Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[pandax81]

Is this a possibility without the Defence appealing themselves?

Yes Mr Fossil, it is allowed for by s 321 of the Criminal Procedure Act:

321 When execution of sentence may be suspended
(1) The execution of the sentence of a superior court shall not be suspended by reason of any appeal against a conviction or by reason of any question of law having been reserved for consideration by the court of appeal, unless-
(a) ......
[Para. (a) deleted by s. 2 of Act 33 of 1997.]
(b) the superior court from which the appeal is made or by which the question is reserved thinks fit to order that the accused be released on bail or that he be treated as an unconvicted prisoner until the appeal or the question reserved has been heard and decided

 

[Deleted member 102539]

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

O/T re the above, but for you, Mr. Fossil:

4.5 Who started Reeva's car and let the motor run, when and why?

 

[Mr Fossil]

O/T re the above, but for you, Mr. Fossil:

4.5 Who started Reeva's car and let the motor run, when and why?

Who says they did? Isn't this hearsay reported by newspapers? I think it's enough for me to stick with speculation around the evidence presented in court otherwise I'll be into conspiracy theories which can lead anywhere, as anything becomes possible.

 

[lithgow1]

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

It was a good question Colonel. I also use it for a range of reasons with the main ones being I essentially agree with the poster's take on things; nearly always if someone responds to one of my posts, even if I don't agree with them (I think of that as like a good manners thing); I'm impressed with the poster's sleuthing abilities and/or hard work; it makes me laugh; it links to a good or interesting article; and, the person is providing a running commentary when things are actually happening in the courtroom which is helpful for those at work etc. So essentially I thank just about everyone! I occasionaly have a dilemma if I agree with say 90% of the poster's thoughts but not all, but usually decide based on how strong my disagreement is. And, being human, I get a little miffed if someone's response essentially agreeing with a post of mine gets more thanks than my original one did, but I get over it quickly.

 

[Cherwell]

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.

Why? Why would you grant him bail?

 

[akp]

It was a good question Colonel. I also use it for a range of reasons with the main ones being I essentially agree with the poster's take on things; nearly always if someone responds to one of my posts, even if I don't agree with them (I think of that as like a good manners thing); I'm impressed with the poster's sleuthing abilities and/or hard work; it makes me laugh; it links to a good or interesting article; and, the person is providing a running commentary when things are actually happening in the courtroom which is helpful for those at work etc. So essentially I thank just about everyone! I occasionaly have a dilemma if I agree with say 90% of the poster's thoughts but not all, but usually decide based on how strong my disagreement is. And, being human, I get a little miffed if someone's response essentially agreeing with a post of mine gets more thanks than my original one did, but I get over it quickly.

My thanks for that post is for agreeing with you fully!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Who says they did? Isn't this hearsay reported by newspapers? I think it's enough for me to stick with speculation around the evidence presented in court otherwise I'll be into conspiracy theories which can lead anywhere, as anything becomes possible.

The hearsay was reheated; I thought, maybe it was more truth in it now. But okay, I understand.

 

[K.T]

Thanks for all the good posts. Still patiently following along.

I am pleased there is an well-written appeal from the prosecution, uncertain about it's success. Reading other appellate decisions by SA courts does not lead one to much confidence in the law, unfortunately. There are systemic issues which have led to some fairly perverse findings that I believe show cultural and political indifference and structural problems.

One of the many problems (slightly off topic to Pistorius trial) is that re-offence or multiplex offences have at times led a downgrade of murder to culpable homicide. Therefore, in Humphries v. State, the fact that Humphres had illegally and recklessly jumped the train bumper and ignored warning lights multiple times and succeeded in killing 10 children only on his last instance of dangerous driving, led the appeals court to decide he could not have "reconciled" himself to murder/dolus. http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/DEREBUS/2013/130.html

Or the fact that Jub Jub decided to race his car under the influence of illegal drugs was a major factor in the appeals court finding him not responsible for murder. The precedent set by these Supreme Court decisions is the illogic that if one has previous "got away" with crimes (eg. ingestion of illegal substances or previous multiple driving offences) than they may not than be held responsible for further fatal offences.

In general sentences in South Africa are frightening light and many will often only receive a suspended sentences at best. 14 people were killed between Humphries and Jub Jub yet neither received more than ten years in sentence.

Defence attorney Manny Witz described a successful defence case where his client merely received a suspended sentence for knife-slaying his wife - the husband was supposedly too intoxicated to understand his killing actions (automatism) even though he could still lock his fatally injured wife in the house and drive away from the scene.

Still, am hopeful that there is enough legal will, intelligent and passionate advocates and a population push that this appeal may at least draw attention on the many problems of the SA judiciary.

 

[AW2B]

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.

Thanks for the great explanation. Based on that..I would say that at the very least there is a strong chance the sentence will be increased..at least I hope so..

 

[Val1]

Who says they did? Isn't this hearsay reported by newspapers? I think it's enough for me to stick with speculation around the evidence presented in court otherwise I'll be into conspiracy theories which can lead anywhere, as anything becomes possible.

It's 4am here so excuse me if I've recalled incorrectly, but didn't OP claim to have said he had advised his cousin to not drive out to OP's place in his new vehicle? Was it on the calls from the 13th when that was supposed to have happened?

Why would a young man spend time(20+-? mins) talking to a male cousin instead of trying to sex up his hot new gf the night before Valentine's Day, unless it was all just a publicity stunt for both of them? The usual reason you would think, given his "******" morning news, would probably be money woes, but perhaps it had something to do with OP's feud with ST's millionaire and Batchelor?

He had had stitches previously due to his inability to let his previous ex go without a fight, even though he was already in a new public relationship, perhaps there had been some ongoing tit for tat going on that OP was scared might be coming "home" to roost that he was having his cousin help him with(weren't his cousins acting as bodyguards during the trial too?)? Heck, the whole JE thing could easily have stirred up some bad blood and not just between OP and RS, wasn't JE engaged to someone else at the time that OP may have been concerned about?

So looking at possible reasons for an argument, if OP was feeling guilty for whatever was going on between him and JE, then add to that RS's coffee with her ex, then the possible news that his lawsuit over the assault charges was still a problem and maybe even getting word that he might be getting dropped as a sponsor for whatever reason(poor loser, etc) and then to have RS with her new contract and a new tv show about to kick off(even if they weren't in a "real" relationship, the brand trumps all it seems and that wouldn't be good for his).... let's just say that A type personalities don't often do well in second place, it's black and white to them, win or lose.

 

[Cherwell]

It's 4am here so excuse me if I've recalled incorrectly, but didn't OP claim to have said he had advised his cousin to not drive out to OP's place in his new vehicle? Was it on the calls from the 13th when that was supposed to have happened?

Why would a young man spend time(20+-? mins) talking to a male cousin instead of trying to sex up his hot new gf the night before Valentine's Day, unless it was all just a publicity stunt for both of them? The usual reason you would think, given his "******" morning news, would probably be money woes, but perhaps it had something to do with OP's feud with ST's millionaire and Batchelor?

He had had stitches previously due to his inability to let his previous ex go without a fight, even though he was already in a new public relationship, perhaps there had been some ongoing tit for tat going on that OP was scared might be coming "home" to roost that he was having his cousin help him with(weren't his cousins acting as bodyguards during the trial too?)? Heck, the whole JE thing could easily have stirred up some bad blood and not just between OP and RS, wasn't JE engaged to someone else at the time that OP may have been concerned about?

So looking at possible reasons for an argument, if OP was feeling guilty for whatever was going on between him and JE, then add to that RS's coffee with her ex, then the possible news that his lawsuit over the assault charges was still a problem and maybe even getting word that he might be getting dropped as a sponsor for whatever reason(poor loser, etc) and then to have RS with her new contract and a new tv show about to kick off(even if they weren't in a "real" relationship, the brand trumps all it seems and that wouldn't be good for his).... let's just say that A type personalities don't often do well in second place, it's black and white to them, win or lose.

Is this the cousin called Graham binge? Just wondering.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Yes they are appealing that charge. I think BritsKate was just highlighting specific parts.



The full papers were posted earlier in the thread, but I can't remember where!

http://m.ewn.co.za/2014/11/05/OPINION-Rebecca-Davis-Pistorius-appeal-Clarity-eventualis

ETA - found it. http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/141104NPA.pdf

Thanks, Soozie
I read through the official appeal in that PDF, but it doesn't mention the illegal ammunition
What a missed opportunity!!! I wonder why???

ETA: I just saw that other sleuthers corrected me and that the illegal ammunition charge sentence is being appealed! Hooray!!

 

[Mr Fossil]

Thanks, Soozie
I read through the official appeal in that PDF, but it doesn't mention the illegal ammunition
What a missed opportunity!!! I wonder why???

Check again Apples, it does. Count 4 is paras 29 onwards.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

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):

Thank you so much! I mistakenly thought that the contents got duplicated after seeing the signatures on page 9. Just catching up here!

Phew, what a relief that they are going to appeal that charge as well!

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Check again Apples, it does. Count 4 is paras 29 onwards.

Thank you, Mr Fossil! I did check again!! Hooray!! This is great news.

 

[jay-jay]

It's 4am here so excuse me if I've recalled incorrectly, but didn't OP claim to have said he had advised his cousin to not drive out to OP's place in his new vehicle? Was it on the calls from the 13th when that was supposed to have happened?

Why would a young man spend time(20+-? mins) talking to a male cousin instead of trying to sex up his hot new gf the night before Valentine's Day, unless it was all just a publicity stunt for both of them? The usual reason you would think, given his "******" morning news, would probably be money woes, but perhaps it had something to do with OP's feud with ST's millionaire and Batchelor?

He had had stitches previously due to his inability to let his previous ex go without a fight, even though he was already in a new public relationship, perhaps there had been some ongoing tit for tat going on that OP was scared might be coming "home" to roost that he was having his cousin help him with(weren't his cousins acting as bodyguards during the trial too?)? Heck, the whole JE thing could easily have stirred up some bad blood and not just between OP and RS, wasn't JE engaged to someone else at the time that OP may have been concerned about?

So looking at possible reasons for an argument, if OP was feeling guilty for whatever was going on between him and JE, then add to that RS's coffee with her ex, then the possible news that his lawsuit over the assault charges was still a problem and maybe even getting word that he might be getting dropped as a sponsor for whatever reason(poor loser, etc) and then to have RS with her new contract and a new tv show about to kick off(even if they weren't in a "real" relationship, the brand trumps all it seems and that wouldn't be good for his).... let's just say that A type personalities don't often do well in second place, it's black and white to them, win or lose.

.. the other thing I didn't realise until yesterday (when I was listening again to them going through some of Reeva's whatsapp messages following one of those parties where OP had thrown a hissy fit) is that she said that OP had accused her of 'hitting on' Sam's* partner .. well, back when I listened to the messages before, I didn't really know who was who at that stage, and didn't realise that he would've been referring to Justin Divaris .. he clearly has past history re. him (and Sam Taylor) and the threats towards him and Mark Batchelor, so I can just imagine how his blood must've been boiling to see Reeva chatting with him, all sparkly-like (which I would imagine she was like with everyone).


* Greyvenstein, presumably.

 

[pandax81]

Why? Why would you grant him bail?

Don't worry, I haven't had a bout of Pistorian flu. I meant ‘if I put myself in the frame of mind of Masipa’. This is the judge who acquitted him of murder and gave him 10 months incarceration for bordering-on-murder, after all.

I just think she would be inclined to grant bail if so requested, and will accept whatever reasons the defence may advance*. In a way OP would be worse off as a result, but I’m not sure he can resist an opportunity to piss Nel off.

(*Maybe things like: he would be hampered from defending this huge legal appeal by being in prison where he cannot secure or earn funds and arrange his defence as well as he could from outside, he would not be escaping justice merely suspending it in the form the prosecution seek to change anyway, his mental health has suddenly dipped since learning the prosecution is back to arguing he knew it was Reeva, yada yada yada)

 

[Cherwell]

.. the other thing I didn't realise until yesterday (when I was listening again to them going through some of Reeva's whatsapp messages following one of those parties where OP had thrown a hissy fit) is that she said that OP had accused her of 'hitting on' Sam's* partner .. well, back when I listened to the messages before, I didn't really know who was who at that stage, and didn't realise that he would've been referring to Justin Divaris .. he clearly has past history re. him (and Sam Taylor) and the threats towards him and Mark Batchelor, so I can just imagine how his blood must've been boiling to see Reeva chatting with him, all sparkly-like (which I would imagine she was like with everyone).


* Greyvenstein, presumably.

No, I don't think this was about Greyvenstein and Divaris. They are, or were, not married, and Reeva said 'husband'.
I think it was clarified somewhere that she was talking about another friend of hers.

Thinking about it some more, if it was Divaris, she wouldn't have said "hitting on my friend Sam's husband". She would have said ""hitting on Justin".

 

[ColonelMustard]

VAL1,

I think this is a COSMO cover. What text I could figure out, so far, is under the images, below.

I agree with our fellow sleuther that this is definitely not the orange dress Reeva is wearing in the stunning photo, however, it very well might have been!

For whatever it may be worth, I looked for the magazine itself. No go. Someone else may have better luck. Note: I believe that different covers and content (?) are distributed in different countries.

The left-hand thumb below is a smaller version of the original image.
The right-hand thumb is the magazine only.





(Left Side of the Cover)

RIGHT NOW
- SEIZE THE DAY
THE COSMO WAY
- TAKE A CHANCE
ON LIVE, LUST, LIFE"

______________
A _______ TELLS ALL


BONUS
50-PAGE SECTION
101 HOTTEST MEN ALIVE
SEXY, SEXIER,
SEXIEST

__________PHOBIA
__________________
__________________


(Right Side of the Cover)


POTENTIAL
_________________
_________________
_________________

YOUR SEXUAL
HISTORY
CAN YOU NAME _____
____________________

_______________
GOOD __________
HOW TO MAKE IT
WORK FOR HIM

GET _______
___________________
YOU ________ THINK
AND NOTICE

 

[ColonelMustard]

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 know anything about batting eyelashes, either, because we couldn't see it.
I assumed she had gotten the info. from a blogger/twitterer/reporter on the inside. Then, again, NG has been known to just make stuff up.

This is why we need a twitterer in the courtroom who can focus on critical things like eyelash batting AND give us a fashion critique. I mean, what was that white boa thing worn one day by the dark-haired woman with the glasses (Sheila's sister?) who always sat next to Aimee, and what does Masipa wear under that robe (if anything...ha!)?