Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*

[CriLondon]

Hi all , just popped in to say a few things about yesterday's judgement.
First , though, I'd like to thank all of you who have contributed with your posts in the last year (+) , helping to keep this case "alive" , so to speak, allowing me (and many others i'm sure) to keep evaluating it and gather a lot of info. Too many of you to name individually , please just know you were very precious

I have to say that I have mixed feelings about yesterday, and they weren't born out of yesterday's judgement, but the moment Murder DD was out of the window both in the High Court and when Nel confirmed at the SCA hearing that the State wasn't "straddling two chairs".
And so ... I'm torn between "satisfaction that what was legally achievable in terms of a conviction(SCA) ,was achieved" and "is Murder DE the right answer for what happened that night?". It may be legally so , but is it the truth ? Is it what really happened that night?

I take great comfort from June's words that "we have justice for Reeva", if that's what she feels ... I can only be glad about that. Personally , I feel "we have SOME justice for Reeva".
At the SCA hearing Roux asked the panel " If the version of the accused is rejected , with the DD charge having been rejected by the High Court , then why else would he be shooting through the door at 3 in the morning?". As i see it , this was the only problem with this appeal , the DD charge was not on the table , because it is the only answer to Roux's question as to why.

Am I the only one feeling , despite feeling some relief that murder was proved via DE , the result and the truth are still somewhat distant? As it stands OP has been convicted of intentionally killing SOMEONE , with identity not being an issue...but is this what ACTUALLY happened?

 

[Sherbert]

Hi all , just popped in to say a few things about yesterday's judgement.
First , though, I'd like to thank all of you who have contributed with your posts in the last year (+) , helping to keep this case "alive" , so to speak, allowing me (and many others i'm sure) to keep evaluating it and gather a lot of info. Too many of you to name individually , please just know you were very precious

I have to say that I have mixed feelings about yesterday, and they weren't born out of yesterday's judgement, but the moment Murder DD was out of the window both in the High Court and when Nel confirmed at the SCA hearing that the State wasn't "straddling two chairs".
And so ... I'm torn between "satisfaction that what was legally achievable in terms of a conviction(SCA) ,was achieved" and "is Murder DE the right answer for what happened that night?". It may be legally so , but is it the truth ? Is it what really happened that night?

I take great comfort from June's words that "we have justice for Reeva", if that's what she feels ... I can only be glad about that. Personally , I feel "we have SOME justice for Reeva".
At the SCA hearing Roux asked the panel " If the version of the accused is rejected , with the DD charge having been rejected by the High Court , then why else would he be shooting through the door at 3 in the morning?". As i see it , this was the only problem with this appeal , the DD charge was not on the table , because it is the only answer to Roux's question as to why.

Am I the only one feeling , despite feeling some relief that murder was proved via DE , the result and the truth are still somewhat distant? As it stands OP has been convicted of intentionally killing SOMEONE , with identity not being an issue...but is this what ACTUALLY happened?

Absolutely, CriLondon. I'm sure that there are many of us here, myself included, who feel that the verdict is bittersweet, due not only to the loss of Reeva, but, also, to the fact that the opportunity to attain the correct verdict - DD of Reeva - was lost.

 

[Mr Fossil]

'I don’t want to go back to jail. It’s terrible, so disgusting you can’t imagine’: What 'haunted' Oscar Pistorius told friend who ‘betrayed’ him before murder conviction
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...just-days-convicted-murder.html#ixzz3tMIX8zHf

Interview with Kevin Lerena

 

[akp]

Hi all , just popped in to say a few things about yesterday's judgement.
First , though, I'd like to thank all of you who have contributed with your posts in the last year (+) , helping to keep this case "alive" , so to speak, allowing me (and many others i'm sure) to keep evaluating it and gather a lot of info. Too many of you to name individually , please just know you were very precious

I have to say that I have mixed feelings about yesterday, and they weren't born out of yesterday's judgement, but the moment Murder DD was out of the window both in the High Court and when Nel confirmed at the SCA hearing that the State wasn't "straddling two chairs".
And so ... I'm torn between "satisfaction that what was legally achievable in terms of a conviction(SCA) ,was achieved" and "is Murder DE the right answer for what happened that night?". It may be legally so , but is it the truth ? Is it what really happened that night?

I take great comfort from June's words that "we have justice for Reeva", if that's what she feels ... I can only be glad about that. Personally , I feel "we have SOME justice for Reeva".
At the SCA hearing Roux asked the panel " If the version of the accused is rejected , with the DD charge having been rejected by the High Court , then why else would he be shooting through the door at 3 in the morning?". As i see it , this was the only problem with this appeal , the DD charge was not on the table , because it is the only answer to Roux's question as to why.

Am I the only one feeling , despite feeling some relief that murder was proved via DE , the result and the truth are still somewhat distant? As it stands OP has been convicted of intentionally killing SOMEONE , with identity not being an issue...but is this what ACTUALLY happened?

I think you will find many of us are with you there.

Before the judgement day of the original trial, for me it was either DD or DE, and I would have been disappointed if it would turn out to be DE. The ridiculous turn of events that followed has left us in a situation where we are feeling `happy' with DE.
On the evidences presented in the case, the testimonies etc, to me it is a clear case of DD. You would be hard pressed to get a clearer case of DD, IMO. However, because of the legal restrictions on the appeal process where `factual findings' by the trial court can not be questioned, it would have been too risky to travel that path. I still feel it could have been possible, because those factual findings involve application of legal principles and logical reasoning, where Masipa erred badly. But it would not have been as crystal clear or unanimous, and it would have given Roux more ground to put up a fight. Like him or not, he is good, he is very very good. He took it this far despite OP messing up in every possible way during his cross. So it was perhaps natural for the Prosecution team to traverse a relatively safer route this time.

 

[Mr Fossil]

'I never doubted my evidence' - News24 speaks to Oscar ballistics expert
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/i-never-doubted-my-evidence-news24-speaks-to-oscar-ballistics-expert-20151204

Interview with Mangena.

“I was definitely sure he knew it was Reeva behind that door,” Mangena told News24 on Friday.

“I could tell by the way the bullets went through the door and the evidence I collected pointed to that fact. It was not just any intruder he was shooting at, it was Reeva and he meant to kill her.

“I just couldn’t prove it.”

 

[Hope4More]

Many of us may have skeletons in our closets but we are here to defend ourselves. Reeva sadly does not have that option.

The Court has decided that Oscar Pistorious is culpable of the Murder of Reeva Steenkamp and will receive his sentence at an undetermined date with a minimum of 15 years.

He may suffer, he may endure pain, but it will never compare to the loss of Reeva and the loss her parents, loved ones and friends endure daily.

:rose:

I can't speak for mhiform, but I know how I interpreted her post, and it seems to be different than how you did.

None of us use the best possible words all of the time or say things exactly right all of the time (or ever)

I read "skeletons in the closet" in the overall context of the rest of what was being said, and what I understood (and agreed with) is that there is nothing wrong with saying Reeva was no doubt an imperfect human being, as we all are.

I do think it robs victims of their humanity to be considered after the fact as somehow infallible, and I don't see what is wrong about discussing their vulnerabilities -- in context.

That opinion is definitely influenced by the many months I've spent delving into the writings and online communications of another victim (Travis Alexander). Coming to understand how and why he was vulnerable to the ex-girlfriend who ultimately killed him and posting about/discussing those vulnerabilities in that context is in no way disrespectful of him as a person or as a victim.

If anything, it has done the opposite....made the victim entirely real and understandable, and his murder all the more sad. And more certain still, having that discussion in no way whatsoever is an indication of support for his killer or a lack of support for the victim's family.

As I said, I can't speak for that poster, but if that is what s/he was trying to say then I can -and am- speaking up in support for the right to say it.

 

[CriLondon]

Absolutely, CriLondon. I'm sure that there are many of us here, myself included, who feel that the verdict is bittersweet, due not only to the loss of Reeva, but, also, to the fact that the opportunity to attain the correct verdict - DD of Reeva - was lost.

I may be completely wrong about this , but i felt there were more grounds for a re-trial at this appeal(despite nobody wanting it and nobody asking for it) , than a different conviction. For as legally sound as DE is. "In the interest of justice " , IMO , would have been to say: Let's look at this again because mistakes were made.

 

[Hope4More]

The following is from a radio interview with Mandy Wiener who has spoken to many legal eagles about what happens next.

Q. Why is OP being sent back to Masipa for sentencing after the SCA said her finding him guilty of CH was a fundamental error?
A. That’s the way the law works. Judges get it wrong every day. There are appeals and judgments are overturned. It will go back to the trial judge unless she’s deceased or incapacitated. It always goes back to the same judge. Even though she will now hear the whole new sentencing argument, OP can appeal the sentence. He can take the sentence on appeal to the SCA or he could decide to go to the Constitutional Court and can appeal the conviction and sentence there. There will be recourse for both sides if she gets it wrong again.

Q. A lot of people are saying this reflects badly on Judge Masipa and perhaps other High Court judges who get their sentencing wrong, but actually this is just the law at work and none of it is personal and sometimes a judge does err in interpreting the law or applying the facts properly. The SCA is then a check and balance.
A. Very much so. There are countless examples of very highly respected judges that have their rulings overturned. The SCA gets regularly overturned by the Constitutional Court, so it’s not unusual for that to happen.

Q. One other thing people are asking is what happens to OP in the interim between now and when Masipa re-sentences him?
A. I’ve spoken to just about every dodgy criminal lawyer about it. There’s differing legal opinion. What happened yesterday in that judgment, the original conviction and sentence was set aside. The conviction was replaced but there was no sentencing replaced. What they did was sent it back to the High Court for sentencing. So a lot of lawyers that I’ve spoken to say theoretically at the moment OP is actually a free man. He’s not serving correctional supervision because that sentence was aside but he could go out tonight and drink, theoretically, or he could go to Tasha’s for lunch. That could happen because he’s not strictly serving a sentence.

Q. But I’ve heard other opinions from other lawyers who say, “No, the current sentence holds until the new sentence is established.
A. Exactly. So there’s two differing views. There’s one view that says they need to issue a warrant again and have him re-arrested and he has to apply for bail, and then there’s a differing view from other lawyers who say, “The status quo remains, he’s currently busy serving the sentence of correctional supervision. That holds until the High Court hears all new sentencing again sometime next year, probably February, and a new sentence is put in place. So I think what is going to happen today is the Registrar of the High Court is going to have to take a look at Masipa’s original order and say, “How has this been affected?” and determine whether or not a warrant needs to be issued. Top legal minds – everyone that I’ve spoken to – no-one seems to actually know what’s going on because it’s unprecedented. It’s very unusual for someone to be released and then have to be sent back to prison again.

It continues on about mitigation at the next sentencing hearing but I think this is long enough as it is.

http://iono.fm/e/234120?utm_content...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I hope it's accurate. She speaks quickly and the accent doesn't help.

Helpful and balanced article, thanks. I had and still have a lot of respect for Judge Masipa, and am glad SA's legal system works well enough to correct judicial errors...especially as speedily as it has in this case.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan
BREAKING: #OscarPistorius lawyers expected to bring a bail application next week - to keep him out of prison pre sentencing. @eNCA

BREAKING: NPA has obtained warrant for #OscarPistorius arrest - but agreed to only enforce it next week, on day he applies for bail.

State yet to indicate whether it'll oppose bail for #OscarPistorius pre his sentencing proceedings @eNCA

Date for #OscarPistorius bail application yet to be formally confirmed - but hearing it'll probably be on Tuesday @eNCA

 

[Sherbert]

I can't speak for mhiform, but I know how I interpreted her post, and it seems to be different than how you did.

None of us use the best possible words all of the time or say things exactly right all of the time (or ever)

I read "skeletons in the closet" in the overall context of the rest of what was being said, and what I understood (and agreed with) is that there is nothing wrong with saying Reeva was no doubt an imperfect human being, as we all are.

I do think it robs victims of their humanity to be considered after the fact as somehow infallible, and I don't see what is wrong about discussing their vulnerabilities -- in context.

That opinion is definitely influenced by the many months I've spent delving into the writings and online communications of another victim (Travis Alexander). Coming to understand how and why he was vulnerable to the ex-girlfriend who ultimately killed him and posting about/discussing those vulnerabilities in that context is in no way disrespectful of him as a person or as a victim.

If anything, it has done the opposite....made the victim entirely real and understandable, and his murder all the more sad. And more certain still, having that discussion in no way whatsoever is an indication of support for his killer or a lack of support for the victim's family.

As I said, I can't speak for that poster, but if that is what s/he was trying to say then I can -and am- speaking up in support for the right to say it.

True, but, imo, disparaging and misleading remarks were made as to Reeva's motives for being with OP.

 

[Tortoise]

Hi all , just popped in to say a few things about yesterday's judgement.
First , though, I'd like to thank all of you who have contributed with your posts in the last year (+) , helping to keep this case "alive" , so to speak, allowing me (and many others i'm sure) to keep evaluating it and gather a lot of info. Too many of you to name individually , please just know you were very precious

I have to say that I have mixed feelings about yesterday, and they weren't born out of yesterday's judgement, but the moment Murder DD was out of the window both in the High Court and when Nel confirmed at the SCA hearing that the State wasn't "straddling two chairs".
And so ... I'm torn between "satisfaction that what was legally achievable in terms of a conviction(SCA) ,was achieved" and "is Murder DE the right answer for what happened that night?". It may be legally so , but is it the truth ? Is it what really happened that night?

I take great comfort from June's words that "we have justice for Reeva", if that's what she feels ... I can only be glad about that. Personally , I feel "we have SOME justice for Reeva".
At the SCA hearing Roux asked the panel " If the version of the accused is rejected , with the DD charge having been rejected by the High Court , then why else would he be shooting through the door at 3 in the morning?". As i see it , this was the only problem with this appeal , the DD charge was not on the table , because it is the only answer to Roux's question as to why.

Am I the only one feeling , despite feeling some relief that murder was proved via DE , the result and the truth are still somewhat distant? As it stands OP has been convicted of intentionally killing SOMEONE , with identity not being an issue...but is this what ACTUALLY happened?

I feel the SCA did what they had to do to deal with the questions raised by the state, but because Cpt. Mangena's evidence has been brought into the judgement as a basis for the murder verdict, it has left more questions unanswered. Mangena's evidence shows it was a murder with direct intent, a pause in the shots and an adjustment of aim or a move closer. The SCA could not take this to its logical conclusion, because the state did not argue that Masipa had also failed to apply the test of DD correctly, when it really should have done, that has always been my assertion.

The consequence of the SCA rejecting PPD, quite rightly too, is that it leaves OP without a truthful version, and not only that, without a motive for murder. He did not demonstrate that there was any threat to his life, or that he genuinely thought there was such a threat; he didn't even admit that he directed his shots at the person he thought was a danger, which must be a requirement for this defence.

That is quite some problem for any plea of mitigation. Out goes his vulnerability. Out goes the accidental firing and the no time to think/reactive shooting. He has been found to have been untruthful and to have withheld any true account of the incident. With criminal intent, the options are that he either attacked a non-threatening person hiding, or he shot knowing Reeva was in there and that he may kill her. I think the court has a duty to make an inference of the latter in sentencing, with the proviso that he hasn't admitted it and has been dishonest. But it will be an aggravating feature for sentencing, the fact that he hasn't yet given an acceptable explanation.

Can he or will he come to the table late with a confession and a plea for mercy?

 

[akp]

@Mr Fossil and JJ: When do we have your next blogpost? The focus should now shift there - what really happened that night?

 

[Mr Fossil]

@Mr Fossil and JJ: When do we have your next blogpost? The focus should now shift there - what really happened that night?

Good question. The next post is being worked on (and there are a few in the pipeline) but I've just moved house and have a few higher priorities (or so I'm told by Mrs F). LOL!

 

[mrjitty]

'I never doubted my evidence' - News24 speaks to Oscar ballistics expert
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/i-never-doubted-my-evidence-news24-speaks-to-oscar-ballistics-expert-20151204

Interview with Mangena.

Mr Fossil

In you opinion what are critical factors of Mangena's evidence that prove he was executing Reeva?

“When I was called to the scene at Oscar’s house, I was able to see a trail of evidence that no Investigating Officer (IO) could.

 

[LemonMousse]

I can't speak for mhiform, but I know how I interpreted her post, and it seems to be different than how you did.

None of us use the best possible words all of the time or say things exactly right all of the time (or ever)

I read "skeletons in the closet" in the overall context of the rest of what was being said, and what I understood (and agreed with) is that there is nothing wrong with saying Reeva was no doubt an imperfect human being, as we all are.

I do think it robs victims of their humanity to be considered after the fact as somehow infallible, and I don't see what is wrong about discussing their vulnerabilities -- in context.

That opinion is definitely influenced by the many months I've spent delving into the writings and online communications of another victim (Travis Alexander). Coming to understand how and why he was vulnerable to the ex-girlfriend who ultimately killed him and posting about/discussing those vulnerabilities in that context is in no way disrespectful of him as a person or as a victim.

If anything, it has done the opposite....made the victim entirely real and understandable, and his murder all the more sad. And more certain still, having that discussion in no way whatsoever is an indication of support for his killer or a lack of support for the victim's family.

As I said, I can't speak for that poster, but if that is what s/he was trying to say then I can -and am- speaking up in support for the right to say it.

Just to say that some of "Mhiform"'s posts have been removed because they were, frankly, beyond the pale. So many of the responses you're seeing to her are taking that into account too.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Mr Fossil

In you opinion what are critical factors of Mangena's evidence that prove he was executing Reeva?

Mangena's point was that he couldn't prove it. In addition to the points he makes in the article about grouping, if you take a look at our bullet trajectories post you'll see that his most likely positions when 'firing at the toilet door' show him to be moving towards the door. This is neither consistent with his evidence nor with someone who is in fear of an intruder coming out of the toilet. He knew who was in the toilet. The implied time gap to move forward before firing the final three shots is also consistent with ear witness testimony.

 

[LemonMousse]

Good. So if they have a warrant for his arrest then they can actually do something if he tries anything untoward....like going for a stroll towards the nearest airport. Hope they keep an eye on him.

Love Chris Mangena, so glad he was vindicated by this. Will never forget his looks of complete WTF? aimed at Roux when he warbling on about double shots and whatnot. Oh, and Mandy Weiner's funny tweet while he was on the stand....."Sorry, ladies, I spy a wedding ring on Capt. Mangena's finger" <-------- Gutting.

 

[mrjitty]

Mangena's point was that he couldn't prove it. If you take a look at our bullet trajectories post though you'll see that his most likely positions when 'firing at the toilet door' show him to be moving towards the door. This is neither consistent with his evidence nor with someone who is in fear of an intruder coming out of the toilet. He knew who was in the toilet. The implied time gap to move forward before firing the final three shots is also consistent with ear witness testimony.

I wondered more what he was getting at with his comment

I agree with your post which I already read.

 

[Tortoise]

Mangena's point was that he couldn't prove it. If you take a look at our bullet trajectories post though you'll see that his most likely positions when 'firing at the toilet door' show him to be moving towards the door. This is neither consistent with his evidence nor with someone who is in fear of an intruder coming out of the toilet. He knew who was in the toilet. The implied time gap to move forward before firing the final three shots is also consistent with ear witness testimony.

And the implied time gap for Reeva to have been in the position she was in when the last bullet hit her, cowering, from standing upright behind the door.

 

[soozieqtips]

Good. So if they have a warrant for his arrest then they can actually do something if he tries anything untoward....like going for a stroll towards the nearest airport. Hope they keep an eye on him.

Love Chris Mangena, so glad he was vindicated by this. Will never forget his looks of complete WTF? aimed at Roux when he warbling on about double shots and whatnot. Oh, and Mandy Weiner's funny tweet while he was on the stand....."Sorry, ladies, I spy a wedding ring on Capt. Mangena's finger" <-------- Gutting.

BIB - me too. He and Saayman both said Reeva would have had time to scream after the first shot - so 2 experts saying she had time to scream (and Saayman saying it would have almost been an involuntary reaction to the pain) and yet Masipa dismissed them as well.