse. I think it showed how fearful he was of being caught under questioning.

I've been watching a whole bunch of programmes on the ID channel the past few weeks, and I think we should all club together to enable Judge Masipa to have cable TV so that she can watch them too .. she would be amazed by how some of these killers (mainly partner homicide, but also sometimes family/children, etc) lie .. and their made up stories more often than not include (faked) hijacking of a car they were in (does that ring any bells with anyone re. another recent case in SA?), intruders/burglars, 'accidents', or 'abductions' (that one rings some bells with another case, too). Those seem to be the main fabrications that killers will come up with, they really are the oldest ones in the book and I think that anyone citing that as a reason why a partner or a child, or a parent, has been killed need to be treated with the utmost suspicion and 'no stone left unturned' in collecting all the evidence together in order to bring that person to justice. They seem to be rather backward in SA in realising this, where the US and UK police agencies are not quite so easily fooled.

 

[Colin de France]

I think everyone fell for it and he wasn't pushed enough by the police or by the court, he did come close to cracking but he gave the game away when all the tears etc had vanished on the day of the sentencing because he knew the sentence was already decided and that he had no more influencing to make.

 

[Fuskier]

Happy Christmas to WS's following this thread. The NPA Appeal is a welcome step towards Justice in this case. Looking forward to following the Appeal process with you during 2015. Best wishes to all.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Thanks Lux! Regarding Directus, here's a trip down memory lane. Cringe.

'Significantly Ms Burger refused to concede that she could have missed hearing the first sounds – that is the shots – as she might have been asleep at the time and that what she heard was a cricket bat striking against the toilet door. The evidence of this witness as well as that of her husband, Mr Johnson, who sought to corroborate her evidence, was correctly criticised in my view as unreliable'.

I'm thinking that, as the trial was recorded, this has to place the Supreme Court judges in a more advantageous position than usual regarding findings of fact. With this in mind, I'm hoping - against all the odds - that they'll defy convention and bravely state that a thorough examination of the recorded evidence leaves them in some doubt as to the correctness of the trial court's factual findings.

This is what we're up against:

'In the absence of demonstrable and material misdirection by the trial court, its findings of fact are presumed to be correct and will only be disregarded if the recorded evidence shows them to be clearly wrong (Sv Hadebe and Others 1997 (2) SACR 641 (SCA) at 645e-f). This, in my view, is certainly not a
case in which a thorough reading of the record leaves me in any doubt as to the correctness of the trial court's factual findings. Bearing in mind the advantage that a trial court has of seeing,hearing and appraising a witness, it is only in exceptional cases that this court will be entitled to interfere with a trial court's evaluation of oral testimony...'

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2012/75.pdf

"This, in my view, is certainly not a case in which a thorough reading of the record leaves me in any doubt as to the correctness of the trial court's factual findings."

WHAT? Masipa didn't even get the locations of Reeva's wounds right!

 

[ColonelMustard]

And..........................how could they get out of the toilet window ?
Think about it

The ladder (in OP's imagination) was at the other window..............." I was looking between the door and the window"..............not the toilet window though. He meant the bathroom window where he said the intruders entered by the ladders.

Another major point I think Nel failed in by not re-inforcing the point to the Judge and the assessors even though he did mention it.

He told the court the 'intruder', in his opinion, had entered the 'bathroom' by climbing up ladders at the bathroom window.
He then told the court he heard the toilet door slam shut and he believed the intruder was in the toilet.
He then told them to 'get out'................lol fx me.
He must have known even if all that was remotely true they would have had to jump from the toilet window to the ground below because the ladder would have been at the 'bathroom' window...............anyway he gave whoever was behind the door no chance of survival whatsoever.

Why did the judge and the assessors not see this is the question !!
Unbelievable.

Replying to you, bro, and the courageous, new, now-posting, now-joining-the-discussion, Colin (Welcome!)!!

Both of you are being FAR too logical.

"I didn't think; I didn't have time to think. I didn't mean to shoot anyone, I didn't mean to shoot at someone." The gun just went off in the direction at which it was already pointed -- as a direct result of the 3rd startle (which, you'll remember, Derman already knew was coming Ha!). OP has GAD and a hair-trigger startle.

It's all completely inexplicable -- which is the only thing that WAS explicable to Masipa.

//sarcasm//

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Merry Christmas to OP!
:jail::behindbar:dramaqueen:
May he dream of his verreaction: and some :copcar: and another:judge: than Masipa and his :nerves: and the lympics: and his uke: and not even one :drink: and not enough :cup: and all that :argue: and his bad behavior :hoppingmad: and his faked :cry: and the lost world's :applause: and the lost travelling :worldmap: and in public's eyes :smiliescale: and his many :scream: and fair :justice: to follow and last not least the :devil:!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Merry Christmas to all my WS fellows!

:snowflake::snowman::christmastree::santahat::xmastree::santahat::xmastree::christmastree::snowman::snowflake:

 

[Interested Bystander]

WISHING EVERYONE A VERY HAPPY CHRISTMAS AND A SUCCESSFUL NEW YEAR

See you in 2015 for the appeal

 

[Mr Fossil]

Mrs Fossil and I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year!

 

[Mr Fossil]

Worth taking another look at the Oscar re-enactment video broadcast - Sunday Night 2014 which contains the leaked Evidence Room animation and re-enactment, including film of OP himself re-enacting parts of his evidence back in Sep / Oct 2013. Ignore some of the inaccurate stuff said by the presenters and their re-enactment and you're left with another variation on OP's version which can only have been provided by him. There are a number of discrepancies, some interesting facts and some consistency with the variations in his later testimony (versus the bail statement). I'll list what I've found after Christmas. The Evidence Room must have a lot more footage which I'd love to see.

If you're barred from watching the videos (the upload is in three parts and I couldn't see the first part) I found that http://www.clipconverter.cc/ is capable of downloading them.

 

[Colin de France]

Another incoherence in the declaration from OP is the absence of any reaction from RS when he shouts out whether she be in the bedroom or the WC...

 

[Starmelody]

I keep wondering what actually pushed him to grab his gun and kill her. One senario I was thinking about relates to the contract (Reeva's) that OP claims he went through that night. I was wondering if he was making changes that she was not happy about and this then sparked the argument.

In the book 'behind the door' it was stated that Reeva had been offered a role in the series 'strike back'. Her role was to play a topless waitress and that she had accepted this role. On the day of filming, just before filming, she left the set claiming that the nudity wouldn't be good for her as she was doing 'tropika' and the producers may not like it. The director claimed that Reeva knew all along that she had a partially nude role and was ok with it - they were shocked when she suddenly refused to it and left the production. It was suggested that OP had something to do with this ( from some of the messages between them ).

Perhaps he was arguing with her over similar things in this contract and forcing her to make changes. She may have been arguing back with him- an argument like this could go on for a long time and that is perhaps why they were delayed going to bed or why they hadn't eaten until late.

I find it strange that he was going through her contract. She really didn't need him to for the legal side of things. To me it seems more like he was trying to control what she was doing and this may have sparked a reaction from her (especially if he was the factor that caused her to walk out on her part in 'strike back').

Oscar's attempt of controlling her may have been building up and it may have been getting to Reeva - especially if she felt like it was affecting her career. ( which it was )

She may have been standing her ground this time and that's why the argument dragged out for hours and the neighbour heard a woman arguing in the early hours of the morning. Oscar doesn't seem the type to back off and maybe this time Reeva wasn't going to give in.

I could see that this type of thing could spark rage in him. If he didn't get his way.

It also mentions in the book that whilst she was at the Myers home, Oscar would call non-stop if they had an argument (he would ring Gina if Reeva didn't answer and Reeva would tell Gina to tell Oscar she was asleep). One time Reeva got off the phone with Oscar and was crying. She said to Gina Myers that she had never ever in her life been spoken to so rudely and disgustingly.

From the whatsapp messages you can see that Reeva is the type to express how she feels.

She may have done that that night and that's what caused him to lose his temper, throw things around, kick the bath plate in and damage it and then finally shoot her.

Just something I was thinking about.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I keep wondering what actually pushed him to grab his gun and kill her. One senario I was thinking about relates to the contract (Reeva's) that OP claims he went through that night. I was wondering if he was making changes that she was not happy about and this then sparked the argument.

In the book 'behind the door' it was stated that Reeva had been offered a role in the series 'strike back'. Her role was to play a topless waitress and that she had accepted this role. On the day of filming, just before filming, she left the set claiming that the nudity wouldn't be good for her as she was doing 'tropika' and the producers may not like it. The director claimed that Reeva knew all along that she had a partially nude role and was ok with it - they were shocked when she suddenly refused to it and left the production. It was suggested that OP had something to do with this ( from some of the messages between them ).

Perhaps he was arguing with her over similar things in this contract and forcing her to make changes. She may have been arguing back with him- an argument like this could go on for a long time and that is perhaps why they were delayed going to bed or why they hadn't eaten until late.

I find it strange that he was going through her contract. She really didn't need him to for the legal side of things. To me it seems more like he was trying to control what she was doing and this may have sparked a reaction from her (especially if he was the factor that caused her to walk out on her part in 'strike back').

Oscar's attempt of controlling her may have been building up and it may have been getting to Reeva - especially if she felt like it was affecting her career. ( which it was )

She may have been standing her ground this time and that's why the argument dragged out for hours and the neighbour heard a woman arguing in the early hours of the morning. Oscar doesn't seem the type to back off and maybe this time Reeva wasn't going to give in.

I could see that this type of thing could spark rage in him. If he didn't get his way.

It also mentions in the book that whilst she was at the Myers home, Oscar would call non-stop if they had an argument (he would ring Gina if Reeva didn't answer and Reeva would tell Gina to tell Oscar she was asleep). One time Reeva got off the phone with Oscar and was crying. She said to Gina Myers that she had never ever in her life been spoken to so rudely and disgustingly.

From the whatsapp messages you can see that Reeva is the type to express how she feels.

She may have done that that night and that's what caused him to lose his temper, throw things around, kick the bath plate in and damage it and then finally shoot her.

Just something I was thinking about.

:thumb: I think, you are just right!

 

[Colin de France]

I keep wondering what actually pushed him to grab his gun and kill her. One senario I was thinking about relates to the contract (Reeva's) that OP claims he went through that night. I was wondering if he was making changes that she was not happy about and this then sparked the argument.

In the book 'behind the door' it was stated that Reeva had been offered a role in the series 'strike back'. Her role was to play a topless waitress and that she had accepted this role. On the day of filming, just before filming, she left the set claiming that the nudity wouldn't be good for her as she was doing 'tropika' and the producers may not like it. The director claimed that Reeva knew all along that she had a partially nude role and was ok with it - they were shocked when she suddenly refused to it and left the production. It was suggested that OP had something to do with this ( from some of the messages between them ).

Perhaps he was arguing with her over similar things in this contract and forcing her to make changes. She may have been arguing back with him- an argument like this could go on for a long time and that is perhaps why they were delayed going to bed or why they hadn't eaten until late.

I find it strange that he was going through her contract. She really didn't need him to for the legal side of things. To me it seems more like he was trying to control what she was doing and this may have sparked a reaction from her (especially if he was the factor that caused her to walk out on her part in 'strike back').

Oscar's attempt of controlling her may have been building up and it may have been getting to Reeva - especially if she felt like it was affecting her career. ( which it was )

She may have been standing her ground this time and that's why the argument dragged out for hours and the neighbour heard a woman arguing in the early hours of the morning. Oscar doesn't seem the type to back off and maybe this time Reeva wasn't going to give in.

I could see that this type of thing could spark rage in him. If he didn't get his way.

It also mentions in the book that whilst she was at the Myers home, Oscar would call non-stop if they had an argument (he would ring Gina if Reeva didn't answer and Reeva would tell Gina to tell Oscar she was asleep). One time Reeva got off the phone with Oscar and was crying. She said to Gina Myers that she had never ever in her life been spoken to so rudely and disgustingly.

From the whatsapp messages you can see that Reeva is the type to express how she feels.

She may have done that that night and that's what caused him to lose his temper, throw things around, kick the bath plate in and damage it and then finally shoot her.

Just something I was thinking about.

Quite possibly, but what really made him flip was that she locked the toilet door and he coudn't get at her ....i'm just wondering whether she ran into the toilet with his phone because she saw something on it and that kicked it all off, for me it's something like that.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Thanks Lux! Regarding Directus, here's a trip down memory lane. Cringe.

'Significantly Ms Burger refused to concede that she could have missed hearing the first sounds – that is the shots – as she might have been asleep at the time and that what she heard was a cricket bat striking against the toilet door. The evidence of this witness as well as that of her husband, Mr Johnson, who sought to corroborate her evidence, was correctly criticised in my view as unreliable'.

I'm thinking that, as the trial was recorded, this has to place the Supreme Court judges in a more advantageous position than usual regarding findings of fact. With this in mind, I'm hoping - against all the odds - that they'll defy convention and bravely state that a thorough examination of the recorded evidence leaves them in some doubt as to the correctness of the trial court's factual findings.

This is what we're up against:

'In the absence of demonstrable and material misdirection by the trial court, its findings of fact are presumed to be correct and will only be disregarded if the recorded evidence shows them to be clearly wrong (Sv Hadebe and Others 1997 (2) SACR 641 (SCA) at 645e-f). This, in my view, is certainly not a
case in which a thorough reading of the record leaves me in any doubt as to the correctness of the trial court's factual findings. Bearing in mind the advantage that a trial court has of seeing,hearing and appraising a witness, it is only in exceptional cases that this court will be entitled to interfere with a trial court's evaluation of oral testimony...'

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2012/75.pdf

Considering what’s at stake - Oscar Defense as dangerous new precedent - I think this qualifies as an exceptional case.

If it was only one or two rather sketchy witnesses viewed as “unreliable” for solid, rational reasons, one could comfortably support a trial judge’s findings of fact.

This is not the case.

State’s presented FIVE highly credible ear witnesses who heard a woman’s screams or an argument BEFORE the shots. Defense presented NO incontrovertible evidence to disprove or refute these testimonies. This alone should have convicted OP of murder. On what basis did Masipa find them all unreliable? Yet she relied heavily on “unreliable” Dr. Stipp as proof of OP’s “remorse”! This is clear evidence of cherry-picking bias.

Worse, she simply bought Roux’s blanket statement that OP screams like a woman as if it was common knowledge - she inexplicably allowed him to get away with not proving it.

As the verdict and sentence hang directly on factual findings and considering the SCA must read and examine the entire trial, I don’t see how they could fail to find multiple damning flaws in Masipa’s “facts”.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I think everyone fell for it and he wasn't pushed enough by the police or by the court, he did come close to cracking but he gave the game away when all the tears etc had vanished on the day of the sentencing because he knew the sentence was already decided and that he had no more influencing to make.

I was sure OP would crack wide open when Nel asked him if Reeva screamed after the first shot.

31 SECONDS of total silence ... broken only when Nel himself spoke (grrr!).

This astounding silence was a damning confession.

At no other time under testimony did OP ever hesitate and falter in this manner.

Silence does indeed speak louder than words.

 

[Colin de France]

I was sure OP would crack wide open when Nel asked him if Reeva screamed after the first shot.

31 SECONDS of total silence ... broken only when Nel himself spoke (grrr!).

This astounding silence was a damning confession.

At no other time under testimony did OP ever hesitate and falter in this manner.

Silence does indeed speak louder than words.

I agree and i'm not sure that Nel merits as much praise as he has received, OP was not pushed as hard as he should of been, the case was not sealed by any means.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Worth taking another look at the Oscar re-enactment video broadcast - Sunday Night 2014 which contains the leaked Evidence Room animation and re-enactment, including film of OP himself re-enacting parts of his evidence back in Sep / Oct 2013. Ignore some of the inaccurate stuff said by the presenters and their re-enactment and you're left with another variation on OP's version which can only have been provided by him. There are a number of discrepancies, some interesting facts and some consistency with the variations in his later testimony (versus the bail statement). I'll list what I've found after Christmas. The Evidence Room must have a lot more footage which I'd love to see.

If you're barred from watching the videos (the upload is in three parts and I couldn't see the first part) I found that http://www.clipconverter.cc/ is capable of downloading them.

Thank you, Mr Fossil for sharing these videos. I am watching them for the first time and it is absolutely shocking to me to see OP re-enact his version of what happened, because he doesn't show any emotion whatsoever! He cried and puked in court, but in front of the camera he just went through the motions as if describing some event other than this horrific murder.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Another incoherence in the declaration from OP is the absence of any reaction from RS when he shouts out whether she be in the bedroom or the WC...

Exactly. Both Reeva and the "intruder" were 100% silent and invisible at all times.

It was strictly a one-man show.

Oscar was the ONLY actor, as well as sole screenwriter, director, set designer, casting director, prop master, stunt master, sound engineer, lighting director, weapons master, SFX and most importantly, editor.

 

[Starmelody]

Quite possibly, but what really made him flip was that she locked the toilet door and he coudn't get at her ....i'm just wondering whether she ran into the toilet with his phone because she saw something on it and that kicked it all off, for me it's something like that.

Maybe,but if that were the case why did they have dinner so late and argue for so long. Neighbour heard arguing. Why would she grab his phone at 2-3am. I just feel that it was an argument that delayed everything that night. It appeared that they hadn't even gone to bed. He would have a pass code on his phone and if he were looking at something on there I doubt reeva would grabbed it off him. The only thing I can think of is the contract as Oscar said he was making changes to it -and that may have given rise to a serious argument (especially considering previous issues they were having regarding oscar trying to control things-chewing gum, reeva not being able to talk about ex boyfriends, reeva suddenly not acting In 'strike back'. Etc..)