Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[akp]

I wondered that too. I concluded that it's possible that the names may have been taken from the Contacts in the 4949 phone, or at least cross checked with it. It was part of one of my questions to Captain Moller.

Carl didn't tamper enough to remove 'BabyShoes' from the Contacts.

Agree.

But there is a possibility they would have changed this one, specially if it was stored in Stander's name.

The other point is that those crucial whatsapp messages (and hence the killing) may not have anything to do with Jenna Edkins. If that is so, they might not think of changing `babyshoes' as a priority at that stage. They would try to keep alterations to a minimum.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Agree.

But there is a possibility they would have changed this one, specially if it was stored in Stander's name.

The other point is that those crucial whatsapp messages (and hence the killing) may not have anything to do with Jenna Edkins. If that is so, they might not think of changing `babyshoes' as a priority at that stage. They would try to keep alterations to a minimum.

Even if the name was changed on 0020 it couldn't have been changed on 4949 as Moller removes the SIM immediately, so remote changes would not be possible.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

High-profile criminal cases expose inequality in South Africa's justice system
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/04/south-africa-crime-oscar-pistorius-wealth-power

 

[akp]

Even if the name was changed on 0020 it couldn't have been changed on 4949 as Moller removes the SIM immediately, so remote changes would not be possible.

Let me understand this - are you saying that these contacts were the same on both the phones? In that case, I withdraw my last two comments.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Let me understand this - are you saying that these contacts were the same on both the phones? In that case, I withdraw my last two comments.

When I update my contacts on my iPhone, the changes automatically appear on my iPad because they're all registered under the same account. I would assume the same was true for OP's iPhones and iPads but don't know this.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

It's not as if he pumped four 'zombie stoppers' into an aircraft hangar: it was a bleedin' tiny toilet area. How could anyone expect NOT to kill the poor sucker behind that door?
- Bruce MacDonald

This judge thinks that because Pistorius was distraught in the house when Stipp arrived, that it proves he didn't commit dolus eventualis. What a complete idiot. Masipa, of course Pistorius would be distraught at that time, he was probably crying because he realised he'd completely ruined his own life. How can a judge form an opinion on the crime by considering his behaviour AFTER the crime? This judge thinks that because he immediately told friends he thought it was an intruder, that it proves he didn't intend to kill Reeva, well, judge Masipa, he would say that, wouldn't he. For god's sake, any murderer can now cry, make up a story, and you have set the precedent that because they cry and lie, they didn't mean it.
- Iwass Smith

Guns are designed to kill, or at least seriously injure. If you fire even one shot from a gun in the direction you perceive another person to be, you must foresee the real possibility of killing that person, even if the possibility is just 1 in 10 000. Firing 4 shots in the same direction in an small enclosed area radically increases the probability that 1 or more of them may be fatal to the other person. IMHO, a reasonable person must foresee this.
- Sarel van der Walt

The judge also failed to mention a single fact raised by the state to prove Pistorius's version was a lie. What about Cpt Mangena's testimony that Reeva would have had time to scream? The blood on the duvet? The fan chords? Was Masipa asleep during half the trial? She relies only on Oscar's own testimony, despite the fact that she also said he was a bad witness! She relies on a "time line" that occurred only AFTER the shooting! The state's case was blatantly ignored!! I hope Nel appeals. This is a travesty of a judgement.
- John Porter

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opin...do-the-facts-support-the-finding#.VFw0QKCLKot

The four comments above are from only ONE recent article from ONE media website.

Multiply those same sentiments exponentially across the past 22 months, across South Africa and the world.

Apparently, Websleuthers aren’t the only ones who’ve nailed Masipa’s shell game cold. LOL

If legions of ordinary people (in SA and globally) can instantly decode such clearly biased, irrational, indefensible travesty, I’d say there’s an excellent chance that the SCA will set things right (if for no other reason than to restore the good reputation of common horse sense within the SA Judiciary. LOL). Masipa’s reputation is ruined - it’s doubtful other judges would want to follow suit, not to mention they wouldn’t want to reinforce such a murderous legal precedent.

In the unlikely event that the SCA fails, it will have to explain that dismal failure in great detail to an already highly irate SA public.

Nel and Grant, I have no doubt, would then march right into the Constitutional Court.

 

[akp]

When I update my contacts on my iPhone, the changes automatically appear on my iPad because they're all registered under the same account. I would assume the same was true for OP's iPhones and iPads but don't know this.

True, if the two devices are set up that way. But were the contact list and details found on the two phones identical? Moller would have this information for sure.

 

[4MrsB]

The 1/6 only relates to sentences up to 5 years. Anything over that and he'd have to serve half before being eligible for parole.

Seems quite deliberate on Masipa's part. If she had sentenced OP to even one more year (6yrs) he would have been forced to serve a minimum of 3 years VS 10 months.

IMO: neither is enough for his crime.

 

[jay-jay]

Seems quite deliberate on Masipa's part. If she had sentenced OP to even one more year (6yrs) he would have been forced to serve a minimum of 3 years VS 10 months.

IMO: neither is enough for his crime.

.. as I said earlier today, I don't think she even wanted to sentence him to any jail time at all but she knew that she that that would look even more ridiculous, so she worked it so that he would be able to do the least time possible, but with a sentence that sounded reasonable for a conviction of manslaughter (if you take out all the details of the case, and the horrific nature of it, which she conveniently seems to have forgotten).

 

[Mr Fossil]

True, if the two devices are set up that way. But were the contact list and details found on the two phones identical? Moller would have this information for sure.

Agreed and, as I said, I don't know.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

The more I look at the bullet holes in the toilet door and trajectories, the more I’m convinced that B was not the missed shot - it was C.

The correct firing sequence -

Bang ... Bang ... bang bang.

A-hip ... B-arm ... C-miss D-head


* All four shots roughly line up on Reeva’s right side as she more or less fell straight down.

* As Reeva fell, C would miss the open area above her right shoulder and hit the wall; as she continued to fall, slightly forward, D hit her Right head.

* The two delays between A-B and B-CD would allow Reeva even more time to scream multiple times - “blood-curdling screams”.

* C-miss D-head also explains that even though C,D door holes were very close together, there were no corresponding two wounds that close together.

* Since we know D was the final shot, C had to have been the missed shot.


This is why OP was SILENT for an incredibly damning 31 SECONDS when Nel asked him if Reeva screamed after he fired.

Sometimes the truth doesn’t need any words.


A very primitive diagram of shot sequence / trajectories:

...... D
... C

B


... A

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

For anyone who wants to catch up on earlier docs/transcripts re the trial:

http://ewn.co.za/Features/behindthedoor#transcripts

Scroll down to bottom of the page.

Thank you for this helpful find. Still no sign anywhere of Masipa's sentencing transcript? Has anyone else seen it? TIA

 

[MsMarple]

I knew who OP was and I fell for his pubic image hook, line, and sinker. That's really all I had to go on - me and most of the rest of the world. When I started following the trial I wanted to try to understand more, so I went back and watched every video and video clip I could find.

Perhaps he was a jerk even in his very earliest days running but he came across to me as a humble, awkward, down-to-earth kid who was very charming.

Of course, that's also what they said about Ted Bundy (a US serial killer who volunteered at a rape crisis centre).

Were there any innocent early days for him, do you think?

I guess the real question is whether or not there was enough humanity in Oscar to begin with. I watched a video that included a short clip of an interview when Oscar was 17 or so and I have to admit it made me sad to see a glimmer of innocence in him that was lost over the years.

But based on stories shared by friends and family, as a youth he already had a history of reckless behavior. His new found fame could have easily pushed him onto a path of maturity and responsibility as a national hero. Instead, he grew into a spoiled, privileged young man who believed society's rules didn't apply to him.

So maybe there was a time when Oscar was still young and innocent and could have gone in a different direction but sadly, that train left the station long ago.

 

[G.bng]

The main difference, to me, between juries and a judge and assessors is that juries will decide the facts but are influenced by their emotions whereas a judge and assessors will base their decision on the law. If I was guilty I'd want a jury and if I was innocent I'd take a judge.

However, in this case ............

Nicely and succinctly put. Same as you, if I were guilty I'd take my chances with a jury any day.
You have only to read the questions the jury put the the judge in Vicky Pryce's first trial (I reckon more aware jurors, unable to convince others of the correct position, put the Qs to the judge so he would put it in B&W for them). Five priceless examples showing why I'd take a jury:

Q5. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?
The answer to that question is firmly no. That is because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given you for anyone to return a verdict except a true verdict according to the evidence.

Q6. Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence did not bring witnesses from the time of the offence such as au pair, neighbours?
There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence. On the contrary, there is no burden on the defendant to prove anything at all.

Q7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
You must not as I have now emphasised many times, speculate about what other witnesses will have not been called might have said or draw any inferences from their absence.

Q8. Can we speculate about the events at the time that Vicky Pryce signed the form, or what was in her mind at that time?
The answer to that is an equally firm no. "There's a difference between speculation, which is not permitted, and inferences.
​

Q10. Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling that she had no choice, ie she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows and he had ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?
This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Ms Pryce does not say that any such reasoning formed any part of her decision to do what she did and the answer to this question will therefore not help you in any way whatsoever to reach a true verdict in this case.


​

Not long after the last round of questions the presiding judge decided to discharge the jury after receiving a note saying it was "highly unlikely" they would be able to reach even a majority verdict!

 

[sleuth-d-]

The more I look at the bullet holes in the toilet door and trajectories, the more I’m convinced that B was not the missed shot - it was C.

The correct firing sequence -

Bang ... Bang ... bang bang.

A-hip ... B-arm ... C-miss D-head


* All four shots roughly line up on Reeva’s right side as she more or less fell straight down.

* As Reeva fell, C would miss the open area above her right shoulder and hit the wall; as she continued to fall, slightly forward, D hit her Right head.

* The two delays between A-B and B-CD would allow Reeva even more time to scream multiple times - “blood-curdling screams”.

* C-miss D-head also explains that even though C,D door holes were very close together, there were no corresponding two wounds that close together.

* Since we know D was the final shot, C had to have been the missed shot.


This is why OP was SILENT for an incredibly damning 31 SECONDS when Nel asked him if Reeva screamed after he fired.

Sometimes the truth doesn’t need any words.


A very primitive diagram of shot sequence / trajectories:

...... D
... C

B


... A


View attachment 62959

View attachment 62961

i think the main thing to factor is the gun position and op's position, rather than the position of the bullet-holes in the door, giving this order are likely imo
1. a - hip
2. d - arm
both these shots taken from very similar gun position, just requiring a small amount of body repositioning [re-aiming]

then a small body movement:
3. c - miss
4. b - head shot

both shots three and four have very similar gun position.

this leaves a gradual body movement from bathroom passageway inwards towards the bath [but only a small movement - 30 cm approx. in total]

i think the fact there are two positions for the hands could explain why initially the defence was two double taps... but agree with you that the sequence could have been ... shot 1 ... gap[re-aim]... shot 2... gap[slight re-position]... shot 3, shot 4

 

[Susza]

Sorry but you seem to have been caught up in a series of cryptic comments alluding to me and my playful or sarcastic replies which started with Cherwell who, replying to another poster about OP's cousin Graham Binge, noted:



Since it clearly alluded to me possibly being Graham Binge, I replied playfully:



To then some posts later find JJ's reply to Cherwell reiterating the idea I could be Graham Binge:



So I again replied playfully, since I am pretty sure OP has no Spanish cousin and even if he did it certainly isn't me:



Which is where you came in with your post.

So, no need to look for OP's Spanish cousin, and no I am not Graham Binge. I am Spanish-English and live in Madrid, Spain. At least that is where my home is and where I live except for periods in the UK where I am at present, aiding a very good friend of many years fight their local authority as well as doing bits I can to help with the support of their two learning disabled adult sons (one severely and one profoundly) who require 24/7 support and were at risk of the local authority removing them into care after my friend ran into serious difficulties, unable to cope, when their spouse, with whom they previously shared the sons' care, upped and left with another leaving my friend to provide the 24/7 care alone and with the local authority refusing to provide or fund care in their home due to costs. Now, thanks to my involvement and that of other advocates and lawyers, and after recourse to the local government ombudsmen and at the doors of taking the local authority to the Court of Protection, the battle is now won with the sons now secure living with a parent they adore, in the home they know and love, and where they always wanted to live and where it has now been officially deemed it is in their best interests to live. That sorted we are now working with the local authority to set up the 24/7 care package that the boys are assessed as needing which once finalised and up and running correctly, without hitches as there are at present, should leave my friend free to get on with their own life without having to sacrifice their sons to be able to do so (my friend would rather die than do this), and to even be able to sometimes come out to spend time in Spain, maybe. And if the local authority is ordered to pay compensation for the years it failed in its statutory Duty of Care towards my friend and their sons, the final battle we are at present immersed in, it will be even better!

Quel engagement magnifique. Chapeau, G.bng! Best wishes for all of you there!

 

[foxbluff]

Wow... I didn't know OP had a Spanish cousin who lives in Madrid!

:floorlaugh: I didn't either, G.bng, but you've now got sleuths searching for one! :floorlaugh:

ETA: I posted this while playing catch up many pages back... I see now that all is explained.

 

[WilliamMunter]

With regard to Carl Pistorius tampering with his brother's iPhone, was there any need to connect it to his "titaniumhulk" laptop? Why not delete data right off the phone directly?

If he just deleted the Whatsapp messages and whatever, and then changed the password, what would the advantage be with "synchronising" the phone? Several reports talk about synchronising but synchronised with what exactly?

 

[jay-jay]

With regard to Carl Pistorius tampering with his brother's iPhone, was there any need to connect it to his "titaniumhulk" laptop? Why not delete data right off the phone directly?

If he just deleted the Whatsapp messages and whatever, and then changed the password, what would the advantage be with "synchronising" the phone? Several reports talk about synchronising but synchronised with what exactly?

Thanks for asking this, I was wondering the exact same thing the other week but never got around to raising it!

 

[JudgeJudi]

BBM .. exactly .. and we've had all this with regard to witnesses, too .. so at the end of the day, why even bother with a trial at all if it can always been said that witness accounts should be dismissed out of hand because they aren't reliable, circumstantial evidence should just be chucked out because that's not reliable either, etc, etc. That's not how trials work, trials take the whole lot into consideration. You cannot only ever convict a criminal by having a video of them carrying out the deed, no-one would ever get convicted!

Nel fitted so many pieces of evidence together to form the mosaic. Each piece of the puzzle does not need to be established beyond reasonable doubt. It's the totality of all the pieces of the mosaic with which all the legal eagles agreed. One thing that really stuck in my mind was when Judge Greenland said something to the effect of "even if we had a video of OP carrying out the shooting, this wouldn't prove more than we already know" (intruder or otherwise).