Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[L2L]

I don't know what 'DS' stands for!! Sorry, but new to most of these discussions! Another thing I need help with is finding threads/posts, which I'm sure exist here but I haven't had time to find yet, that explain WHY and HOW Judge Masipa could possibly have made her final judgement. I can't for the life of me think of one good reason and the more I read, the more disturbed I become. Thanks for referring me to where I might find some answers.!

 

[JudgeJudi]

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 me to test his version.

I'm a bit confused. From Reeva's point of view, I don't believe she opened the window. From his viewpoint, he thought the sound of the window sliding open and hitting the frame was the intruders. Why would he think she opened the window. What am I missing here?

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I'm a bit confused. From Reeva's point of view, I don't believe she opened the window. From his viewpoint, he thought the sound of the window sliding open and hitting the frame was the intruders. Why would he think she opened the window. What am I missing here?

From Op's point of view .. that window was found open when the police came and OP needed it to be open.. Otherwise how would the intruder come in without them seein ? .. but security conscious and intrudersick OP never would have left that window open .. acc to him it was closed when they went to bed.. so it must have been Reeva opening it when she woke up. Window sliding and hitting the frame is an effect to
strengthen this. IMO Op himself opened it after the murder ..

 

[JudgeJudi]

I don't know what 'DS' stands for!! Sorry, but new to most of these discussions! Another thing I need help with is finding threads/posts, which I'm sure exist here but I haven't had time to find yet, that explain WHY and HOW Judge Masipa could possibly have made her final judgement. I can't for the life of me think of one good reason and the more I read, the more disturbed I become. Thanks for referring me to where I might find some answers.!

DS stands for Digital Spy, another forum that has been following this trial.

Join the club regarding why and how Masipa reached the conclusions she did. If you listen to her judgment she'll explain herself. The problem is however that she dismisses virtually all of the State's case and chooses to believe OP even though she said he was a poor witness (i.e. a witness who lied). While she acknowledges that he hasn't always been truthful, she says that's no reason to disregard all his evidence. The courts actually acknowledge this fact too. However there's a massive difference between an occasional lie to help bolster a bit of a weak bit of your story and lying over and over again as well as tailoring your version from your original bail statement, plea explanation document and after you've heard the State's case and now know your original story won't work at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V48R6dHwlmU - Day 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSSBfM9y-m4 - Day 2

Hope this helps as to how she says she reached her conclusions, but it doesn't make any sense at all if you've followed the trial from the beginning. If it makes you feel any better, we're all extremely disturbed by it - well 99% of us.

 

[jay-jay]

I'm a bit confused. From Reeva's point of view, I don't believe she opened the window. From his viewpoint, he thought the sound of the window sliding open and hitting the frame was the intruders. Why would he think she opened the window. What am I missing here?

BBM .. exactly the point, she didn't open the window, and there would've been absolutely no reason for her to have done .. Mr F is testing OP's theory by looking at it from Reeva's perspective, and Reeva did not need/did not open the window, so therefore OP must have fabricated it/opened the window himself in order to support the intruder theory.

 

[L2L]

DS stands for Digital Spy, another forum that has been following this trial.

Join the club regarding why and how Masipa reached the conclusions she did. If you listen to her judgment she'll explain herself. The problem is however that she dismisses virtually all of the State's case and chooses to believe OP even though she said he was a poor witness (i.e. a witness who lied). While she acknowledges that he hasn't always been truthful, she says that's no reason to disregard all his evidence. The courts actually acknowledge this fact too. However there's a massive difference between an occasional lie to help bolster a bit of a weak bit of your story and lying over and over again as well as tailoring your version from your original bail statement, plea explanation document and after you've heard the State's case and now know your original story won't work at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V48R6dHwlmU - Day 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSSBfM9y-m4 - Day 2

Hope this helps as to how she says she reached her conclusions, but it doesn't make any sense at all if you've followed the trial from the beginning. If it makes you feel any better, we're all extremely disturbed by it - well 99% of us.

Many thanks! I've listened to HER explanation many times; I think what I'm trying to say here is : how could anyone, let alone a judge make such decisions, when someone like me for example, just an ordinary layperson, can see her conclusions and Mr Pistorius' lies and versions don't make any sense at all. I'm hinting at bias and if so, why? Something else? Why did she do this? There just has to be more to it!

 

[Mr Fossil]

I'm a bit confused. From Reeva's point of view, I don't believe she opened the window. From his viewpoint, he thought the sound of the window sliding open and hitting the frame was the intruders. Why would he think she opened the window. What am I missing here?

Agreed, I don't think she opened the window, at least not as part of this story (he or she may have opened it earlier, but that's not important).

In his version OP says he thought it was intruders who he heard opening the window and, sticking to the same story, because he knows that there was no intruder he must have been mistaken and it must have been Reeva that he heard opening the window. That's the apparent mistake he wants us to believe he makes.

So there are two levels to his story. The first is what he wants us to understand he mistakenly believed at the time (an intruder) and the second level is what he wants us to realise must have happened. Neither are true or what actually happened. I am following the second level e.g Reeva's implied part in his version.

I hope this helps ... sorry for any confusion!

 

[Mr Fossil]

BBM .. exactly the point, she didn't open the window, and there would've been absolutely no reason for her to have done .. Mr F is testing OP's theory by looking at it from Reeva's perspective, and Reeva did not need/did not open the window, so therefore OP must have fabricated it/opened the window himself in order to support the intruder theory.

No, we don't know when the window was opened. He may have opened it after, or either of them may have opened it earlier. The only fact is that is was found open and needed to be open for his story.

 

[mrjitty]

Agreed, I don't think she opened the window, at least not as part of this story (he or she may have opened it earlier, but that's not important).

In his version OP says he thought it was intruders who he heard opening the window and, sticking to the same story, because he knows that there was no intruder he must have been mistaken and it must have been Reeva that he heard opening the window. That's the apparent mistake he wants us to believe he makes.

So there are two levels to his story. The first is what he wants us to understand he mistakenly believed at the time (an intruder) and the second level is what he wants us to realise must have happened. Neither are true or what actually happened. I am following the second level e.g Reeva's implied part in his version.

I hope this helps ... sorry for any confusion!

Thanks for the posts the last few days - great stuff!

 

[mrjitty]

No, we don't know when the window was opened. He may have opened it after, or either of them may have opened it earlier. The only fact is that is was found open and needed to be open for his story.

Its likely it was always open with a single fan in operation and balcony door open.

Otherwise the air won't flow through the room to create a breeze

 

[mirage1]

Many thanks! I've listened to HER explanation many times; I think what I'm trying to say here is : how could anyone, let alone a judge make such decisions, when someone like me for example, just an ordinary layperson, can see her conclusions and Mr Pistorius' lies and versions don't make any sense at all. I'm hinting at bias and if so, why? Something else? Why did she do this? There just has to be more to it!

it is possible she is woefully naive, but I think she had a corrupt agenda. her judgement proves it. all nonsense.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Agreed, I don't think she opened the window, at least not as part of this story (he or she may have opened it earlier, but that's not important).

In his version OP says he thought it was intruders who he heard opening the window and, sticking to the same story, because he knows that there was no intruder he must have been mistaken and it must have been Reeva that he heard opening the window. That's the apparent mistake he wants us to believe he makes.

So there are two levels to his story. The first is what he wants us to understand he mistakenly believed at the time (an intruder) and the second layer is what he wants us to realise must have happened. Neither are true or what actually happened. I am following the second layer e.g Reeva's implied part in his version.

Right. Thank you for explaining. You can get giddy with this whole trial from the very beginning right up to the present. Different versions, all the tailoring, multiple defences, continual crying, vomiting, day visits for a psychiatric assessment, a defence lawyer promising crucial evidence which would support his client that is never produced, expert witnesses who aren't experts at all, a social worker who contacts the defence saying she wants to testify, a judge who changes her judgment as she's reading it out, a judgment that others who've heard some of her previous judgments say the language is different to how she normally expresses herself, and then to top it all off, a judgment that makes no sense, misinterprets the law and a sentence which is highly inappropriate.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Its likely it was always open with a single fan in operation and balcony door open.

Otherwise the air won't flow through the room to create a breeze

A sensible arrangement assuming the fan was ever on. It's definitely plugged in but wasn't found on. Perhaps it was on earlier that evening. Interestingly, nowhere in OP's story do we hear about his plugging in or at least switching on the fan(s).

 

[Mr Fossil]

Right. Thank you for explaining. You can get giddy with this whole trial from the very beginning right up to the present. Different versions, all the tailoring, multiple defences, continual crying, vomiting, day visits for a psychiatric assessment, a defence lawyer promising crucial evidence which would support his client that is never produced, expert witnesses who aren't experts at all, a social worker who contacts the defence saying she wants to testify, a judge who changes her judgment as she's reading it out, a judgment that others who've heard some of her previous judgments say the language is different to how she normally expresses herself, and then to top it all off, a judgment that makes no sense, misinterprets the law and a sentence which is highly inappropriate.

Ok, you got me back there Judi with your last long sentence, which certainly made me giddy!

 

[ColonelMustard]

Hello, all!

Very happy Thanksgiving wishes from the US! For more info. on this gastronomically gluttonous American holiday, Wikipedia describes it thusly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_(United_States)

Essentially, we gather with extended family members/relatives, each of whom drives the others crazy until we want to slap each other upside the head. (In some families actual fights break out). We eat like pigs until we're so stuffed that we feel like we might throw up. Then, we down a bromide which allows us to immediately eat like pigs again. By then, we feel so sick we can barely move. Traditionally, then men watch football and and nap while women clean up the mess. During and afterwards, we eat leftovers. We take more leftovers home when race to get out of there, and continue to eat like pigs until everything is gone, which is often later that night.

The average caloric intake of food eaten that day is said to be about 4,500 calories. For those like me who are smart enough to wear pants and skirts with elastic waistbands, that number increases considerably.

It's a holiday that one should avoid at all costs but, alas, rarely (never) can.

I've been gone from WS for awhile. I have no idea why. Probably depressed knowing I'd miss OP's birthday party. In America, a well-known joke is that people smuggle files into prisoners baked in cakes. When the prisoner takes out the file, they use it to file the iron bars of their cell loose and escape. Ha!

I've just read all the entries since I was last around and I have several thoughts to share and a question.

1. I love you guys. (Old and new, those reading-only, and even those spying for Roux.)
2. I got mad all over again. (I want to rip my hair out.)
3. Where can I find your full transcript of OPs XE, Mr. Fossil - you miracle worker, you!

 

[Cherwell]

Right. Thank you for explaining. You can get giddy with this whole trial from the very beginning right up to the present. Different versions, all the tailoring, multiple defences, continual crying, vomiting, day visits for a psychiatric assessment, a defence lawyer promising crucial evidence which would support his client that is never produced, expert witnesses who aren't experts at all, a social worker who contacts the defence saying she wants to testify, a judge who changes her judgment as she's reading it out, a judgment that others who've heard some of her previous judgments say the language is different to how she normally expresses herself, and then to top it all off, a judgment that makes no sense, misinterprets the law and a sentence which is highly inappropriate.

And never a mention of Frank. That really stinks.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Hello, all!

Very happy Thanksgiving wishes from the US! For more info. on this gastronomically gluttonous American holiday, Wikipedia describes it thusly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_(United_States)

Essentially, we gather with extended family members, each of whom drives the others crazy. We eat like pigs until we're so stuffed that we feel like we might throw up. Then, we down a bromide which allows us to immediately eat like pigs again. By then, we feel so sick we can barely move. Traditionally, then men watch football and and nap while women clean up the mess. During and afterwards, we eat leftovers. We take more leftovers home when we go and continue to eat like pigs until they're gone.

The average caloric intake of food eaten that day is said to be about 3,500 calories. For those like me who are smart enough to wear pants and skirts with elastic waistbands, that number increases considerably.

It's a holiday that one should avoid at all costs but, alas, can rarely (never) get away from.

I've been gone from WS for awhile. I have no idea why. Probably depressed knowing I'd miss OP's birthday party. In America, a well-known joke is that people smuggle files into prisoners baked in cakes. When the prisoner takes out the file, they use it to file the iron bars of their cell loose and escape. Ha!

I've just read all the entries since I was last around and I have several thoughts to share.

1. I love you guys
2. I got mad all over again.
3. Where can I find your full transcript of OPs XE, Mr. Fossil - you miracle worker, you!

The official transcript of OP's testimony was posted on the Behind The Door site here. If you mean my personal version, it isn't complete. It covers all of OP's EIC but only part of his XE. It is more accurate than the official transcript and I'm happy to share it. I also have lots of bits of other witness testimony where an important point was covered. I'll take a look at gathering it all together and posting a link to it if that's what you're after?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Ok, you got me back there Judi with your last long sentence, which certainly made me giddy!

:floorlaugh: I could have dot pointed it, but hey, we all know these things so nothing would be lost in translation so to speak.

 

[jay-jay]

No, we don't know when the window was opened. He may have opened it after, or either of them may have opened it earlier. The only fact is that is was found open and needed to be open for his story.

.. but didn't the Stipps testify that the window was closed when they heard all the commotion then went to look from their balcony? or at least insinuate that it was anyway, by virtue of them .. (or was it just Dr Stipp who saw it, I forget now) seeing a figure through the frosted glass of the window?

 

[Mr Fossil]

.. but didn't the Stipps testify that the window was closed when they heard all the commotion then went to look from their balcony? or at least insinuate that it was anyway, by virtue of them .. (or was it just Dr Stipp who saw it, I forget now) seeing a figure through the frosted glass of the window?

IIRC Dr Stipp doesn't explicitly say but Annette Stipp says the left side of the bathroom window was slid open. I take your point about seeing a figure moving though the frosted glass. I'll have to check but it would contradict his wife if he means all three panes.