Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[KarenUK]

This is from Aimee aged 24 - posted yesterday. I've never known a family with 3 adult "children" like these. Aimee with her 5 year-old drawing, Carl with his Hulk pictures and OP who behaves like a little 3 year-old with his crying and temper tantrums. Henke and Sheila should have seen this add before deciding to have children:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNDuzdanepw

Pass me the green bucket please......

 

[mrjitty]

Just what you’d expect from the always biased Pistorian, Kelly Phelps.

Kelly Phelps says the state is simply challenging Masipa’s application of the rule of objecto.

[I’d say that’s an extremely simplistic way of saying the appeal is challenging the conviction, sentence and the illegal possession of ammunition. It sounds more like paragraphs need to rearranged and adding a few commas here and there.]

The state is saying the judge misapplied the rule of error in objecto and therefore also misapplied the definition of dolus eventualis and the way that the putative defence should operate in this case.

While many legal experts believe the appeal is crucial to get clarity on the interpretation of the law, Phelps believes the judgment was correct and the law should not be altered.

Legal experts are divided on whether leave should be granted, but most agree it will be.

“Phelps says although she stands by her view, she is sure Masipa will grant the appeal. I think that it's very likely she will grant the appeal nonetheless because of all the scrutiny on this case, and I think she won’t want to be seen as protective of her own judgment.”

http://ewn.co.za/2014/11/05/Oscar-Pistorius-prosecutors-want-to-go-directly-to-Supreme-Court

This picture looks like a grandmother lovingly looking on as her grandson is singing the Hallelujah Chorus. I'm hoping he'll next be singing

"When I was just a baby my mama told me. Son,
Always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns".

(Some lyrics from Johnny Cash's Folsom Prison Blues)

I haven't bothered with Phelps since her claim that the real problem was the way the state drafted the Indictment.

We have to be careful with some of these analysts.

Grant has offered detailed and carefully researched legal analysis over some months. Phelps offers media soundbites.

I haven't seen any proper legal argumentation from her as to why Grant is wrong.

Indeed I have seen better argumentation from Grant as to why Grant is wrong.

I tend to be very suspicious of legal analysts who offer a firm conclusion one way or the other on highly contentious issues without having run through the arguments in detail.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Darren Fresco tweeted this 2 weeks ago. It sounds like he's referring to OP. He gets some snarky comments on some of his tweets but it doesn't seem to bother him at all.

"A real man never hurts a woman" (link has more)

http://instagram.com/p/ue9drgP2ng/


Darren Fresco @TheFrisco_kid · Oct 21
At the end of the day, whatever the outcome is nothing is going to change the fact that Reeva is never coming back...

 

[jay-jay]

I didn't mean to identificate FH in earlier times, but now ... you are right, the hairline is exactly the same. The eye area and nose didn't seem to fit (for me), maybe it's only on the photograph/angle. Perhaps it's him, yes. Only more masculine, earthy than usual.
Why was the pic omitted in the process of trial??? This one goes deep (Shane13)? Another SA star!

Again, it does make you wonder, doesn't it .. (I found it on the trial vid by the way .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMPYfZFquM0 at 2:43:56 precisely .. blink and you will miss it! It seems to be sandwiched between two other whatsapp messages between Reeva and OP at around quarter to 11 in the evening, on the 11th* Feb .. very odd!)

*I've gone back and changed my initial post which said the 13th as that's clearly incorrect.

 

[jay-jay]

I am stunned. They both lived in the same house, she was dead in the bath when he went to use it in the morning, the gun and cartridge had disappeared, he did not hear a gunshot, he had residue on his righthand, he was known to have threatened her. How on earth could Chris Mangena have even suggested it could have been suicide with gun and cartridge having been removed? I thought he was good but he has gone down in my estimation. This has to have been a "fix" from within the police force much like the Met Police scandals you mention. It shows just how cheap life is in SA and especially if one is a woman.

BBM - I'm getting to the stage where I just don't know what to think any more :-/

 

[Mr Fossil]

Again, it does make you wonder, doesn't it .. (I found it on the trial vid by the way .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMPYfZFquM0 at 2:43:56 precisely .. blink and you will miss it! It seems to be sandwiched between two other whatsapp messages between Reeva and OP at around quarter to 11 in the evening, on the 11th* Feb .. very odd!)

*I've gone back and changed my initial post which said the 13th as that's clearly incorrect.

The picture appears between the WhatsApps on the 13th but has nothing to do with them. Moller gets to the message preceding the picture by locating WhatsApp message number 58836. When he goes to continue on to the next message, he in fact inadvertently finds the picture which appears to be from a phone number ending 58836. The date and time of the picture are unknown.

 

[LemonMousse]

Bro, I can FEEL your passion ...THANK-YOU for sharing your outrage!!! Sometimes, I don't think there's ENOUGH outrage in the world, especially about justice.
I don't recall being aware that you were a other-than Nel fan, in terms of how he prosecuted the case. I probably just missed it, overwhelmed by my surprise that we had been separated at birth!
Thank you for saying so and explain why you feel the way you do about Nel's job.

As far as his asking for 10 years like he did, I truly have NO idea what that was about but my gut feeling, at that moment was that he was signaling to her that if she gave him 10 years the State wouldn't or might not consider an appeal (of the sentence). Again, I don't know.
Your last line is HILARIOUS:
"Sorry to all you Nel supporters out there but I could have prosecuted the case better than this and I'm an Electrician fgs !
Snipped by me.

Nel blew the trial as far as I was concerned by losing his way on too many occasions.
His XE dragged on and on even after he had made good points.
Then next session he would come back and ask the same questions all over again and it became confusing.
He should have stuck to the points then moved on.
He also 'missed' so many opportunities it is unreal.........." what happened to the Lady" is a prime example.

He also allowed Roux to muddy the waters too much without rebuke.
I mean c'mon Roux must be giggling away to himself after winning with the hand he was dealt !

As for asking for 10 years.......how does that work?
He argued for 7 months that OP knew it was Reeva behind the door and he murdered her.
He should have said that when asked the question.
"M'lady it is the states case that Mr.Pistorius knowingly murdered the deceased and should be punished with the full force of the law".
10 years yeah right !! Doesn't make sense at all IMO

I think you are being a bit unfair to Nel, to be honest.

It is a common and generally effective tactic for barristers and advocates to keep asking the same questions, phrased differently. It's taught in trial advocacy classes. It will often cause a liar to stumble,as indeed Pistorius did. The judge is on hand to put a stop to obvious repetition, but if a question is not properly answered then it's perfectly in order to ask again.

Jumping around from subject to subject is also deliberate and tactical, for the same reasons.

Nel's cross of all of the defence witnesses was quite brilliant - barely any of them came away with their credibility intact. Wollie survived, I think, as did Lin....but no one else. Certainly not Pistorius himself.

And, sorry, but Nel could not possibly have argued at the sentencing that "it's the state's case he knew it was Reeva". A verdict of CH was delivered and he had no option at that time but to accept it until he could appeal. He was arguing for a sentence commensurate with gross negligence resulting in culpable homicide. To do anything else would have been seen as deeply disrespectful to the court and would possibly have derailed the whole proceedings.

Having said all that, he did not run a perfect case...he should have sorted the timeline as best he could and hammered home the now famously misunderstood testimony regarding the bat strikes from Vermuelen - but the fact remains that it is a distinct possibility....probability, even.... that a more sensible judge would have passed down a murder verdict....even if it was DE rather than DD. So, really, Nel did not do such a bad job after all. Masipa did a shockingly bad one, IMO, and that is not Nel's fault.

I share your outrage Allan, though - I think most of us do

 

[ColonelMustard]

VAL1,

TWO ADDITIONS to Kitchen Books:

Bomb Hunters: In Afghanistan with Britain's Elite Bomb Disposal Unit

by Sean Rayment

Danger, technology and teamwork come together in this program about a group of young soldiers, the US Army's 23rd Engineer Company. These Sappers are charged with clearing routes in southern Afghanistan and disarming the military's number one threat: IEDs. This is an up close and personal story of individual courage, trust and teamwork as lived by the soldiers who are there.


The Millionaire Code: 16 Paths to Wealth Building (BEST GUESS SO FAR)

by Paul B. Farrell

"To make your savings grow, you need to know three things: the way the markets work, the way market history works, and the way you work. Let Paul Farrell take you on an enlightening, enjoyable, and profitable journey to the inner self of the successful investor."

 

[foxbluff]

From some of the courtroom tweets I saw during OP's testimony, it seemed that he was looking at Masipa rather then Nel.

It would just seem weird for him to be looking at Masipa having a one way conversation. I do have a feeling though that this was a defence ploy. Nel can be intimidating and if you don't look at him and his hand or facial gestures but only listen to his voice, you stand a better chance of getting through the cross, though this may not have been the case with OP for other reasons.

BBM - It's difficult (and awkward) for laymen when testifying in court to remember to direct their answers to the Judge (in the case of a bench trial) or otherwise to the jury.

In cases where a lawyer happens to be on the witness stand, you're very likely see her/him look directly at the lawyer asking the question and then turn and face the Judge/Jury when replying. Some seasoned expert witnesses seem very comfortable doing that, also. imo

 

[44ALLAN]

I think you are being a bit unfair to Nel, to be honest.

It is a common and generally effective tactic for barristers and advocates to keep asking the same questions, phrased differently. It's taught in trial advocacy classes. It will often cause a liar to stumble,as indeed Pistorius did. The judge is on hand to put a stop to obvious repetition, but if a question is not properly answered then it's perfectly in order to ask again.

Jumping around from subject to subject is also deliberate and tactical, for the same reasons.

Nel's cross of all of the defence witnesses was quite brilliant - barely any of them came away with their credibility intact. Wollie survived, I think, as did Lin....but no one else. Certainly not Pistorius himself.

And, sorry, but Nel could not possibly have argued at the sentencing that "it's the state's case he knew it was Reeva". A verdict of CH was delivered and he had no option at that time but to accept it until he could appeal. He was arguing for a sentence commensurate with gross negligence resulting in culpable homicide. To do anything else would have been seen as deeply disrespectful to the court and would possibly have derailed the whole proceedings.

Having said all that, he did not run a perfect case...he should have sorted the timeline as best he could and hammered home the now famously misunderstood testimony regarding the bat strikes from Vermuelen - but the fact remains that it is a distinct possibility....probability, even.... that a more sensible judge would have passed down a murder verdict....even if it was DE rather than DD. So, really, Nel did not do such a bad job after all. Masipa did a shockingly bad one, IMO, and that is not Nel's fault.

I share your outrage Allan, though - I think most of us do

Your perfectly right of course I was just venting my disapproval in the wrong direction.
I'm still very disappointed in Nel though.
He was dealt a full house with the witnesses and the evidence at the beginning of the trial and was out bluffed by Roux with a pair of two's !!

The defence witnesses,to be fair,were easy meat for someone of his caliber especially when none of them had any reports lol.
All in all I think Nel will feel embarrassed that he didn't win the case and get a verdict of at least DE...........although we all know that is what Masipa seems to have painstakingly tried to avoid..............Roux will be ecstatic at the result he got ( up till now) with the crock of XZXZ he started out with.
My guess is he had already told OP and the family that the evidence against him was too strong to avoid at least 15 year in prison.
That's what I thought anyway and 95% of the lawyers I watched on tv said the same until Masipa changed the rules with her assessors !
Interesting times ahead methinks.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

In reply to VAL1 's post .
Every time I see that picture of the pillows propped up against the headboard it makes my blood boil thinking that a judge could accept his version of events of them both being asleep from around 10.30 . Who sleeps with the pillows like that . I am still astonished by the verdict even after having a few weeks to think about it .
If this verdict is not overturned at appeal I truly worry about the consequences and how many more women in SA might loose there lives by men using the excuse ,sorry thought it was an intruder !!

 

[Mr Fossil]

There seems to have been a glitch accessing OneDrive today, so some users (including me) may have received strange messages when they followed my links. It looks to have all been sorted now. Sorry if you were affected - blame Microsoft!

If you're interested, take a look at Key questions as there are a lot more points discussed (and more to come). Links to all the other resources can be found on the last page of KQ should you need them or on page 1 of this thread, post #3.

 

[foxbluff]

The grounds are nothing like I expected. Application for appeal against sentencing is quite brutal and full of hyperbole - I was expecting a load of legal jargon.

Maybe a tad too many whereases in the grounds for appeal against the verdict? : )

Nel and Johnson certainly haven't pulled their punches.

Ty. It appears that your post is going to be the most I know about the appeal as, for some strange reason, Adobe Reader failed to download link @zwie kindly provided and Scribd wouldn't let me open their copy
without paying. After logging off here yesterday, I spent an hour and a half trying to open original link and trying to Google up any site (and failing) which might carry the transcript... Grrrh....

OK, rant over...

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I wish someone had been hired to tweet ONLY about things going on in the background, like (hypothetically) "Amy is giving dirty looks to..," "Nel really laughted at...," "It's too hot and humid in here.," "Every time Masipa comes in, OP is always the last to sit down," "OP has been standing up for the last 4 hour of his testimony.", "So and so had lunch with ___", etc.

That's where I'm coming from. I just want to know.

I don't mean that OP would have been intimidating her, just looking at her. Someone/s here mentioned that OP never once looked at Nel during his testimony. That means, I think, that he kept his eyes glued on Masipa the whole time. If so, it seems like it would be really weird.

Originally Posted by KarenUK
Is that the Jodi Arias technic?! She would refuse to look at Martinez and address all the statements to the Jury - very odd to watch. I think that was an attempt by her to "connect" with them. Seems to have worked better for OP than her mind you.

OP is the worst kind of coward. He was “man” enough to shoot a helpless woman with Black Talons but not man enough to face his accuser. A man telling the truth has no reason to hide.

That he refused to be televised during his testimony screams volumes - he couldn’t risk the world seeing the lies in his eyes, his every word (body language will rat you out).

No matter - his voice, endless evasiveness, weasel words and calculated theatrics gave him away. He kept his eyes glued to Masipa like a two year old to mommy because he couldn’t face Reeva & the Truth in Nel’s eyes.

Had he been forced somehow to actually LOOK at Nel, he may have come totally unglued and confessed. Indeed, I thought he surely would break when Nel asked him if Reeva screamed after he fired.

31 SECONDS of SILENCE.

Gah!, if Nel had only let him stew in his own juice without saving him by speaking and breaking that damning silence.

And of course, Masipa never once questioned that Silence that said Everything.

 

[WilliamMunter]

Ty. It appears that your post is going to be the most I know about the appeal as, for some strange reason, Adobe Reader failed to download link @zwie kindly provided and Scribd wouldn't let me open their copy
without paying. After logging off here yesterday, I spent an hour and a half trying to open original link and trying to Google up any site (and failing) which might carry the transcript... Grrrh....

OK, rant over...

Foxbluff, try this link to my Dropbox

 

[WilliamMunter]

There seems to have been a glitch accessing OneDrive today, so some users (including me) may have received strange messages when they followed my links. It looks to have all been sorted now. Sorry if you were affected - blame Microsoft!

If you're interested, take a look at Key questions as there are a lot more points discussed (and more to come). Links to all the other resources can be found on the last page of KQ should you need them or on page 1 of this thread, post #3.

Mr F, I am so very impressed with the amount of work you have put into all your analyses; truly outstanding and worthy of publication to a much wider audience. Many many thanks.

I see from the SAPS website there is a link where one can ask for access to certain information they hold, and the site has all the relevant application forms. From a cursory look, it appears as though you need to have a SA identification number but I'm sure that could be circumvented if you are so inclined. It looks a complex procedure but I hope you have given that some consideration. With more facts, I'm positive your analytical mind could shed so much more light on what really happened that night.

 

[foxbluff]

Arnold can say whatever he likes to whoever he likes, but he is not Roux's client. Arnold may have suggested this restriction to OP but Roux would not be taking instructions from Arnold. If both Arnold and OP attended a conference together with Roux, Arnold may well have raised it, but only OP can tell Roux he wants the restriction lifted.

BBM- Ty. That's one of the points I was trying to make yesterday.

Roux is sharp lawyer. Imo the moment he learned of the alcohol restriction he knew that he would be applying to have it lifted. OP imo would have instantly agreed with Roux, leaving no time (or need) for Uncle A. to be the first to suggest it.

 

[Interested Bystander]

This is from Aimee aged 24 - posted yesterday. I've never known a family with 3 adult "children" like these. Aimee with her 5 year-old drawing, Carl with his Hulk pictures and OP who behaves like a little 3 year-old with his crying and temper tantrums. Henke and Sheila should have seen the following ad before deciding to have children:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNDuzdanepw

Oh dear. All three seem to be avoiding adulthood at any price.

Of interest to me was to see that Oscar was sent the tweet as well as Carl. What would be the point unless OP has either a Smart Phone or a computer in his cell (probably both)? More special treatment? I would love someone to sneak a photo of his cell out. Carpets, curtains, TV, easy chair, computer, phone, fridge full of goodies? OK, I am going into overdrive now. :jail:

 

[Mr Fossil]

Mr F, I am so very impressed with the amount of work you have put into all your analyses; truly outstanding and worthy of publication to a much wider audience. Many many thanks.

I see from the SAPS website there is a link where one can ask for access to certain information they hold, and the site has all the relevant application forms. From a cursory look, it appears as though you need to have a SA identification number but I'm sure that could be circumvented if you are so inclined. It looks a complex procedure but I hope you have given that some consideration. With more facts, I'm positive your analytical mind could shed so much more light on what really happened that night.

Thank you. I am in dialogue with Captain Moller re same and awaiting further feedback though not sure what I'll be able to post.

 

[AW2B]

Does anyone remember 'Mystery Man'? .. i.e. the photo of a man that flashed up on the court's screens as they were going through Reeva's whatsapp messages .. I said at the time I saw it that I thought it looked like Hougaard and I'm still fairly certain that it was him (although it's not a particularly good photo of him) .. Mystery Man has the exact same hairline and facial hair as Hougaard ..

View attachment 62823
View attachment 62824
View attachment 62825

.. I can't remember which day it was that the photo appeared in Reeva's whatsapp messages now though, but I'm pretty certain they were talking about the 13th at the time the picture flashed up .. I would need to go back and check the trial video of that bit again though, to verify.

This is a great find JJ! I googled "Francois Hougaard" pictures. There are a lot of pictures where he looks almost the same as the picture in the message. That could have been the reason for their arguments. Even it it was someone else..that could have caused Pistorius to be very angry/jealous. What time was that message received?

The prosecution never talked about this message??? AMAZING!