Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[sleuth-d-]

Exactly.

Inferences are drawn from the complete factual matrix.

ah, the factual matrix.
on the one hand:
reeva in the toilet. shot dead through a closed door. accused admits he did this.

on the other hand:
sound of a window opening. the notion of a possible intruder. sound of a door closing. sound of wood movement. all uncorroborated statements from the testimony of the accused. who was deemed a 'less than great' witness.

at what point does the use of the defendant's imagination become irrelevant in murder cases? isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?

 

[Marfa Lights]

It's all about intention. You can't just look at a gun, see it loaded with deadly ammunition and say yup, he was going to kill someone with this. How do you know he wasn't going to shoot watermelons tomorrow?

I don't recall any arguments on this but I suspect OP probably loaded his gun regularly with these special bullets but he never killed anyone in the past with them and he's been a gun owner for years.

Now, if there was evidence to say that every night, OP had is gun loaded with regular bullets but on this night, he loaded it with special bullets, then the type of bullets used is relevant. That's not the case. This was his ammunition of choice.

If an RPG launcher were his standard weapon of choice, would you still find that his choice of weaponry had no bearing on whether he would foresee killing someone he fired upon?

 

[soozieqtips]

It's all about intention. You can't just look at a gun, see it loaded with deadly ammunition and say yup, he was going to kill someone with this. How do you know he wasn't going to shoot watermelons tomorrow?

I don't recall any arguments on this but I suspect OP probably loaded his gun regularly with these special bullets but he never killed anyone in the past with them and he's been a gun owner for years.

Now, if there was evidence to say that every night, OP had is gun loaded with regular bullets but on this night, he loaded it with special bullets, then the type of bullets used is relevant. That's not the case. This was his ammunition of choice.

Yes. It was his ammunition of choice. He chose to use ammunition that he knew had devastating effects on the human body. I guess his choice of ammunition was to guarantee no intruder (or Reeva) would ever leave the house alive.

 

[cottonweaver]

Something from Marius du Toit, SA attorney and regular TV commentator on the trial regarding procedures in the event of a murder conviction, and awaiting sentence hearing, if back at the High Court

"Marius du Toit ‏@mariusdutoit Nov 4
Should the SCA change 2 murder OP should remain outside until the sentenced is changed coz he is not on bail but already serving a sentence"

a few earlier tweets also :
"Nov 5
If my clients could afford it without exception i would appoint BRoux every time and if i represent a victim i would want GNel to prosecute"

"I know many people who either hate Barry Roux or Gerrie Nel ... Let me be clear you will have to look hard to find two more solid people"
"If the Oscar SCA appeal goes pear shape as is widely expected we can accept for certain the CC will have the last say"
Nov 3
Barry Roux arguing in the SCA reminded me of a reporter doing news coverage in a hurricane... But he stood firm amid the storm"
"Oscar had the best poker player in Barry Roux on his side its just a pity he only gave him a pair of two's play with not aces"
"Rule of thumb....party getting hammered by judges on appeal bound to loose"

Oct 16
A comparison between Flabba murder case and Oscar's [video=youtube;sSq0dFivJL8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSq0dFivJL8[/video] … #FlabbaTrial

https://twitter.com/mariusdutoit

 

[Interested Bystander]

I have now listened to Mrs Stipp being cross examined by Oldwage (what a pompous man he is). Oldwage starts at about 21.00 on the link I post below. There are two short sections where the timing of the gunshots is discussed, one can be found (roughly) at around 27.00 and also at around 35.30. Mrs Stipp also confirms the lights were on when she looked towards his house immediately after the first sounds and that the bathroom window was open.

Oldwage presses Mrs Stipp, starting at around 35.30, for her to concede she was still in bed and possibly leaning over her husband looking at the clock when she heard the gunshots. She agrees. So, IMO, the first sounds were very, very near to 02:58. We then have a time period of between16 and 17 minutes between the two sets of sounds. The Defence witness Mrs Nhlengethwa confirms hearing one shot only (this must have been the last shot which woke her). Mr Fossil gives this time between 03:14.13 and 03:14.59.

My only interest in this is to define just how long there was between the two sets of sounds and to confirm (or otherwise) whether OP’s timeline was feasible when he stated it was about 5 minutes between the two sets of sounds. As there is confirmation of the first sounds at very near to 02.58 and the second shots at just short of 03.15 how can OP possibly say that the sets of sounds were only 5 minutes apart?

We know there were no shots reported by anybody around 5 minutes before the second sounds but it is crucially important for OP that there were if we are to believe his story/timeline. He needed the two sets of sounds to be closer together because, as was noted by Carice, RS was still gurgling when he laid her at the bottom of the stairs. Carice arrived after 03.22. We also know from both pathologists that RS would have died very shortly after being shot in the head. She would not have breathed more than a few breaths and if the first sounds were the shots, poor Reeva would have been very dead and not still gurgling around 24 minutes or more after being shot in the head.

The truth must be that the shots that killed her were fired at roughly 03.15 for her still to be gurgling 7 minutes or more later which leads me to the conclusion that OP terrorised RS with the cricket bat (the first sounds) but that he also hit the door at least once more (which split through the bullet hole) to gain access to the toilet cubicle.

Why did Masipa change the timeline and why did Nel not pick up this time discrepancy during the trial OR what have I got wrong?

[video=youtube;9AzYslyjzmY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzYslyjzmY[/video]

This is the last time I shall visit the crime because whatever happened in the trial is now history. Whether the SCA alters the verdict I am sure we shall know in the not too distant future. However, I am not at all confident anything will change but am dying to be proved wrong!

 

[cottonweaver]

missed these off the post above, won't let me edit

"Nov 5@mariusdutoit
@kati_soph the factual basis will dictate the sentence... Murder knowing its Reeva behind door increase 15+ if perceived burglar 15- (10-12)"
"biggest question will be are there substantial and compelling reasons to alter 15 yrs jail up or down"

currently he seems to be bombarded with Qs from OP supporters, but we do know they like to get about.......

 

[sleuth-d-]

I have now listened to Mrs Stipp being cross examined by Oldwage (what a pompous man he is). Oldwage starts at about 21.00 on the link I post below. There are two short sections where the timing of the gunshots is discussed, one can be found (roughly) at around 27.00 and also at around 35.30. Mrs Stipp also confirms the lights were on when she looked towards his house immediately after the first sounds and that the bathroom window was open.

Oldwage presses Mrs Stipp, starting at around 35.30, for her to concede she was still in bed and possibly leaning over her husband looking at the clock when she heard the gunshots. She agrees. So, IMO, the first sounds were very, very near to 02:58. We then have a time period of between16 and 17 minutes between the two sets of sounds. The Defence witness Mrs Nhlengethwa confirms hearing one shot only (this must have been the last shot which woke her). Mr Fossil gives this time between 03:14.13 and 03:14.59.

My only interest in this is to define just how long there was between the two sets of sounds and to confirm (or otherwise) whether OP’s timeline was feasible when he stated it was about 5 minutes between the two sets of sounds. As there is confirmation of the first sounds at very near to 02.58 and the second shots at just short of 03.15 how can OP possibly say that the sets of sounds were only 5 minutes apart?

We know there were no shots reported by anybody around 5 minutes before the second sounds but it is crucially important for OP that there were if we are to believe his story/timeline. He needed the two sets of sounds to be closer together because, as was noted by Carice, RS was still gurgling when he laid her at the bottom of the stairs. Carice arrived after 03.22. We also know from both pathologists that RS would have died very shortly after being shot in the head. She would not have breathed more than a few breaths and if the first sounds were the shots, poor Reeva would have been very dead and not still gurgling around 24 minutes or more after being shot in the head.

The truth must be that the shots that killed her were fired at roughly 03.15 for her still to be gurgling 7 minutes or more later which leads me to the conclusion that OP terrorised RS with the cricket bat (the first sounds) but that he also hit the door at least once more (which split through the bullet hole) to gain access to the toilet cubicle.

Why did Masipa change the timeline and why did Nel not pick up this time discrepancy during the trial OR what have I got wrong?

[video=youtube;9AzYslyjzmY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzYslyjzmY[/video]

This is the last time I shall visit the crime because whatever happened in the trial is now history. Whether the SCA alters the verdict I am sure we shall know in the not too distant future. However, I am not at all confident anything will change but am dying to be proved wrong!

great work. part of the appeal of this website is the amount of detail that people can tease out of the events. not to say that it will change the case, but the cumulative effect of all the hours spent looking into the case on here far outweighs the amount of time that the defence and prosecution can afford to spend imo.

and small details continue to be found.

for instance re-watching some elements recently led me to two things i had not previously noticed:
1. in eic, op mentions that his brother lives close by, which maybe explains where the phone went in the early hours.
2. reeva's iphone and case were separated in the bathroom photos. how? those cases don't just drop off. there was no reason for op to remove the case. which confirmed to me that she did have her phone in the toilet, and dropped it from a height.

 

[Jake18]

BIB, to add to this, I believe Roux recognized that Masipa didn't accept PPD. However, the next step was intent and since there was no intent, Masipa went for CH.

What the PT did was they adjusted their complaint and said that there was error in objecto and the fact that it wasn't Reva in the bathroom, doesn't make a difference, OP still planned on killing whoever was in there and that's why it's murder.

So essentially, we need to determine what was OP's intent that night and that's tough. What was his exact intent the moment he was standing right in front of the door.

There is nothing that can say beyond a reasonable doubt what was going through his mind in terms of intent. To me, the bullets loaded in the gun don't make a difference, what's to say he wasn't going tomorrow to shoot some more watermelons with his friends the next day? Nel never asked him AFAIK.

Yes, if he stood in front of the door for a few minutes before shooting, then he should have had the foresight that his actions could have killed someone, but as Roux explained it in his closing when he slammed his hand on the table, he said there was a noise, OP got startled and shot.

I genuinely don't understand the focus on Oscar's state of mind? How can anyone know, ever? Looking at the facts - according to Oscar - he heard a noise, chose to arm himself and creep stealthily along the passageway with his gun (screaming all the while) then stood outside the toilet door. The act of moving toward the danger with a gun when he had other options infers a particular secondary intention.

What was he then going to do with the gun, throw it at the "intruder"?

Nel was specifically asked by the SCA whether OP's state of mind was relevant and he said, "No".

And Mangena's evidence disproves the panicked "rapid fire" shooting that OP claims. 4 shots, grouped (although the grouping was mainly on Reeva), with a pause after the first shot. Funny that Masipa didn't mention it at all, even to state why she disregarded it. The SCA was interested though.

I am optimistic.

 

[sleuth-d-]

BIB, to add to this, I believe Roux recognized that Masipa didn't accept PPD. However, the next step was intent and since there was no intent, Masipa went for CH.

What the PT did was they adjusted their complaint and said that there was error in objecto and the fact that it wasn't Reva in the bathroom, doesn't make a difference, OP still planned on killing whoever was in there and that's why it's murder.

So essentially, we need to determine what was OP's intent that night and that's tough. What was his exact intent the moment he was standing right in front of the door.

There is nothing that can say beyond a reasonable doubt what was going through his mind in terms of intent. To me, the bullets loaded in the gun don't make a difference, what's to say he wasn't going tomorrow to shoot some more watermelons with his friends the next day? Nel never asked him AFAIK.

Yes, if he stood in front of the door for a few minutes before shooting, then he should have had the foresight that his actions could have killed someone, but as Roux explained it in his closing when he slammed his hand on the table, he said there was a noise, OP got startled and shot.

bib. op stated the noise was the magazine rack - which was at the back of the toilet. reeva was standing facing the door at the opposite side of the cubicle when he fired the first shot.

she could not have moved the magazine rack, and also been standing close to, and facing the door at the same time.

 

[lithgow1]

bib. op stated the noise was the magazine rack - which was at the back of the toilet. reeva was standing facing the door at the opposite side of the cubicle when he fired the first shot.

she could not have moved the magazine rack, and also been standing close to, and facing the door at the same time.

Which then poses the question (on his version) what noise did he hear? If Reeva wasn't standing in the right position to move the magazine rack, and the door never opened, what was this mysterious 'wood moving' sound that prompted him to shoot? As is being said on 'the other site', he had to provide a reason. Because it turned out to be her in there, he can't make up something that would/should have identified her so that is the best he can say. A 'wood moving' noise which became the basis of much back and forth between him and Nel. As Nel kept saying, if you say you heard something, what was it? It wasn't the door, we know that, so what did make this noise that his whole justification for opening fires rests on?

The whole thing is so riddled with implausibilities.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Which then poses the question (on his version) what noise did he hear? If Reeva wasn't standing in the right position to move the magazine rack, and the door never opened, what was this mysterious 'wood moving' sound that prompted him to shoot? As is being said on 'the other site', he had to provide a reason. Because it turned out to be her in there, he can't make up something that would/should have identified her so that is the best he can say. A 'wood moving' noise which became the basis of much back and forth between him and Nel. As Nel kept saying, if you say you heard something, what was it? It wasn't the door, we know that, so what did make this noise that his whole justification for opening fires rests on?

The whole thing is so riddled with implausibilities.

yes, agreed... the most important of the 'three startles'... his whole reasoning for shooting... couldn't have happened.

what do you mean by 'the other site"?

 

[lithgow1]

yes, agreed... the most important of the 'three startles'... his whole reasoning for shooting... couldn't have happened.

what do you mean by 'the other site"?

An English site called digitalspy which has a very active forum on the case. Has done from the start. Not sure if I am supposed to link to it, though I don't see why not so I have pasted it in below. This is the most recent page so you would need to jump back from the page this will take you to. It is sort of similar to here in that most people do not believe the killer's story but there are a few who do. Many of the same issues are discussed. Apologies to the mods if I shouldn't link to this but it seems quite harmless and in the interests of discussion, info etc to do so and you can delete it if I have broken some rule.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2041547&highlight=pistorius&page=294

 

[Sherbert]

I genuinely don't understand the focus on Oscar's state of mind? How can anyone know, ever? Looking at the facts - according to Oscar - he heard a noise, chose to arm himself and creep stealthily along the passageway with his gun (screaming all the while) then stood outside the toilet door. The act of moving toward the danger with a gun when he had other options infers a particular secondary intention.

What was he then going to do with the gun, throw it at the "intruder"?

Nel was specifically asked by the SCA whether OP's state of mind was relevant and he said, "No".

And Mangena's evidence disproves the panicked "rapid fire" shooting that OP claims. 4 shots, grouped (although the grouping was mainly on Reeva), with a pause after the first shot. Funny that Masipa didn't mention it at all, even to state why she disregarded it. The SCA was interested though.

I am optimistic.

IMO, it would be good news if the law in SA were changed, so that, in a case such as this, ie., a case where a wholly innocent person is shot, the burden of proof were reversed, so that the accused has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he shot because he genuinely believed his life was in danger.

 

[aftermath]

Which then poses the question (on his version) what noise did he hear? If Reeva wasn't standing in the right position to move the magazine rack, and the door never opened, what was this mysterious 'wood moving' sound that prompted him to shoot? As is being said on 'the other site', he had to provide a reason. Because it turned out to be her in there, he can't make up something that would/should have identified her so that is the best he can say. A 'wood moving' noise which became the basis of much back and forth between him and Nel. As Nel kept saying, if you say you heard something, what was it? It wasn't the door, we know that, so what did make this noise that his whole justification for opening fires rests on?

The whole thing is so riddled with implausibilities.

Reeva was very close to the door when she was shot. Perhaps she leaned against it to listen to what was going on in the bathroom and it made that creaking noise some wooden doors make in their frames (when leaned on). This could have been the 'wood moving' noise that Pistorius said he thought was the door opening.

 

[mhiforme]

Your post seems to suggest that justice is best served by 'muddying the water' whereas I'd of thought as crystal clear a view as possible is the more desirable option. Of course that is difficult when the only witness to the events is the perpetrator, who is naturally enough out to save his own skin and more than willing to lie to do so.

I don't consider it a vendetta if people dislike the fact that in their view a murderer has 'gotten away with it'. That is why they are hoping that the SCA ruling will go some way towards redressing that. Personally, I consider the sentence he received to be shockingly light given the circumstances and would think that most people who are not 'fans' of the killer would agree. I also think that similar sentences given out in similar cases are too light. Human life is undervalued enough in the world without sentences such as this one devaluing it even further. On the merits of this case only, do you consider 10 months in prison an appropriate length of time for what he did?

When the defence doesn't really have a good case, their job should be to muddy the waters to try and create doubt. Throw s**t at the wall and see what sticks.

 

[mhiforme]

Reeva was very close to the door when she was shot. Perhaps she leaned against it to listen to what was going on in the bathroom and it made that creaking noise some wooden doors make in their frames (when leaned on). This could have been the 'wood moving' noise that Pistorius said he thought was the door opening.

This sounds plausible

 

[akp]

RSBM

Yes, she definitely did misdirect herself as far as her reference to his belief that Reeva was in the bedroom was concerned.

But I don't see how that impacts upon her factual finding that OP lacked dolus vis a vis the intruder.

Even if OP did everything else wrong, surely her acceptance of his belief that he was under attack saves him from DE?

Do you think that excessive force and subjective foresight of death is all that the State needs to prove to win the Appeal?

This impacts her entire ruling, IMO. Coherent logical reasoning is a necessary ingredient in a judgement - if the glaring error in the quoted portion is recognised by the SCA, then they should put Masipa's entire judgement under thorough scrutiny. In particular, `factual findings' that require drawing of an inference, that are arrived at using wrong logic or wrong application of legal principles, or giving no explanation at all should be discarded.

Here, where is the factual finding that OP believed that he was under attack?

 

[lithgow1]

Reeva was very close to the door when she was shot. Perhaps she leaned against it to listen to what was going on in the bathroom and it made that creaking noise some wooden doors make in their frames (when leaned on). This could have been the 'wood moving' noise that Pistorius said he thought was the door opening.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it was just necessary BS. Clutching at doors so to speak. That sounds more likely.

Didn't the door supposedly make a scraping noise from the timber rubbing against the frame when it was opened? Would have to be a very poor fitting door if just leaning on it, while locked, produced a scraping noise.

 

[Mr Fossil]

The State versus Oscar Pistorius
Monty Fossil and Judge Judi take another look at the evidence

Just to say that our site is back (links above and below). Judi and I will be adding more posts soon but I have another commitment to attend to first so the roll out rate will slow (I'll try and get a couple of shorter ones out next). I'll also be updating and adding links to the various resources I've posted in the past (e.g. phone charts, timeline etc.) so that they're accessible in one place.

Reappraising the evidence

• The abrasions on Reeva’s back – impressions of the gun?
• The bathroom window - the moment that everything changed? (coming next)
• The bedroom door – when was it damaged?
• The bullet trajectories – what does the maths tell us?
• The cricket bat – which came first?
• The phone data – was someone awake?

 

[Marfa Lights]

IMO, it would be good news if the law in SA were changed, so that, in a case such as this, ie., a case where a wholly innocent person is shot, the burden of proof were reversed, so that the accused has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he shot because he genuinely believed his life was in danger.

Is that not true in a Prima facie case like this-- where the accused admits unlawfully killing the victim and therefore has to justify his actions??