Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[Gbtaketwo]

Gbtaketwo,

This is absolutely ridiculous to say BUT...

1. I know your screen name is G.B. Take Two

2. Every time I see it/glance at it, I think it's an African name.


Gb Ugbekpe

Gb Mazibuko

Sorry not an African name , just a nickname related to my shopping habits
( long story won't bother you with the details )

Funnily enough though I have genuinely had lots of " take two " moments whilst following this trial ,so much so I feel I have been living in a parallel universe at times .
Am hoping the appeal brings back some reality and justice for Reeva .

 

[JudgeJudi]

:floorlaugh:


**** GENERAL QUESTION FOR ANYONE ****

Who can I ask whether they can switch out the little rolling laugh guy (above) for one of the one's that are on the opening page when you hit the smiley icon in the edit menu?

To get to the laughing/rolling person, I have to click into "More," which is past two things I've never seen anyone use - a yellow cow face and a rabbit sitting in a director's chair (or is that a drum set?) Once I get into "More" I have scroll down to get him/her, a very cute things which is actually used quite often.

I wish the order of the emoticons was changed to Standard Smilies, FFJ Smilies, Greetings, Events and ... those
bananas should definitely come last. I've never seen a banana on here and there are sooo many of them. Maybe the other WS forums use them. If others agree, maybe something can be done ... she said hopefully.

:gomods: Are you listening?

 

[mister happy]

Another weird thing was that Nel got their names(?), any reports, etc., JUST before or as the DT witnesses were testifying.

I don't think it's like that in the US. Both sides get time to prepare, don't they, because full disclosure is universally required?

Yes, full disclosure. No "Perry Mason Moments".

 

[Interested Bystander]

:floorlaugh:


**** GENERAL QUESTION FOR ANYONE ****

Who can I ask whether they can switch out the little rolling laugh guy (above) for one of the one's that are on the opening page when you hit the smiley icon in the edit menu?

To get to the laughing/rolling person, I have to click into "More," which is past two things I've never seen anyone use - a yellow cow face and a rabbit sitting in a director's chair (or is that a drum set?) Once I get into "More" I have scroll down to get him/her, a very cute things which is actually used quite often.

You could just type : floorlaugh : but remove the spaces I have left each side of the word floorlaugh. This is what you get :floorlaugh:

 

[Cherwell]

I never thought about the fact that OP might be flirting with JM. I think it's funny that Nancy Grace and Dan Abrms disagree about the effect that would have and I agree with Nancy. In general, I think that women understand women's reactions better than men do and vice versa.

Nancy Grace: “Come on. M’lady this, m’lady that. Batting his eyes. Come on. It was either that, or the crying, or the snotting. You can pick which one got to the judge.”

How would she know if he was "batting his eyes"? He wasn't shown onscreen during his testimony. Or does she mean that she saw him doing this at other times? Did anyone here notice anything like that?

Have to say I would find all the snot and vomit a turn-off, to say the least. Not a good flirting technique for me! :yuck:

 

[Cherwell]

:floorlaugh:


**** GENERAL QUESTION FOR ANYONE ****

Who can I ask whether they can switch out the little rolling laugh guy (above) for one of the one's that are on the opening page when you hit the smiley icon in the edit menu?

To get to the laughing/rolling person, I have to click into "More," which is past two things I've never seen anyone use - a yellow cow face and a rabbit sitting in a director's chair (or is that a drum set?) Once I get into "More" I have scroll down to get him/her, a very cute things which is actually used quite often.

I wish the order of the emoticons was changed to Standard Smilies, FFJ Smilies, Greetings, Events and ... those
bananas should definitely come last. I've never seen a banana on here and there are sooo many of them. Maybe the other WS forums use them. If others agree, maybe something can be done ... she said hopefully.

Yes, I agree. Most of the icons are sadly underused because it is so difficult and timeconsuming to find them. It would be good if they could be sorted into broad categories as a start. Happy, sad, angry, etc.

Sometimes, if I know the kind of thing I'm after, I have a guess at what goes in between the : and the :
In my previous post I tried ugh, bleugh, and yuk (hitting 'preview' each time) before I found success with yuck :yuck:


Oh, and for a good laugh, a simple lol between the colons works well :lol:

 

[JudgeJudi]

Glad you liked the ad Colonel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNDuzdanepw

At my last place of employment someone emailed it to themselves at work and then promptly sent it to all and sundry. I was the oldest person working there ... well past childbearing age ... and nearly everyone else was in their late 20s and 30s and most had young children. The laughter rolled around the office for days, and then months later it would start all over again.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Nancy Grace: “Come on. M’lady this, m’lady that. Batting his eyes. Come on. It was either that, or the crying, or the snotting. You can pick which one got to the judge.”

How would she know if he was "batting his eyes"? He wasn't shown onscreen during his testimony. Or does she mean that she saw him doing this at other times? Did anyone here notice anything like that?

Have to say I would find all the snot and vomit a turn-off, to say the least. Not a good flirting technique for me! :yuck:

I don't go with the flirting either. More inclined to think all his snivelling, snotting, crying, his please say "there, there" to me looks, brought out the misguided social worker in her. However I do think the judge flirted with Roux and had no time for the 'tough love' demeanour of Nel.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Yes, full disclosure. No "Perry Mason Moments".

The State has to disclose practically everything well in advance so the accused has adequate time to prepare his/her defence. The defence has to disclose very little by comparison, but certainly the names and addresses of all their proposed witnesses together with the profession of expert witnesses, and they don't need to disclose much pre-trial. This all happens under what they call "discovery". It does happen in the US and virtually everywhere worldwide, not counting certain obvious countries. This American article explains.

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/discovery.htm

One of the aims of discovery is to avoid ambush or "Perry Mason moments" and the another is to enable the accused to see what he/she is up against and hopefully avoid a trial altogether. 90% of defendants these days plead guilty because of discovery thereby saving massive amounts of money and time for both parties and the court - hence plea bargains.

 

[Interested Bystander]

: banghead : without spaces = :banghead:

 

[Interested Bystander]

: bed : = :bed: which is where I am going as it is 01.18 in the UK! :wave:

 

[emirates1957]

I don't go with the flirting either. More inclined to think all his snivelling, snotting, crying, his please say "there, there" to me looks, brought out the misguided social worker in her. However I do think the judge flirted with Roux and had no time for the 'tough love' demeanour of Nel.

Maybe Judge M fancies herself as a bit of a cougar !!!

 

[akp]

So they are not appealing the charge of owning illegal ammunition??? Thank you for posting this summary!

They are.

Here are the relevant excerpts from that appeal document (forgive me the spelling mistakes - it is converted to text with an OCR software):

page 14 of the pdf file:

4. AND WHEREAS the prosecutors are of the opinion that questions
pertaining to the charge of Murder and Count 4 should be reserved


pages 19-20:

COUNT 4:

29. WHEREAS the finding of the court as to the requirements of unlawfully
possessing ammunition in contravention of Contravention of Section 90 of
the Firearm Control act 60 of 2000 (the Act), has wide implications for
both legal and illegal gun owners

30. AND WHEREAS it is in the interest of justice to clarify if only the
“possession” of ammunition, for your own purposes, or which is your own,
is prohibited in contravention of the provisions of the Act

31. AND WHEREAS the court recognised that intention is required for the
requirement of possession, the court did not address what form of fault
(intention/negligence), if any, is required for liability under Sec 90 of the
Act

32. NOW THEREFORE a guestion should be reserved to establish, what
form of fault is reguired for liability under Sec 90 of the Act, if any,
and if the court correctly found that gossession and/or holding of
ammunition for andlor on behalf of someone else, or which belongs
to someone else, does not contravene Section 90 of the Act.

33. NOW THEREFORE a guestion should be reserved to establish
whether the State must prove possession of the ammunition for a
gurgose or just unlawful gossession where the accused had no
licence, permit or firearm for the ammunition.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Sorry not an African name , just a nickname related to my shopping habits
( long story won't bother you with the details )

Funnily enough though I have genuinely had lots of " take two " moments whilst following this trial ,so much so I feel I have been living in a parallel universe at times .
Am hoping the appeal brings back some reality and justice for Reeva .

Oh, I understand: one for now and one for later times, when the first one will be broken?,
In Germany Taketwo-Take2-Nimm2 this is a trade mark for something like vitamin candy.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

So, here's a weird Websleuths Webpages Comments" question.

When I hit "thanks," I variously mean:

- I agree.
- I read your post.
- Haven't seen you around in awhile
- UNbelieveable! (an exclamation)
- Thanks for commenting (no matter what you've said.).
- That's funny.
- I don't agree but respect your opinion.
- That's sad.
- Thank you for thanking me
- That's SO interesting
- You're an excellent sleuther
- Thank you for bringing that to my attention
- That's hysterical
- Hi
- I care.
- I'm sorry to hear that.
- Where did you ever find that!
Other...

What does it mean to the rest of you?

(ps. I wish they had more buttons to better distinguish things.)

Nice question! I'm using the "Thanks" for all answers except the bbm. Your completely selection has left out nothing.

 

[Mr Fossil]

It would be interesting to hear how he views your bat after shots scenario, especially since I'm still of the camp that OP beat the door, metal plate and possibly the tiles before he went and got his gun. To me the bashing noise of a metal plate and a couple of hard reverberating whacks against a door that possibly resulted in those tiles being dislodged would sound much more like thunderclaps as per OP's buddy CM, than the four gunshots that plowed through the door like butter, three stopped by a soft body and only one ricocheting off the wall. Plus the fact that the sound of the bat whacks would likely not have carried as far as the gunshots and certainly not as far as the screams heard that seemed to be what woke some of the witnesses before they heard the gunshots that killed RS(the final shots having killed her as determined by the ME's timeline with blood splatter etc).

As for your comments about RS's screams coming towards the bathroom(per Mrs. Stipp's), why couldn't they have sounded like they were getting closer as OP broke through the toilet door allowing the noise to then travel directly out the open bathroom window instead of being muffled in the sealed toilet room like it would have been before OP first started beating at the door/metal plate? Also, if OP then went and got his gun while also possibly mocking her(as had been put to Roux) and after the opening was made in the door allowing RS to see what he was returning with, wouldn't that have really intensified her fear and screams before he shut her up?

As for whether there could have been more than four gunshots, possibly, though there is also the possibility that some of those missing bullets were from previous incidents(sunroof, dog, unknown). Just because OP said he usually carries a full magazine doesn't mean it was full that night. Also, would his "one up" be counted as one of the 17 or would be an extra?

I think my key points, and those which I am most confident about, relate to the phone data which has the potential to reshape a lot of what we understand may have happened that night.

One of the potential changes is that the first sounds heard by the Stipps could well be before the shots that kill Reeva. The time of Dr Stipp's first failed call to Security needs closer scrutiny as it would be significant to this event if it is wrong.

I don't totally discount bat strikes and, if the police sound experts are convinced that her screams could be heard from within the closed toilet (with and without a crack in the door) then it's a real possibility. It does mean though that OP not only fetches the bat to terrorise her / try to get her out of the toilet but that once he doesn't succeed (but can now see her) that he then fetches the gun. Agreed, she can now also see him, hence her intensified screaming when she sees the gun, something I had in my original theory. That's two deliberate violent actions directed at Reeva by OP (bat then gun) rather than one potentially rash act. I'm happy that the kick to the panel may be what ultimately dislodged it. I'll update 2.1.3 of Key questions to give a better balance.

You'll see later in 2.3 that I speculate that the bat comes before the helps. This also supports it coming before the shots. It would also be a simpler explanation of the first sounds rather than introducing an extra cause. There is clearly more than one possible scenario.

The Taurus has a maximum capacity of 18 rounds when fitted with a full 17 round magazine. The bullet that was 'one up' can be seen on the bath towel in photo 925 after the gun was made safe by the Constable. There's nothing to say that is was full that evening except OP saying it usually was. If the number of bullets left in the magazine are greater than 10 (probably 13) then there were only four shots. If there's 10 remaining it's grounds for suspicion.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I have updated 2.1, 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 in Key questions as per my previous post above.

The stark difference in the scenarios is clear:

Gun before gun - the shots that kill Reeva are a rash action at the climax of an escalating argument.

Bat before gun - two deliberate, considered acts of violence directed at Reeva in that Oscar must both fetch and use the bat and then subsequently fetch and use the gun. This is premeditated however you look at it.

I favour the former. There is, of course, a 'Something else before gun' scenario which falls between the above. And Oscar's version.

 

[pandax81]

I'm wondering about Seekoei..

The state didn't touch that subject in their application for leave to appeal. I'm assuming the judge and the defense could raise the Seekoei objection..but I'm not sure at what point in the process they can do that?!
The NPA spokesman stated that they are confident that Masipa will grant their request to appeal. Would that mean Seekoei will no longer have an impact on the appeal..or would that be an issue they will deal with when they petition SCA??

One more question..the state is also appealing the sentence..would that be subject to Seekoei law? I'm thinking it shouldn't ...as they are appealing the sentence imposed for what is considered a competent verdict by Seekoei.

Anyone knows?

The state touched as much as they could/should at this stage: "3. AND WHEREAS the State is entitled to request that questions for consideration of the Superior Court of Appeal/Appellate Division should be reserved". I don't think it was coincidence either that they filed Count 1 (competent verdict) and Count 4 (acquittal) together.

Qs of law can be argued and refused on the ground of Seekoei at any stage from now on, right up to and including (if and when) the SCA hears them. So, even if Masipa reserves all the Qs, this does not mean Seekoei has been overcome. Petitioning the SCA is something the prosecution only needs to do if Masipa refuses to reserve (some or all of) their Questions, but if this stage happens, then again the Seekoei hurdle can indeed be put up. The state could even at this stage ask Seekoei as a Q of law itself, since this issue then arose on the trial.

I would say it is 50/50 whether Seekoei can be overturned, and the chances only that good due to the scrutiny/publicity.

If I were Masipa, I would probably reserve my own Q of law about Seekoei to the SCA, submit all the state's Qs as dependent on that, get my teeth stuck into the state's Qs in my report*, and grant OP bail if he wants it.

Seekoei is irrelevant/independent of the appeal on sentence.

* There is plenty to get stuck into, in my view, unfortunately.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://micheigwe.blogspot.de/2014/03/is-oscar-pistorius-crack-cocaine-addict.html

The Daily Telegraph had plastered on its front page “Murder of April Jones ‘proves *advertiser censored* link to Sexual Assault’. One has to question then whether the person who committed this murder has moved from merely watching explicit material and in an attempt to want more has now acted out their fantasy in a quest to obtain gratification. This is obviously related to sexual violence and might not have any bearing to Reeva Steenkamp’s murder apart from the exposition of violent behavior.

Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that addiction to *advertiser censored* does not lead to mental intoxication? Is it plausible that Pornographic intoxication is a lacuna in our law? Can South Africa set an International precedent on voluntary intoxication induced by a visual activity and not the consumption of a substance? Will light be shed on the arsenal of psychological effects of pornographic addiction. Will we hear testimony from neuro-scientists on mental triggers of this new age addiction? Did Oscar Pistorius in a fit of rage offload the wrong gun?

 

[Mr Fossil]

The state touched as much as they could/should at this stage: "3. AND WHEREAS the State is entitled to request that questions for consideration of the Superior Court of Appeal/Appellate Division should be reserved". I don't think it was coincidence either that they filed Count 1 (competent verdict) and Count 4 (acquittal) together.

Qs of law can be argued and refused on the ground of Seekoei at any stage from now on, right up to and including (if and when) the SCA hears them. So, even if Masipa reserves all the Qs, this does not mean Seekoei has been overcome. Petitioning the SCA is something the prosecution only needs to do if Masipa refuses to reserve (some or all of) their Questions, but if this stage happens, then again the Seekoei hurdle can indeed be put up. The state could even at this stage ask Seekoei as a Q of law itself, since this issue then arose on the trial.

I would say it is 50/50 whether Seekoei can be overturned, and the chances only that good due to the scrutiny/publicity.

If I were Masipa, I would probably reserve my own Q of law about Seekoei to the SCA, submit all the state's Qs as dependent on that, get my teeth stuck into the state's Qs in my report*, and grant OP bail if he wants it.

* There is plenty to get stuck into, in my view, unfortunately.

Is this a possibility without the Defence appealing themselves?