Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[JudgeJudi]

agree with this. also, the gun held at least ten more bullets... there must have been some thinking around stopping firing? why was op not questioned on why he stopped firing at four shots?

I would have like that question asked too. The reason he stopped firing was no doubt because it was the exact same reason that he stopped screaming. He "knew his target and what lay beyond" and the bullets had hit their mark, then nothing but silence from behind the door.

 

[Val1]

For MHIFORME (forgot to press quote):

Well, I was talking about those professionals that Trotterly was referring to - the ones that do think she made a mistake. It goes without saying that there are others that don't think she did.

And with respect, I don't feel that any of the points that yunmade in your previous post are logically sound with respect to the facts of this case.

A) It may have been 3am, but Pistorius was awake enough to speak to Reeva, notice her position in the bed, walk to the windows, bring in the two fans, close the curtains and blinds, notice the jeans on the floor, decide to cover the blue light with them, remember the ladders outside when he heard the noise, remember exactly where he'd left his gun, collect it, *advertiser censored* it, aim it, decid not to put on the lights, tell Reeva to call the police and approach the bathroom. This was not a bleary eyed man stmbling about.

B) He shot four times, but "accidents happen"? That's not an accident - that's four accidents. Three of them occuring after he'd stopped, changed trajectory and started again.

C) The "zombie stoppers" are relevant because he'd demonstrated in the video that he knew exactly what they could do to human flesh. This partly answers the DE question of "Did he know he'd hurt or kill the person in the toilet?"

D) Horror movies are laughed at BECAUSE people approach danger in them when in real life they wouldn't. No, I don't think it's instinctive at all to approach danger - certainly not when you have so many safer options immediately to hand. If there had been an armed intruder in that bathroom, Pistorius would have to have been suicidal to approach them - screaming his head off all the while to let them know he was on his way, lest we forget.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/11/the-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-day-21

"The athlete shot her through the locked door of his toilet, apparently thinking she was an intruder about to come out and attack him."

1)It's illegal to shoot anyone with a closed/locked door between you and the intruder, no matter what you may think and he had had the training to know that.

"Pistorius said shortly before the shooting he got out of bed to bring in two fans from his balcony. Steenkamp apparently got out of bed without him noticing and went to the bathroom."

2)Possible but improbable imo, he'd have to be actively trying to not notice if someone, at such close quarters as we've seen from the evidence, had to roll out of his bed onto the opposite side. Especially since the evidence also showed that he had enough light coming in from outside to help him move the fans back in and then still enough light to have seen the jeans on the floor.

"Pistorius heard the bathroom window sliding open, got his gun and went towards the noise."

3)This is where it just gets silly imo, OP says he whispers.. oops, talks softly to RS telling her to call the police while getting his gun from under the bed, doesn't notice she's not there(no breathing, no query as to why he's getting the gun, no response at all...
Then he says he started screaming "get the *advertiser censored** out of my house! get the *advertiser censored** out of my house!, as he's stealthily working his way up the hallway to the bathroom...

"He then heard the toilet door slam shut. After he peered into the bathroom and seeing nobody there, he thought the intruder was in the cubicle."

4)Doesn't even question that it could have been RS slamming the toilet door shut after hearing him scream "get the *advertiser censored** out of my house! Get the *advertiser censored** out of my house! on his way to the bathroom. Plus even though he says it was so dark he could just make out the outline of the tub so it's possible someone could have been in his shower stall, the one he didn't fire a warning shot into in case it ricochets back on him .. then at this point he says he hears a noise from the cubicle(which he later admits was not the lock turning) then "accidently" fires four lethal shots into it, after which he then screams at RS to call the police... only to then think oops, it might have been RS going to the loo... and goes back to check.

""It is so far-fetched... it's improbable," said Nel."

5) Understatement imo.

 

[Val1]

I come back to his words which sum up his testimony about firing:

"I did not have time to think, I heard this noise and I thought it was somebody coming out of to attack me, so I fired..."

He did not have time to think but he thought. Clearly illogical but not an unreasonable thing to say if you did not want to shoot at anyone unless you had to.

Nel would ask him if he wanted to shoot. If you shoot in self defence you may feel you "have" to shoot but does that mean you "want" to shoot? I think he exploited this distinction in his testimony.

I think OP knew full well he had killed Reeva illegally and wasn't about to make a present to Nel by admitting he had intended to shoot her. He must have seen the danger of even admitting he intended to fire (in self defence) when Nel was insisting he knew it was Reeva all along and was hitting him with evidence of an argument and Reeva screaming which we now know is discredited.

What was obvious from his testimony, as Leach pointed out, he fired at the noise and in fear I believe he fired at the intruder.

The question being for me, did he at that point think RS was an intruder?

We know OP had a short temper, was gun happy, and he may have just tripped over the jeans in the middle of the night because she had not brought in the fans and closed the patio doors as he'd asked so he had to do it, plus any other possible reasons that have been speculated about(her possible refusal to alter her plans/contract to travel with him, may have decided that things weren't working out so well and wanted to slow the relationship down, he'd had second thoughts(babyshoes call), he didn't like the speech she was about to give the next day, etc etc).

Also, nothing was ever disclosed about the bullet holes in the bedroom door or the damage to the lock, what was that all about?

 

[mhiforme]

BIB Upset? Wrong word for me, at least. I wasn't upset when she read her judgment, my jaw did drop though when I couldn't follow aspects of her logic.

BIB2 Noooo "Dream team" - don't believe the hype LOL. It's all relative when you compare a struggling nation such as SA with what you or I may be used to. Famous, media interest , agree to that ( OJ case I know nothing about so I can't comment.)


I haven't read all your posts so I'm not sure of your overall point of view, but I would be really interested in what motivated you to join a forum to discuss a case which is pretty much at it's closure.
The fat lady is about to sing, whichever way she does it.

You have , it seems pretty strong views on this, ( which is great, we all do, for a number of reasons ) but I'm wondering how you are invested in this, how you came to this, so to speak.

Cottonweaver, when I said people were upset, I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was speaking much more generally as in the general public.

In terms of why I joined the forum, yes it is late in the game but I needed some of my own questions about this case answered and having an open dialogue has helped me to understand different views on a given topic.

I know the general public has been pretty fixed in that their view regarding his guilt but in the legal community, there are a variety of opinions and because there seems to be some confusion, I feel that the defence has done their part to raise reasonable doubt. He may be guilty, but reasonable doubt has to be offered to him in this case, perhaps, like it or not, CH is the best verdict that can be obtained.

 

[Val1]

Why kill though? It was the only gun he had. If he had a less powerful gun with less lethal ammo would that have changed his intention?

Can you understand that if someone breaks into your house and you have a gun to hand and you think you are going to be attacked that you might use the gun just to protect yourself without any thought for your target? You just want the attack to stop. Why must that be to kill?

Because he kept his gun loaded with "zombiestoppers" or ranger bullets if you'd rather call them that, which are precisely to blow to smithereens( like he did the watermelons) any intruder/threat that dared to confront him. If that wasn't his intention, then he would have used less lethal bullets.

Point is, whatever threat OP claims to have feared, it did not confront him, in fact OP stalked and annihilated RS because he was so trigger happy that he just couldn't wait for the legal right to fire.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I agree with this. I can see why Masipa went with CH.

1. It's 3 AM in the morning, people aren't thinking correctly at this time, especially if they are just woken up (on OP's version).

2. The fact that he used Zombie stoppers is irrelevant because he didn't load his gun. This was the ammunition that he had in his gun at the time and he just grabbed his gun.

3. In terms of firing 4 shots, accidents happen. It's not like he fired the 4 shots over a 10 minute period and had lots of time to think between each shot. They were one after the other. Yes, some evidence says there was a small pause between two of the shots, but the key is they were fired one after the other.

4. Some say as a gun owner, he should have had foresight that shooting into a bathroom would kill someone. I say foresight is out the window at 3am in the morning. No one thinks straight at 3am. If this was 2pm in the afternoon, you might be thinking a little better.

5. Some say he could have run out the door. Yes, that was an option, but I think most people's natural instinct is to go investigate a noise. Isn't that the premise of all horror movies. Again, it is 3AM in the morning, people aren't weighing all of their options at this time of the day

In reply I would say this:

1. Reeva was awake. OP testified that when he awoke Reeva said, "Can't you sleep my baba?".

2. OP purchased that gun and ammunition for the purposes of protection. This was his ammunition of choice.

3. Yes, accidents can and do happen. On his version he never looked to see where Reeva was before he left the bedroom. Once in the bathroom he never said, "Reeva, is that you in there?", never told whoever was in the toilet that he was armed and never said he'd told his girlfriend to call the police. This was no accident. One shot fired into the toilet as a warning, even though still potentially lethal, would be bad enough, but he re-aimed and fired three more times.

4. He had done firearms training and got almost a perfect score in his recent exams. This training included when he could use lethal force. He got a perfect score on this portion of the exam. As for "no one thinks straight at 3am, may I refer you The Phone Call Data in https://cc11313.wordpress.com/

5. The SCA also said that he could have left the room. During the trial Nel asked OP, "Why did you not leave through your bedroom door?” to which OP replied that possibility hadn't occurred to him and it was his personality to confront danger. You said, "I think most people's natural instinct is to go investigate a noise" which is precisely what he did. He'dheard a door slam, heard a noise in the toilet and fired 4 shots! He never saw anyone, never spoke to the person/s or they to him, never asked "Is that you Reeva?" and never checked to see if anyone was on a ladder outside.

 

[JudgeJudi]

And his 'remorse' after the crime should never have been a factor in deciding guilt or not. That should have factored into the sentencing, not the verdict. How naive does anyone have to be (let alone a HC judge) not to consider that an overwhelming amount of murderers will go to any lengths to pretend a killing was an accident.

Not to mention how many murderers cry while begging for members of the public to come forward with any information that may help find the murderer, and go on to cry at the funeral.

 

[cottonweaver]

Well, first of all, cw, thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I 'get it' now! Believe me, I'm with you on preferring that the SCA does the sentencing. I had no idea that Masipa found a special section for the 1/6. It seems she went out of her way. I don't think she'll like it if she's overturned on the CH.

I have continuously heard about this 15 yr minimum sentence but then Booth said it could be less and now you have confirmed confirmed that. It seems a little contradictory to me....but what do I know.lol

I found this:
http://www.dcs.gov.za/Services/CorrectionalSupervisionandParoleBoards.aspx

It doesn't sound to me that he would get any house arrest out of it.

Once again...thank you!

No need to thank Jilly. Hopefully we are all here to collaboratively inform each other, (I personally like it when someone more informed gives me the answers, although it might not look that way LOL) , so hence, happy to be corrected, as I only did a surface look last night.

Anyway thanks for link. - it notes Determinate sentence , one half.
I had also found this next one last night , but my eyes were blurring -

Offenders who were sentenced from
1 October 2004 onwards qualify to be
considered for placement on parole after
completing half of their sentences or
after having served 25 years. However,
this does not apply to offenders who are
serving life sentences or who are habitual
criminals.

http://www.dcs.gov.za/docs/Parole.pdf

So I am suspecting it is HALF of any new sentence. ( Again, pls correct if wrong)

Anyway you made me engage with something i wasn't really considering. ( I was focussed on Appeal, the right verdict and I was getting past caring how much time he had to go back for, partly cause I remember from looking at this in August , even with the upgrade, he would end up back by the pool at Arnolds for a significant part of it.)

 

[cottonweaver]

Cottonweaver, when I said people were upset, I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was speaking much more generally as in the general public.

In terms of why I joined the forum, yes it is late in the game but I needed some of my own questions about this case answered and having an open dialogue has helped me to understand different views on a given topic.

I know the general public has been pretty fixed in that their view regarding his guilt but in the legal community, there are a variety of opinions and because there seems to be some confusion, I feel that the defence has done their part to raise reasonable doubt. He may be guilty, but reasonable doubt has to be offered to him in this case, perhaps, like it or not, CH is the best verdict that can be obtained.

BIB. I absolutely know you weren't referring to me personally so didn't take it personally . (I haven't been previously engaged in any dialogue with you and I wasn't really posting at that point you posted this. ) I wasn't upset sad, I was appalled, that's my point. ( It's a forum, bit like e mail, neither of us can read each other's minds, I totally agree, so we can misapprehend points easily )
To be clearer in what I am saying -Now, next if SCA say "we are upholding the CH decision" , I won't be upset, I will be sad aka disappointed !!! I definitely won't be appalled in the same way as post masipa. This isn't semantic hair-splitting for the sake of it, I mean that I will feel that at least it has been rigorously reviewed, I won't feel it's due to professional ineptitude ( And I have made many posts for many months on that ineptitude shared by NPA as per by Maspia and her assessors.)

Bear with me, but I am interested in

in terms of why I joined the forum, yes it is late in the game but I needed some of my own questions about this case answered and having an open dialogue has helped me to understand different views on a given topic

ie. Since your first post, yesterday, do you feel you have already changed some of your views/ got valid/convincing answers?

PS Don't think this was a technically really complex case as you said in the previous post. I rather think as pointed out by Greenland in the summer that "the court confused itself"

 

[lithgow1]

Not to mention how many murderers cry while begging for members of the public to come forward with any information that may help find the murderer, and go on to cry at the funeral.

Yes, that is what I had it mind when I mentioned the woman who went on TV after her children were supposedly abducted during a car jacking only for it to turn out she had murdered them because they were an impediment to her new relationship. That takes a special kind of cold heartedness, not to mention acting ability.

I don't doubt that Pistorius was anguished after the event for what he had done to both her and himself. What I do take issue with is that that grief was in any way a reliable indication that he never meant to shoot her in the first place. I know his supporters get annoyed at the ongoing criticism of Masipa but it is factors such as her using this as an element in determining the verdict that makes people question just how on the ball she really was. I also find it a bit odd that they seem happy to accept such 'Huh?' statements of her's because the overall findings were ones they approve of.

 

[JudgeJudi]

RSBM

I'm sure I heard something about a hippo in the courtroom and errors of law and so forth.

Hippo = seekoei in Afrikaans

Nel dealt with the "seekoei" hurdle first up. Seekoei v The State was a was a pre-Constitution case which the State believes is not relevant now. The SCA agreed.

 

[mrjitty]

4. According to his version he was using foresight - when to move slow, when to shout, when to be quiet, using the wall to cover himself. You can't accept that part of his testimony and then allow him the benefit of early morning muddleheadedness. He said he couldn't sleep, he got up to move fans, he covered an irritating light, he found his gun in the dark with no problems when he heard the noise - all signs that he was well awake.

Court's routinely draw natural and obvious inferences.

If I point a gun at another person and pull the trigger, it is impossible for anyone other than me to know exactly my thought process.

So the law of intention is always somewhat more artificial than that.

As you have done - we look at known facts - which all build intention.

Keeping a loaded gun. Going to fetch it. Pointing at someone. Shouting a warning.

Because you intrinsically know what a gun does, the decision to point it at someone and pull the trigger implies foresight of the consequences.

Indeed it is plainly silly to claim that opposite.

This is why I find it strange when people say "there is no evidence OP intended to murder Reeva"

In the ordinary course, the dead body and the murder weapon are the only proof you need.

As per Greenland/Grant - this case should only be about PPD

 

[mrjitty]

The question being for me, did he at that point think RS was an intruder?

We know OP had a short temper, was gun happy, and he may have just tripped over the jeans in the middle of the night because she had not brought in the fans and closed the patio doors as he'd asked so he had to do it, plus any other possible reasons that have been speculated about(her possible refusal to alter her plans/contract to travel with him, may have decided that things weren't working out so well and wanted to slow the relationship down, he'd had second thoughts(babyshoes call), he didn't like the speech she was about to give the next day, etc etc).

Also, nothing was ever disclosed about the bullet holes in the bedroom door or the damage to the lock, what was that all about?

Domestic Violence

 

[mrjitty]

I think Mr Fossil gauged the first shots must have been a little later than Stipps timing but I am unsure why he needed to delay from the timing in Mrs Stipps testimony. I think there maybe some argument that she was awake due to being 'fluey' but the shots may have been a little later. I really need to look at Mr Fossil's timeline again and his reasons for delaying Mrs Stipps timing. I don't recall anything in her testimony suggesting she did not hear the shots very soon after waking, ie 2.58-3am or thereabouts. Do you have a link to Mr Fossil's timeline please? Or am I missing something obvious (quite possible).

Time for me to move on anyway. Really the interest is in the discussion about the appeal.

EDIT I find Mr Fossil's work incredibly well researched and detailed which makes me think I could have missed something. I note that Dr Stipps was getting dressed when he registered the clock indicating 3.17 (ie 3.13-14 in real time). As he was still getting dressed one might assume he took another couple of minutes or he would not have stated he was getting dressed. He would have said he was dressed. After this Mrs Stipps tried to make some more calls which is when they heard the second set of noises (shots).

For me the critical point is the corroboration between Mr & Mrs N and Dr & Mrs Stipp.

Especially because Mr & Mrs N are defence witnesses.

All 4 testified to having heard loud gunshots prior to the sequence of security calls. i.e in the moments prior to 3:15:51

Not one of these witnesses reported bangs after 3:15:51 - despite all being wide awake. Also none of them hear a women after this set of bangs.

Allowing time for Mr N to be woken by Mrs N - to listen, and then go make the call - IMO this shows as far more likely than not, that the final bangs were no later than 3:14am

This fits with the first timing of 3:02 (a time Masipa changes via pure speculation) and yet still allows the arterial bleed.

Otherwise we have to believe that Mr & Mrs N heard all of Oscar's screaming and yelling, but completely missed him breaking down the toilet door with a cricket bat

 

[aftermath]

For me the critical point is the corroboration between Mr & Mrs N and Dr & Mrs Stipp.

Especially because Mr & Mrs N are defence witnesses.

All 4 testified to having heard loud gunshots prior to the sequence of security calls. i.e in the moments prior to 3:15:51

Not one of these witnesses reported bangs after 3:15:51 - despite all being wide awake. Also none of them hear a women after this set of bangs.

Allowing time for Mr N to be woken by Mrs N - to listen, and then go make the call - IMO this shows as far more likely than not, that the final bangs were no later than 3:14am

This fits with the first timing of 3:02 (a time Masipa changes via pure speculation) and yet still allows the arterial bleed.

Otherwise we have to believe that Mr & Mrs N heard all of Oscar's screaming and yelling, but completely missed him breaking down the toilet door with a cricket bat

Do you mind me asking, where do you think the 'help, help, help' was shouted in the sequence of events?

(genuine question. No 'tone' intended)

 

[Marfa Lights]

Not to mention how many murderers cry while begging for members of the public to come forward with any information that may help find the murderer, and go on to cry at the funeral.

Oh, Geez... you made me think of that whimpering Scott Petersen again.

 

[Sherbert]

Yes!

That's exactly Roux's problem. The Witness refused to say he acted in PPD!

But how did this impact on the outcome?

If Masipa had struck out PPD on the basis that OP was denying intention, we would still have been left with her factual finding that the State had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he did not entertain an honest belief that his life was in danger. So, in all probability, it would still have been CH, based on lack of dolus.

 

[saraomar]

Yes it was off kilter in that it took far too long to understand what she was on about. I would like to see that clarified by whatever means.

Did you follow Roux's argument about interpreting her evaluation of DE Reeva in the context of having already cleared him DD?

In this case the grief for Reeva is perfectly relevant as she was only dealing with DE of Reeva - to eliminate the possibility that he was not 100% sure it was an intruder.

Nel was out lawyered on the ammo - it happens. OP got his money's worth there.

Without the intent to kill Reeva we are left with the intent to kill the intruder. What's the big problem there?

A bad ruling through an error, but apparently Masipa has made errors all over the shop including suddenly being unable to fairly assess the evidence of the first accused that she's ever had lie to her. Hmmm, I'm finding it hard to believe.

Roux' ridiculous explanation about why masipa linked DE to Reeva was a big cop out! It's the only possible way he could describe her non-sensical explanation of why DE was no longer on the table. There is no other way to position it. DE is very clear and she absolutely, definitely made a mistake by referring to Reeva and letting him of the hook.
If you remember the judgement reading... There is an awkward pause....discussion with female assessor, break and suddenly it changes to ' the deceased.....or anyone else for that matter....' When talking about DE. She could hardly understand what she wa reading, as if it were foreign to her....which I believe it was! She put too much faith in the female assessor, possibly to even write her actual judgement. Shocking!

 

[mrjitty]

But how did this impact on the outcome?

If Masipa had struck out PPD on the basis that OP was denying intention, we would still have been left with her factual finding that the State had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he did not entertain an honest belief that his life was in danger. So, in all probability, it would still have been CH, based on lack of dolus.

Well we can't make up for an incompetent judge can we?

But now on appeal its a very big problem because its Roux who has to explain all this nonsense.

I've always maintained that the witness failing to come up to brief is a major problem in terms of case management.

it reveals instantly to the judge that the accused has departed from the essence of his own statement of defence and the trial strategy that Roux mapped up.

That should really have been fatal in terms of the insight it provided to the judge.

 

[mrjitty]

Roux' ridiculous explanation about why masipa linked DE to Reeva was a big cop out! It's the only possible way he could describe her non-sensical explanation of why DE was no longer on the table. There is no other way to position it. DE is very clear and she absolutely, definitely made a mistake by referring to Reeva and letting him of the hook.
If you remember the judgement reading... There is an awkward pause....discussion with female assessor, break and suddenly it changes to ' the deceased.....or anyone else for that matter....' When talking about DE. She could hardly understand what she wa reading, as if it were foreign to her....which I believe it was! She put too much faith in the female assessor, possibly to even write her actual judgement. Shocking!

Yes.

It was nonsense.

But hard to think of what else he could say