Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[ckra1000]

My first instinct would be to synchronize so the information would be available (to analyze later - if needed - for possible value)

I've lost nothing by synchronizing but perhaps much if I don't.

Agreed. If I have a lot of deleting and re-organising to do on my iPhone, I always sync first and do the work on the laptop. It's just easier this way with a keyboard and mouse and I'm less likely to miss something.

 

[JudgeJudi]

One shocking aspect of Masipa’s judgment was the fact that she got Reeva’s injuries completely wrong. Prof. Saayman testified as to her injuries and Chris Mangena explained in great detail inter alia the order of the shots and which part of her body was hit with each of three bullets.

“The deceased sustained a wound on the right thigh,...”
Wrong. The first shot shattered her right hip.

“... a wound on the left upper arm ..., “
Wrong. The second shot almost amputated her right upper arm.

She later went on to say that the injuries were on the head, on the right upper arm, the right groin and the right hand between two fingers.
Wrong. This is the second mistake regarding this injury. It was the right hip.

Masipa also chose to ignore the fact that Saayman said he would be surprised if Reeva hadn’t screamed after the shot to the hip.

Once again, Masipa ignored, ignored, ignored all this evidence. She had one full month to write her judgment, if indeed she wrote it herself at all. Not only did she not remember the injuries, but she obviously did not review the transcript to make these gross errors. Therefore it’s fair to assume she may not have read much, if any, of it at all. Quite apart from so many other issues with the judgment, this one aspect alone speaks volumes. IMO Masipa is totally inept. I am absolutely seething.

 

[soozieqtips]

At a push, he may have got away with involuntary action on one shot, but I think it would have been impossible to argue four involuntary shots.

BIB - especially as there was a pause between the first and second shots when he had a moment to consider what he was doing, but carried on regardless.

 

[JudgeJudi]

O/T but here’s yet another example of the judiciary and the rich and famous.

President Zuma’s son, Duduzane Zuma, is giving evidence at the inquest into an accident in which a woman was killed. He was driving his Porsche in rain when he hit a large puddle and his vehicle spun and rear-ended a minibus taxi, killing a young mother who was a passenger and injuring three others. He said the visibility was so poor he didn’t even see the taxi. He conceded he's driven his vehicle too fast in the past and that it’s possible he was driving too fast at the time of the collision. He won't to admit to this because he said "It's self-incriminating".

He felt his vehicle hitting something but didn’t see what it was. Obviously he never bothered to check because he said he went to Sandton police the following night and reported the accident. The State said they don’t have that report and has obtained a court order to ensure that it’s recovered. (The following night after an accident severe enough to kill someone!!!)

In July, the NPA said it declined to prosecute Zuma due to insufficient evidence.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/duduzane-zuma-gives-evidence-fatal-car-accident-inquest

Karyn Maughan @karynmaughan

Accident reconstruction expert hired by #DuduzaneZuma says he believes crash caused by "hydro planing", therefore not his fault @eNCAnews

Another accident reconstruction expert. Sound familiar? One can just imagine how the President's son will be punished. I still haven't heard anything about Carl's accident, or the rhino horns. I guess Carl's matter will just disappear like OP's previous misdeeds. And the rhino horns ... well, I guess a claim will just have to be made on their insurance. Pity, his no claim bonus will go up. :floorlaugh:

 

[jay-jay]

In July, the NPA said it declined to prosecute Zuma due to insufficient evidence.

.. just the very fact of leaving the scene of an accident if you are the driver involved, is a criminal offence .. at least it is in this country!

 

[ckra1000]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...-oppose-prosecutors-appeal-of-verdict/5876500

In terms of the State needing to 'convince her another court could reach a different verdict' surely Masipa would have no choice but to green light an appeal. She herself said that his actions bordered on dolus eventualis and also that he was a poor witness and his story was 'unusual' (can't recall her exact wording on that). Given those words of hers, I don't see how she could plausibly, or even possibly, deny that another court may come to a different conclusion. From my understanding, using her summation of Pistorius as a witness another court could have rejected his testimony entirely. Seems to me that her own wording in delivering her verdict and sentence now leaves her no choice but to OK an appeal but am interested to hear anyone's ideas as to why I might be off the mark with this line of thinking.

As the case has divided the opinions of those close to the law in South Africa, from this alone, she must realise that another court could view the case differently. I can't see how she could argue that the case is clear cut. She had to SUBJECTIVELY decide if OP had intent. Subjectively, others may see it differently.

 

[JudgeJudi]

,

Thanks, so much IB, for posting this. I read it somewhere here before and wanted to find it again. Had you not happened to post it, I would have had no shot!

Here's a question for the legal eagles among us:

De Vos writes:

During cross-examination Pistorius offered a second defence of involuntary action. If the judge had found that Pistorius had not acted voluntary he would be entitled to an acquittal if his actions were attributable “to mechanical behaviour or muscular movements of which he was unaware and over which he had no control”. The judge rejected this argument.

Looking back, would involuntary action have been a better defense for Roux to have used?

1. Oscar seemed most comfortable defending himself this way
2. It would have matched his Tasha's defense
3. He had highly developed fine hair-trigger "muscle memory" for automatic movement (i.e., his years and years of training involved repetitive priming to "go," within a nanosecond - and keep going.

The defence of involuntariness is well recognised – examples include movement during an epileptic seizure and sleepwalking. The essence of the defence is that your mind did not direct or control your conduct. This is a very uncommon and difficult defence to rely on. I haven't been able to find any case law where it's been successful.

 

[ColonelMustard]

One shocking aspect of Masipa’s judgment was the fact that she got Reeva’s injuries completely wrong. Prof. Saayman testified as to her injuries and Chris Mangena explained in great detail inter alia the order of the shots and which part of her body was hit with each of three bullets.

“The deceased sustained a wound on the right thigh,...”
Wrong. The first shot shattered her right hip.

“... a wound on the left upper arm ..., “
Wrong. The second shot almost amputated her right upper arm.

She later went on to say that the injuries were on the head, on the right upper arm, the right groin and the right hand between two fingers.
Wrong. This is the second mistake regarding this injury. It was the right hip.

Masipa also chose to ignore the fact that Saayman said he would be surprised if Reeva hadn’t screamed after the shot to the hip.

Once again, Masipa ignored, ignored, ignored all this evidence. She had one full month to write her judgment, if indeed she wrote it herself at all. Not only did she not remember the injuries, but she obviously did not review the transcript to make these gross errors. Therefore it’s fair to assume she may not have read much, if any, of it at all. Quite apart from so many other issues with the judgment, this one aspect alone speaks volumes. IMO Masipa is totally inept. I am absolutely seething.

The 2 assessors were responsible for facts, yes?

1. That several of the most basic facts were clearly wrong, what repercussions, if any, do they/would they face and how would that happen?

2. Would it to not be prudent for someone in SA to challenge/permanently change the law that a verdict can only be appealed based on error of law?? Getting these wounds/basic facts wrong is beyond the pale. If it happens in this case, I can only imagine how it can be misused in others.

 

[MsMarple]

BIB - especially as there was a pause between the first and second shots when he had a moment to consider what he was doing, but carried on regardless.

That portion of the judgment stunned me. In order to support her conclusions Masipa had to throw out the both the earwitness testimony regarding the damning pause after the first shot and Saymaan's expert testimony regarding screams. Shocking, and IMO done deliberately for unknown personal reasons.

For me, that pause clearly answered the question of Oscar's intent to kill someone that night. I believe his target was Reeva but even if he truly believed it was an intruder he had a critical moment to think and based on actual events he chose to pull the trigger three more times. How is that not intent to kill?

Hopefully the appeal will reveal the profound errors in Masipa's logic but unfortunately we may never know why she decided to twist the facts in Oscar's favor. Is she merely incompetent, was she paid off?

When I gave my daughter a summary of the trial and judgment she asked me if the judge could have been threatened. Probably not but because we're even speculating on Masipa's actions says that she utterly failed in her responsibility to follow the guidelines of the law.

MOO

 

[4MrsB]

BBM - I'm not sure why he would draw the neighbours attention to the house before he shot Reeva. He's lost control of the situation once he has alerted the neighbours. He would be taking a risk that neighbours may come to the house before he was ready or that the neighbours would now be awake and hear much more. IMO.

That's also what I thought about the "GUN before GUN" theory.

Why would OP take a risky chance by drawing attention to neighbors and roaming security guard checks at 3am in the morning, by firing a gun through an open window? Additionally, only 2 people/same household reported hearing the 1st "shots/sounds". If a gun had been fired through an open window it's likely this would have been even louder than the 2nd set of shots/sounds that awakened and was heard by many more.

I also believe if "warning" shots had been fired by OP, and Reeva actually had her phone with her, she would have immediately dialed a number for help. To let a friend or police or someone know that fight had escalated to OP threatening her with a gun. She would not have hesitated any longer at that stage. (Although we don't actually know that her phone or one of OP's was in the toilet area with her. We have only OP's word for that. He may have snatched it from her during the beginning stages of their argument.)

 

[4MrsB]

David Dadic @DavidDadic · 15h 15 hours ago

Just going through the responses to my Pistorius appeal opposition tweet from earlier. Some people actually believe Roux working pro bono.


David Dadic @DavidDadic · 15h 15 hours ago

I'm not one of them.

A lot of hard work & long hours (and expense) to handle this as a "pro bono" case when the client is both grandson & like a son, to one of the more wealthy families in South Africa. Roux isn't that naive to think the financial resources have dried up (just because public being duped). I believe Roux knows OP has more assets as well (likely hidden previously, due to possible civil claim from Steenkamp's).

 

[Val1]

All WhatsApp messages to and from OP were taken from Reeva's phone. They are kept on the phone for as long as you don't delete them (or could be recovered if deleted and the space had not be reallocated). I have never deleted any messages on mine, and they go back years. The message numbers would tell us if any were missing.

So could OP's data still have been altered without actually showing a new signal, via the "Hulk" or any other secondary synched device? ie. any messages from Babyshoes or whoever removed and/or names/numbers deleted then synched across all his media apps? If there's no names/messages for the police to check from OP's stuff then they couldn't very well access those person's things to fish for info, correct?

Perhaps he was less concerned about what RS's phone may show because he was, by his own admission, wont to switch to actual calls that couldn't be recorded and he most probably wouldn't have sent RS messages that would implicate him, although that Tasha incident was mentioned but I suppose he may have thought it wasn't identifying enough to cause any problems for him and perhaps he had thought she may have deleted it because she had played dumb about it.

 

[foxbluff]

Yes, but why? What's the thinking behind establishing that procedure?

You've got me there... I've been wondering as much myself.

Another thing I find curious is why the SA lawyers involved in this case don't date their legal pleadings. They don't date the document itself nor do they indicate the date they signed it. imo

 

[DexterMorgan]

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.

Oh snap. I did not know that. No wonder she didn't give him atleast 6 years. She really tricked people on that one.

 

[JudgeJudi]

The 2 assessors were responsible for facts, yes?

1. That several of the most basic facts were clearly wrong, what repercussions, if any, do they/would they face and how would that happen?

2. Would it to not be prudent for someone in SA to challenge/permanently change the law that a verdict can only be appealed based on error of law?? Getting these wounds/basic facts wrong is beyond the pale. If it happens in this case, I can only imagine how it can be misused in others.

The two assessors AND the judge decide the facts but the two assessors can overrule her on the facts.

1. There wouldn't be repercussions for them personally. However, even though it's unusual, the State can appeal a conviction and an appeal court looks at all the trial evidence. That's why they can set aside the verdict and/or sentence.

2. The fact that the State can't appeal the facts is pretty much universal. In the case of countries where juries are involved, they decide the facts. In essence the assessors are the SA equivalent of a jury. Judges and juries frequently get it wrong and this is why the appeal process is so important but usually on the part of the accused who can pretty well appeal on any grounds.

A couple of things I forgot to mention in my post:

When you listen to a trial, your attention is focused on the story as it's unfolding. By the time it's concluded and you know that story, that's the time to go back a second time because more often than not you'll pick up the inconsistencies that you've missed the first time around, and I've mentioned this before. What I'm truly surprised at though is that we all missed these errors by Masipa. I can only assume it was because all our attention was diverted to the reasons she was handing down on how she reached her verdict and what the verdict was going to be. Leaving the law aside, are there any other black and white errors regarding the facts that are 100% wrong, not just our opinion that they're wrong.

I'm really curious that since the verdict, its become patently obvious that the NPA are extremely interested in gathering all Mr Fossil's information. This information relates to facts, not law. Why have they been so interested in facts? Mr Fossil, I'm not asking you to address this because I know you can't compromise yourself on matters you may know. Nevertheless, I'm wondering if factual matters can still come into play in the State's appeal. I know that the appeal court will read the entire trial transcript so obviously the facts are important to them notwithstanding the State is appealing on questions of law. Secondly, are they interested in any other factual matters.

 

[ckra1000]

One shocking aspect of Masipa’s judgment was the fact that she got Reeva’s injuries completely wrong. Prof. Saayman testified as to her injuries and Chris Mangena explained in great detail inter alia the order of the shots and which part of her body was hit with each of three bullets.

“The deceased sustained a wound on the right thigh,...”
Wrong. The first shot shattered her right hip.

“... a wound on the left upper arm ..., “
Wrong. The second shot almost amputated her right upper arm.

She later went on to say that the injuries were on the head, on the right upper arm, the right groin and the right hand between two fingers.
Wrong. This is the second mistake regarding this injury. It was the right hip.

Masipa also chose to ignore the fact that Saayman said he would be surprised if Reeva hadn’t screamed after the shot to the hip.

Once again, Masipa ignored, ignored, ignored all this evidence. She had one full month to write her judgment, if indeed she wrote it herself at all. Not only did she not remember the injuries, but she obviously did not review the transcript to make these gross errors. Therefore it’s fair to assume she may not have read much, if any, of it at all. Quite apart from so many other issues with the judgment, this one aspect alone speaks volumes. IMO Masipa is totally inept. I am absolutely seething.

The injuries mentioned in the judgement are certainly inaccurate, but I'm not sure their accuracy would have had a huge impact on her decision. Ignoring Saayman certainly would, of course.

I've said on here before ... I think the level of debate between members on here and the collective time spent by members on this case, gives us a much more detailed analysis than Masipa and 2 assessors could hope to have. I honestly think a lot of subtle points made by Nell were just completely missed by the court. What was on the surface, a simple case, became increasingly complex and tangled. Masipa's hearing also concerned me, when she asked OP to speak up so she could hear him. I wonder what else did she not hear during the proceedings?

As far as ignoring evidence is concerned, I guess she would have to dismiss some evidence no matter what her conclusion. There didn't appear to be a judgement which could take into account all the evidence and still fit. I believe, rightly or wrongly, she went with her gut reaction and then tried to assess how much evidence supported this view. Anything that didn't, she had to find an excuse for it's exclusion. It would have been the same process if she had decided he was guilty of murder and it would be an interesting exercise to see which pieces of evidence she would have to dismiss for this conclusion. I'm struggling to think of any apart from OPs own testimony. I think that tells us something !

Thinking on Masipas preceived bias ... Before the shooting, OP was seen as a national hero. He was seen as a kind of figurehead for SA, a global representative for their people. Trying their national sporting hero on a global public stage must have brought a lot of subconscious bias to the process. Many in SA would feel finding OP guilty of murder would be damaging to SA itself. A loss of an important person for them on the global stage. Perhaps this was part of Masipas subconcious bias. You can still see a lot of OP supporters clinging to the wreckage and refusing to believe he did anything wrong. They still want to believe that he is their hero, someone they looked up to, were inspired by and they can't face losing this.

When one has strong core beliefs (in this case strong beliefs in OP as a good person), it is natural to look for reasons to support or even strenghten those beliefs. Most people do not look for reasons to destroy those core beliefs, especially if they have invested a lot of emotion during their lives in supporting those core beliefs.

All just my opinion ... for what it's worth.

 

[JudgeJudi]

A lot of hard work & long hours (and expense) to handle this as a "pro bono" case when the client is both grandson & like a son, to one of the more wealthy families in South Africa. Roux isn't that naive to think the financial resources have dried up (just because public being duped). I believe Roux knows OP has more assets as well (likely hidden previously, due to possible civil claim from Steenkamp's).

I agree. Arnold may have stumped up bond money but the trial and appeal are an entirely different kettle of fish. Arnold has said in this matter and other incidents regarding OP that he "knows" what happened, sometimes even before the police have made their decisions. Whatever I think of Arnold, I don't believe he's a stupid man and it's quite possible that what he says in public and what he truly believes are entirely two different things. He may not even share his innermost thoughts with the other family members.

We'll probably never find out what financial arrangements Roux has made with OP and/or Arnold as it's privileged information after all. However Roux knows about the off-shore money and a good forensic accountant can frequently track it down. Basically all Roux has to know is where the money is and then put the hard word on OP.

It's now a case of "The rich get rich and the poor get poorer". OP may literally have nothing left by the time this is all over, zero, zip, nil.

 

[JudgeJudi]

<Respectfully snipped>

The injuries mentioned in the judgement are certainly inaccurate, but I'm not sure their accuracy would have had a huge impact on her decision. Ignoring Saayman certainly would, of course.

I've said on here before ... Masipa's hearing also concerned me, when she asked OP to speak up so she could hear him. I wonder what else did she not hear during the proceedings?

The point of my post wasn't that these errors had any impact on her decision at all, including ignoring Saayman. Her hearing doesn't come into the matter at all. She would have had a daily court transcript made available to her the following day.

Notwithstanding that, it was her legal duty and also the assessors' duty to analyse the transcript and get the facts correct. That these errors were in her judgment shows that this was not done. If there were errors on this very basic aspect, one can only imagine what others may have been involved when it came to anything technical. Possibly that's why the State's case was disregarded completely - too hard, too technical, required her and the assessors to think. All she did was follow Roux's timeline and matched it up with some phone calls.

She can't reach a just and proper sentence if she doesn't know the facts, and clearly she does not. The injuries were just an illustration of this, not a reflection of their overall importance.

IMO she's either extremely inexperienced in criminal trials, even though she's obviously done some and dished out very harsh sentences, very incompetent, lazy, biased or something else. JMO

 

[44ALLAN]

Except for the slight issue of how long it took for Moller to get the phones to start with to be able to do that(days?). I'm sure there was plenty of time by then for CP to have done the synching or whatever it all was that he did, the rest of the time was probably just trying to figure out how to handle it should the knowledge that there was another phone be discovered and then there's the whole needing it to back up some of the key points for the defense story(ie. calls to security, emergency).

I'm sorry but I have to say this..............................I'm sick and tired of hearing about Carl Pistorius wiping/syncing OP's phone from the crime scene I really am.
He would be arrested and probably in jail if he had.
I do not believe for one second that he did that and the prosecution allowed him to do it because they struck a 'deal' with the defence....................it was a murder scene for god's sake.
That cannot happen and I don't believe it for one second unless someone shows me proof not innuendos.

Sorry Val nothing against your post

 

[jilly]

That portion of the judgment stunned me. In order to support her conclusions Masipa had to throw out the both the earwitness testimony regarding the damning pause after the first shot and Saymaan's expert testimony regarding screams. Shocking, and IMO done deliberately for unknown personal reasons.

For me, that pause clearly answered the question of Oscar's intent to kill someone that night. I believe his target was Reeva but even if he truly believed it was an intruder he had a critical moment to think and based on actual events he chose to pull the trigger three more times. How is that not intent to kill?

Hopefully the appeal will reveal the profound errors in Masipa's logic but unfortunately we may never know why she decided to twist the facts in Oscar's favor. Is she merely incompetent, was she paid off?

When I gave my daughter a summary of the trial and judgment she asked me if the judge could have been threatened. Probably not but because we're even speculating on Masipa's actions says that she utterly failed in her responsibility to follow the guidelines of the law.

MOO

Iirc, she threw out the ear witness testimony because memories being unreliable. Just like she tossed Reeva's whatsapp messages because of ups and downs or whatever in a relationship.

She was on a mission to excuse Oscar for his "mistake" from the very beginning. She hardly picked up her pen to write. Granted the camera wasn't on her the whole time. She was the one who chose her Assessors. Think female assessor - an Advocate for the disabled. Who knows why she did this. Perhaps it was because of his stature with SA or his disability.

All the hooplah before the trial about Masipa being hard on domestic violence? What a crock. Perhaps, without a history of physical abuse, she couldn't find him guilty of murder. Even so, she carried on with the pathetic sentence for CH. It stuns me.

I don't think she was threatened. Either she is very naïve or mentally incompetent. From what we've read, it appears she didn't even write the verdict.

I sure hope the Supreme Court makes this right.