Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[vansleuths]

I don't know, jay-jay. I don't think any of us could say for sure what we might be capable of, given the right (wrong!) situation.

You are right Cherwell, in a perfect storm, you just never know what you will do.

How many of us would ever jump out of a skyscraper window? Probably none of us, but on 9/11, that's exactly what people in the World Trade Center were doing.

Under the right pressures, anything could happen.

 

[soozieqtips]

I reckon that tiny minority, would quickly change to an equally tiny majority if there was a nuclear cataclysm, food, water, medicines and energy were scarce. Can't recall who but someone important once said something to the effect that man was the same as any other animal but with a thin cover of civilisation on top.
Ever read the novel, 'Lord of the Flies'?

BIB - yes, I've read it. It's a good work of fiction. However, it doesn't change the fact that over 50 million people in the UK are still not murderers, and that's what my post to jay-jay was about. In the here and now, there is a tiny minority of people who murder.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Originally Posted by Judgejudi
One shocking aspect of Masipa’s judgment was the fact that she got Reeva’s injuries completely wrong. Prof. Saayman testified as to her injuries and Chris Mangena explained in great detail inter alia the order of the shots and which part of her body was hit with each of three bullets.

“The deceased sustained a wound on the right thigh,...”
Wrong. The first shot shattered her right hip.

“... a wound on the left upper arm ..., “
Wrong. The second shot almost amputated her right upper arm.

She later went on to say that the injuries were on the head, on the right upper arm, the right groin and the right hand between two fingers.
Wrong. This is the second mistake regarding this injury. It was the right hip.

Masipa also chose to ignore the fact that Saayman said he would be surprised if Reeva hadn’t screamed after the shot to the hip.

Once again, Masipa ignored, ignored, ignored all this evidence. She had one full month to write her judgment, if indeed she wrote it herself at all. Not only did she not remember the injuries, but she obviously did not review the transcript to make these gross errors. Therefore it’s fair to assume she may not have read much, if any, of it at all. Quite apart from so many other issues with the judgment, this one aspect alone speaks volumes. IMO Masipa is totally inept. I am absolutely seething.

The injuries mentioned in the judgement are certainly inaccurate, but I'm not sure their accuracy would have had a huge impact on her decision. Ignoring Saayman certainly would, of course.

I've said on here before ... I think the level of debate between members on here and the collective time spent by members on this case, gives us a much more detailed analysis than Masipa and 2 assessors could hope to have. I honestly think a lot of subtle points made by Nell were just completely missed by the court. What was on the surface, a simple case, became increasingly complex and tangled. Masipa's hearing also concerned me, when she asked OP to speak up so she could hear him. I wonder what else did she not hear during the proceedings?

As far as ignoring evidence is concerned, I guess she would have to dismiss some evidence no matter what her conclusion. There didn't appear to be a judgement which could take into account all the evidence and still fit. I believe, rightly or wrongly, she went with her gut reaction and then tried to assess how much evidence supported this view. Anything that didn't, she had to find an excuse for it's exclusion. It would have been the same process if she had decided he was guilty of murder and it would be an interesting exercise to see which pieces of evidence she would have to dismiss for this conclusion. I'm struggling to think of any apart from OPs own testimony. I think that tells us something !

Thinking on Masipas preceived bias ... Before the shooting, OP was seen as a national hero. He was seen as a kind of figurehead for SA, a global representative for their people. Trying their national sporting hero on a global public stage must have brought a lot of subconscious bias to the process. Many in SA would feel finding OP guilty of murder would be damaging to SA itself. A loss of an important person for them on the global stage. Perhaps this was part of Masipas subconcious bias. You can still see a lot of OP supporters clinging to the wreckage and refusing to believe he did anything wrong. They still want to believe that he is their hero, someone they looked up to, were inspired by and they can't face losing this.

When one has strong core beliefs (in this case strong beliefs in OP as a good person), it is natural to look for reasons to support or even strenghten those beliefs. Most people do not look for reasons to destroy those core beliefs, especially if they have invested a lot of emotion during their lives in supporting those core beliefs.

All just my opinion ... for what it's worth.

Masipa getting the injuries wrong is 100% inexcusable.

It says that she’s a) totally incompetent b) didn’t give a crap about RS or c) both.

It’s wholly damning and gives us clear insight into her alarming mentality.

Seriously, how hard is it to get the injuries correct (especially with two assessors at your side)?

If she made such a glaring error regarding the injuries, is it any surprise the rest of her judgement was a flaming train wreck?

I think Masipa&#8217;s CH/10 months prison damaged SA far more than a conviction of murder/15 years would have. It proves that <modsnip>

<modsnip>

Poor Peet van Zyl must curse OP every time he goes to sleep.

 

[JudgeJudi]

9 December is the date for the application for leave to appeal, not the appeal itself.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Meanwhile, from the Keepin&#8217; It Real Department . . .

Apparently, appeals can be freakin roller coaster rides.

In the case below, the High Court (12 years sentence) was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeals (20 years sentence), which was then overturned by the Constitutional Court (12 years sentence).

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/b84ea8...-Cweles-sentence-reduced-to-12-years-20132108

 

[JudgeJudi]

The killing of Reeva Steenkamp made it clear that no woman can presume to be safe in her own home

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-to-them-is-a-global-phenomenon-9730294.html

Extremely well-written article. There's a poll down at the bottom and I'd urge all to vote.

 

[soozieqtips]

You are right Cherwell, in a perfect storm, you just never know what you will do.

How many of us would ever jump out of a skyscraper window? Probably none of us, but on 9/11, that's exactly what people in the World Trade Center were doing.

Under the right pressures, anything could happen.

BIB - How is jumping to your death to escape searing heat and unbearable pain related to killing someone in a fit of rage? I thought we were talking about how "all" humans are capable of doing the most dreadful things, as in OP's crime being something any one of us might have committed if the circumstances were right.

We may all be capable of doing horrible things, but for the vast majority of us, those horrible things don't extend to killing someone, no matter what the circumstances, unless it's genuine self defence and it's kill or be killed. For example, if Reeva had been able to overcome OP and shoot him dead, that would have been "understandable, and even excusable" as she would literally have been fighting for her life.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Meanwhile, from the Keepin’ It Real Department . . .

Apparently, appeals can be freakin roller coaster rides.

In the case below, the High Court (12 years sentence) was overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeals (20 years sentence), which was then overturned by the Constitutional Court (12 years sentence).

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/b84ea8...-Cweles-sentence-reduced-to-12-years-20132108

In this case it wasn't a rollercoaster ride. Rather that wading through another judgment, I found a media summary prepared by the Constitutional Court. I’ll just quote the most relevant part which explains why it overruled the SCA's increased sentence and reduced it to the original sentence of 12 years:

"The majority held that the failure (by the State) to apply for leave to appeal the sentence goes to the root of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Appeal in relation to the increase of sentence. It is fatal to the increase imposed by that Court, because it means the Supreme Court of Appeal simply did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue of an increase in sentence. The Majority held that the appeal should succeed and the sentence of 20 years imposed by the Supreme Court of Appeal must be set aside. The High Court sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment must be reinstated".

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2013/17media.pdf

Words in brackets are mine.

 

[Sherbert]

Dang... I only went and missed it! Just popped downstairs for a bite or two and Bob's my uncle the appeal has already been heard !
;&#8226

Seriously though, and no offence intended just a joke, but when the appeal has been heard and Masipa's judgement picked to pieces, changed to Murder and any impartiality exposed for the world to see leaving her reputation in tatters and her name synonym of ignominy for generations to come of the SA judiciary, only at that point could I consider the argument of whether Greenland CJ's comments served to increase public confidence or detract from it since to date her judgement has not been found wrong whether in law, facts, or anything which is precisely the reason for the appeal. And btw, did you read some of the State's submissions? I commented a couple of weeks back I hoped Grant would be formulating them... he hasn't!

Lol! None taken

I cannot agree, though, that the merits of Judge Greenwood's opinion are dependent on, and cannot be evaluated prior to, the opinion of the Appeal Court.

Apart from the fact that Masipa's rather alarming findings of fact are likely to stay put, who is to say that the Appeal Court judges won't be as batty as her?

I, for one, am encouraged by the knowledge that there is at least one member of the judiciary out there who seems to have retained his common sense and is not too faint-hearted to speak up when the majority of the public is feeling disheartened.

 

[4MrsB]

The killing of Reeva Steenkamp made it clear that no woman can presume to be safe in her own home

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-to-them-is-a-global-phenomenon-9730294.html

The above article states "a woman is killed by her intimate partner every 8 hours in S.A.".

Makes me sick. How could this be allowed to continue at this alarming rate?

Obviously, not many of those "intimate partners" serve much time behind bars. With 1 killing being committed every 8 hours (in addition to all the other crimes), the inmates would likely be stacked to the ceiling, and then some. :behindbar :jail: :behindbar :jail:

 

[JudgeJudi]

His cell is reportedly two metres by three metres in size with a small cupboard, a bed, a washbasin and a toilet. He has no TV or access to a mobile phone, and shares a shower room with another prisoner in the adjoining cell.

Pistorius was instructed to remain quiet after he initially spent several days crying and reportedly sobbing himself to sleep.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/no-early-exit-prison-oscar-pistorius-due-his-prosthetic-legs-1474131

If he keeps this up and gets his fellow inmates offside they'll give him a bit more to cry about. I've never heard of a male (I can't call him a man) crying like this ... under ANY circumstances. OP has many lessons to learn about life and I don't think he's even started down that road yet.

 

[Cherwell]

The killing of Reeva Steenkamp made it clear that no woman can presume to be safe in her own home

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-to-them-is-a-global-phenomenon-9730294.html

Yeah, but Reeva would have been safe in her own home, wouldn't she? :shakehead:

 

[MsMarple]

I found this comment by Reeva's mom interesting, especially the part I bolded because early on one of my working theories was that Reeva locked herself into the toilet and Oscar attempted to shoot the lock, missed, realized that he had hit her and so decided to make sure she'd never tell anyone. This was many threads back and I kind of remember someone refuting it - it must have been a good response because I discarded that theory but still...

Reading a thought along similar lines from June makes me wonder if she believes the earwitness testimony about the pause between shots. That pause just haunts me - so much can happen in a second or two and it fits perfectly with Reeva's death being the result of an argument. Makes my heart break all over again for Reeva, her family and her friends.

“Not one of his actions suggests he felt protective towards her. They had a fight, a horrible argument, and she fled to the bathroom with her mobile and locked the door.

“I think he may have shot once and then he had to go on and kill her because she would have been able to tell the world what really happened, what he is really like.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ar-pistorius-killed-her-daughter-9852187.html

 

[JudgeJudi]

Barry Bateman @barrybateman · 10h 10 hours ago
The report that Pistorius can&#8217;t be released on correctional supervision because a monitoring device can&#8217;t be fitted to is ankle is BS...

Barry Bateman @barrybateman · 10h 10 hours ago
From the DCS Act: "The electronic monitoring device must be fitted to the ankle or wrist without causing a risk to the person&#8217;s health

Barry Bateman @barrybateman · 10h 10 hours ago
Correctional Services Act on Community Corrections - http://www.acts.co.za/correctional-services-act-1998/index.html &#8230;

Barry Bateman @barrybateman · 10h 10 hours ago
Lets settle any confusion - I&#8217;m saying that it has been incorrectly reported that the law precludes offenders from wearing wrist monitors.

 

[ColonelMustard]

@JudgeJudi ... I think we are on the same page.

I had understood that the reporting of the injuries were just an example of inaccuracies and that means there will be more.

I support your thoughts on her taking too shallow a view of the case. For me, the explanation may be that she was just looking for a simple answer and didn't want to (lazy) or couldn't (lack of experience/poor team analysis/not intelligent enough) take into account the more complex aspects that arose. IMO, she was trying to find a way to ignore the complexities, rather than explain them .... whilst this forum thrives on the complexities and small details, which I appreciate. Without this forum I would have missed a number of details which would guide one towards a guilty or not-guilty judgement. I think she did too.

When she was so quiet during the proceedings, I was suspicious. When she did ask a question, it always appeared to be cringe-worthy. I thought she wasn't asking many questions because she didn't want to appear foolish in front of a world audience or wasn't following the proceedings very well (perhaps her poor hearing came into play during live testimony). She needed things spelling out for her and if they weren't, she tried to find a way to ignore them rather than analyse them.

I'm hopeful that all these shortcomings will be overcome by the appeal process.

On any NUMBER of occasions during the trial, when either Roux of Nel brought something up, she said, "I was just going to say/ask that." Once would fly with me but over and over, again?

 

[ColonelMustard]

.. from that link ..



BBN .. what's new? :facepalm:



BBM - well, it will be won't it, he's only got about 9 months left to serve now.

Hopefully, more ...a LOT more!

 

[ColonelMustard]

BBM .. agree with the rest of your post, but not the BBM .. I don't believe that it's a situation (i.e an act of domestic violence) that just about 'anyone' could find themselves in, as it is only those who are violent abusers in the first place who would be capable of murdering (or even harming) their partner simply because they flew into a rage. Over a hundred women a year are killed in those exact circumstances in this country (UK), and it isn't acceptable in any shape or form, so even if he admitted to it right from the off, it would still make him a vile murderer just like hundreds of other men who kill their partners (or ex partners). He deserves no sympathy whatsover, imo, just that it makes it even more sickening that he's been able to lie with such ease, under oath to his god.

In a past post, I went into all the details - I think you could find it if you wanted to - in which I admitted that "there but for the grace of god go I" (not within the context of DV but rage).

Never say never.

 

[ColonelMustard]

:

It looks as if this is your first post. Welcome! :welcome6:

Re your question...I know the entire trial is available on youtube.com , but I can't answer your question re transcripts. I believe transcripts exist of most everyone's testimony (except perhaps the M.Examiner's), but I don't know where they're archived. I am sure others on this thread will be able to help you soon with that question.

Just wanted to say, "WELCOME Bergi".

Seconded! :fence:

 

[ColonelMustard]

So let me get this clear (because I'm a total novice at all this but the one thing I do have is an opinion................my dad always used to say................everyone has an opinion and their entitled to it.

Do you believe Masipa's judgement was correct or are you saying until it is/maybe over ruled then it stands as given.
Where do you stand with the evidence you have heard?
Do you believe the ear witnesses?
Do you believe he knew it was Reeva in the toilet and executed her?

I do and just wondered about your thoughts/opinions?

MY dad!? Don't you mean OUR dad! :fence:

From him, I learned, "I may not be right but I ALWAYS have an opinion!" :blushing:

 

[akp]

I found this comment by Reeva's mom interesting, especially the part I bolded because early on one of my working theories was that Reeva locked herself into the toilet and Oscar attempted to shoot the lock, missed, realized that he had hit her and so decided to make sure she'd never tell anyone. This was many threads back and I kind of remember someone refuting it - it must have been a good response because I discarded that theory but still...

Reading a thought along similar lines from June makes me wonder if she believes the earwitness testimony about the pause between shots. That pause just haunts me - so much can happen in a second or two and it fits perfectly with Reeva's death being the result of an argument. Makes my heart break all over again for Reeva, her family and her friends.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ar-pistorius-killed-her-daughter-9852187.html

The way I would interpret that pause is, the first shot may have been with an intention to shoot her (from other evidences) but possibly out of rage, out of loosing control over his action in anger; the subsequent ones were well calculated.