Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[patCee]

Thanks! Will it give me the legal angle?

Sorry ColonelM I did wonder if my reply was the one you wanted. The book extract doesn't go as far as the trial. It does describe the way OP was treated as special even at the bail stage in being held at the local police station rather than the prison, and that Nel agreed due to having ease of access to OP.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Mr. F., I want to understand this.

I get the part about Nel thinking OP dropped the gun in the bathroom ager he fired. But why would that mean that he had to do all those other things?

You're a weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds kind of guy (i.e., expert), so is it about time? Is there time that he had to account for?

No. Nel was suggesting at the bail hearing that Pistorius dropped the gun immediately after realising the seriousness of what he had done (e.g. in Nel's view, that he had killed Reeva). So I was simply wondering if the the whole saga of him carrying a cocked weapon around after he'd fired it was added into his version at the trial to say no, he didn't drop it immediately because he didn't realise what he had done. Nel was incredulous that he would have done everything he said he did, sometimes on stumps, always in the dark, with a cocked weapon in one hand. He didn't believe him.

 

[lithgow1]

I say this with respect, and I can't speak for every Christian, but my sister is "born again" and the "formula" she explains to me is very simple.

1. God is male. God is love.

2. God sees all and knows all.

3. God forgives all, if only - and at the very moment - you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

4. God's will is something humans can/will never understand.

5. There is a purpose for everything "under heaven", which is always for good and is God's ultimate plan.

6. There is evil (Satan, devil, bad ) and there is grace (God, love, good) in the world.

7. The two constantly battle to test human beings faithfulness to God and Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

The essentials don't even add up to a "baker's dozen", yet if you come back to these every time you read a tweet from Carl, I'm telling you, none of his tweets are hard to understand.

(Any actual Christians out there, please weigh in. My information is only hearsay.)

I'm not a Christian either but my niece is, to the extent of attending church and being involved in its programs (teaching English to migrants etc), and the impression I have gotten, both from her and my own reading and doco watching is that there are many different types of Christians, from the very tolerant and non-judgemental types such as her, to the fire and brimstone Bible Belt types through to the 'prosperity doctrine' preachers who interpret the Bible to say that God is good with unbridled capitalism. In short, you only need to compare the current Pope with some of his predecessors to see that there is a wide range of interpretations and practices. As Jesus supposedly said, 'In my Father's house there are many rooms'.

My issue with CP is not that I don't understand his Biblical/spiritual quotes, but rather that I don't understand his need to proclaim them to the world. Fair enough to talk about his brother and his belief in his innocence but it is an undeniable truth that that brother shot and killed a woman in very suspicious circumstances and yet CP seems to think that the prosecutor, who believes it was deliberate murder, is now a step away from Satan for trying to prove this in a court of law. And for a man who wiped potential evidence from a phone taken from a crime scene his pious tweets go beyond verging on hypyocrisy IMO. Essentially, given the circumstances under which he has been tweeting, I find him to be tone deaf to the reaction his tweets have on most followers of this trial. They amuse more than anger me so I for one hope he continues to share his own particular take on Jesus, punishment and redemption if only for the fact that every time he does, at least one person tweets back about 'how is Jesus on wiping phone data Carl?'.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I never knew his trophies were strewn across the floor. Really?
Good grief, I learn a new thing every day, here.

Segue from trophies to watches:

I, too, suspect that it was someone in OP's family / posse who snatched his other watch. Or.... maybe he took it, himself. It wouldn't surprise me if he was a kleptomaniac on top of everything else, although I'm not sure it counts if you steal from yourself.

Anyway, I was just looking up a possible term for people who are addicted to watches and the very first thing that popped up on google search was, and I'm not kidding:

http://gawker.com/5978737/why-do-a$$holes-love-watches

The article describes OP to a "T". Ha!

:giggle:

 

[Cherwell]

------------------------------
The answer seems to have been yes AND that it was NOT Henke's ammo.

Questions:

1. Was it Oscar's? (logical guess)

2. Even so, why would Henke refuse to sign a (bogus) affidavit (to save his son's a$$)?

If his dad wouldn't help him - and frankly, never had, I can relate to that. My parents were exactly that way ( and it hurt). Some people/some parents are like that. "While [almost] anyone can have kids, not everyone should."

Very harsh. I can't agree that refusing to lie for a criminal offspring makes somebody a bad parent.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I didn't "get it" until I hit "reply with quote" and read this, which doesn't appear in the post, for me.

helly lightfoot ‏@shellylightfoo1 37 Min.Vor 37 Minuten Kleinmond
#oscarpistorius gerrie nel and npa




That being said, I really look forward to the company. My family took up permanent residency there, long ago.

//not sarcasm//

Sorry, my fault, had added later, when I was concerned, nobody may understand. In the same age as JM, I also start to be confused ..........

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Rob @sentra17 Oct 21
@GerrieNel_Not So Oscar only gets 5 years for killing Reeva. Nelson Mandala was given life and served 27 yrs for trying to end apartheid.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Thanks SO much for this.

It was fascinating to listen to, especially now being on the other side of the verdict and sentencing, and currently awaiting appeal. I would have loved it if it had been televised, but, oh, well.

I'm BEGGING someone to explain something to me.

On or about 1:50:00, Judge Nair said, "The accused has shown tendencies of aggression. It is not in dispute that he used foul language and threatened to conduct himself in a violent manner. It is not in dispute that he threatened to break someone's legs. It is not in dispute that, further, the accused caused his friend to try to manipulate a complainant into not taking a matter further."

If the judge at the bail hearing accepted these things as "not in dispute," how could they subsequently be disputed and even denied during the trial?

One example during the trial:

Nel: Have you ever threatened to break anyone's legs?
OP: "No."
Nel: But you've heard that someone has said that you did?


What's the legality of that?

I don't know what the legality is Col. Mustard but from the bail hearing, I suspect Gerrie Nel knew it was a uphill climb. OP was the 'untouchable', well he was since the arrest, since forever lol, but I take small comfort in the knowledge he beds down in a single cell, where his self pity and victim mentality will fall on deaf ears, and his tantrums heavily curtailed.
Nair and Masipa early on probably round a water cooler or more likely over high tea, decided the 'golden boy' must be treated like some rare commodity that the country could ill afford his time in prison. It was never about justice for Reeva.
JMO

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I'm not a Christian either but my niece is, to the extent of attending church and being involved in its programs (teaching English to migrants etc), and the impression I have gotten, both from her and my own reading and doco watching is that there are many different types of Christians, from the very tolerant and non-judgemental types such as her, to the fire and brimstone Bible Belt types through to the 'prosperity doctrine' preachers who interpret the Bible to say that God is good with unbridled capitalism. In short, you only need to compare the current Pope with some of his predecessors to see that there is a wide range of interpretations and practices. As Jesus supposedly said, 'In my Father's house there are many rooms'.

My issue with CP is not that I don't understand his Biblical/spiritual quotes, but rather that I don't understand his need to proclaim them to the world. Fair enough to talk about his brother and his belief in his innocence but it is an undeniable truth that that brother shot and killed a woman in very suspicious circumstances and yet CP seems to think that the prosecutor, who believes it was deliberate murder, is now a step away from Satan for trying to prove this in a court of law. And for a man who wiped potential evidence from a phone taken from a crime scene his pious tweets go beyond verging on hypyocrisy IMO. Essentially, given the circumstances under which he has been tweeting, I find him to be tone deaf to the reaction his tweets have on most followers of this trial. They amuse more than anger me so I for one hope he continues to share his own particular take on Jesus, punishment and redemption if only for the fact that every time he does, at least one person tweets back about 'how is Jesus on wiping phone data Carl?'.

I believe CP and the Pistorius clan’s (self)righteous Bible-tweeting is the moral and social equivalent of a nasty, belligerent, destructive five year old committing mayhem, then hiding behind his mother’s skirt.

 

[akp]

I don't know what the legality is Col. Mustard but from the bail hearing, I suspect Gerrie Nel knew it was a uphill climb. OP was the 'untouchable', well he was since the arrest, since forever lol, but I take small comfort in the knowledge he beds down in a single cell, where his self pity and victim mentality will fall on deaf ears, and his tantrums heavily curtailed.
Nair and Masipa early on probably round a water cooler or more likely over high tea, decided the 'golden boy' must be treated like some rare commodity that the country could ill afford his time in prison. It was never about justice for Reeva.
JMO

To be fair to Nair, though, Bail hearing is very different from the actual Trial. Almost none of the evidences of the State were available in the Bail hearing; whatever was there, Botha managed to spoil most of it. Most important of all, OP had not testified and in particular, was not cross examined. Forgetting every other piece of evidence (in the main trial), just on OP's evidence in chief and cross examination, he should have been convicted of murder and sentenced much more severely.

 

[G.bng]

Okay, but then I want to know today: Who was able to determine, that it really was a myth???

Hmm... well could that be the prosecution who determined it. There was a photo with OP's glittering trophies showing in their display in the background amongst the prosecution's photos and either the same or another showing the display with blood smear either on it or on the wall beside it. But hey, where were photos of the trophies strewn around or which investigator testified to seeing them like this?

And you really think if trophies were strewn around and damaged like in a fight Nel would not have filed into evidence photos of it to try to support the State's case there was an argument. An argument Nel must have known was going to be a no go with just EVDM's one voice and probably why he tried to support it with what could be an an old shot in OP's bedroom door and a bash in a bathroom panel that could have been caused earlier or caused by the wood hitting it as OP pulled out the panels. And don't you find it real indicative that the trophies strewn around and damaged was only reported by a few dubious tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Star, ones that also reported Reeva having her head crushed in with a cricket bat? And none of the papers I recall that printed the lie of Reeva being battered with the cricket bat retracted not even as a kindness to her parents, so I wouldn't hold my breath they will retract over the state of the trophies either.

 

[G.bng]

No. Nel was suggesting at the bail hearing that Pistorius dropped the gun immediately after realising the seriousness of what he had done (e.g. in Nel's view, that he had killed Reeva). So I was simply wondering if the the whole saga of him carrying a cocked weapon around after he'd fired it was added into his version at the trial to say no, he didn't drop it immediately because he didn't realise what he had done. Nel was incredulous that he would have done everything he said he did, sometimes on stumps, always in the dark, with a cocked weapon in one hand. He didn't believe him.

IMO it was a tad more than suggestion at the bail hearing, more an affirmation in one of his "it cannot be reasonably possibly be true" moments. OTOH, OP said he put the gun down to put on his prothesis but picked it up again.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Judge Thokozile Masipa would not rely on what witnesses to Reeva Steenkamp's killing claimed they heard, she said in the High Court in Pretoria on Thursday.

"It would be unwise to rely on any evidence by those witnesses who gave evidence on what they heard that morning. Human beings are fallible and rely on memory, which fades over time." ...

Masipa said fortunately phone records allowed for the chronology of events to be recreated.

She read the timeline between 3.12am on February 14 last year, when the first shots were heard, and 3.55am, when police arrived on the scene.

"It gives a feel of where witnesses corroborate or contradict one another."

http://www.thenewage.co.za/137419-1126-53-Unwise_to_relay_on_what_witnesses_heard

This right here. Wow. Pure judicial fraud in service of pure judicial bias.

But what else can one do to arrive at one’s pre-determined verdict other than tortuously twist and vaporize damning evidence to fit same?

First, let’s get something straight.

No ear witness “contradicted” any other ear witness. In fact, multiple, independent witnesses corroborated each other. While they all may have heard pieces and parts (some much more than others) and the descriptions may have varied, NONE of those auditory pieces and parts were ever disproved not to have occurred. Not hearing something is not proof it didn’t happen. (I regularly sleep through violent thunderstorms, barking dogs and once even slept through an earthquake. LOL )

Phone records are at most, partial evidence - not definitive, all-inclusive evidence. Such a notion that digital evidence is somehow inherently superior to witness evidence is highly dangerous and grossly unjust. Digital data records only give SOME of the What, When and Who ... but NOT the Why and How. Neither do they offer any context within the larger, overarching ‘mosaic’.

A chronology is just that - a time line, a framework, nothing more, nothing less. And even a chronology, especially in the context of a murder trial (where certain facts will never be known), is apt to be only a partial roadmap, littered with potholes and detours - it’s not some infallible GPS of Truth, as Masipa would have you believe.

Phone logs can “recreate” only just so much. It can’t tell you what happened before, during, after or between phone calls, nor the actual content of those calls.

Phone records, chronologies, witness testimonies, physical exhibits, photos, experts, etc. are ALL crucial tools to piece events together.

For a judge to arbitrarily place one form of evidence above one or more others as inherently the “best”, while wholesale trashing other forms of evidence without good cause is extremely suspect (especially when that allegedly “inferior” evidence is highly damning to the accused).

It strongly suggests one is NOT in search of the truth or justice.

Masipa summarily ditched testimony of FIVE State witnesses who essentially corroborate each other’s accounts of gun shots / bangs / female screams / female + male voices / and/or verbal argument. (Strangely, though, she did keep Dr. Stipp’s singular, suddenly-very-reliable eye witness account of Oz’s remorse. *sniff* WAAA!!!!)

Yet, inexplicably, she deemed “poor”, “evasive”, “untruthful” (i.e. lying through his teeth) OP’s testimony as reliable enough to exonerate him of murder!

This murder defendant (who had every reason to lie and had, in fact, been proven a liar) was believed over five State witnesses (all telling the same basic story), who all had no ulterior motives to lie (and who all would have rather been anywhere else than on the stand). UNfreakinbelievable. If this isn’t flat-out bias/incompetence/corruption, I don’t know what is.

Masipa’s dismissive, blanket statement essentially declared ALL human beings fallible ALL the time, ALL their memories fade ALL the time (...or at least in this one murder trial ... wink wink).

If this is so, why bother having freakin witnesses testify in any court case ever?!!

Just pull the phone logs and pronounce judgement!
Hey, we all know that telecom servers and digital databases are 100% infallible EYE and EAR witnesses to the actual crime scene / events in question, right?!
Phone logs can easily distinguish between tone, volume, pitch, inflection, speed, pauses, female screams, male crying, silence vs human verbal fights, gun shots vs cricket bat strikes, even the exact words spoken, right?!

GAH.

Phone records should be used to corroborate eye/ear witness testimonies ... NOT the other way around!

Drilling down beneath her words - reading between the lines - Masipa’s rationale was wholly inexplicable, lousy with gaping holes and downright bizarre. But, in light of her biased, pre-ordained goal (CH with a feather-soft landing), her judgement could not have been otherwise.

Inconvenient fact: Human beings also tell the TRUTH; they also have excellent memories (especially when it comes to stuff like “blood-curdling screams” - which never "fade" with memory).

No matter.

Masipa gave the benefit of the doubt to a proven liar who had every incentive to LIE, while basically dissing all State’s witnesses as “unreliable”, ostensibly because their (highly similar) accounts / times / descriptions didn’t match up perfectly.

Masipa demanded of State witnesses what she did NOT demand of Oscar... water-tight, seamless presentations, perfect in their collective conformity, right up to the last detail, never varying one jot - beyond any and all challenge, correction or reproach.

That, my dear fellow sleuthers, is a flaming red flag.

The more I reflect on Masipa’s dreadful judgement and even worse sentence, the more royally pissed I become.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Hmm... well could that be the prosecution who determined it. There was a photo with OP's glittering trophies showing in their display in the background amongst the prosecution's photos and either the same or another showing the display with blood smear either on it or on the wall beside it. But hey, where were photos of the trophies strewn around or which investigator testified to seeing them like this?

And you really think if trophies were strewn around and damaged like in a fight Nel would not have filed into evidence photos of it to try to support the State's case there was an argument. An argument Nel must have known was going to be a no go with just EVDM's one voice and probably why he tried to support it with what could be an an old shot in OP's bedroom door and a bash in a bathroom panel that could have been caused earlier or caused by the wood hitting it as OP pulled out the panels. And don't you find it real indicative that the trophies strewn around and damaged was only reported by a few dubious tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Star, ones that also reported Reeva having her head crushed in with a cricket bat? And none of the papers I recall that printed the lie of Reeva being battered with the cricket bat retracted not even as a kindness to her parents, so I wouldn't hold my breath they will retract over the state of the trophies either.

As Shane13 (?) said: "This goes deep". I don't believe all the once observed things as thrown trophies, Reeva's open car, beaten skull, drugs, etc. to be untruthful. There were partly sources, ie police. There are zero sources, which could prove it wrong.
At some point in the early times after the murder I read (with other words): Except the murder, this evening/night there was such an brutal act or something, the public should never know. Who knows? Maybe!

 

[jay-jay]

As Shane13 (?) said: "This goes deep". I don't believe all the once observed things as thrown trophies, Reeva's open car, beaten skull, drugs, etc. to be untruthful. There were partly sources, ie police. There are zero sources, which could prove it wrong.
At some point in the early times after the murder I read (with other words): Except the murder, this evening/night there was such an brutal act or something, the public should never know. Who knows? Maybe!

BBM .. that's exactly what I was thinking too, FG.

 

[Cherwell]

Hmm... well could that be the prosecution who determined it. There was a photo with OP's glittering trophies showing in their display in the background amongst the prosecution's photos and either the same or another showing the display with blood smear either on it or on the wall beside it. But hey, where were photos of the trophies strewn around or which investigator testified to seeing them like this?

And you really think if trophies were strewn around and damaged like in a fight Nel would not have filed into evidence photos of it to try to support the State's case there was an argument. An argument Nel must have known was going to be a no go with just EVDM's one voice and probably why he tried to support it with what could be an an old shot in OP's bedroom door and a bash in a bathroom panel that could have been caused earlier or caused by the wood hitting it as OP pulled out the panels. And don't you find it real indicative that the trophies strewn around and damaged was only reported by a few dubious tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Star, ones that also reported Reeva having her head crushed in with a cricket bat? And none of the papers I recall that printed the lie of Reeva being battered with the cricket bat retracted not even as a kindness to her parents, so I wouldn't hold my breath they will retract over the state of the trophies either.

I really don't know about the trophies, someone could have quickly picked them up and replaced them if any were out of place. There were a lot of OP's mates on the scene.

As for the "battered with the cricket bat" story, I think this probably came out of someone's genuine first impression, seeing the exit wound in Reeva's head and the bloody bat. They made an assumption which turned out to be wrong.

 

[soozieqtips]

I'd like to know why OP wasn't breathalysed on the spot, or at least within an hour or two. By the time he was tested, any alcohol in his system would have been metabolised. Why wasn't that a priority?

 

[ColonelMustard]

Sorry ColonelM I did wonder if my reply was the one you wanted. The book extract doesn't go as far as the trial. It does describe the way OP was treated as special even at the bail stage in being held at the local police station rather than the prison, and that Nel agreed due to having ease of access to OP.

Muchas gracias, chica.

patCee, do you recommend the book? I haven't yet invested.

 

[ColonelMustard]

No. Nel was suggesting at the bail hearing that Pistorius dropped the gun immediately after realising the seriousness of what he had done (e.g. in Nel's view, that he had killed Reeva). So I was simply wondering if the the whole saga of him carrying a cocked weapon around after he'd fired it was added into his version at the trial to say no, he didn't drop it immediately because he didn't realise what he had done. Nel was incredulous that he would have done everything he said he did, sometimes on stumps, always in the dark, with a cocked weapon in one hand. He didn't believe him.

OHHHHHHHH, I think I get it, now. And is part of the reason necessitating his tall tale because when they found the gun, it was cocked. and how was he going to explain that?

(I'm a true Fossilite; you possess a mystifying command of detail. Unlike me who, until yesterday, couldn't tell the difference between the accused (oz) and a continent (oz)!! Ha!)

 

[ColonelMustard]

I'm not a Christian either but my niece is, to the extent of attending church and being involved in its programs (teaching English to migrants etc), and the impression I have gotten, both from her and my own reading and doco watching is that there are many different types of Christians, from the very tolerant and non-judgemental types such as her, to the fire and brimstone Bible Belt types through to the 'prosperity doctrine' preachers who interpret the Bible to say that God is good with unbridled capitalism. In short, you only need to compare the current Pope with some of his predecessors to see that there is a wide range of interpretations and practices. As Jesus supposedly said, 'In my Father's house there are many rooms'.

My issue with CP is not that I don't understand his Biblical/spiritual quotes, but rather that I don't understand his need to proclaim them to the world. Fair enough to talk about his brother and his belief in his innocence but it is an undeniable truth that that brother shot and killed a woman in very suspicious circumstances and yet CP seems to think that the prosecutor, who believes it was deliberate murder, is now a step away from Satan for trying to prove this in a court of law. And for a man who wiped potential evidence from a phone taken from a crime scene his pious tweets go beyond verging on hypyocrisy IMO. Essentially, given the circumstances under which he has been tweeting, I find him to be tone deaf to the reaction his tweets have on most followers of this trial. They amuse more than anger me so I for one hope he continues to share his own particular take on Jesus, punishment and redemption if only for the fact that every time he does, at least one person tweets back about 'how is Jesus on wiping phone data Carl?'.

Thanks for that.

Indeed, I was relaying only my sister's beliefs - my sister a Born Again Christian's beliefs - filtered through all that is me.

My experience of her is that, in part, beyond truly believing her faith, it gives her life meaning and purpose. It also creates a strong bond with others socially and in worldview. Actively proclaiming her faith is as important to her beliefs as actively reaching out to others to spread the word of Christ's Good News "through which they, too, might be saved." Not being a member of the Twitterati, I can't say for sure but I imagine her tweets are not far afield from Carl's. Her circumstances are just different.

Practically-speaking, her beliefs remove all uncertainty from her life, something that I most certainly envy.

Plus, she likes to sing in the choir. :angel:

:angel: