Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[Lux et Veritas]

Oscar’s absent father
http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscars-absent-father/

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Photo - Henke, young Oscar, Sheila and grandma Gerti.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

“I have personal insight, yes, but I do know the facts and they show that it was an awful accident.”
- Nichola Drew, cousin of OP

Gold Coast cousin of Oscar Pistorius says Reeva Steenkamp’s death an accident
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au...eath-an-accident/story-fnj94idh-1227107571519

Personal insight? Facts? Bah. If she thinks it was an “awful accident”, she knows nothing more than anyone else.

Except for those few (Carl?) OP may have confessed the truth to, NO ONE knows anything other than OP’s official version.

Another family apologist who thinks cleaning toilets is sufficient to redeem his sociopathic soul.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

“[Our landlady] read in the paper that we didn't have any money, so she said she gave us notice because she didn't know we were going to pay the bill. She gave us two months to get out but I said: "No, let's just go, pack everything up and leave."

June Steenkamp: Oscar Pistorius terrorised my daughter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30152974

There’s a very special place in hell for that landlady.

 

[Mr Fossil]

~rsbm~

BBM - Absolutely ... and this is what really bugged me when some of those who believed his story would just keep saying that it was either his manner of speaking, or that he misremembered something and therefore it didn't come out quite right or appeared to contradict what he had said previously but that it didn't really matter 'because his core story remained the same'. No, some .. many .. of these instances really do matter, because they are not just minor discrepancies .. they are major flaws, inaccuracies and inconsistencies which prove beyond doubt that he is lying. These should've been Masipa's starting point, and from which she would then have realised that the ear witnesses were telling the truth when they said they heard an argument, a woman screaming for her life, etc, etc .. instead of which, she just swept them under the carpet because they were so damaging to his version that she needed them to be hidden away and forgotten about.

Added this to my previous post:

Not unexpectedly, OP blames his defence team for the wording of his statement. To Nel (p175), "I am sure that what they wrote there, they interpreted as my explanation to them. Maybe I did not pick it up at the time, that they said I went on to the balcony." In blaming the defence for the wording, OP effectively agrees that the statement says he went outside on to the balcony; but in arguing the meaning of OP's words, one thing Roux's statement does achieve is to confirm that it is OP's wording and not his.

Pages 175-177 develop this theme and are well worth a re-read.

---

It would be easy to dismiss all this as being superfluous as it is superseded by OP's later plea statement, EIC and Cross. The reason I labour it is because it is important to establish that OP meant what he originally said. He thought that by saying he went out on to the balcony he would give Reeva sufficient time to get to the bathroom unseen and unheard, until he realised he'd have to turn around and face the bedroom, that the bedroom would be illuminated by the balcony light and he would inevitably have seen Reeva was not in bed, perhaps even seen her on her way to the bathroom. Hence the revised version.

In support of OP, some ask how he managed to come up with his version so quickly if it wasn't true. They say he didn't have time to make it up, that he didn't know the State's case. They imply the version is sound. But that's just the problem. The version was developed quickly, it wasn't sound and OP realised this in the intervening year.

 

[44ALLAN]

Added this to my previous post:

Not unexpectedly, OP blames his defence team for the wording of his statement. To Nel (p175), "I am sure that what they wrote there, they interpreted as my explanation to them. Maybe I did not pick it up at the time, that they said I went on to the balcony." In blaming the defence for the wording, OP effectively agrees that the statement says he went outside on to the balcony; but in arguing the meaning of OP's words, one thing Roux's statement does achieve is to confirm that it is OP's wording and not his.

Pages 175-177 develop this theme and are well worth a re-read.

---

It would be easy to dismiss all this as being superfluous as it is superseded by OP's later plea statement, EIC and Cross. The reason I labour it is because it is important to establish that OP meant what he originally said. He thought that by saying he went out on to the balcony he would give Reeva sufficient time to get to the bathroom unseen and unheard, until he realised he'd have to turn around and face the bedroom, that the bedroom would be illuminated by the balcony light and he would inevitably have seen Reeva was not in bed, perhaps even seen her on her way to the bathroom. Hence the revised version.

In support of OP, some ask how he managed to come up with his version so quickly if it wasn't true. They say he didn't have time to make it up, that he didn't know the State's case. They imply the version is sound. But that's just the problem. The version was developed quickly, it wasn't sound and OP realised this in the intervening year.

BiB....................exactly my point and you put it across so much better than me.
Changing his 'version' to suit MUST have been known by his family and his Defence team....................if he did it all by himself they should have said " But you can't change that now ! "

IMO they all changed his 'version' for him as the trial went on................they should all be jailed for perverting the course of justice...............horrible people I hope they sleep well at night knowing what they have done.
Karma is a funny thing IMO

 

[JudgeJudi]

<Respectfully snipped>

RSBM

It's simply so that he can hear the window open. Why the jeans are on the floor is another story.

But why does Reeva open the bathroom window? If it's stuffy / humid and she's going to the toilet why not open the toilet window? We'll have to accept that she does open it and must also assume that she intends to close it after she's been to the toilet so as not to freak security conscious OP out.

I don't think anyone opened the bathroom window during the early hours of the morning shortly before the shooting. It was a hot, humid night and IMO this window would have been opened very early in the evening by either of them when they arrived home.

OP could have opened it when he had his shower (or bath) to let steam escape.

The temperature at 3, 4, 5am is the coolest part of the night. Why choose to open it then?

If it was so warm, why did Reeva have her legs under the duvet. I doubt she ever did.

The main reason he mentions the bathroom window is this is how the intruder/s were able to get into the house. Hearing the window open was just to add another dimension to hearing a noise. Surely the toilet door slamming would have been sufficient for his ridiculous story. It's obviously a total fabrication because as that was the only means of access, why didn't he look out that window

1) to check if there was a ladder against the wall, but more importantly ...
2) to ensure there wasn't an intruder on the ground keeping watch. Surely this would have been critical with guards doing their rounds.

 

[Starmelody]

Added this to my previous post:

Not unexpectedly, OP blames his defence team for the wording of his statement. To Nel (p175), "I am sure that what they wrote there, they interpreted as my explanation to them. Maybe I did not pick it up at the time, that they said I went on to the balcony." In blaming the defence for the wording, OP effectively agrees that the statement says he went outside on to the balcony; but in arguing the meaning of OP's words, one thing Roux's statement does achieve is to confirm that it is OP's wording and not his.

Pages 175-177 develop this theme and are well worth a re-read.

---

It would be easy to dismiss all this as being superfluous as it is superseded by OP's later plea statement, EIC and Cross. The reason I labour it is because it is important to establish that OP meant what he originally said. He thought that by saying he went out on to the balcony he would give Reeva sufficient time to get to the bathroom unseen and unheard, until he realised he'd have to turn around and face the bedroom, that the bedroom would be illuminated by the balcony light and he would inevitably have seen Reeva was not in bed, perhaps even seen her on her way to the bathroom. Hence the revised version.

In support of OP, some ask how he managed to come up with his version so quickly if it wasn't true. They say he didn't have time to make it up, that he didn't know the State's case. They imply the version is sound. But that's just the problem. The version was developed quickly, it wasn't sound and OP realised this in the intervening year.

Also, there was a similar incident in south africa 2 weeks before in which a man was in bed, heard the window in the bathroom open, got this gun and as his wife was coming out of the toilet he was startled and shot her. I'm sure OP would have heard this on the news, so it wouldn't have be hard for him to come up with a similar story.
Also, weeks before he heard a sound in his laundry, thinking it was an intruder, grabbed his gun only to find out it was his washing machine.
So the intruder story wouldn't have been that hard for him.

Also, I agree with an earlier post, some people are very good at spinning lies on the spot. I have witnessed people do this and almost believed them.
For some people, lying is so easy and natural.

 

[Mr Fossil]

<Respectfully snipped>



I don't think anyone opened the bathroom window during the early hours of the morning shortly before the shooting. It was a hot, humid night and IMO this window would have been opened very early in the evening by either of them when they arrived home.

OP could have opened it when he had his shower (or bath) to let steam escape.

The temperature at 3, 4, 5am is the coolest part of the night. Why choose to open it then?

If it was so warm, why did Reeva have her legs under the duvet. I doubt she ever did.

The main reason he mentions the bathroom window is this is how the intruder/s were able to get into the house. Hearing the window open was just to add another dimension to hearing a noise. Surely the toilet door slamming would have been sufficient for his ridiculous story. It's obviously a total fabrication because as that was the only means of access, why didn't he look out that window

1) to check if there was a ladder against the wall, but more importantly ...
2) to ensure there wasn't an intruder on the ground keeping watch. Surely this would have been critical with guards doing their rounds.

Agreed. Hence my preface to the post you quote.

I've been running through OP's 'final' version from the moment he woke until the moment he shot Reeva, but also seen from Reeva's point of view if she's following his script, trying to imagine why each part of the story exists or was added or changed. Of course, none of this is what actually happened IMO.

So I'm trying to figure why he thinks she opens the window, re-imagining his story from both their points of view. I think he concentrated a lot of his view point but maybe not so much on hers. This different perspective helps me to test his version.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Also, there was a similar incident in south africa 2 weeks before in which a man was in bed, heard the window in the bathroom open, got this gun and as his wife was coming out of the toilet he was startled and shot her. I'm sure OP would have heard this on the news, so it wouldn't have be hard for him to come up with a similar story.
Also, weeks before he heard a sound in his laundry, thinking it was an intruder, grabbed his gun only to find out it was his washing machine.
So the intruder story wouldn't have been that hard for him.

Also, I agree with an earlier post, some people are very good at spinning lies on the spot. I have witnessed people do this and almost believed them.
For some people, lying is so easy and natural.

Agree 100%.

Blaming someone else, in this instance an intruder, is one of the most basic and readily to hand excuses anyone can come up with. "It wasn't me."

And yet Masipa finds:

"Counsel for the defence correctly argued that it was highly improbable that the accused would have made this up so quickly and be consistent
in his version"

I say it was highly probable.

 

[jay-jay]

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

I wonder which photos Pistorius has then .. probably all ones of his brother and sister .. somehow I can't see him having one of Reeva (no doubt that will quickly be rectified by any of his cronies reading this forum .. hellooo!)

 

[Mr Fossil]

I wonder which photos Pistorius has then .. probably all ones of his brother and sister .. somehow I can't see him having one of Reeva (no doubt that will quickly be rectified by any of his cronies reading this forum .. hellooo!)

Jenna?

 

[jay-jay]

Agreed. Hence my preface to the post you quote.



So I'm trying to figure why he thinks she opens the window, re-imagining his story from both their points of view. I think he concentrated a lot of his view point but maybe not so much on hers. This different perspective helps to test his version.

Yes, that's how I've always tried to look at it .. from the perspective of both Reeva and the imaginary intruder, and then back to Pistorius as to why he could possibly think that an intruder, or Reeva, would've behaved in such a unusual way .. right from Reeva not making any noise or responding to his initial 'whisper' (which changed from being a whisper to talking in a low voice or something, I forget now) and which he never thought was at all odd .. to him supposedly hearing the toilet door slam and from the perspective of the intruder, an intruder would not go into the toilet and slam the door, and Pistorius in his own mind would've known that. From all the signals he was getting, in his version, his immediate conclusion would've been that it was Reeva in the toilet, not an intruder because those signals go both ways .. you're right, he is only using his own perspective in his version, but it doesn't work because it's not logical and it doesn't take the normal actions and responses of the other person (whether Reeva or an intruder) into account. You could say that perhaps one of them (Reeva or the supposed intruder) didn't act normally that night, but there really cannot be so many 'unusual behaviours' coming together all at the same time .. it just doesn't work like that, and people do actually have typical patterns to the way the behave, react to situations .. it's a scientific fact, and enables things like crowd control management computer modelling, etc, when planning buildings and events, using the known ways that people tend to behave and act.

 

[jay-jay]

Agree 100%.

Blaming someone else, in this instance an intruder, is one of the most basic and readily to hand excuses anyone can come up with. "It wasn't me."

And yet Masipa finds:

"Counsel for the defence correctly argued that it was highly improbable that the accused would have made this up so quickly and be consistent
in his version"

I say it was highly probable.

Absolutely.

BBM - Masipa doesn't seem to have much experience of life, does she .. she's clearly never encountered someone who can do exactly that .. I have, and a number of other posters here have, too.

 

[Cherwell]

Blaming someone else, in this instance an intruder, is one of the most basic and readily to hand excuses anyone can come up with. "It wasn't me."

And yet Masipa finds:

"Counsel for the defence correctly argued that it was highly improbable that the accused would have made this up so quickly and be consistent
in his version"

I say it was highly probable.

It was the obvious excuse. It's the excuse that everybody would think of first.
Except, it seems, Masipa.

And in what parallel universe was he "consistent"?

 

[Lux et Veritas]

If, as OP claimed, he 1) NEVER intended to shoot, 2) NEVER aimed to kill 3) NEVER foresaw the possibility of certain death to the person behind the door - how did three of four bullets conveniently and very neatly manage to hit and kill Reeva (one a lethal head shot)?

Poor, cursed Oscar ... a tragic victim of the perfect alignment of the heavens.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Have to say I would never have guessed OP would try to create an entirely new state of mind in which one fires a gun: neither accidental nor deliberate; neither directed nor undirected; neither in self-defense nor by mistake; neither without thinking nor with thinking. Why can the man not say he fired the gun at the burglar in self-defense and be done with it! At least stick to the story for goodness sake, not all this legal twisting and turning of the words.
- Daniel King youtube

Both claiming and denying ALL possible defenses (pick your favorite, Judge Masipa!)* not only proves his murderous guilt but starkly illustrates that he&#8217;s a craven, spineless, sniveling COWARD who only has balls when he&#8217;s drinking and/or holding a gun.

The Truth boldly takes a stand - it does not have multiple &#8220;versions&#8221;, nor does it have two or more sides.

The Truth is its own defense.

* Masipa should have hammered Defense. She should have demanded OP choose one and only one defense. (Just like she never demanded Roux produce his promised audio evidence that OP screams like a woman. Simply ignored and entered into evidence as &#8220;fact&#8221;.) All his defenses were MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Why didn&#8217;t she yank Roux&#8217;s chain hard? Why would she? OP&#8217;s convoluted, tortured strategy of Guess the Defense? not only played right into her bias, it kept the State continually off-balance, trying to adapt to Defense&#8217;s ever-morphing battlefield. This was clearly a team effort, however unspoken: OP, Defense and Masipa played all sides against the middle, a legal shell game. It&#8217;s exactly why Masipa carefully cherry-picked the evidence, created her own &#8220;facts&#8221; and ignored the rest. She knew exactly where she was going from day one.

 

[Mr Fossil]

If, as OP claimed, he 1) NEVER intended to shoot, 2) NEVER aimed to kill 3) NEVER foresaw the possibility of certain death to the person behind the door - how did three of four bullets conveniently and very neatly manage to hit and kill Reeva (one a lethal head shot)?

Poor, cursed Oscar ... a tragic victim of the perfect alignment of the heavens.

I'd say you would have to be extremely lucky to avoid being hit in a room of that size if you were standing behind the door when someone fires a gun four times at the door from the other side. In fact, it would be virtually impossible to not get hit either directly or via a ricochet. And in using Black Talon bullets the consequences of any hit(s) would be devastating.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I’m not trying to make a direct comparison between this trial and OP’s, but there are some similarities.

The female judge earlier rejected his claim that his gun had gone off accidentally.

He told the court he had read a verse from the Bible and prayed for his wife after she was shot in the arm and chest.

He said he didn’t phone an ambulance because he was traumatised and shocked.

Sentencing him, the judge said it was sad that all relationships had ups and downs.

What was described in court and by a probation officer was that this relationship was dangerous.

“You had other options. You could have walked away and calmed down. You did not have a licence to kill her”.

Sentence: 12 years

I wonder how this judge would have viewed OP’s trial.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/killer-husband-jailed-for-12-years-1.1786254#.VHV8bCxxnBw

 

[Mr Fossil]

An interesting post by Jeremy99 yesterday on DS, copied in full:

So why is Roux so desperate to avoid the Supreme Court of Appeal to the extent that he will even twist the words of June Steenkamp and include them in his opposition to leave to appeal?

In my opinion Roux will inevitably be familiar with the words of Judge FDJ Brand at the Supreme Court of Appeal, the very court Roux is trying to avoid at all costs. Only last year Judge Brand, who is also a Professor of Law at the University of the Free State, said in the Humphreys v State appeal two things……

'a court that entirely ignores public outrage in a case, does so at the peril of losing public confidence in the whole judicial system, which confidence ultimately constitutes the basis of the rule of law.'

'subjective foresight can be proved by inference. Moreover, common sense dictates that the process of inferential reasoning may start out from the premise that, in accordance with common human experience, the possibility of the consequences that ensued would have been obvious to any person of normal intelligence. The next logical step would then be to ask whether, in the light of all the facts and circumstances of this case, there is any reason to think that the appellant would not have shared this foresight, derived from common human experience, with other members of the general population.'

In my opinion Roux knows that there is not one person of normal intelligence, even on this thread, would say in all honesty that a death should not have been foreseen from the firing at body height of 4 closely grouped shots of ammunition designed to immediately incapacitate into a small cubicle known to contain a person, especially as the cubicle was tiled and ricochets were inevitable. Roux will also know that any normal person would expect Pistorius, especially with his firearms experience, to have foreseen what they would have foreseen, particularly as Pistorius has declared under oath that his intention that night was to 'eliminate the threat' .

Finally Roux will be very aware if this appeal reaches the SCA the words of FDJ Brand may very well have influence, to the detriment of Pistorius, on the thinking of the five judges who will consider the appeal. Hence his desperation to avoid those very experienced judges.