Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[Lux et Veritas]

I often wonder how the Pistorius clan would have viewed this murder case (same exact circumstances) had Oscar been murdered by Reeva.

Would they still bleat “tragic accident”?

Would they still declare Reeva innocent till proven guilty?

Would they still rush to comfort her every time she broke down and puked with “remorse”?

Would they still defend her partying and hitting on guys 52 days after the shooting as “self-harming” “loneliness and alienation”?

Would they still defend the “grieving” Reeva’s new boyfriend 10 months later?

Would they still plead for “ubuntu”, for correctional supervision with community service as her punishment?

We know the answers.

They would have bayed for unholy blood.

I have zero doubt that Reeva Steenkamp would have been convicted of murder and sent to prison for life.

 

[foxbluff]

Foxbluff, try this link to my Dropbox

Thank you so much, WmM! I'm downloading the Dropbox installer now... this might take a couple of hours to download w/my dialup service, but will be well worth the wait.

Naturally, I will come back here to report whether or not I was able to view the document via Dropbox. Ty.

 

[44ALLAN]

I often wonder how the Pistorius clan would have viewed this murder case (same exact circumstances) had Oscar been murdered by Reeva.

Would they still bleat “tragic accident”?

Would they still declare Reeva innocent till proven guilty?

Would they still rush to comfort her every time she broke down and puked with “remorse”?

Would they still defend her partying and hitting on guys 52 days after the shooting as “self-harming” “loneliness and alienation”?

Would they still defend the “grieving” Reeva’s new boyfriend 10 months later?

Would they still plead for “ubuntu”, for correctional supervision with community service as her punishment?

We know the answers.

They would have bayed for unholy blood.

I have zero doubt that Reeva Steenkamp would have been convicted of murder and sent to prison for life.

And just to go one step further........................how would they have viewed it if it was Aimee he shot one night while she was sleeping over?
Nahh he wouldn't shoot his sister after an argument....................would he !!!!

 

[foxbluff]

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.

Intriguing. I would just like to suggest that, should you be restricted in how much you can share w/us, you might want to consider sharing restricted portions in code... as good sleuths we're able to break codes... you know, the kind whereby each word is slightly misspelled? :floorlaugh:

 

[44ALLAN]

Intriguing. I would just like to suggest that, should you be restricted in how much you can share w/us, you might want to consider sharing restricted portions in code... as good sleuths we're able to break codes... you know, the kind whereby each word is slightly misspelled? :floorlaugh:

Or better still send us all a PM :innocent::clap::waiting:

 

[AW2B]

I'm wondering about Seekoei..

The state didn't touch that subject in their application for leave to appeal. I'm assuming the judge and the defense could raise the Seekoei objection..but I'm not sure at what point in the process they can do that?!
The NPA spokesman stated that they are confident that Masipa will grant their request to appeal. Would that mean Seekoei will no longer have an impact on the appeal..or would that be an issue they will deal with when they petition SCA??

One more question..the state is also appealing the sentence..would that be subject to Seekoei law? I'm thinking it shouldn't ...as they are appealing the sentence imposed for what is considered a competent verdict by Seekoei.

Anyone knows?

 

[ColonelMustard]

Your post reminded me of this article I read the other day, CM -->> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nancy-gr...judge-may-have-gotten-him-off-murder-charges/

Thanks so much for this.

I never thought about the fact that OP might be flirting with JM. I think it's funny that Nancy Grace and Dan Abrms disagree about the effect that would have and I agree with Nancy. In general, I think that women understand women's reactions better than men do and vice versa.

As I have gotten older, I've noticed that I don't THINK I'm older. I still loo at the world through the same eyes I did when I'm 20. When I'm speaking to a really old person I feel old. When I'm speaking to a younger person, I feel young.

For some men (in the US?), this may be why they swap out the older girlfriend/wife with a younger model. In part, it makes them FEEL younger. When I was 40, I thought about moving to Palm Springs, California. When I went to visit, I was horrified. First of all, it's a stratified community of the 1% "have everythings" who patronize all the resorts and the 99% "have almost nothings" who work at the resorts. Moreover, everyone there looked about 90. I started walking slower and became convinced that I needed a cane and needed to stock up on jello and prunes. YIKES!

 

[ColonelMustard]

He, was seated. Masipa gave all the witnesses the choice of standing or sitting. I didn't know this but read somewhere during the trial that whoever is in the witness box is supposed to look at the judge and direct their testimony to the judge, not counsel,because they're addressing the court, not counsel.

In the US, traditionally, the person looks at and addresses the lawyer. As someone somewhere on here, said, expert witnesses will look at the lawyer as the question is asked and then the jury, as they answer. One accused I saw on TV also did that.

I would be paralyzed if I was testifying in XE by MOST US lawyers. It often seems to be about theatrics, here, more than anything else. I started watching the Arias trial and one of the lawyers - the prosecutor? - kept moving around and around and moving his hands in a repetitive manner. I had to stop watching after about 10 minutes of that and asked myself how I'd ever be able to stand that, if I was being questioned by that guy. A lot of other things US lawyers do also make me crazy.

So, last night, I was thinking, if I ever had to testify in a trial facing a "hostile attorney" - they all are - what if I did what OP did. What if I just faced the jury for the questions and the answers? Would the judge tell me that I had to turn around? If so, would I have to or could I say there's no law about where I should look. Or, that I wanted to be able to focus my complete attention on the questions. Or, that I saw it in the OP trial and thought it was a good idea.

I don't know. I just have a feeling judges here wouldn't let me. They'd probably find me in contempt of court!!! I'd have to ask my lawyer to help me figure out a way to do that because it WOULD remove 99% of the intimidation factor.

In the televised US Phil Specter trial - I'm not sure if it was the 1st or 2nd one - a famous lawyer from New York, Bruce Cutler, was LITERALLY shouting at a witness as loud as he could. The judge had to yell over him to be heard and yelled at Cutler to stop immediately, that he wouldn't let him get away with that in his courtroom. (In New York, aggressive ( not assertive) is the standard in MANY exchanges - although I have been told by people who live there that things actually got kinder after 9/11- at least among regular people.

 

[ColonelMustard]

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.

I could be wrong but if the Mystery Man is the guy in the middle pic, above, it doesn't look like Hougaard to me.

 

[Val1]

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.

It would be interesting to hear how he views your bat after shots scenario, especially since I'm still of the camp that OP beat the door, metal plate and possibly the tiles before he went and got his gun. To me the bashing noise of a metal plate and a couple of hard reverberating whacks against a door that possibly resulted in those tiles being dislodged would sound much more like thunderclaps as per OP's buddy CM, than the four gunshots that plowed through the door like butter, three stopped by a soft body and only one ricocheting off the wall. Plus the fact that the sound of the bat whacks would likely not have carried as far as the gunshots and certainly not as far as the screams heard that seemed to be what woke some of the witnesses before they heard the gunshots that killed RS(the final shots having killed her as determined by the ME's timeline with blood splatter etc).

As for your comments about RS's screams coming towards the bathroom(per Mrs. Stipp's), why couldn't they have sounded like they were getting closer as OP broke through the toilet door allowing the noise to then travel directly out the open bathroom window instead of being muffled in the sealed toilet room like it would have been before OP first started beating at the door/metal plate? Also, if OP then went and got his gun while also possibly mocking her(as had been put to Roux) and after the opening was made in the door allowing RS to see what he was returning with, wouldn't that have really intensified her fear and screams before he shut her up?

As for whether there could have been more than four gunshots, possibly, though there is also the possibility that some of those missing bullets were from previous incidents(sunroof, dog, unknown). Just because OP said he usually carries a full magazine doesn't mean it was full that night. Also, would his "one up" be counted as one of the 17 or would be an extra?

 

[ColonelMustard]

So, here's a weird Websleuths Webpages Comments" question.

When I hit "thanks," I variously mean:

- I agree.
- I read your post.
- Haven't seen you around in awhile
- UNbelieveable! (an exclamation)
- Thanks for commenting (no matter what you've said.).
- That's funny.
- I don't agree but respect your opinion.
- That's sad.
- Thank you for thanking me
- That's SO interesting
- You're an excellent sleuther
- Thank you for bringing that to my attention
- That's hysterical
- Hi
- I care.
- I'm sorry to hear that.
- Where did you ever find that!
Other...

What does it mean to the rest of you?

(ps. I wish they had more buttons to better distinguish things.)

 

[AW2B]

In the US, traditionally, the person looks at and addresses the lawyer. As someone somewhere on here, said, expert witnesses will look at the lawyer as the question is asked and then the jury, as they answer. One accused I saw on TV also did that.

I would be paralyzed if I was testifying in XE by MOST US lawyers. It often seems to be about theatrics, here, more than anything else. I started watching the Arias trial and one of the lawyers - the prosecutor? - kept moving around and around and moving his hands in a repetitive manner. I had to stop watching after about 10 minutes of that and asked myself how I'd ever be able to stand that, if I was being questioned by that guy. A lot of other things US lawyers do also make me crazy.

So, last night, I was thinking, if I ever had to testify in a trial facing a "hostile attorney" - they all are - what if I did what OP did. What if I just faced the jury for the questions and the answers? Would the judge tell me that I had to turn around? If so, would I have to or could I say there's no law about where I should look. Or, that I wanted to be able to focus my complete attention on the questions. Or, that I saw it in the OP trial and thought it was a good idea.

I don't know. I just have a feeling judges here wouldn't let me. They'd probably find me in contempt of court!!! I'd have to ask my lawyer to help me figure out a way to do that because it WOULD remove 99% of the intimidation factor.

In the televised US Phil Specter trial - I'm not sure if it was the 1st or 2nd one - a famous lawyer from New York, Bruce Cutler, was LITERALLY shouting at a witness as loud as he could. The judge had to yell over him to be heard and yelled at Cutler to stop immediately, that he wouldn't let him get away with that in his courtroom. (In New York, aggressive ( not assertive) is the standard in MANY exchanges - although I have been told by people who live there that things actually got kinder after 9/11- at least among regular people.

BBM

In the U.S. you certainly can face the jury when answering questions..many experts do just that..actually it's recommended that witnesses face the jury when testifying..

 

[ColonelMustard]

...should have seen the following ad before deciding to have children:

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

:floorlaugh:


**** GENERAL QUESTION FOR ANYONE ****

Who can I ask whether they can switch out the little rolling laugh guy (above) for one of the one's that are on the opening page when you hit the smiley icon in the edit menu?

To get to the laughing/rolling person, I have to click into "More," which is past two things I've never seen anyone use - a yellow cow face and a rabbit sitting in a director's chair (or is that a drum set?) Once I get into "More" I have scroll down to get him/her, a very cute things which is actually used quite often.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

From your link, reasons for appeal:

- Sentence shockingly light.
- Judge did not consider (many factors) to include number of shots; type of ammunition; firearms training; and that Reeva was in a locked room with no chance of escape - bordering on dolus eventualis. (My note: I'd argue it's the bloody definition of DE, if not more. Bordering my left knee!)
- Judge over-emphasised personal circumstances of the accused and erred in considering anxiety, post traumatic stress, and potential remorse.
- Judge erred in over-emphasising rehabilitation and reformation at the cost of retribution.
- Not enough emphasis was placed on the horrendous manner in which the deceased died coupled with the gruesome injuries she sustained when the accused shot and killed her. (My personal fave.)
------------------------------------------------------

I am so grateful they're pursuing this.

So they are not appealing the charge of owning illegal ammunition??? Thank you for posting this summary!

 

[ColonelMustard]

Another weird thing was that Nel got their names(?), any reports, etc., JUST before or as the DT witnesses were testifying.

I don't think it's like that in the US. Both sides get time to prepare, don't they, because full disclosure is universally required?

 

[ColonelMustard]

Gbtaketwo,

This is absolutely ridiculous to say BUT...

1. I know your screen name is G.B. Take Two

2. Every time I see it/glance at it, I think it's an African name.


Gb Ugbekpe

Gb Mazibuko

 

[ColonelMustard]

I often wonder how the Pistorius clan would have viewed this murder case (same exact circumstances) had Oscar been murdered by Reeva.

Would they still bleat “tragic accident”?

Would they still declare Reeva innocent till proven guilty?

Would they still rush to comfort her every time she broke down and puked with “remorse”?

Would they still defend her partying and hitting on guys 52 days after the shooting as “self-harming” “loneliness and alienation”?

Would they still defend the “grieving” Reeva’s new boyfriend 10 months later?

Would they still plead for “ubuntu”, for correctional supervision with community service as her punishment?

We know the answers.

They would have bayed for unholy blood.

I have zero doubt that Reeva Steenkamp would have been convicted of murder and sent to prison for life.

None of that would have been necessary. She would have come clean and been honest from the very beginning and been truly remorseful.

 

[ColonelMustard]

BBM

In the U.S. you certainly can face the jury when answering questions..many experts do just that..actually it's recommended that witnesses face the jury when testifying..

Could I sit facing them the entire time and never ever look at the lawyer?

 

[soozieqtips]

So they are not appealing the charge of owning illegal ammunition??? Thank you for posting this summary!

Yes they are appealing that charge. I think BritsKate was just highlighting specific parts.

"The state is choosing not to appeal the judge’s not guilty verdict on the charges of shooting out of a car and discharging a gun in Tasha’s. They are, however, appealing the not guilty verdict on the charge of Pistorius having illegally stored his father’s ammunition at his home – because they say it has “wide implications for both legal and illegal gun owners”.

The full papers were posted earlier in the thread, but I can't remember where!

http://m.ewn.co.za/2014/11/05/OPINION-Rebecca-Davis-Pistorius-appeal-Clarity-eventualis

ETA - found it. http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/141104NPA.pdf

 

[AW2B]

Could I sit facing them the entire time and never ever look at the lawyer?

I would say a witness would face the lawyer asking the question..but they recommend that the witness should face the jury when answering the question..