Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[JudgeJudi]

South African satirical news item

A few hours later, well lubricated and suitably dulled, the inmates finally returned to their cells, where Oscar was tucked in snugly by the ever tender Tiny Tsepho, just before lights out. “I’m so happy right now,” giggled Oscar. “If I had my gun I’d shoot it in the air.”

http://banananewsline.com/2014/11/23/exclusive-oscar-pistorius-first-prison-birthday-celebrations/

Back to real life ...

OP was unlikely to get any cake. But he could get stationary, cigarettes or toiletries from family members as part of his normal monthly allowance of purchases visitors can make for him. A spokesman said, “No extended visiting hours are provided to inmates during their birthdays.”

There are rules when it comes to presents. “For sentenced offenders, generally, no items are allowed except for, perhaps, birthday cards”. However, his “family might be able to purchase treats at the prison kiosk – according to the department’s website, visitors can buy items at the kiosk which can be consumed by the inmate during visiting hours. Inmates’ families are also allowed to provide items such as toiletries, stationery, batteries for a radio or battery operated shaver, a telephone card or postage stamps”. Much depends on what category the inmate is in.

Prisoners in all categories are allowed to keep photo-albums with a maximum of 20 photos or can keep six loose photos

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-pistorius-spends-28th-birthday-behind-bars

Bearing in mind Radovan Krejcir had a birthday cake and shared it with fellow inmates, including OP, I can’t see why OP wouldn’t have had a cake.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/oscar-turns-28-behind-bars-1.1784624#.VHKgjSxxnBw

 

[AW2B]

I was reading parts of OP's testimony..

1-His testimony regarding Reeva's cell phone:

She had her cell phone with her. So maybe she was using that for light.
That is the answer I waited for. You see... did you see that? If she used her cell phone for light Mr Pistorius, you are... as far as your version is concerned, it is even in worse trouble. You would have seen a light walking down the passage. --- It does not change anything, My Lady. My back was towards her.

2-His testimony about how he approached the bathroom and the shouting he did:

-I started shouting and screaming My Lady, as I entered the passageway. Oh? So, and what did you shout and scream? --- I screamed for the persons to get out of my house. I screamed for Reeva to phone the police. I repeated it several times.

+

-My Lady, I ran to get to where the passage begun and then I walked extremely slowly and cautionary until I got to just before the corner where the bathroom passage is. So I was ...[intervened]

+

-like where the tiles start in the bathroom, I stopped shouting

+


-There was no light in the bathroom. I could see, as I slowly peered into the bathroom, I could see that the window was opened indeed. I was pretty much on my… back against the wall with my hand up against the wall to just balance. I was leaning with my back, slowly scuffling along the left hand side wall. I was not sure if there were people, or intruders were in the toilet or if they were on a ladder that they would have used to gain access to the first floor, or if they were around the corner at that point. I still had my firearm pointed in front of me and I peered around the corner to look where the shower was, which was around in the bathroom, in line with… in line with the toilet.

+

-I peered around this corner, which is in the bottom right hand side of the frame. At that point I saw that there was no one in the bathroom. The door was closed of the toilet and the window was open. Once I saw that there was not anybody around the corner wanting to attack me, I retreated a little bit, maybe a step or two back, still with my hand against the wall. I still had my back and my shoulder to help me balance. At this point I started screaming again for Reeva to phone the police.
I was not sure where to point the firearm. I had it pointed at the toilet but my eyes were going between the window and the toilet. I stood there for some time, I am not sure how long. I was not sure if someone was going to come out of the toilet to attack me. I was not sure if someone was going to come up the ladder and point a firearm in the house and start shooting, so I just stayed where I was and kept on screaming …[crying] and then I heard a
noise from inside the toilet what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it, I had fired four shots at the door. …[crying]

=

1- Reeva saw him in the bedroom walking around so he was fully awake..so why didn't she turn on the light?
2-Reeva had a cell phone with her..
3-He took his time and walked EXTREMELY slowly while shouting/screaming REPEATEDLY for Reeva to call the police..he only stopped shouting when he got to the bathroom..however, he resumed screaming AFTER he entered the bathroom.

So according to his version Reeva had PLENTY of time to call the police..why didn't she? I think there is only one logical explanation: He was chasing her ..she barely had enough time to lock herself up in the toilet...she didn't have the chance to call for help. There is no question that Reeva would have called the police if he was telling the truth.

IMO..Nel should have asked him that question. To my knowledge he didn't touch that subject at all!!

 

[AW2B]

Masipa defending Pistorius just like his defense attorney would..LOL

Nel asking:
Okay, let us, let us… you see, Mr Pistorius, as you argue, I just get more questions, because what in fact you are now saying is, a policeman must have been so clever, to put the duvet down where the corner was, where the blood… Is there something wrong with you, Mr Pistorius? --- My eyes are sore, M'Lady.

Now is.. does it have an effect on your, on you giving evidence that your eyes are sore? --- No, M'Lady.
Why are you touching your eyes now? Did it, did it get sore now or was it sore when you got here?

COURT: Mr Nel, I happened to be watching the witness a few minutes, well, maybe about 10 minutes ago, he was touching his eyes.
MR NEL: As the court pleases.
COURT: Yes, I am aware of that.
MR NEL: I did not see that, M'Lady, but if the court saw it, I will not take it further.

 

[MsMarple]

~rsbm~

BBM - this bit really bothers me .. how the hell could anyone pick up someone who was that badly injured, not only with her arm almost amputated but part of her skull blasted open and blood and brain matter coming out .. I should imagine it must've been difficult enough for the paramedics who are trained in this kind of thing and no doubt deal with it on a fairly regular basis but I bet you they still find it hard .. and yet he just picks her up and carries her downstairs .. I seriously do not think that is the normal response of any normal person, and especially not in the circumstance of it being an accident .. the whole thing would freak you out, and you would be way too scared to either move, or even touch, that person and the only thing you would be doing is called the paramedics right away .. not calling your mate first, and not picking up that dead and grossly injured person and carrying them downstairs. He must actually be sick in the head to have been able to do that (and therefore sick enough in the head to have intentionally killed her). No doubt he would say it was because he loved her that much that he would do anything for her, anything to help her live, even carry her downstairs in the state she was in .. only he didn't, did he .. from what we know, he did everything and delayed everything, as much as possible to ensure that she was dead.

IMO, he had to pick her up and move her out of that toilet cubicle because, as Jj says, he thought it would look really bad for him if she was found like that, especially as he knew he was guilty .. whereas actually, the intruder version would've been more believable had he just left her there and called the paramedics immediately. I still do also think that he may well have been trying to dispose of her body, got caught in the act when people started turning up, and then he changed his story to it being him trying to save her/take her to the hospital as opposed to him taking her somewhere and dumping her.

Your post is worth repeating and emphasizing, not only because of the points you make but because it also contradicts Oscar's statements regarding his state of mind and physical condition after he shot Reeva.

Remember, he asked to wash his arms because the smell of blood was making him sick. He vomited at the house. He vomited during the trial. How then is it possible that someone whose stomach was so sensitive could just pick up a severely injured woman and carry her through the house?

It makes no sense. Someone so sensitive to the smell of blood and the sight of a nearly amputated arm and a head blasted open with brain matter smeared everywhere that it causes him to vomit will do everything possible to avoid physical contact with that body. Yet Oscar did the unexpected: he picked Reeva up and carried her downstairs.

So the question here is... why? IMO the answer lies in your second paragraph – he felt he had to do something to distract responders from seeing an ugly, ugly scene which may have painted a too clear picture of what actually happened.

 

[mrjitty]

.

BIB2: Here's the bit about the lights in cross examination (page 514 in the transcript) and you are correct about OP's reference to first shots (first shooting, to be precise). Well spotted. I've added a reference into Key questions and credited you:

Nel: No. Both said, immediately after the shots, when they looked, the lights were on. Both. Take it from me. Why? They said the lights were on. Even on your version, excepting what they said, the lights were on?
OP: That is correct, M'Lady. I think they did…I think they both did say that, M'Lady.
Nel: So, they must be lying?
OP: They must be, M'Lady. I do not remember the lights being on and I cannot remember when I switched the lights on, as I have said before.
Nel: That is a good answer. ‘I cannot remember the lights being on.’ That is what you said?
OP: That is correct, M'Lady.
Nel: Is it possible that the lights were on?
OP: No. After the shooting, I do not know when I put the lights on. So they said, immediately after the shooting, we worked through their time frame and remem….if I remember correctly, what Mr Stipp tried to put in as moments, became 10 minutes. That is why I am asking.
Nel: No. You see, this is now the best part of your argument. There is no way, that Mr Stipp’s moments for the lights, became 10 minutes. Why do you say that?
OP: I did not follow that question, I am sorry.
Nel: You said, ‘moments for Mr Stipp became 10 minutes’?
OP: It was Mr Stipp...[intervenes]
Nel: That is what you said?
OP: It was Mr Stipp or Mrs Stipp’s evidence, M'Lady.
Nel: No, it is...[intervenes]
OP: Where time was not a rel…was not of any relevance. It was not...[intervenes]
Nel: No...[intervenes]
OP: There was not a set point. If I remember their evidence, they said they heard, what was put to me on Friday, was that there was shouting between the gunshots, which was on the state’s version. But the cricket bat and the gunshots are different on their versions. When I was hitting the door with the cricket bat, I was crying out. I was screaming. So, I do not say Mr and Mrs Stipp are lying when they said that.
Nel: We dealing with the lights, sir. I know you want to argue and that has been how you have been giving your evidence. They must be lying about the light?
OP: They said they heard…they said they saw the lights on immediately after the shooting, M'Lady.
Nel: Yes?
OP: If that was the first shooting, that is incorrect. [Fossil: interesting expressions used by OP, especially 'first' shooting]
Nel: Then they heard screaming, as far as they were concerned, between the two shots they have heard. Was that also you?
OP: On the state’s evidence of the gunfire, or on the first shots?

Hi Mr Fossil

I think this is hugely significant as well, though for a slightly different reason.

In terms of OP's unprompted personal choice of language, there is by his internal logic a 2nd shooting yet to happen.

If he were being honest about the first bangs being the shots that kill Reeva, then in his mind, there would be no shooting still to come. Only cricket bats. There is no second shooting.

So by his own internal logic, there is still an actual shooting yet to happen, at the time the Stipp's are hearing the first bangs.

I don't feel this must mean there are 2 actual shootings - as in his internal logic, the "first shooting" might be a fake.

But it certainly reveals that the defence timeline is a lie.

its a very bad mistake in my view

Any way you look at it, he should have referred to "the shooting"

Also notice this related mistake:

OP: On the state’s evidence of the gunfire, or on the first shots?

He has a different language to describe what should be the same event.

I think it is absolutely clear that the "states evidence of gunfire" are not the first shots

For this to be internally true for OP (after all he is seeking to joust with Nel), the the first shots must be the second bangs.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I'm not being personal here, but no-one actually knows anyone from Adam on this forum .. we could all be anyone and say anything. There are millions, if not billions, of people who have access to the internet and you simply cannot just take what they say at face value. If people can back up their stories with photos or newspaper reports then fine, but I'm not going to just take things that people say as being actual fact.

I'm for myself a little bit disappointed, when newspaper reports are also doubted although I thought, there was a certain reason to report this. As an example: the open doors and running machine of Reeva's car (or OP's car??). Someone or the other on the forum says "rumours!!!" and I have to shut up. I wonder where did my WS collegues get that information about "rumours" from?? Source please?

 

[Hag]

Going back a little - but still amazed at such composure at sentencing given the histrionics displayed during trial.....MOO

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/11/24/oscar-s-prison-birthday-bash-to-be-probed

The Department of Correctional Services yesterday confirmed it would investigate how his siblings were allegedly allowed to bring a cake, balloons and gift bag into the Kgosi Mampuru Prison in Pretoria.

The investigation will also look into why Carl and Aimee Pistorius's cars were allegedly not searched when they entered the prison grounds.

They used an alternative entrance to avoid photographers.

Department spokesman Logan Maistry said: "The allegations will be investigated and persons found guilty will be dealt with."

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://prorun.nl/nieuws/geen-speciale-behandeling-pistorius

Geen speciale behandeling Pistorius

Bij de verjaardag van Oscar Pistorius zouden zaterdag regels van de gevangenis in Pretoria zijn overtreden. De auto's van zijn broer en zus zouden zonder te zijn doorzocht toegelaten zijn tot het gevangenis complex, ze zouden taart en balonnen meegenomen hebben en twee keer zo lang op bezoek zijn geweest als toegestaan. Ook mochten de gasten van Pistorius een andere uitgang nemen om de pers te ontlopen, melde Zuid-Afrikaanse media zondag.
Atleet Oscar Pistorius hoeft niet te rekenen op een speciale behandeling in de Kgosi Mampuru II gevangenis van Pretoria.Dat benadrukt het Zuid-Afrikaanse gevangeniswezen zondag.

No special treatment Pistorius

At the anniversary of Oscar Pistorius would violate Saturday rules of the prison in Pretoria. The cars of his brother and sister were without being searched admitted to the prison complex, they would have brought cake and balloons and twice as long visited as allowed. The guests Pistorius could take another exit to avoid the press, listed South African media Sunday.
Athlete Oscar Pistorius does not have to rely on a special treatment in the Kgosi Mampuru II prison Pretoria.Dat emphasizes the South African prison Sunday. (Google translator)

 

[jay-jay]

I'm for myself a little bit disappointed, when newspaper reports are also doubted although I thought, there was a certain reason to report this. As an example: the open doors and running machine of Reeva's car (or OP's car??). Someone or the other on the forum says "rumours!!!" and I have to shut up. I wonder where did my WS collegues get that information about "rumours" from?? Source please?

Yes, that's a little unfair isn't it because what we are having to do here .. because such limited evidence was available to us during the trial (much of it having been passed directly to the judge, which is not what would've happened in a court of law in the US or UK, being jury trials) that we've had to try and source some of it via the media to try and plug the gaps, and it's not been easy to know which bits are true, which bits are fabricated, which bits were just sensationalised for the hell of it, or even which bits may have been true but have since been subject to some kind of cover up. This is why I would've preferred it to have been a jury trial, with all the facts laid out bare for all to see. Oh, but if there was some kind of cover up going on, I expect that even with a jury trial they* would've been able to have manipulated some of the evidence before it had even got to court (blood samples, etc) .. so I think we were always onto a loser with this one, in trying to find out the real evidence and what really happened.



* I don't mean the jury, I mean whoever it is behind the scenes who is responsible for such a cover up.

 

[L2L]

http://prorun.nl/nieuws/geen-speciale-behandeling-pistorius

Geen speciale behandeling Pistorius

Bij de verjaardag van Oscar Pistorius zouden zaterdag regels van de gevangenis in Pretoria zijn overtreden. De auto's van zijn broer en zus zouden zonder te zijn doorzocht toegelaten zijn tot het gevangenis complex, ze zouden taart en balonnen meegenomen hebben en twee keer zo lang op bezoek zijn geweest als toegestaan. Ook mochten de gasten van Pistorius een andere uitgang nemen om de pers te ontlopen, melde Zuid-Afrikaanse media zondag.
Atleet Oscar Pistorius hoeft niet te rekenen op een speciale behandeling in de Kgosi Mampuru II gevangenis van Pretoria.Dat benadrukt het Zuid-Afrikaanse gevangeniswezen zondag.

No special treatment Pistorius

At the anniversary of Oscar Pistorius would violate Saturday rules of the prison in Pretoria. The cars of his brother and sister were without being searched admitted to the prison complex, they would have brought cake and balloons and twice as long visited as allowed. The guests Pistorius could take another exit to avoid the press, listed South African media Sunday.
Athlete Oscar Pistorius does not have to rely on a special treatment in the Kgosi Mampuru II prison Pretoria.Dat emphasizes the South African prison Sunday. (Google translator)

http://www.thenewage.co.za/144053-1008-53-Aimee_Pistorius_denies_Oscar_partying_in_jail

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://paper.li/oscarpistorius_/1410615538

 

[Mr Fossil]

Masipa in her Judgement (p40)

"The accused as a witness: The accused was a very poor witness. While during evidence in chief he seemed composed and logical, with a result that his evidence flowed and made sense, while giving his version under cross-examination he lost his composure."

An example of OP being 'logical' and 'making sense' during his evidence in chief (p103):

OP: I went upstairs and got changed and showered. I changed into my pyjamas and then I think around seven o’clock I went downstairs and [intervene].
Roux: Before we get there, can we first deal with your iPad? Did you access to your iPad that day? That evening?
OP: I did, M'Lady.
Roux: When was that?
OP: I had access to it the entire day.
Roux: I am talking after arriving back at your house.
OP: From the time I arrived home, Reeva was preparing dinner. I was talking to her, and on the ipad I was surfing the net. I was looking at cars that I had wanted to get around to during the day. To have a look at and when I went upstairs as I...as I was drawing the bath, I was on my iPad. I lay on my bed and took off my suit. I then sat in the bath for a while, I cannot remember if I was on it then. And then as I got out of bed, for a short time thereafter I was on it. We went down to dinner, I stopped using it. We were sitting and chatting.

So, he showered and bathed
He lay on his bed and took off his suit
After his bath he got out of bed
He went upstairs but we went down to dinner

Yep, totally logical. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. It's Masipa's rationale I'm not following.

 

[Cherwell]

There are rules when it comes to presents. “For sentenced offenders, generally, no items are allowed except for, perhaps, birthday cards”. However, his “family might be able to purchase treats at the prison kiosk – according to the department’s website, visitors can buy items at the kiosk which can be consumed by the inmate during visiting hours. Inmates’ families are also allowed to provide items such as toiletries, stationery, batteries for a radio or battery operated shaver, a telephone card or postage stamps”. Much depends on what category the inmate is in.

Prisoners in all categories are allowed to keep photo-albums with a maximum of 20 photos or can keep six loose photos

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-pistorius-spends-28th-birthday-behind-bars

Bearing in mind Radovan Krejcir had a birthday cake and shared it with fellow inmates, including OP, I can’t see why OP wouldn’t have had a cake.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/oscar-turns-28-behind-bars-1.1784624#.VHKgjSxxnBw

Radovan Krejcir is a remand prisoner. He has not been convicted of any crime yet. It follows that he will be entitled to privileges that are not enjoyed by convicted prisoners.

 

[JudgeJudi]

http://www.thenewage.co.za/144053-1008-53-Aimee_Pistorius_denies_Oscar_partying_in_jail

:welcome4: It's great to have another Aussie join us. The people here are just great - sort of like a big extended family.

 

[Cherwell]

Masipa in her Judgement (p40)

"The accused as a witness: The accused was a very poor witness. While during evidence in chief he seemed composed and logical, with a result that his evidence flowed and made sense, while giving his version under cross-examination he lost his composure."

An example of OP being 'logical' and 'making sense' during his evidence in chief (p103):

OP: I went upstairs and got changed and showered. I changed into my pyjamas and then I think around seven o’clock I went downstairs and [intervene].
Roux: Before we get there, can we first deal with your iPad? Did you access to your iPad that day? That evening?
OP: I did, M'Lady.
Roux: When was that?
OP: I had access to it the entire day.
Roux: I am talking after arriving back at your house.
OP: From the time I arrived home, Reeva was preparing dinner. I was talking to her, and on the ipad I was surfing the net. I was looking at cars that I had wanted to get around to during the day. To have a look at and when I went upstairs as I...as I was drawing the bath, I was on my iPad. I lay on my bed and took off my suit. I then sat in the bath for a while, I cannot remember if I was on it then. And then as I got out of bed, for a short time thereafter I was on it. We went down to dinner, I stopped using it. We were sitting and chatting.

So, he showered and bathed
He lay on his bed and took off his suit
After his bath he got out of bed
He went upstairs but we went down to dinner

Yep, totally logical. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. It's Masipa's rationale I'm not following.

I have wondered if Pistorius and Reeva did have some sexual activity at that time. No one lies on the bed to take off their suit! unless .... they were on the bed together and undressing each other. This would also explain the "got out of bed" and "we went down".

 

[JudgeJudi]

Masipa in her Judgement (p40)

"The accused as a witness: The accused was a very poor witness. While during evidence in chief he seemed composed and logical, with a result that his evidence flowed and made sense, while giving his version under cross-examination he lost his composure."

An example of OP being 'logical' and 'making sense' during his evidence in chief (p103):

OP: I went upstairs and got changed and showered. I changed into my pyjamas and then I think around seven o’clock I went downstairs and [intervene].
Roux: Before we get there, can we first deal with your iPad? Did you access to your iPad that day? That evening?
OP: I did, M'Lady.
Roux: When was that?
OP: I had access to it the entire day.
Roux: I am talking after arriving back at your house.
OP: From the time I arrived home, Reeva was preparing dinner. I was talking to her, and on the ipad I was surfing the net. I was looking at cars that I had wanted to get around to during the day. To have a look at and when I went upstairs as I...as I was drawing the bath, I was on my iPad. I lay on my bed and took off my suit. I then sat in the bath for a while, I cannot remember if I was on it then. And then as I got out of bed, for a short time thereafter I was on it. We went down to dinner, I stopped using it. We were sitting and chatting.

So, he showered and bathed
He lay on his bed and took off his suit
After his bath he got out of bed
He went upstairs but we went down to dinner

Yep, totally logical. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. It's Masipa's rationale I'm not following.

I was :floorlaugh: before I got to the last line. I remember that part very well and it's just ludicrous. There is one thing that I didn't pick up though, and I've listened several times, was "we went down to dinner" and I don't recall anyone picking that up before. No matter how many times you listen, there's always something extra to be found. Great pickup.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I have wondered if Pistorius and Reeva did have some sexual activity at that time. No one lies on the bed to take off their suit! unless .... they were on the bed together and undressing each other. This would also explain the "got out of bed" and "we went down".

It would also explain the lack of iPad activity between 7 and 8. I think Nel let slip during his final arguments that there was no intimacy (I'd have to check how he put it) but that doesn't mean they didn't have some fun (I'm trying not to be explicit).

 

[Mr Fossil]

I was :floorlaugh: before I got to the last line. I remember that part very well and it's just ludicrous. There is one thing that I didn't pick up though, and I've listened several times, was "we went down to dinner" and I don't recall anyone picking that up before. No matter how many times you listen, there's always something extra to be found. Great pickup.

I posted all this ages ago, including the 'we' bit, but it was pre-Judgement. I wanted to use it specifically to question Masipa's rationale about OP being logical and making sense in his EIC.

 

[JudgeJudi]

It would also explain the lack of iPad activity between 7 and 8.

That's supposed to be while they were having dinner, but maybe not. Between 7 and 8 - maybe that's why he had multiple boxes of those performance enhancing pills. :floorlaugh: