Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~

[Lux et Veritas]

BiB… on that we are in agreement !!

On Nel appearing lost at times during cross-examination : Let us keep in mind that every single line of questioning that Nel put to OP was previously thought up by the Defence team which extensively prepped OP prior to him taking the stand… this is where the aforementioned "intelligence/education" was instrumental : OP was able to assimilate all the evidence and rehearse his testimony over and over with the assistance of a whole team of high-priced attorneys.

When one thinks about the forensics reenactment of the scene that was conducted and "leaked" by the Evidence Room… most people believe the primary purpose of that reenactment was to produce an Court exhibit to illustrate the Defence's version of events to the Judge… I disagree… I believe it was primarily made to create, test and refine OP's fabricated version of events :

1. By play acting a fabricated scene, OP could chronologically construct and tweak a plausible version of events.

2. By reenacting a fabricated scene, OP would engineer real memories of fictitious events… this would help him to recount his version on the stand with far greater accuracy and far less hesitation or mistakes.

3. By having an audio/video medium of OP's version, the Defence team attorneys would have something concrete to visualize, analyze and scrutinize so as to find all possible holes in OP's version of events.

One gaping hole Defense fell through was OP’s (alleged) deafness after the shots* vs Reeva’s screams.

Roux declared that Reeva never screamed, that his client screams like a woman, yet produced zero evidence of same.

OP declared she never screamed but then admitted he couldn’t hear! What kind of stupid rebuttal evidence is that? It doesn’t even rise to the level of ridiculous.

Four ear witnesses had NO hearing problems when they heard Reeva scream for her life, yet Masipa trashed them in favor of the (allegedly) deaf accused. This is judicial illogic (in bed with cherry-picking bias) at its very finest.

It’s like asking a blind man to minutely describe the scenery, costumes and lighting in a stage play.

OP was stone-cold silent for 31 seconds (except for crybaby wailing) after Nel asked him if Reeva screamed after the first shot. That silence was wholly damning (giant red flag) - if for no other reason than OP himself introduced serious doubt into his version of Reeva’s 100% silence.


* How temporarily deaf does one actually become after shooting a gun?

 

[AJ_DS]

France, England and the 2.3 to 5 % in America plus other countries where the convicted were found to be innocent and that's only the start, there's worse.http://insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=108&c=british_injustice

Thanks for the info Colin

The problem with those statistics is that they are somewhat meaningless : being found guilty at Trial and then guilty verdict quashed on appeal with no retrial does not mean the accused was truly innocent…!

There is a chasm between true innocence and not guilty OR true innocence and Prosecutors not feeling confident about being able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore not bringing up charges.

OP was found not guilty of murder BUT a majority of people who closely followed the Trial are convinced he killed Reeva in cold blood.

There will always be some innocents that are convicted by various means :

- Being framed
- Lying/mistaken witnesses
- Failures of science and technology
- Buried exculpatory evidence
- Fabricated inculpatory evidence
- Botched investigations

… but I believe these cases represent an infinitesimal percentage of guilty verdicts today… much smaller than 5% IMO

 

[AJ_DS]

The ethics of the legal profession require it to do what is right by the law, their clients, their colleagues and the community. These ethics apply to all members of the profession.

As officers of the court, lawyers have a fundamental duty to encourage public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession. They have a primary duty to the community to ensure they do nothing to jeopardise that confidence together with a responsibility to ensure access to justice is maintained for all people.

OK I get your meaning…

In the grand scheme of things, all in the legal profession are bound by ethics and sound administration of Justice.

But in a practical sense, the prosecution represent the State/Crown which is society/the public (hence, People v. the accused) and the Defence represent the accused.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Plus she also seems to have disregarded the evidence of one of the defence witnesses (!) that Pistorius, shouting or wailing out loud, sounded like a MAN.

Exactly, Cherwell! Worse for his version, none of the defense witnesses described “blood-curdling” shouts or wails - indeed, none of them described any “screaming” at all.

Defense wanted to muddy the semantic waters - the huge difference between screams of mortal terror and merely shouts of anger/alarm.

OP never even remotely faced life or death - unlike Reeva ... why would he scream?

The bizarre fact he never actually screamed when he first found the bloody, gruesome Reeva also damns him. (Of course he had to stop “screaming” after the shooting - she stopped screaming. He no longer had a reason to play the scream game.)

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Another illogical declaration from OP is after having shot the "intruder" he went back to the bedroom, how did he know that the intruder was no longer a threat, woudn't it have been the moment to shout to RS "i've shot him it's ok" or something like that and stay there without moving until help arrived, why did he leave the bathroom without being sure that it's safe to do so ?

Exactly, Colin. No matter that four bullets slammed through the toilet door, he had NO clue if he actually hit and/or killed the “intruder”.

Why would any sane person simply leave the danger zone, blithely assuming they’d “neutralized” the “threat”? Certainly no rational, certified gun owner!

Even more damning, never at any time did OP ever bother to stick his head out the bathroom window to see if any other “intruders” were still on the “ladder”. (He certainly hammered home his constant written/oral references to potential “intruders”.) His version would have been slightly more semi-credible had he done that one simple thing.

In fact, had he immediately looked out the window and seen NO ladder, he would have known instantly that it was Reeva in the toilet. But no - he had to go through all the staged drama of backing out of the bathroom and “searching” for his “beloved” Reeva in the “pitch-dark” bedroom - pure heart-rending theater.

Which leads to another bizarre anomaly - if he was certain the “intruder” was no longer a “threat” (he felt secure enough to leave the bathroom), why was he still too “scared” to turn on the LIGHTS?! Because it was all 24K bad fiction that demanded pathos and Oscar as terrified, tragic victim.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Very true… this has been discussed at length some time ago

- OP stated that he proceeded to the bathroom to protect Reeva… ergo, in his mind, being in bedroom whilst intruders were in the bathroom was more dangerous than proceeding to the bathroom to confront intruders.

- OP stated that he was sure that an intruder was in toilet because he heard the toilet door slam shut.

- OP stated that he was sure an intruder had climbed up a ladder and entered the bathroom through the window because he heard the bathroom window slam open and the toilet door slam shut.

- OP stated that he kept shifting his attention between the window and the door because other intruders could be on the ladder.

- OP stated that he shot 4 times at the door after he heard "wood moving".

… but according to OP himself :

- he did not know if he killed or even wounded the intruder in the toilet.

- he did not know if more intruders were outside and proceeding up the ladder to the bathroom.

… basically, the circumstances were exactly the same as when he first heard the window open BUT, for no apparent reason and no explanation, now it is safer to retreat out of the bathroom and take refuge in the bedroom ?!?

BRBM

Excellent observation, AJ. This is the insane sci-fi quality of his fairytale.

 

[Colin de France]

Exactly, Colin. No matter that four bullets slammed through the toilet door, he had NO clue if he actually hit and/or killed the “intruder”.

Why would any sane person simply leave the danger zone, blithely assuming they’d “neutralized” the “threat”? Certainly no rational, certified gun owner!

Even more damning, never at any time did OP ever bother to stick his head out the bathroom window to see if any other “intruders” were still on the “ladder”. (He certainly hammered home his constant written/oral references to potential “intruders”.) His version would have been slightly more semi-credible had he done that one simple thing.

In fact, had he immediately looked out the window and seen NO ladder, he would have known instantly that it was Reeva in the toilet. But no - he had to go through all the staged drama of backing out of the bathroom and “searching” for his “beloved” Reeva in the “pitch-dark” bedroom - pure heart-rending theater.

Which leads to another bizarre anomaly - if he was certain the “intruder” was no longer a “threat” (he felt secure enough to leave the bathroom), why was he still too “scared” to turn on the LIGHTS?! Because it was all 24K bad fiction that demanded pathos and Oscar as terrified, tragic victim.

Unless of course he knew who he had fired at ?

 

[Lux et Veritas]

My initial thought is Frank could have been told in haste to put a ladder by the bathroom window. Whoops did he go to the wrong window? OP was calling for personal help before he called for real help. Sorry I think OP LIES about everything whether he needs to or not. Sunroof, gun in Restaurant, ETC. his fear of everything at his convenience. Yet his family holds him up to be so determined and fearless.

Bottom line, OP outed himself as a craven coward on multiple levels* (not the least of which is pathologically shooting a defenseless woman four times through a closed door). It takes NO guts to be a “hero” when you’ve got endless money and power, every conceivable advantage dropped in your lap and the world worships your golden blades (never mind the real, very nasty man wearing those blades).

Oscar Pistorius was a slick, one-trick pony.


* Endlessly crying, puking and “screaming” like a woman is hardly conducive to a sterling he-man, sports hero CV, is it? LOL

 

[Fuskier]

Another illogical declaration from OP is after having shot the "intruder" he went back to the bedroom, how did he know that the intruder was no longer a threat, woudn't it have been the moment to shout to RS "i've shot him it's ok" or something like that and stay there without moving until help arrived, why did he leave the bathroom without being sure that it's safe to do so ?

Agree. IMO this reveals much.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I asked a question months ago about defence lawyers and what they would do if they knew their clients were guilty.
Jj..............kindly answered my question from what she knew/thought about the situation.
Seemingly the defence lawyer is there to ensure their client ( whether they know or think their client is guilty or not) receive a fair trial !.

After reading the last 100 or so posts and knowing what I've seen ( OP video) and heard during the trial ( Roux making smookescreens and telling porkies).
I have to disagree................totally unethical defending a murdering bstrx !!
Wonder what the defence team would do if it was one of theirs ?.

I find it 100% impossible that super-intelligent, seasoned defense veterans like Roux & Co. could ever entertain OP’s story as the truth. NO WAY. Look at what outlandish, often contradictory defenses they had to resort to! Defense was clearly grasping at straws from day one.

That being said, all defendants are still legally entitled to a vigorous defense (especially when said defendant is filthy rich...).

What would the defense team do if it was one of theirs?

That close to home, might very likely depend on WHO they killed - and what, if any, legal repercussions could affect said defense team. (I would imagine that, like doctors never treating their loved ones in a crisis, outside counsel would be employed.)

 

[AJ_DS]

Exactly, Colin. No matter that four bullets slammed through the toilet door, he had NO clue if he actually hit and/or killed the “intruder”.

Why would any sane person simply leave the danger zone, blithely assuming they’d “neutralized” the “threat”? Certainly no rational, certified gun owner!

Even more damning, never at any time did OP ever bother to stick his head out the bathroom window to see if any other “intruders” were still on the “ladder”. (He certainly hammered home his constant written/oral references to potential “intruders”.) His version would have been slightly more semi-credible had he done that one simple thing.

In fact, had he immediately looked out the window and seen NO ladder, he would have known instantly that it was Reeva in the toilet. But no - he had to go through all the staged drama of backing out of the bathroom and “searching” for his “beloved” Reeva in the “pitch-dark” bedroom - pure heart-rending theater.

Which leads to another bizarre anomaly - if he was certain the “intruder” was no longer a “threat” (he felt secure enough to leave the bathroom), why was he still too “scared” to turn on the LIGHTS?! Because it was all 24K bad fiction that demanded pathos and Oscar as terrified, tragic victim.

BiR… this is invariably what happens when one fabricates a version of events so as to simultaneously satisfy :

1. a plausible non-murder version (i.e. the intruder mistaken identity)

AND

2. as much of the State's evidence as possible (i.e. forensics, witness testimony, etc.)

… some elements of the fabricated story will make no sense but they must be so or else some other part of the story will make even less sense, perhaps to the point of collapse.

This is why the physical reenactment or play-acting of the fabricated version of events is so crucial to the accused and the Defence.

… once a satisfactory version is achieved, the Defence attorney simply instructs and preps the accused to address the elements that make no sense with "I don't remember, I was panicked, I wasn't thinking clearly, I'm not sure, etc…"

This is why the accused that makes a self-defense claim should be made to give a full statement in court under oath with cross-examination BEFORE evidence discovery… the meager, incomplete and inaccurate written affidavit of the accused provided for the purpose of the bail hearing is most definitely not sufficient.

 

[AJ_DS]

One gaping hole Defense fell through was OP’s (alleged) deafness after the shots* vs Reeva’s screams.

Roux declared that Reeva never screamed, that his client screams like a woman, yet produced zero evidence of same.

OP declared she never screamed but then admitted he couldn’t hear! What kind of stupid rebuttal evidence is that? It doesn’t even rise to the level of ridiculous.

Four ear witnesses had NO hearing problems when they heard Reeva scream for her life, yet Masipa trashed them in favor of the (allegedly) deaf accused. This is judicial illogic (in bed with cherry-picking bias) at its very finest.

It’s like asking a blind man to minutely describe the scenery, costumes and lighting in a stage play.

OP was stone-cold silent for 31 seconds (except for crybaby wailing) after Nel asked him if Reeva screamed after the first shot. That silence was wholly damning (giant red flag) - if for no other reason than OP himself introduced serious doubt into his version of Reeva’s 100% silence.


* How temporarily deaf does one actually become after shooting a gun?

BiB… it is not a deafness per se… it is a ringing in the ears : a constant high pitch tone in the forefront that dissipates quickly… but you can still hear if someone is screaming or even talking to you… you might not be able to make out clearly what is being said in the first few seconds after the gunshots but you will nevertheless hear it.

The best analogy is a powerful flash from a camera… it will not blind you completely but you will have trouble seeing clearly for a few seconds

 

[mirage1]

I just re-watched the end of his cross examination and his explanation about the magazine rack is truly ridiculous.

When asked by Nel the position he found Reeva, OP says she was where the magazine rack was and that the magazine rack was not where it is in the photo, that it was to the far right of the toilet.
Then when he is explaining how he got Reeva out of the toilet, he says he must of kicked the magazine rack into the position it was found (first time we hear this evidence). Nel asks if he has a memory recollection/reconstruction of this, OP says he doesn't but that he "must of" kicked it into position.

Later on in the cross exam Nel points out that the left leg of the rack is in a pool of blood and there is no indication that it slid into the blood. So OP then says that it was picked up and placed into the blood (WTF?!) Nel also points out that Prof Botha said that the marks on her back were caused by the rack, so OP then says Reeva must of fallen against the rack that was supposedly on the right side of the toilet!

I don't understand how he could be so wrong about the position of the mag rack and the position of her body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQBha2ZCAjU

Well, if the rack was not at the front where Reeva was standing, it would not have been possible for her to move it and make the noise that OP claims startled him into start shooting. So he MUST lie about it. The fact the evidence proves he is clearly lying about this fact, and that there was no magazine rack moving noise is another smoking gun imo that Masipa basically ignored. This fact and photo 55, prove his story cannot be true, which is why im puzzled why even most legal pundits accepted there was not enough evidence to prove he intentionally shot Reeva, rather than a imaginary intruder.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

On some primal level, I have to agree with you… however… on a reasoned level, I cannot : a structured arbitrational arena based on the presumption of innocence where Prosecution and Defence zealously argue their respective case regardless of their personal feelings seems to be the best way to administer Justice.

Better to acquit 100 guilty men than to convict a single innocent one.

IMO, the failings in OP's case rests neither with the Prosecution nor the Defence, but with the arbitrator and the structure itself.

I am not sold on bench trials (except involving minor offenses). Judge-Jury-and-Executioner in a murder trial does not sit well with me legally, socially or morally - no one person should have that much power.

While each trial method may have its pros and cons, the jury trial has one distinct advantage: 12 heads and vantage points come together instead of only one (the same concept applies to republics vs dictatorships).

Judges, like juries, are not infallible, as the OP case spectacularly illustrates. In fact, judges can be as ignorant, biased and/or corrupt (or more) as any jury member (see the notorious US “Kids for Cash” judicial scandal*... two judges are currently serving long federal prison terms).

With a judge, there’s ONE chance to get it right.

With a jury, there’s TWELVE steps to get it wrong.

I’d take my chances with a jury any day over a judge.

All juries are not the idiots that some people seem to think. The internet, courtroom news cameras and yes, even well-grounded, well-researched films and TV shows have opened up the previously more or less hidden world of trials and the law ... which is a very good thing. In certain crucial respects, people today are more sophisticated than they’ve ever been.

What I don’t like (SA, US, anywhere) are the legal machinations and secret deals behind the scenes, whether it involves defense, prosecution, judge and/or law enforcement. In my world, all the relevant evidence is not only fair game, but should be mandatory. Withholding key pieces of evidence or witnesses that could decide a defendant’s life - or cheat a victim/family - should be illegal and severely punished. Playing fast and lose with material evidence and key witnesses that could convict or acquit should never be a strategic option; it should never be a bargaining chip (i.e. phone hacker/thief Carl vs Hilton Botha). Let those chips - and truth - fall where they may on both sides.

Yes, some may see my view as hopelessly naive - but if one does not fiercely hold to strict judicial ideals and standards, the entire system becomes ripe for mistrust, cynicism and wholesale corruption.

I agree, AJ. If wrong verdicts and sentences can be challenged on appeal, logic demands that the wrong “facts” behind them must also be challenged.


* Take a look - the corruption and injustice will astound you. Such judges and their associates are sociopaths. For-profit prisons are a whole new level of immoral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Yes Allan, I did say that it was the duty of defence counsel, if they believed their client was guilty, to ensure their client got a fair trial. In light of the debate on this I’ll expand a bit further.

The fundamental duty of a criminal defence advocate is to zealously represent his client within the bounds of the law. He has a duty to his client to fearlessly raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks will help his client’s case to the best of his skill and diligence. But, as an officer of the Court concerned in the administration of justice, he has an overriding duty to the Court, to the standards of his profession, and to the public, which may and often does lead to a conflict with his client’s wishes or with what the client thinks are his personal interests.

He may advise his client in strong terms that he is unlikely to escape conviction and that a plea of guilty is generally regarded by the court as a mitigating factor to the extent that the client is viewed by the court as co-operating in the criminal justice process. He’ll strive to see that his client isn't punished excessively.

The advocate-client relationship is two-way. If a client lies to his counsel, counsel isn’t under some holy obligation to ignore the lie and continue trying to get his client off without punishment. Even if he did apparently commit the crime, he is still entitled to the best advocacy available to him, because there may be mitigating circumstances not warranting the maximum sentence.

Counsel will represent his client as best he can, even if he hates the guy. Even if he thinks the guy is guilty, he doesn't know the guy is guilty - there's a difference. If the client tells him he's innocent, then as far as counsel is concerned, he's innocent. Counsel doesn't have to believe him. It doesn't matter what counsel personally believes. He's being paid to do a job and he can't let his personal feelings get in the way.

AJ, (little history lesson here) This is known as Blackstone's formulation or ratio and actually goes back to the days of Abraham. The principle is that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". This was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century. It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country's Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century.'

JJ, I truly believe everyone is entitled to legal representation, guilty or not. Centuries ago, accused people had no representation and didn't even have the right to defend themselves. Consequently huge numbers of people were sentenced to death, years of imprisonment or torture just because someone accused them of something. In those days the majority of people were illiterate. These are some of the main reasons why the criminal justice system started evolving. I know what a compassionate person you are so I'm sure you'll understand what I'm saying.

I have a very strong opinion on Roux and the rest of the DT and, to use your words, I don't know how they sleep at night either.

As you said, Judi, whether defense counsel personally believes his client is guilty is irrelevant. Above and beyond the right to a fair trial, a zealous defense at every level is crucial to genuine justice. It FORCES the prosecution to defend and prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt - and if it can’t, the accused must be convicted on a lesser charge or walk free.

It really is a deceptively simple, very clever, if excruciatingly cumbersome system for getting at the truth (or at least 95% of the truth LOL). Such a system should be rather foolproof - were it not for human nature, ego, bias, greed, incompetence and duplicity. :lol:

(One can be an exceedingly zealous defense attorney when upwards of R17 000 000 is involved. I suppose when one is paying such hefty legal fees and things aren’t going exactly as planned, one expects one’s advocate to go full throttle into Crazy Town, to throw in such things as the “slow burn” of a lifetime of “vulnerability” and “abuse” ... even though one never, ever previously complained of vulnerability or abuse of any sort and the only one who suffered same was the dead woman.)

 

[Lux et Veritas]

BiB… it is not a deafness per se… it is a ringing in the ears : a constant high pitch tone in the forefront that dissipates quickly… but you can still hear if someone is screaming or even talking to you… you might not be able to make out clearly what is being said in the first few seconds after the gunshots but you will nevertheless hear it.

The best analogy is a powerful flash from a camera… it will not blind you completely but you will have trouble seeing clearly for a few seconds

No wonder OP was silent for 31 seconds after Nel's question.

Even he could barely stomach the big lie he was gonna spew.

 

[Colin de France]

"“What didn’t seem to come out in the trial was that a pair of her jeans were found on the ground outside the open bathroom window. What were they doing there?” said Mrs Steenkamp"".................If this is true, what were they doing there, did she run from the bedroom to the bathroom window, scream for help using her jeans as a flag, heard him coming down the corridor, dropped her jeans and ran into the WC locking the door behind her ?...........this feels so strangely coherent ! Why was this not pushed in court, this is so important. .....2/3 down...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ur-daughter-Reeva-Steenkamps-mother-says.html

 

[Cherwell]

It wasn't pushed in court because nothing can be proved about how the jeans came to be there.

 

[Colin de France]

It wasn't pushed in court because nothing can be proved about how the jeans came to be there.

With respect, that dosn't take anything away from their importance, the same could be said for all the evidence, there is no proof of anything ! What i am particularly concerned about are incoherent actions and déclarations and this is one, she was careful with her clothes, she didn't seem the type of person to go around throwing them out the window......

 

[AJ_DS]

With respect, that dosn't take anything away from their importance, there is no proof of anything, what i am particularly concerned about are incoherent actions and déclarations and this is one, she was careful with her clothes, she didn't seem the type of person to go around throwing them out the window......

I too was very curious about the jeans… and a wanted my curiosity satisfied

… but IMO Cherwell is quite correct : they were useless to the Trial as they did not prove anything

Had Reeva's blood spatter been found on them it would be a different story…

… but as they were, if OP had been asked about them he would simply have answered : "I don't know M'Lady"

…and if pressed hard to speculate about them : "Reeva was doing laundry during the day as per her Whatsapps... she hung them to dry on the balcony railing because jeans shrink in the dryer... she forgot about them... the jeans fell with a gust of wind when they were completely dry… the dogs started playing with them as dogs often do with novel things they find… they ended up under the bathroom window… where they were photographed whilst one of my dogs was next to them"