Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[Lux et Veritas]

How bodies have piled up around Radovan Krejcir
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-11-13-fdsfsd

Uh oh ... OP better be extra-nice to prison neighbor Rad. LOL

OP fancies himself some tough guy but RK is the real deal - top of the food chain in SA’s underworld.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://mg.co.za/multimedia/2014-10-22-oscar-and-radovans-cell-block-swaray

Post sentencing, Pistorius finds himself sharing a cell with Radovan Krejcir. Justice, what a joke!

 

[jay-jay]

Uh oh ... OP better be extra-nice to prison neighbor Rad. LOL

OP fancies himself some tough guy but RK is the real deal - top of the food chain in SA’s underworld.

Wouldn't it be great if OP slipped up and fessed up about what he really did, just to try and big himself up a bit in front of this RK bloke.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

We need Oscar back - team-mate
http://www.news24.com/Live/SouthAfrica/OscarPistorius/We-need-Oscar-back-team-mate-20140919

“Win back hearts”?!! Sad, hero-worshiping delusion.

Would this guy want OP back if he had killed his sister?

Apparently, not all of OP’s teammates feel so warmly towards him.

Many South African teammates have little sympathy for they remember him as a hot-headed antagonist whose temperamental ways were well hidden beneath the purified public image. ...

“We all knew he had a different side to him but it was rarely placed on public view. He played the media beautifully while he was running. He even hired a public relations girl from London when he ran at the 2012 Games. But we all knew behind closed doors how volatile he could be. Ask Arnu Fourie.” ...

Many South African journalists refused to criticise him during his athletics career for fear of being seen a cynic trying to tear down a national hero.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...995243624?nk=d20c60fea59ded1552d0f7417e001eb9

 

[Lux et Veritas]

He really was a nasty foul-tempered piece of work. Who was it who described him as 'gentle' and 'humble' and 'kind'? The guy's a nutter. I'm surprised he did all this when he knew he was being filmed though, seeing as his public image was so important to him. Maybe he thought he came across as a "man" or something.

The epitome of a Jekyll and Hyde personality.

How could anyone (personal or business) have a stable, long-term relationship with a guy like this? (Reeva wrote about eggshells and not rocking the boat with him.) Well, I suppose if you’re a Peet van Zyl, et al, you’ve got a vested interest in keeping the relationship going, you put up with the crap, no matter what.)

I think his massive ego was so out of control that he simply didn’t care who witnessed the flashes of truth. He considered himself untouchable - after all, who would dare call out a global sports demi-god? Not journalists, not his friends, not his family, certainly not Masipa.

The path to creating a two year old, tantrum-throwing kid who terrorizes the household and a malignant narcissist the likes of OP is exactly the same - allow them to get away with murder at will, zero harsh consequences.

Society creates its own monsters.

 

[foxbluff]

I completely agree with you.
I am very annoyed that Massipa claimed that REEVA did not have time to scream. What did she base this on?

The pathologist said:

Saayman: “I think it would be abnormal if one did not scream after sustaining an injury of this nature.”

Mangena said that there would be a pause between the first and second shot - due to the location of the injuries.
None of this was disputed.
So in her judgement statement how could she conclude that reeva did not scream.

Am I missing something here?

Welcome aboard Starmelody !!

BBM - I'm not positive, but I believe Dr. Saayman was talking about what Reeva's reaction to the first shot (shot to hip) would have been whereas I believe the Judge was referring to her belief that Reeva wouldn't have been able to cry/scream for 5 minutes following the gunshots.

Here is one portion of Defense's Heads of Argument which touches on your question (BBM):
SYNOPSIS OF COUNT 1 : MURDER
3. When considering the State’s contentions that the Accused acted with direct intent to kill the Deceased, one must bear in mind that the State’s case is premised on circumstantial evidence. To discharge the burden resting upon it, the State must prove:
3.1 that the inference sought to be drawn by the State must be
consistent with all the proved facts;
3.2 all proved facts must exclude all other reasonable inferences from them, save the one sought to be drawn;
3.3 if they do not exclude other reasonable inferences, then there must be doubt whether the inference sought to be drawn is
correct.
(S v Blom referred to below).
4. However, the State endeavours to group a number of inferences
together as justification for its case. The difficulty is that reliance cannot be placed on any such inference, unless every inference sought to be drawn meets the requisite criteria laid down in S v Blom.
5. For its reliance on direct intent, the State alleges that:
5.1 There was an argument between the Accused and the Deceased during the early morning hours of 14 February 2013.
5.2 The argument culminated in the Deceased having fled to the
toilet. She locked herself in the toilet and screamed.
5.3 The Accused fired 4 shots with the intention to kill the Deceased. The shots perforated the toilet door, fatally injuring the Deceased.
5.4 It also seems that the State may, somewhat tentatively, suggest that the relationship between the Accused and Deceased was conducive to a rage-type killing, by the Accused.
6. Therefore, the existence of the alleged argument and the alleged screaming by the Deceased are crucial for the State’s reliance on direct intent.
7. In regard to the alleged argument, the State seeks to rely on Professor Saayman’s evidence to show that the Deceased’s last food intake was at about 01:00. According to the State this will support its case that there was an argument from about 02:00 up until the shooting, which occurred shortly after 03:00.
<snipped... #8 & #9 deal with Dr. Saayman on gastric emptying>
10. The State seeks to rely on Mrs van der Merwe’s evidence to prove the existence of an argument.
11. We deal in detail with Mrs van der Merwe’s evidence hereinbelow to demonstrate that her evidence definitely does not prove an argument between the Accused and the Deceased, still less does it prove an argument between them as the only reasonable inference excluding all other reasonable inferences.
12. There were two separate incidents of sounds. The first sounds were described by the witnesses, Dr and Mrs Stipp, as gunshots, and the second sounds were similarly described by Dr and Mrs Stipp as gunshots.
13. In regard to the contention that the Deceased was screaming prior to the fatal shooting, regard must be had to the fact that both sounds could not have been caused by gunshots, as it is common cause that only four shots were fired. The four shots perforated the toilet door and four empty cartridges were found.
14. Dr and Mrs Stipp’s evidence made it unnecessary to call an expert to confirm that the sound caused by a 9 mm pistol being fired may sound similar (to a layperson) to the sound made by a cricket bat striking the toilet door as Dr and Mrs Stipp’s evidence confirmed the similarity in sound in the early hours of the morning to a layperson. Wolmarans, in any event, confirmed the aforegoing.
15. The Accused’s version is that the first sounds were the 4 gunshots, and the second sounds were caused by the Accused striking the door three times with a cricket bat in an attempt to break the toilet door open.
16. The State expert witness, Colonel Vermeulen, testified that the toilet door was initially perforated by the four bullets and thereafter damaged by the cricket bat. Dixon and Wolmarans agreed. This accords with the version of the Accused.
17. During Dr Stipp’s evidence the State disclosed that the second sounds (at 03:17) were the gunshots. This was after Dr Stipp had testified that the Deceased would not a have been able to scream after the shots. 18. The State must have realised that it must make the second sounds the shots, otherwise the State’s evidence about a female screaming would prove to be wrong.
19. We will show hereunder that the State’s decision to make the second sounds the gunshots created serious improbabilities and contradictions in the State’s own case.
20. We detail the evidence below when we deal with the first sounds to demonstrate that the first sounds were in fact the four gunshots.
21. Mrs van der Merwe’s evidence makes it clear that the first sounds were the gunshots. Mrs van der Merwe’s evidence is that she heard a female voice far away, which was not constant, thereafter she heard four gunshots and then the screaming.
22. Mrs van der Merwe’s evidence accords with the State’s Further Particulars that the argument “stopped after the shots were fired” (Further Particulars, Ad paragraph 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5, par 1).
23. Dr Stipp, Professors Saayman and Botha agreed that the Deceased was fatally wounded and could not have screamed after the four shots. 24. Before the shots the Accused shouted for the intruder/s to leave the house. After the shots and upon realising what had happened he was shouting for help, screaming or crying out loud.
25. The screaming after the gunshots (the first sounds) heard by witnesses could only have been the Accused, as he was the only other person in the house. His shouting and screaming was to be expected after he had discovered that he had shot the Deceased.
26. The shouting at the intruder/s before the first sounds (the shots) was directed at the intruder/s and not to alert or call for help from the neighbours or people living in the area. No doubt, the screaming or crying out loud before the second sounds must have been much louder, as its purpose was to seek help from people outside his house as this had been heard as far away as . 177 metres.
27. This explains why Mrs van der Merwe and Mrs Stipp only heard the screaming/crying out loud after the first sounds.
28. The fact that Mrs van der Merwe heard the female voice talking far away, and not shouting, is consistent with the fact that the female voice came from a different location.
29. If Mrs van der Merwe had heard the female voice coming from the direction of the Accused’s house, she would not have moved in the opposite direction of the Accused’s house to try and listen to where the voice came from. She moved in the direction of the Farm Inn, which is in the opposite direction (from the Accused’s house).
30. On the State’s own case, the screaming/shouting/crying out loud after the first sounds could only have endured for a maximum of about 5 minutes prior 03:17 (the time of the second sounds) as, according to the State witnesses, the screaming stopped at the time of the second sounds having occurred.
31. The aforegoing contention must be correct as it does not only accord with the Accused’s evidence and his estimated time of about 5 minutes interval between the first and second sounds (Record 1488, lines 19-20), but also with the fact that he was still crying out loud/screaming when he struck the door with the cricket bat. The Accused was in any event shortly thereafter on the telephone to Johan Stander (03:19), to 911 (3:20), to security (03:21), the call from security (03:22) and at approximately 03:22. Johan Stander, Carice Viljoen (Stander) and Peter Baba (security) observed the Accused carrying the Deceased down the stairs, whereafter the Accused was in the presence of Carice Viljoen, Johan Stander, Dr Stipp, the paramedics and the police.
32. This confirms that the only time the immediate neighbours could have heard screaming/shouting/crying out loud, was during the about 5 minutes before 03:17. We demonstrate in detail below that the crying out loud heard by the immediate neighbours occurred at the same time as the screaming heard by the four State witnesses.
33. The immediate neighbours referred to the screaming as crying out loud. This also accorded with the evidence of Mrs van der Merwe who thought that it was a woman crying out loud, however, her husband told her that it was the Accused. The crying also conforms to Ms Makwanazi’s affidavit, referred to in the evidence of Mrs Stipp, which was heard at the same time Dr and Mrs Stipp heard the “female” screaming.
34. We will also demonstrate hereunder that there are conflicting and contradictory versions by witnesses corroborating concerning the screaming, which will in any event not make it possible for the Court to find, on an application of the principles relevant to circumstantial evidence, that the only reasonable inference is that it was the Deceased screaming and that that inference excludes all other reasonable inferences that it was the Accused who was screaming.
35. The difficulties inherent in the State’s case caused it to vacillate between conflicting versions in its own case.
36. The vacillation is a consequence of the State’s contradictory approach:
36.1 concerning Mrs van der Merwe’s evidence that the gunshots
silenced the female voice (the argument) (which were the first sounds);
36.2 by contending that the second sounds were the gunshots,
contrary to Mrs van der Merwe’s evidence;
36.3 by contending that the gunshots silenced the screaming (but the screaming occurred after the first sounds);
36.4 by relying on Colonel Vermeulen’s evidence that the toilet door was first damaged by the shots and thereafter by the cricket bat;
36.5 notwithstanding the aforegoing, to contend that the second
sounds were the gunshots and in the process to completely fail
to explain the occurrence of the first sounds.
37. The vacillation and conflict in the State’s approach was caused by its reliance on dolus directus.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Someone fitted that into Oscar's bathroom (twitter #oscarpistorius)

 

[foxbluff]

Well, if it is true what many of us believe happened that night, she clearly wasn't going to put up with it any longer, and was about to leave him. The problem with these types of Jeckyll and Hyde characters is that you are drawn in by them because of their nice soft, caring side and often their wit and intelligence (not sure that applies in OP's case .. but Reeva did mention him being clever once, and she seemed to be very struck by him because of that), and then when they start getting nasty, you can't quite believe it, so you keep on giving them the benefit of the doubt until such time as you realise that you're not imagining it, and this is what they are really like. But give her some credit, she was only with him for 3 months and it seems she was most likely leaving him that night because she'd had enough.

This is one of the things people in general need to learn about abusive relationships and how you can't just say 'why didn't she leave him' .. there are all sorts of reasons why women don't, or are not able to (especially if they are not financially independent) .. and imo, the question shouldn't even need to be asked, not if people fully understand these types of relationships.


Edit: just to add .. it's a known fact that in abusive, violent, relationships .. the most dangerous time for the woman is when she is about to leave the relationship. This is known by all the DV support agencies. Hence another reason why many women just do not feel they are able to leave, i.e. because they feel their life may be in danger if they do try to attempt it.

BBM - jay-jay, it makes me very sad to hear of the pain you and so many others here have had inflicted on you for absolutely no good reason.

It's not like Reeva was dependant on OP for income and a roof over her head. Because Reeva and OP were so seldom together during that 3-month-period, imho she didn't have time to become "invested" in a relationship with OP before he started showing that he didn't respect her. Given the circumstances, I don't understand why she didn't dump him the first time he disrespected her.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Originally Posted by Cherwell
I'm surprised the author doesn't pick out the use of the word "scream".

What Pistorius is describing is not screaming - it is shouting. At every point, he says he is using words to convey a message ("get out of my house", "call the police" etc). This is not screaming. Screaming is usually wordless and stems from desperation and terror, or shock. It is different from yelling out orders.

Of course he used the word "scream" because Reeva was screaming and he needed to convince everyone that any "screaming" came from him.

Originally Posted by G.bng

You don't think that might be stretching it a tad?! The Oxford Dictionary would certainly beg to differ with your, "This is not screaming", since albeit the first most common usage listed (1) is exactly as you say, the second most common usage (1.1) is entirely appropriate to how OP and we all use it, at least everyone I know, and which is exactly as you say it isn't, i.e., "to convey a message". And Merriam-Webster, I believe the equivalent to the Oxford dictionary in the US, is if anything a tad clearer:

Courtesy of the online Oxford Dictionary:
1. Give a long, loud, piercing cry or cries expressing extreme emotion or pain: 'they could hear him screaming in pain'
(as adjective screaming) 'a harassed mum with a screaming child'

1.1 [REPORTING VERB] Cry something in a high-pitched, frenzied way:
[NO OBJECT]: 'I ran to the house screaming for help'
[WITH DIRECT SPEECH]: ‘Get out!’ he screamed
[WITH OBJECT]: 'he screamed abuse down the phone'

1.2 Urgently and vociferously call attention to one’s views or feelings, especially ones of anger or distress :
[WITH CLAUSE]: 'his supporters scream that he is being done an injustice'
[FIGURATIVE] 'the creative side of me is screaming out for attention'


Doesn't the example used for 'DIRECT SPEECH' (in bold), "Get out" sound so familiar! I'd even say some of the explanations and examples proffered are quite uncanny!

Courtesy of the Mirriam-Webster online Dictionary:
1. Scream - verb - \&#712;skr&#275;m\
: to suddenly cry out in a loud and high voice because of pain, surprise, etc.
: to say (something) in a loud and high voice because you are angry, afraid, etc.
: to make a very loud, high sound
And MW's second most common usage also sounds so familiar!

I see you did note "screaming is usually wordless", just maybe not quite as "usually" as your post seems to imply.
jmho

Ordinarily, your argument would be spot on - but not in this instance.

The crux of this entire case is a woman’s “blood-curdling screams”, in abject fear for her life, which, by definition, are wordless; they’re like no other screams on earth.

All of OP’s “screams” involved words.

Roux declared that OP screams like woman - yet produced ZERO evidence.

If his claim was true, wouldn’t he have gleefully thrown the sound tests in Nel’s face?

Why would OP scream “blood-curdling screams”?
We was never attacked or under threat of attack.
Hell, he never even saw anyone or spoke with them!

Reeva died in a hail of Black Talons - she’s the only one who had any reason to scream such life-or-death screams.

Strangely, OP never “screamed” when he opened the door and saw her gruesome, bloody, dead body.

Total silence.

WHY?

He had no further reason to “scream”, did he?

 

[44ALLAN]

This man is on remand, and has not actually been convicted of anything yet as far as I know. His trial has been delayed for quite a while.


http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/b5df690045db0187862df69709b21094/More-delays-in-Krejcir-trial-20141610

Thanks................I've got myself up to speed with this guy and his past.
He's in prison on remand all this time which says it all to me...........and yet OP wasn't !
Strange.............very strange.

I wonder if OP's small cage is 'raided' like all the other inmates to see if he has any 'herbal' drugs lmao.
Carl and Aimee must be loving this part of their life eh !!!!.

And..............no I am not gloating I just feel he should have manned up and admitted it and saved all his family/friends/including himself all this heartache.
It's only gonna get worse IMO.

 

[Starmelody]

Welcome aboard Starmelody !!

BBM - I'm not positive, but I believe Dr. Saayman was talking about what Reeva's reaction to the first shot (shot to hip) would have been whereas I believe the Judge was referring to her belief that Reeva wouldn't have been able to cry/scream for 5 minutes following the gunshots.

Here is one portion of Defense's Heads of Argument which touches on your question (BBM):
SYNOPSIS OF COUNT 1 : MURDER
3. When considering the State’s contentions that the Accused acted with direct intent to kill the Deceased, one must bear in mind that the State’s case is premised on circumstantial evidence. To discharge the burden resting upon it, the State must prove:
3.1 that the inference sought to be drawn by the State must be
consistent with all the proved facts;
3.2 all proved facts must exclude all other reasonable inferences from them, save the one sought to be drawn;
3.3 if they do not exclude other reasonable inferences, then there must be doubt whether the inference sought to be drawn is
correct.
(S v Blom referred to below).
4. However, the State endeavours to group a number of inferences
together as justification for its case. The difficulty is that reliance cannot be placed on any such inference, unless every inference sought to be drawn meets the requisite criteria laid down in S v Blom.


thank you
Ok, let's forget the ear witnesses. massipa disregarded them anyway. Let's even assume there were NO ear witnesses and go back to the forsensic/expert evidence.

According to both Mangena and pathologist, Reeva had time to scream and would have screamed due to the nature of the wounds inflicted.
So Reeva did scream (that's what the expert evidence proves).

Mangena and pathologist were credible witnesses and their evidence was not successfully refuted. So their evidence had to be accepted and it would have to be concluded that Reeva DID scream (regardless of whether the neighbours heard her or not or what time they heard her is irrelevant since we are disregarding their evidence and relying on the expert evidence).

Since Reeva screamed after the first shot OP would have heard her but continued to shoot until she was silenced ( 3 shots later ).

This would indicate that it was premeditated murder.

However, OP testified that after the first gunshot his ears were ringing and he couldn't hear her scream.
(now I don't know how factual this is. are you completely deafened by one gunshot?- this would have to be tested)

BUT, regardless, after firing 4 shots OP was able to hear 'Reeva breathing' (a very subtle soft sound) and then use his phone and hear people on the other end. He never complained that his ears were ringing after the killing but complained that the smell of blood was making him sick.
He was looking to find Reeva after he shot her to see where she was 'hiding', and when he testified he never stated that his ears were ringing while looking for her.
All which contradicts that he couldn't hear her scream.

From the evidence he gave himself one would have to conclude that he did hear her scream, continued to shoot to kill- thus premeditated murder.

Massipa simply concluded on her own that Reeva didn't have time to scream as the shots were successive (mangena said first shot, pause, and then the shots could have been successive). Where did she get that from? What evidence did she rely on to come to this conclusion. (remember, she ignored the ear witnesses, so she had to cancel anything they said true or false and base her conclusion on some other reliable evidence)

It's not like Massipa said, there is not enough evidence to prove she screamed or that Reeva may have screamed but OP's ears were ringing so he didn't hear her- SHE BLUNTLY SAID - REEVA COULD NOT HAVE SCREAMED because the shots were successive. And that was it.
What the hell? Is she stupid or something?

This was crucial evidence in the case and needed more care from the judge. It actually indicated PREMEDITATED MURDER.

I believe the state proved this with the 2 expert witnesses. This was solid evidence.

I honestly think this judge is not very intelligent at all. She did not seem interested in finding out the truth.

So now, if we decide not disregard the ear witnesses,with all that said above (conclusion: reeva did scream/op did hear her) - the judge could have concluded that although the time lines of the ear witnesses were not completely accurate ( remember sound takes time to travel - there is always a delay - so it's not always accurate when someone says they heard something at a particular time )- the neighbours testimony corroborates that there was screaming coming from op's house ( but their evidence was not even that important as we had the forensic evidence which is far more important and reliable ).

the forensic evidence indicated premeditated murder.

Furthermore, the Judge herself said the witness (op) was 'evasive' and not a very good witness (how he was correcting Nel at times- poor character). So, from that, it can be concluded he was trying to hide the truth. WHY? because he killed her in cold blood.

why was he 'fighting for his life' as he put it? if you accidently killed your girlfriend and it is the truth - the evidence should point that way- there is no need to fight- just tell the truth and push for a low sentence (home arrest).

so then if massipa looked at the other evidence aswell such as
1. testimony change
2. op was shirtless when police arrived- there was a grey t-shirt on the floor next to the right side of the bed where he claims he was not sleeping
3. food science- pathologist
4. gun holster on the right side of bed
5. why the room was a mess
6. why the gun was found in the bathroom
7. his history of gun use
8. the fans blocking the door
9. doors and curtain open
10.no fans on
11.neighbour saw light on and a man walking back and forth
12. trying to avoid police and ambulance.
13. not checking for reeva before shooting
14. running to the danger, not away
15. not checking for more intruders coming up on the ladder through the window after he shot through bathroom door
16. reeva found dead in the same top she was wearing when she arrived to the estate ( she would have cooked while wearing this top - would she had worn it to bed too?)
17. in his first testimony- reeva never spoke to him when he woke up and then he changed this in court
18. flexing his arm in the police photos ( does it really show remorse/distress after he killed her?)
19. lies about the who put the phone on the charger in the kitchen
20. the whatsapp messages (they hadn't know each other for that long and he was able act ike that towards her- these issues normally come up much later in a relationship- problems from the start indicate a MAJOR PROBLEM)
21. reeva hadn't plan to stay that night
22. why would reeva open the bathroom window in the dark before going to the toilet- were her finger prints found on the window frame? ( i know they could have been on there from before, but if they couldn't find any of her finger prints on the window, this would indicate the she did not touch the window that night and did not open the window- so OP's version goes down the drain)
23. her phone was found outside the toilet (in the bathroom), she may have dropped it before she got into the toilet and locked the door. thats why she didn't call anyone for help- he phone case had come off too when she dropped her phone
24. why was the metal plate on the bath badly dented
25. why did he use a cricket bat to break down the door and not use his gun to fire at the lock?
26. I could go on and on....

 

[Starmelody]

thank you
Ok, let's forget the ear witnesses. massipa disregarded them anyway. Let's even assume there were NO ear witnesses and go back to the forsensic/expert evidence.

According to both Mangena and pathologist, Reeva had time to scream and would have screamed due to the nature of the wounds inflicted.
So Reeva did scream (that's what the expert evidence proves).

Mangena and pathologist were credible witnesses and their evidence was not successfully refuted. So their evidence had to be accepted and it would have to be concluded that Reeva DID scream (regardless of whether the neighbours heard her or not or what time they heard her is irrelevant since we are disregarding their evidence and relying on the expert evidence).

Since Reeva screamed after the first shot OP would have heard her but continued to shoot until she was silenced ( 3 shots later ).

This would indicate that it was premeditated murder.

However, OP testified that after the first gunshot his ears were ringing and he couldn't hear her scream.
(now I don't know how factual this is. are you completely deafened by one gunshot?- this would have to be tested)

BUT, regardless, after firing 4 shots OP was able to hear 'Reeva breathing' (a very subtle soft sound) and then use his phone and hear people on the other end. He never complained that his ears were ringing after the killing but complained that the smell of blood was making him sick.
He was looking to find Reeva after he shot her to see where she was 'hiding', and when he testified he never stated that his ears were ringing while looking for her.
All which contradicts that he couldn't hear her scream.

From the evidence he gave himself one would have to conclude that he did hear her scream, continued to shoot to kill- thus premeditated murder.

Massipa simply concluded on her own that Reeva didn't have time to scream as the shots were successive (mangena said first shot, pause, and then the shots could have been successive). Where did she get that from? What evidence did she rely on to come to this conclusion. (remember, she ignored the ear witnesses, so she had to cancel anything they said true or false and base her conclusion on some other reliable evidence)

It's not like Massipa said, there is not enough evidence to prove she screamed or that Reeva may have screamed but OP's ears were ringing so he didn't hear her- SHE BLUNTLY SAID - REEVA COULD NOT HAVE SCREAMED because the shots were successive. And that was it.
What the hell? Is she stupid or something?

This was crucial evidence in the case and needed more care from the judge. It actually indicated PREMEDITATED MURDER.

I believe the state proved this with the 2 expert witnesses. This was solid evidence.

I honestly think this judge is not very intelligent at all. She did not seem interested in finding out the truth.

So now, if we decide not disregard the ear witnesses,with all that said above (conclusion: reeva did scream/op did hear her) - the judge could have concluded that although the time lines of the ear witnesses were not completely accurate ( remember sound takes time to travel - there is always a delay - so it's not always accurate when someone says they heard something at a particular time )- the neighbours testimony corroborates that there was screaming coming from op's house ( but their evidence was not even that important as we had the forensic evidence which is far more important and reliable ).

the forensic evidence indicated premeditated murder.

Furthermore, the Judge herself said the witness (op) was 'evasive' and not a very good witness (how he was correcting Nel at times- poor character). So, from that, it can be concluded he was trying to hide the truth. WHY? because he killed her in cold blood.

why was he 'fighting for his life' as he put it? if you accidently killed your girlfriend and it is the truth - the evidence should point that way- there is no need to fight- just tell the truth and push for a low sentence (home arrest).

so then if massipa looked at the other evidence aswell such as
1. testimony change
2. op was shirtless when police arrived- there was a grey t-shirt on the floor next to the right side of the bed where he claims he was not sleeping
3. food science- pathologist
4. gun holster on the right side of bed
5. why the room was a mess
6. why the gun was found in the bathroom
7. his history of gun use
8. the fans blocking the door
9. doors and curtain open
10.no fans on
11.neighbour saw light on and a man walking back and forth
12. trying to avoid police and ambulance.
13. not checking for reeva before shooting
14. running to the danger, not away
15. not checking for more intruders coming up on the ladder through the window after he shot through bathroom door
16. reeva found dead in the same top she was wearing when she arrived to the estate ( she would have cooked while wearing this top - would she had worn it to bed too?)
17. in his first testimony- reeva never spoke to him when he woke up and then he changed this in court
18. flexing his arm in the police photos ( does it really show remorse/distress after he killed her?)
19. lies about the who put the phone on the charger in the kitchen
20. the whatsapp messages (they hadn't know each other for that long and he was able act ike that towards her- these issues normally come up much later in a relationship- problems from the start indicate a MAJOR PROBLEM)
21. reeva hadn't plan to stay that night
22. why would reeva open the bathroom window in the dark before going to the toilet- were her finger prints found on the window frame? ( i know they could have been on there from before, but if they couldn't find any of her finger prints on the window, this would indicate the she did not touch the window that night and did not open the window- so OP's version goes down the drain)
23. her phone was found outside the toilet (in the bathroom), she may have dropped it before she got into the toilet and locked the door. thats why she didn't call anyone for help- he phone case had come off too when she dropped her phone
24. why was the metal plate on the bath badly dented
25. why did he use a cricket bat to break down the door and not use his gun to fire at the lock?
26. I could go on and on....

BBM .. and not only that but, seeing as the second shot missed .. then Reeva would've had extra time to have screamed after the first shot. So .. first shot .. hits Reeva's right hip .. she screams out while Pistorius pauses then re-aims .. and misses her .. she's still screaming .. then the third shot to her arm .. who knows whether she is still able to scream by this point (i.e. through exhaustion?) but she isn't dead at that point and it's still possible .. then the fourth shot to the head .. then silence. Hardly a coincidence that OP decides to stop shooting right at that precise moment, imo. He stops because she's stopped screaming, I'm certain of it.

I wish we had a better idea as to the intervals between those shots, and the pause .. they may not have been quite as quick as the defence tried to make out they were (and which Masipa decided all four were just 'in quick succession' )

 

[Starmelody]

I also believe that if the cousin had not testified, things would have been differenet.

OP would be at home right now.

I completely agree with you.
I am very annoyed that Massipa claimed that REEVA did not have time to scream. What did she base this on?

The pathologist said:

Saayman: “I think it would be abnormal if one did not scream after sustaining an injury of this nature.”

Mangena said that there would be a pause between the first and second shot - due to the location of the injuries.
None of this was disputed.
So in her judgement statement how could she conclude that reeva did not scream.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Bergi]

"Massipa simply concluded on [...] Reeva didn't have time to scream as the shots were successive (mangena said first shot, pause, and then the shots could have been successive)." - Starmelody

Shots B, C and D could not have been successive. There must have been a longer pause between shot B and C. It is so obvious. Pistorius had to move frome left to right toward the bathroom sink in order to shot through C and D. Movement is time. Then C and D was a controlled pair, two successive shots, it is for me another obvious detail. That two shots alone show intent. Shots A and B could have been successive too, as a double tap. I wrote a comment on juror13's blog (look for Karlos) on how I think he shot her. I will do so here in a few days.

 

[jilly]

Uh oh ... OP better be extra-nice to prison neighbor Rad. LOL

OP fancies himself some tough guy but RK is the real deal - top of the food chain in SA&#8217;s underworld.

Hard to know how Oscar will react. He's kinda out of his element as a gun toting hotshot. Seems to me, RK would have the upper hand with the now vulnerable Oscar.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I was very surprised to see Sam wearing a Reeva photo in court. That I just could not believe. :waitasec: Considering OP said in court that Sam was attacking Reeva online (apparently).

I think when Sam saw Oscar with Reeva she was extremely hurt and perhaps wanted to attack and humiliate them both. I honestly don't think we are ever going to get the truth.

Also keep in mind Joberg social circles are very small.

ST finally discovered that RS was not the enemy - Oscar was.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Yes, plus also I think it says something about her integrity that she choose to back the Steenkamps after apparently not being particularly enamoured with Reeva while she was alive. To those saying she (Sam) is in it for the money, etc .. well, she could just have easily have backed Oscar if she was that way minded, and tried to get back in with him and his mega-rich family .. but she didn't did she, she chose to support the family who, it seems, holds the same type of values as most normal people do .. and I think it really says quite a lot about her that she can put behind her any rivalry there would've been between her and Reeva, and I guess she now finds a kind of connection with her, having both experienced the same thing with OP, and that she feels it could so easily have been her. I don't find it odd at all that she is supporting the Steenkamps, and supporting justice for Reeva.

Well said, JJ.

ST so easily could have simply testified, left and gone about her life.

Not only did she very publicly testify against her abusive ex OP - she very publicly supported the Steenkamp/Myers families to the very end AND openly tossed a ‘F##K-U’ to the powerful Pistorius family.

That takes no small amount of guts.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Hard to know how Oscar will react. He's kinda out of his element as a gun toting hotshot. Seems to me, RK would have the upper hand with the now vulnerable Oscar.

I think, that's another one of the many older men, patting OP benevolently on his shoulders and taking him in their arms. OP knows and likes this, whether attorney or criminal or uncle or coach, the main thing seems to be appreciation and encouragement.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

BBM .. and not only that but, seeing as the second shot missed .. then Reeva would've had extra time to have screamed after the first shot. So .. first shot .. hits Reeva's right hip .. she screams out while Pistorius pauses then re-aims .. and misses her .. she's still screaming .. then the third shot to her arm .. who knows whether she is still able to scream by this point (i.e. through exhaustion?) but she isn't dead at that point and it's still possible .. then the fourth shot to the head .. then silence. Hardly a coincidence that OP decides to stop shooting right at that precise moment, imo. He stops because she's stopped screaming, I'm certain of it.

I wish we had a better idea as to the intervals between those shots, and the pause .. they may not have been quite as quick as the defence tried to make out they were (and which Masipa decided all four were just 'in quick succession' )

Exactly, JJ.

Not only was Masipa Judge, Jury and ‘Executioner’, she played Defense, too.

Making up, twisting “facts” and “evidence” to fit her goal.

The opposing team - State - was all but invisible in her play book.

 

[emirates1957]

Just watching the CI channel 613 Love Gone Wrong - The Verdict OP Story at 1930.