Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[Val1]

Patricia Visagie ‏@Patrweezy 29 Min.Vor 29 Minuten

Main accused in #DRC coup case, Ettienne Kabila released on R10 000 bail. #sabcnews



Oh, no more water flooding for OP's jail cell ...

Perhaps he may actually have to stay in a real prison cell for a change.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Snakes and ladders

Bail statement (16.8):

I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.

Cross examination (p348):

Nel: And you were not concerned about the ladders that the builders would leave I your yard every night?
OP: I was concerned, M'Lady. I asked the building contractor if he would mind putting the ladders in the garage at night. I do not remember checking it every night, but I checked at one occasion that they were in the garage at night.
Nel: But this, this night you did not check?
OP: No, that night I did not check, M'Lady.
Nel: So let us just say that… Why did you not check? Was that not important?
OP: It was important to me, M'Lady. It was, I was… I do not know why I did not check it.

So according to this at the time of his bail statement he did not know the ladders were outside. He could only have suspected that they might be.

Of course, if challenged about his bail statement, OP could simply have said that he meant that the contractors had left the ladders outside on previous occasions.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-took-everything-us-reevas-mother-opens/

On Sunday night on Carte Blanche on M-Net (DStv 101) at 7pm, Steenkamp takes Sankaree Govender into her home after almost two years of media silence, sharing her most intimate thoughts about life without her daughter, who was killed on Valentine’s Day last year by the Blade Runner.

While Carte Blanche can’t broadcast the full interview, it will be made available on MultiChoice’s DStv Catch Up service right after Sunday evening’s Carte Blanche episode.

 

[Mr Fossil]

According to OP, Reeva is so scared and believes the intruders are coming closer to her, that she doesn't say anything to him.

OP: My Lady, I agree with Mr Nel. She would have been terrified, My Lady but I do not think that would have let her to scream out. I think that she would have kept quiet for that reason …[intervenes].
Nel: Or answered …[intervenes].
OP: I was shouting and I was approaching the toilet and she was in the, I was approaching the bathroom and she was in the toilet. Then I presume that she would think that the danger is coming closer to her. So why will she shout out? (p429)

So why did she slam the toilet door just as he approaches the bathroom in his final version?

This significant sound startle is not part of his bail statement. Why did he add it? I'll post my answer shortly.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Pistorius’s mind and body do not easily come to rest. For a time, he took the TV out of his bedroom so he would not stay up into the early morning watching movies. He programmed his phone so he couldn’t send texts late at night. But he found that he just read into the wee hours. “I’m in bed at like 8 p.m., and I don’t get out of bed till about 7 a.m.,” he said. “But I only sleep for like half of it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/oscar-pistorius.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Mr Fossil]

Pistorius’s mind and body do not easily come to rest. For a time, he took the TV out of his bedroom so he would not stay up into the early morning watching movies. He programmed his phone so he couldn’t send texts late at night. But he found that he just read into the wee hours. “I’m in bed at like 8 p.m., and I don’t get out of bed till about 7 a.m.,” he said. “But I only sleep for like half of it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/oscar-pistorius.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Yes, that's from Blade Runner and refers to his Blackberry. It confirms both that he is an insomniac and phone junkie.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Bail statement (16.5):

"After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep."

This implies he is already in bed and she joins him.

In his EIC (p109) he adds the teeth cleaning sketch to cover the possibility that he is asked whether the bathroom window might not have already been open when he went to sleep (like the balcony doors). He is last out of the bathroom and joins Reeva, who is laying in the middle of the bed (note no side specified). He goes to sleep having agreed with Reeva that she will bring in the fans and close the balcony doors and curtains when she falls asleep.

So we see him change the sequence of going to bed and he doesn't know when she fell asleep.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://ewn.co.za/2014/11/28/Petitio...l-judge?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Petition launched against Dewani judge

The “Justice4Anni” campaign wants Judge Jeanette Traverso removed from the case.

The petition calls on Justice Minister Michael Masutha to dismiss Traverso from presiding over Dewani's murder trial.

It calls on the minister to initiate an investigation into her conduct and order a retrial.

The authors of the petition claim a case expert observing the trial compiled a dossier on Traverso’s conduct, which will be handed to the minister.

She is accused of being aggressive and openly rude towards the prosecution while being friendly towards the defence.

The "Justice4Anni" campaign also claimed it was forced to launch the petition because of numerous complaints about Traverso’s behaviour during the trial.


We know this behavior from another trial, don't we?

 

[JudgeJudi]

OP’s girls over the years. The dates are approximate.

Vicky Miles 2006-2008; 2009-2012
Chanelle Du Plessis 2006
Jenna Edkins 2008 – 2013
Melissa Rom 2009
Sam Taylor May 2011 - Oct 2012
Anastasia Khozissova July - ? 2012
Reeva 4 Nov 2012 – 14 Feb 2013
Erin Stear (?) Jan - Feb 2013 (while dating Reeva)
Leah Sky Malan Dec 2013 - Feb 2014

Will anyone, including the ever faithful Jenna, be brave enough to form a relationship with him when he’s out of prison? How old will he be? What will he have to offer? Could they withstand the inevitable insults hurled his way if they’re seen out in public with him? Will he have a huge amount of pent up aggression by the time he’s free?

No, he’ll never be free. He’ll exchange his prison cell for a life without bars but a prison all the same. He's actually safer inside prison. Once he leaves he'll have to get used to looking over his shoulder because he has dangerous enemies outside and he won't lawfully be able to carry his trusty gun.

 

[JudgeJudi]

<Respectfully snipped>

Snakes and ladders

So according to this at the time of his bail statement he did not know the ladders were outside. He could only have suspected that they might be.

Of course, if challenged about his bail statement, OP could simply have said that he meant that the contractors had left the ladders outside on previous occasions.

"Snakes and ladders" ... I like that.

I think it's a real shame that the ladders were there. "He could only have suspected that they might be". I'd suggest he prayed continuously until he was told that they were. If not, how would the "intruder/s" have entered? There no nearby downpipe and the branches on the tree are too slender near the house. Maybe via a grappling hook?

Nel would have had an absolute field day if there no ladders.

 

[Mr Fossil]

<Respectfully snipped>



"Snakes and ladders" ... I like that.

I think it's a real shame that the ladders were there. "He could only have suspected that they might be". I'd suggest he prayed continuously until he was told that they were. If not, how would the "intruder/s" have entered? There no nearby downpipe and the branches on the tree are too slender near the house. Maybe via a grappling hook?

Nel would have had an absolute field day if there no ladders.

Or he in fact knew they were (probably) there (as per his bail statement) and wasn't as bothered as he'd like us to believe? It's a possibility but it's inconsistent with other evidence pointing to his fears e.g. the washing machine incident.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I just finished listening to the interview with John Carlin. The interviewer said he had Barry Bateman and Mandy Wiener in the studio together with about 80 people. They asked those present to raise their hands if they thought OP knew Reeva was behind the door and everyone except 1, or possibly 2, raised their hand. Barry and Mandy said this has happened at every single event.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I just finished listening to the interview with John Carlin. The interviewer said he had Barry Bateman and Mandy Wiener in the studio together with about 80 people. They asked those present to raise their hands if they thought OP knew Reeva was behind the door and everyone except 1, or possibly 2, raised their hand. Barry and Mandy said this has happened at every single event.

Don't we need to be careful with this kind of statistic? Does a representative proportion of people who think OP is innocent attend these events? Or are we saying 95%+ of people think he is guilty of murder?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Don't we need to be careful with this kind of statistic? Does a representative proportion of people who think OP is innocent attend these events? Or are we saying 95%+ of people think he is guilty of murder?

I think that's a fair comment. I don't believe it would be a representative proportion. Nevertheless, from all the polls that have been conducted, it would be equally fair to say that the vast majority of people in SA and elsewhere hold the same view.

 

[Cherwell]

Here's a beautiful 10 min video tribute to OP's mom.

Info on 2nd wedding / 2nd husband + photo of them and kids at the wedding, itself, at 7:30.

http://www.enca.com/sheila-pistorius-she-taught-oscar-never-give

Other questions you had were discussed in an interview/s with OP. I'm not sure which; I watched them all.

I didn't watch the video (can't stand the sight of Pistorius), but noticed this gem on the linked page:

"One day she [OP's mother] was looking out of the kitchen window and Carl was playing around and Aimee was toddling around and Oscar was stomping around in the dog’s bowl.

"She shouted out of the window, 'Oscar, get out of the dog’s bowl! You’re wetting your feet!' And then she realised that he didn’t feel that, and she just said, 'carry on in the dog’s bowl Oscar.'”

Why on earth would it be all right for him to misbehave with the dog's drinking water because he didn't have real feet to get wet? Wouldn't you tell any child to stop doing that?

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Here’s another damning tidbit never mentioned by anyone.

Oscar claimed he thought Reeva was in the bedroom.

The toilet/bathroom share a common wall with the bedroom.

While he stated he never fired a warning shot into the shower because it might ricochet and hit HIM, did he ever also consider that one or more of those four bullets could have gone astray (he wasn’t “aiming” LOL), penetrated the wall and struck Reeva?

Of course he didn’t. Why would he? He knew she wasn’t in the bedroom.

Bizarrely, AFTER the shooting, he testified he put his cocked gun down on the bath mat and pointed it AWAY from Reeva, as it might have gone off. WTFLOL??!! How considerate. Safety first!!!

He claimed to have searched for her ON the bed! (Much more dramatic and tragic than actually turning on the lights. And hiding behind the curtains? Please.) As if she’d still be IN BED with all the yelling, screaming and gunshots?! No. The reasonable woman would have escaped out the bedroom door, called the cops and/or turned on the lights and grabbed the air gun.

That’s the problem with Oscar’s “story”.

There was never a reasonable Oscar, never a reasonable Reeva, never a reasonable “intruder” (a brazen home invader hiding in the toilet? Ohf##kplease.) It was one endless series of excruciatingly improbable / impossible events, all stirred up into the perfect “accident”. Reeva’s and the “intruder’s” actions/lack of actions had to be bizarrely improbable to fit OP’s story.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

&#8220;The question is 1) did the accused subjectively foresee that it could be the deceased behind the toilet door and 2) notwithstanding the foresight, did he then fire the shots, thereby reconciling himself to the possibility that it could be the deceased in the toilet? The evidence before this court does not support the state&#8217;s contention that this could be a case of dolus eventualis. On the contrary, the evidence shows that from the onset, the accused believed that at the time he fired shots into the toilet door, the deceased was in the bedroom while the intruders were in the toilet.&#8221; ...

&#8220;He did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time.&#8221; ...

&#8220;The accused cannot be guilty of murder dolus eventualis &#8230; on the basis that, from his belief and his conduct, it could not be said that he foresaw that either the deceased or anyone else for that matter, might be killed when he fired the shots at the toilet door. It also cannot be said that he accepted the possibility, or brought that possibility into the bargain.&#8221; ...

&#8220;It follows that the accused&#8217;s erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus.&#8221;

- Judge Masipa

If one asks the WRONG legal question(s), one gets the WRONG legal &#8220;fact&#8221;(s).

Any verdict based on WRONG &#8220;fact&#8221;(s) must be WRONG.

Masipa grossly erred in making any distinction between the &#8220;intruder&#8221; and Reeva. The law makes no such distinction in the identity of the deceased. Murder doesn&#8217;t hinge on ID. That the &#8220;intruder&#8221; did not exist is 100% irrelevant - OP&#8217;s entire story and every action flowed from his claimed belief in this &#8220;intruder&#8221;. More crucially, had there been an actual intruder, he&#8217;d be just as DEAD as Reeva. It&#8217;s clear OP didn&#8217;t value the &#8220;intruder&#8217;s&#8221; life (he blatantly ignored the gun laws and his training) and neither did Masipa. By drawing a distinction based on victim ID, she created her own law to fit her verdict.

As for subjective foresight, it&#8217;s virtually impossible to crawl inside a killer&#8217;s head ... but his words and actions (of lack thereof) ratted him out. Logical inference drawn from all evidence is the key tool of the courtroom (counsel, judge, juries). If it wasn&#8217;t, few murder cases would ever be solved or judged (absent rare direct evidence). Oscar&#8217;s own actions condemn him.

If one loads a 9mm with Black Talons, deliberately walks into unseen danger (ignoring escape route a few feet away), aims at a closed door and pulls the trigger four times - KNOWING a human stands behind that door (posing zero threat) - one is explicitly assumed to accept any and all consequences.

If this was not a legal certainty, all any murderer would need to plead is that he never foresaw any lethal possibilities whatsoever (Oopsie, an accident! I thought it was A, not B. I just wanted them out of my house! My bad!) Dead person B just becomes unfortunate collateral damage - like Reeva ... her life valued at 10 months prison. (How many people with murder in their hearts will gladly pay that price?) The Oscar Defense is easy: just plead ignorance from beginning to end and wail in &#8220;remorse&#8221; - a license to kill with near total impunity. This is why Masipa&#8217;s verdict sets such a dangerous precedent.

Masipa erred again and again by not strictly applying the reasonable man test - she consistently applied the Oscar Pistorius test - what would Oscar do based on terror/GAD/disability/vulnerability/remorse/Reeva&#8217;s &#8220;location&#8221; at any given second?

If the SCA judges read nothing else but this passage from Masipa&#8217;s judgement, they will no doubt swiftly dismantle her twisted logic as judicial garbage and bring down the hammer on OP.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Here&#8217;s another damning tidbit never mentioned by anyone.

Oscar claimed he thought Reeva was in the bedroom.

The toilet/bathroom share a common wall with the bedroom.

While he stated he never fired a warning shot into the shower because it might ricochet and hit HIM, did he ever also consider that one or more of those four bullets could have gone astray (he wasn&#8217;t &#8220;aiming&#8221; LOL), penetrated the wall and struck Reeva?

Of course he didn&#8217;t. Why would he? He knew she wasn&#8217;t in the bedroom.

Bizarrely, AFTER the shooting, he testified he put his cocked gun down on the bath mat and pointed it AWAY from Reeva, as it might have gone off. WTFLOL??!! How considerate. Safety first!!!

He claimed to have searched for her ON the bed! (Much more dramatic and tragic than actually turning on the lights. And hiding behind the curtains? Please.) As if she&#8217;d still be IN BED with all the yelling, screaming and gunshots?! No. The reasonable woman would have escaped out the bedroom door, called the cops and/or turned on the lights and grabbed the air gun.

That&#8217;s the problem with Oscar&#8217;s &#8220;story&#8221;.

There was never a reasonable Oscar, never a reasonable Reeva, never a reasonable &#8220;intruder&#8221; (a brazen home invader hiding in the toilet? Ohf##kplease.) It was one endless series of excruciatingly improbable / impossible events, all stirred up into the perfect &#8220;accident&#8221;. Reeva&#8217;s and the &#8220;intruder&#8217;s&#8221; actions/lack of actions had to be bizarrely improbable to fit OP&#8217;s story.

In a nutshell, most of what OP tells us didn't happen.

Can I query where you found that he pointed the gun away from Reeva when he put it down on the bath mat. I'd don't recognise this bit.

 

[jay-jay]

Hahaha. I have absolutely no doubt it's from OP because he says "and sometimes I just feel venerable" Only he would say that. "I just felt like something was up and I just need to feel that what I'm giving is coming back. They were never sulky or moody, I can't stand that. I'd like that, it sounds pretty serious and I'd rather do it sooner than later". This is a very strange message to say the least. It sounds like Reeva spent the previous night at his home but something happened that caused her to leave and he's trying to pour oil on troubled waters.

"It makes me smile so much cause I know you putting me first. I just want that cause I know I need that for it to work". Says it all, doesn't it. She must put him first, ahead of herself and everything else for it work. ME, ME, ME. I note the date is 4 weeks before he killed her. If only she'd listened to her head instead of to her heart.

BBM .. but then again, if she was actually leaving (or attempting to leave) the relationship on the night of the 13th/14th then she was listening to her head. If she had listened to her head a few weeks beforehand and left the relationship then, then she may still have ended up being killed at that point. As we've mentioned before, the point when a woman is leaving an abusive/violent relationship is the most dangerous time for her and it wouldn't have mattered when it was she actually left him .. the very minute she entered that relationship she was doomed, but obviously wouldn't have know it until the time when she tried to leave it (if that is what happened).

 

[Cherwell]

BBM .. but then again, if she was actually leaving (or attempting to leave) the relationship on the night of the 13th/14th then she was listening to her head. If she had listened to her head a few weeks beforehand and left the relationship then, then she may still have ended up being killed at that point. As we've mentioned before, the point when a woman is leaving an abusive/violent relationship is the most dangerous time for her and it wouldn't have mattered when it was she actually left him .. the very minute she entered that relationship she was doomed, but obviously wouldn't have know it until the time when she tried to leave it (if that is what happened).

Sadly you're probably right. She sounds too decent to have dumped him by text, which with hindsight would have been the safest way.