Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~

[cottonweaver]

Here's a newspaper story to rouse the ire of those who think OP is treated unfairly by the press. Oh wait, it was his aunt who released the photo via twitter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...led-murdering-girlfriend-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

An odd thing to do Lithgow, in the circumstances, wanting privacy and all that.

Even odder that she chooses to re-tweet, just underneath a tweet that implies that most Muslims don't care about the Paris attacks. Think that probably says quite a lot more about her.

 

[lithgow1]

An odd thing to do Lithgow, in the circumstances, wanting privacy and all that.

Even odder that she chooses to re-tweet, just underneath a tweet that implies that most Muslims don't care about the Paris attacks. Think that probably says quite a lot more about her.

Yes, especially since it is obviously a PR type thing to post it - she would know that at least some of the press would pick up on it. Maybe she thinks she can help rehabilitate him in the public eye but that is not likely to happen. Didn't see her Muslim retweet - just the Daily Mail story which I found from a link someone posted on DS. Still she has a history of 'odd' not to mention tone deaf tweets so it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Trotterly]

Originally Posted by Trotterly View Post
Neither Roux nor Masipa ever said that he could not have had intent (DE) because he thought Reeva was in the bedroom. That is an incorrect conclusion started by Prof Grant in his piece about justifying the verdict.

I already found the quote for you before when you asked for it. Then you ignore that she did in fact say it. Then you say this again? Even after Justice Leach made the exact same objection as Prof Grant in Court?

Masipa did not say that intent depended on Reeva in the bedroom. She did say that intent to kill Reeva depended on Reeva in the bedroom. That's an important difference. The misunderstanding arouse because Grant did not understand how Masipa had used error in persona to cover all the possibilities of who might be in the cubicle.


Quote Originally Posted by Trotterly View Post
He had intent to shoot into the cubicle. That was accepted by Masipa, Roux and by Leach at the appeal.

Incorrect.

Masipa found he was in fear for his life and intended to use the gun.
Leach said that he fired at the noise because he was scared that someone was going to attack him.

Quote Originally Posted by Trotterly View Post
The important point is that he was found to be in fear for his life and acting in self defence and in this respect in the first instance he must have thought he was acting lawfully. Therefore how could a non-person specific DE test be applied to unlawful intent for whoever was behind the door if it has already been found he acted lawfully (in his mind) towards an intruder? In those circumstances DE can only be tested against possible unlawful intent towards Reeva.
Pre Justice Leach - not held at all.

So how do you so boldly claim it?

Because it was found as a fact by Masipa. Inconvenient as that might be.

Sorry but it is difficult to reply to your post because of the embedded quotes.

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes, especially since it is obviously a PR type thing to post it - she would know that at least some of the press would pick up on it. Maybe she thinks she can help rehabilitate him in the public eye but that is not likely to happen. Didn't see her Muslim retweet - just the Daily Mail story which I found from a link someone posted on DS. Still she has a history of 'odd' not to mention tone deaf tweets so it wouldn't surprise me.

Thanks for the link - I agree, it is for public consumption. Since the press pay for photos of Oscar and his friend got in trouble for the last selfie, she must have thought it through.
When I scrolled down I see, that unusually now, she is re-tweeting the messages from Pistorian supporters, which she hasn't really done before. Must be cause the case is at the end of the road or feelings/tension is rising about the outcome.

Ultimately after almost 2 years of this charade and an SCA ruling which, I have no doubt, will slap on a few more years and then the irretrievable damage he has done to his reputation ( as you say "rehabilitate him in the public eye but that is not likely to happen") I wonder if she ever thinks he would have been better off, in some ways, to admit shooting in rage?!

 

[Val1]

Do you have a link to Masipa's published judgement handy by the way?

It was just a week or 2 ago Trotterly claimed that Masipa never said this and Grant had it all wrong.

You and I both posted this quote

Now here we are again.

http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/140915OPJudgment.pdf

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here's a newspaper story to rouse the ire of those who think OP is treated unfairly by the press. Oh wait, it was his aunt who released the photo via twitter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...led-murdering-girlfriend-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

Did you notice it said the "now retired judge"?

 

[lithgow1]

Did you notice it said the "now retired judge"?

Yes I did notice that, tucked in right at the very end. Not sure what impact that would have if it does come down to re sentencing. To be honest I'd quite like to see another judge handling it just to see if and how counsel adapt their approach to aggravating and mitigating factors.

 

[Val1]

Yes I did notice that, tucked in right at the very end. Not sure what impact that would have if it does come down to re sentencing. To be honest I'd quite like to see another judge handling it just to see if and how counsel adapt their approach to aggravating and mitigating factors.

That could also be what's causing the delay in the COA's response if there's no definitive road map in the legislation dealing with a decision needing to be sent back to the trial judge who is no longer sitting.

 

[mrjitty]

First you claimed that Grant misquoted Masipa.

Now you say

The misunderstanding arouse because Grant did not understand how Masipa had used error in persona to cover all the possibilities of who might be in the cubicle.

So Grant, a law professor, doesn't understand it. And nor, clearly does Justice Leach

You will need to provide a reasoned argument as to what they got wrong.

Otherwise we have nothing more than Roux's weak argument that clearly Leach did not accept

 

[Val1]

First you claimed that Grant misquoted Masipa.

Now you say



So Grant, a law professor, doesn't understand it. And nor, clearly does Justice Leach

You will need to provide a reasoned argument as to what they got wrong.

Otherwise we have nothing more than Roux's weak argument that clearly Leach did not accept

What seems obvious to me, although only as a regular layperson, is that Masipa ignored in her ruling the PT's charge that it didn't matter who was dead in the end, just that OP had killed a person unlawfully.

 

[Fuskier]

Did you notice it said the "now retired judge"?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...led-murdering-girlfriend-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

"... If the appeal is upheld, Pistorius will have to face his trial judge Thokozile Masipa again to be re-sentenced.
The now retired judge faced death threats after she cleared the sprinter of murder in October last year"...

Does anyone know the implications - if established as true? :waitasec:

 

[mhiforme]

That could also be what's causing the delay in the COA's response if there's no definitive road map in the legislation dealing with a decision needing to be sent back to the trial judge who is no longer sitting.

Retrial in 2016 coming up!

 

[mhiforme]

When are these clowns on the SCA going to announce their decision

It really shouldn't take this long unless there is some serious issue. Seeing as we are just a week away from December, you'd think an announcement would have to be made soon unless they're going to drag it out to next year which would be a real waste of time and undue stress for both Pistorius and Steenkamp's family.

 

[JudgeJudi]

A little more background on Masipa retiring.

One year after the OP trial it was Judge Thokozile Masipa who found herself under gruelling cross-examination during a job interview. Masipa, 67, is among seven candidates vying for the new position of the judge president of Limpopo province in South Africa. On Monday night, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) drew attention to a CV that includes one of the most eagerly watched trials in history – and one of the most contentious verdicts.

Mathole Motshekga, an MP for the governing ANC suggested the controversy could result in a backlash against the new court. he asked Masipa: “What will you do to ensure that the new court doesn’t start to deal with the negative image … don’t you think that that stigma will challenge the image of the new court and if it does‚ what will you do to ensure that the image of that court doesn’t suffer?”

Masipa rejected the premise that she had a negative image.

Mike Hellens, a barrister who sits on the commission, asked how Masipa could be a judge president of a court when she could not control the lawyers in the Pistorius trial.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/14/oscar-pistorius-trial-thokozile-masipa-judge

The above coupled with the scathing comments made by Leach and criticism from other SCA judges must have been the last straw for Masipa. What a humiliating way to end to her career. I hope Helen du Toit gave her a very large bouquet of flowers and will now reflect on her own undoubted input, to say the least, into the judgment.

 

[mrjitty]

What seems obvious to me, although only as a regular layperson, is that Masipa ignored in her ruling the PT's charge that it didn't matter who was dead in the end, just that OP had killed a person unlawfully.

Grant's view is legally the most correct IMO.

It's possible to make sense of what Masipa did (per Roux) and to claim what she might have done.

However the SC is bound by the actual words of the judgement.

And based on those words, we cannot be sure the judge applied the law correctly.

Indeed it seems highly likely she got it wrong!

This is why high quality judge's follow such a rigorous format

1. What are the legal questions to be determined?
2. What are the facts that were established?
3. What inferences should the Court draw?
4. Application of the facts to the legal tests

Masipa screws up by jumping between DE and PPD, and not clearly articulating which factual/legal findings applying to each.

 

[mrjitty]

When are these clowns on the SCA going to announce their decision

It really shouldn't take this long unless there is some serious issue. Seeing as we are just a week away from December, you'd think an announcement would have to be made soon unless they're going to drag it out to next year which would be a real waste of time and undue stress for both Pistorius and Steenkamp's family.

I don't know what your expectation are - but it can take months to get appeal decisions in complex commercial cases!

 

[mrjitty]

aaah, the defence timeline.
some things that dr stipp said were used. but the order changed.

masipa kept them in her timeline, in so doing demonstrating that she didn't check the defence timeline against the evidence given.
e.g.
stipp had begun his call to security after hearing the second noises. [3:16]
stipp had already called security before seeing op in the bathroom.
stipp heard help, help, help after hearing both sets of noises.


looking at the masipa timeline... where did op make his calls from? and how did he fit it all in...

3:17 'second sounds were heard'
3:19:03 op calls stander

two minutes to:
break away door panels
lean over door
retrieve key
unlock door
sit over reeva and cry (for some time)
pull reeva out of the toilet area
pull bathroom carpet under reeva’s head
try her phone but it was passcode-locked
run to the bedroom to fetch 2 phones (why 2?)
run back to reeva
dial stander

doesn’t appear to be much, if any, time to sit with reeva?

Yes - its just doesn't work does it?

This is what I mean that it can't work either way - so instead Roux just has it as indeterminate

If the gap between bangs is 5 mins, +2 until calling stander +3 more at least go to downstairs, we are looking at 9-10 mins - so how is the arterial spray on the wall?

So then we need to get it shorter - but if the gap between bangs is only 2 mins per OPs original version - there is no time for Stipp and Mike N to do all their actions before calling security

And even then, that is still 7 mins for the spray

it quickly becomes apparent therefore, that Reeva was shot not at 3.12 but while Dr Stipp was trying to phone security.

JS: I went back inside the bedroom and I phoned Silver Wood security. There was no answer. I think the phone rang quite a few times. They didn’t answer so I phoned 10111. I think the number must be out of order. I got a funny dialling tone. While I was still busy on the phone thinking what number to dial next, I heard another 3 loud bangs

GN: What did you think that was?
JS: Well, I thought that whoever shot the first time was starting to shoot again and I told my wife to get away from the window.

GN: Why?
JS: Well, I thought that if it was shooting, there may be some bullets come flying our way, so I wanted her to get out of the way, out of possible harm’s way.

GN: What happened then?
JS: I eventually got through to our security and I spoke to the guard on duty and he said – I told him what happened, what I heard, and they must please send someone, and he said yes, they will. They are just waiting for, I think a duty manager or something to arrive and then they will

This places the shooting in the seconds before 3:15:51

And this means possibly only 6 mins - and possible therefore for Reeva (not breathing since 3:15:51) to make that final spray.

Thanks for transcript JJ!

 

[mrjitty]

Mike Hellens, a barrister who sits on the commission, asked how Masipa could be a judge president of a court when she could not control the lawyers in the Pistorius trial.

Damn that is cutting!

 

[Tortoise]

He therefore had 3-4 minutes after shooting before he phoned Stander.

Open (unlocked) toilet door and drag Reeva out of the toilet into the bathroom, where her blood pooled next to the cricket bat already lying there
Hear the security buggy, look out of the window and see security arriving at Stipp's residence
Realise that the damage on the toilet door would reveal more than just bullet holes
Use the cricket bat to lever out the already cracked panels

He then ran to the bedroom where his phone was, to call Stander leaving blood cast off on the wall next to the bed
Thought it would look bad if he hadn't called an ambulance or security for help, so made an alibi silent call to Netcare while he thought about what he would say to security
Made a quick call to security and again cut off the call without saying anything, he had to get Reeva downstairs before anyone arrived - he hadn't had time to check over the bathroom for mistakes
Ran down to open the door with his phone, while security rang him back, told them all was fine
Ran back up and carried Reeva out sideways through the single open door of the double doors.

My other theory is that he already knew, before he killed Reeva, when he picked up his gun, that he would say he thought she was an intruder. That's why he kept a gun under his bed so it wasn't hard to think of a reason for using it. IMO that is also why he had to chase her to the toilet and get her hiding from him behind the door. It explains his mock calls for help. Reeva is calling for help and he joins in. He knows neighbours or Frank might have heard her.

 

[Interested Bystander]

He therefore had 3-4 minutes after shooting before he phoned Stander.

Open (unlocked) toilet door and drag Reeva out of the toilet into the bathroom, where her blood pooled next to the cricket bat already lying there
Hear the security buggy, look out of the window and see security arriving at Stipp's residence
Realise that the damage on the toilet door would reveal more than just bullet holes
Use the cricket bat to lever out the already cracked panels

He then ran to the bedroom where his phone was, to call Stander leaving blood cast off on the wall next to the bed
Thought it would look bad if he hadn't called an ambulance or security for help, so made an alibi silent call to Netcare while he thought about what he would say to security
Made a quick call to security and again cut off the call without saying anything, he had to get Reeva downstairs before anyone arrived - he hadn't had time to check over the bathroom for mistakes
Ran down to open the door with his phone, while security rang him back, told them all was fine
Ran back up and carried Reeva out sideways through the single open door of the double doors.

My other theory is that he already knew, before he killed Reeva, when he picked up his gun, that he would say he thought she was an intruder. That's why he kept a gun under his bed so it wasn't hard to think of a reason for using it. IMO that is also why he had to chase her to the toilet and get her hiding from him behind the door. It explains his mock calls for help. Reeva is calling for help and he joins in. He knows neighbours or Frank might have heard her.

Plus 5 or so minutes before the Standers arrive. They had to get dressed, get in the car and drive a couple of minutes to OP's.

Though RS would have been fatally injured by the head shot her heart may well have beat for a few minutes after this. I know Jake on this forum is an emergency room doctor. Maybe if she sees this she could run us through the time possibilities. I think she has done this before but I have forgotten what it was she said. Maybe someone on here remembers what she said. I know there was a long discussion about possibilities. Obviously RS's heart would have stopped fairly quickly due to loss of blood and blood pressure but she was still gurgling when she was laid on the floor downstairs. That would have to have been up to 10 minutes after being shot if the fatal shots were fired around 03.16. I know in animals there are recorded incidences of the heart beating for another 17 minutes after fatal head wounds but RS also had a severed artery in her upper arm and severe injuries to her thigh.