Post sentencing discussion

[jay-jay]

Righteo peeps, we have

:bed: :bed: :bed: :bed: :bed: :bed: :bed: :bed:

:bed: :bed: :bed: :bed: :bed: :bed: :bed:

to go before we learn whether the State will lodge an application for leave to appeal.


NB: 14 working days from sentence on 21 October.

.. didn't someone upthread say it was calendar days? I still don't know which one is right!

 

[JudgeJudi]

I have been 'ruminating' about the verdict of this court ever since it was handed down. From what I have read it seems that the State can only appeal on a point of law. I struggle to understand, as the judges have to read the whole court proceedings, why a judgement on the facts also cannot be taken into account. Something has to change in SA law to give the State the same rights as the Defence. Otherwise it makes a mockery of justice.

You have a judge (or assessors, depending on what one believes) completely disregarding several earwitness's evidence that a female voice was heard screaming and yet allows the claim that "Oscar screams like a woman and I will show you that" (Roux) which, of course, he never did. How on earth could/would Mrs Burgess have known there was a gap between the first and final three shots (also stated in Mangena's evidence) if she did not hear it? There really needs to be a retrial but I doubt that will happen now. I think most of us feel that this court allowed Oscar to get away with murder.

I wonder if de Toit had ever met Oscar before the trial? Would that not have excluded her from being an assessor? Anyone know?

I'd like mrjitty to come on here and explain to all of us why the state can't appeal on facts. There must be a good reason but I don't know what it is. However, whether it's SA, the United States, the UK or virtually anywhere else, it's always the same. It's irrelevant whether it's a judge and assessors or a jury. In the case of a jury, they determine the facts, not the judge. The judge is the arbiter on law. Before jurors leave the courtroom to consider their verdict, the judge gives them directions, and they're very specific. Those directions are so important that if it's not done correctly, that in itself can be a ground for appeal. The judge also explains to the jury that she will direct them on questions of law.

You can't introduce new evidence on an appeal either unless it's something new and exceptional, and I believe this is very rare. In this case, the legal eagles were very happy with her reasons for judgment. The problem they have is that she misdirected herself when interpreting the law in relation to those same reasons.

I have no idea regarding your last para.

 

[OZe]

I've added a second tab to my new interpretation of the witness testimony to test the time events take, their logical dependencies and constraints, and to confirm whether the suggested sequence is plausible. So far, so good, but it's still a work in progress. Views on event times or concerns are welcome.

Hello Mr. Fossil. Incredible work! Thanks.

I may have missed a few posts and some of the back and forth, and I may be misreading your chart, but looking at your Witness Testimony Analysis 2 it doesn't seem to make provision for Reeva to have screamed after she was hit by the first shot in the hip. One of the PT expert witnesses said she would almost certainly have screamed as a reflex reaction.

Your theory seems to fit so well with other bits of information and insightful sleuthing by other WS members:

-- Reeva has a heated argument (likely about commitment and faithfulness)
-- she grabs the killer's phone (perhaps to look at his call/message log to confirm or allay her suspicions, or when a new message comes up and she wants to know who it's from)
-- he flies into a rage and wants it back
-- she runs into the bedroom and closes the door and bars it with the bat
-- she grabs the keys with the green tag (which are not normally kept in the toilet door)
-- she runs into the toilet and locks the door to look at the phone
-- he barges through the bedroom door, damaging it, shouting for her to get the f##k out of "my house"*
-- furious that the toilet door is locked, he grabs the bat and smashes the tiles, the metal plate and the door to intimidate her into opening it
-- when she doesn't comply, he goes back to the bedroom to get his gun
-- he comes back, assumes Reeva's sitting on the toilet seat looking at the phone, and he shoots to the right of the door to intimidate rather than injure her (he's in too much of a red mist to be thinking about ricochet)
-- but Reeva's not on the seat, she's standing at the door listening, trying to work out what's happening
-- the bullet hits her and she lets out a blood-curdling scream
-- realizing he's shot Reeva, and to make her shut up (at that moment and perhaps to the press later on) he makes the snap decision to go all the way

Perhaps he only intended to fire once, but having hit her he felt he had to make sure he was the only one left to tell the story. This seems to make much more sense than warning shots out the window which would attract unwanted attention.

JMO

*Interesting choice of words, BTW, you'd expect that ("Get the f##k out of my house") if he was making the point that "it's not your house, you're no longer welcome here" whereas to an intruder he'd be more likely to say "get the f##k out of here"

 

[OZe]

I've never thought she discovered something earth-shattering, or anything like that. I think it's most likely that she somehow caught him cheating, and things went from there. Or something she said set him off - we know that he'd had a bad day, so it could have been something quite trivial.

Whatever it was, he went into one of his temper tantrums, shot in a rage, and then yes, realised in an instant that his best chance of saving his arse was making sure she didn't survive.

I see I'm a little late to the party. Thanks Cherwell. :blushing:

 

[Mr Fossil]

Thanks Mr Fossil. The Tasha's date was stupidity - I knew it 2013. I'm not sure where I got the other date from. I'm so glad you were here and I still had time to fix that up. Then PC problems Grrrrrr.

I did a list once before but this has far more to it. Have I missed anything?

Sorry, didn't see this (I've just been for a run). We have visitors today so will check later but I'm sure others will also advise any additions.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Hello Mr. Fossil. Incredible work! Thanks.

I may have missed a few posts and some of the back and forth, and I may be misreading your chart, but looking at your Witness Testimony Analysis 2 it doesn't seem to make provision for Reeva to have screamed after she was hit by the first shot in the hip. One of the PT expert witnesses said she would almost certainly have screamed as a reflex reaction.

Your theory seems to fit so well with other bits of information and insightful sleuthing by other WS members:

-- Reeva has a heated argument (likely about commitment and faithfulness)
-- she grabs the killer's phone (perhaps to look at his call/message log to confirm or allay her suspicions, or when a new message comes up and she wants to know who it's from)
-- he flies into a rage and wants it back
-- she runs into the bedroom and closes the door and bars it with the bat
-- she grabs the keys with the green tag (which are not normally kept in the toilet door)
-- she runs into the toilet and locks the door to look at the phone
-- he barges through the bedroom door, damaging it, shouting for her to get the f##k out of "my house"*
-- furious that the toilet door is locked, he grabs the bat and smashes the tiles, the metal plate and the door to intimidate her into opening it
-- when she doesn't comply, he goes back to the bedroom to get his gun
-- he comes back, assumes Reeva's sitting on the toilet seat looking at the phone, and he shoots to the right of the door to intimidate rather than injure her (he's in too much of a red mist to be thinking about ricochet)
-- but Reeva's not on the seat, she's standing at the door listening, trying to work out what's happening
-- the bullet hits her and she lets out a blood-curdling scream
-- realizing he's shot Reeva, and to make her shut up (at that moment and perhaps to the press later on) he makes the snap decision to go all the way

Perhaps he only intended to fire once, but having hit her he felt he had to make sure he was the only one left to tell the story. This seems to make much more sense than warning shots out the window which would attract unwanted attention.

JMO

*Interesting choice of words, BTW, you'd expect that ("Get the f##k out of my house") if he was making the point that "it's not your house, you're no longer welcome here" whereas to an intruder he'd be more likely to say "get the f##k out of here"

Thank you. I agree that she screams after the first shot (and probably to the last shot). I'll add it to the detail. I'll also align the bat strikes to the end of Mr N's call. The initial purpose of the chart was to show broadly how the witness testimony could fit together if Johnson's call time was wrong. I'll be adding detail and particularly supporting facts & testimony over the next week.

ETA: I have a much clearer version of the chart but I'm holding off putting it up until I'm sure all the key components are in place as it takes a while to make changes and I want to minimise my effort!

 

[JudgeJudi]

.. didn't someone upthread say it was calendar days? I still don't know which one is right!

I just knew this would come up. That's why I added the last line.

Pandax posted on p.14 #334

“I've checked the days by consulting the Acts and Court Rules themselves.

It is 14 calendar days for an accused to apply for leave to appeal the sentence or verdict, and for the state to apply for leave to appeal the sentence.

It would be 15 court days (that excludes Sat, Sun and public holidays) for an appeal from the Supreme Court.

I can't find a time restriction on the reservation of a question of law (the method of a state appeal on the verdict) so far”.


I agree it’s confusing. I've worked out my days going by what David Dadic is tweeting, except he's counting up and I'm counting down. He tweeted on Friday 24 Oct, “3/14”. He posted later that same day "NOT 4/14". That means the first day is not the day the sentence was handed down. I’ll leave things stand for the moment. I’m sure we’ll know precisely within the next 2 days.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.tradingplaces2night.co.za/carmels-writing/what-kind-of-justice-is-this/

The magistrate sentenced him to five years for rape, wholly suspended, and to R2 000 or 12 months for attempted murder. In other words, he’s convicted of twice raping the woman and trying to kill her but according to his sentence he does not have to spend a single day in prison.

No-one would have found out about this extraordinary sentence, which seems to defy law and logic, had the woman not brought legal action for sexual harassment in the Labour Court against her employer.

That court found her employers had acted properly in dealing with the matter, and that she had no claim against them. However, said acting judge Sean Snyman, ‘I feel compelled to state’ that she had proper cause to feel that she had been denied justice and her basic human rights violated. It was not however her employers who had failed her, said the judge, ‘but the criminal justice system.’

He said he was ‘completely appalled’ by the sentence, calling it ‘manifestly unacceptable and unconscionable’. Even though he was a Labour Court judge, hearing a discrimination claim, he couldn’t ‘sit by and let this situation go unaddressed.’

Two trials now in progress concerning violence against women are making international headlines. What are the chances this case will merit a mention?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/10/26/npa-denies-oscar-appeal-process-starting

The National Prosecuting Authority on Sunday denied a report that the appeal against Oscar Pistorius's conviction and sentence will start next month.
Save & Share

Email
Print
Related News

June Steenkamp says Reeva wasn't having sex with Oscar June Steenkamp says Reeva wasn't having sex with Oscar
No decision on Oscar appeal yet: NPA No decision on Oscar appeal yet: NPA
Roll out the red carpet! Roll out the red carpet!
Oscar judgment 'not well reasoned': legal expert Oscar judgment 'not well reasoned': legal expert

"It is not true," spokesman Nathi Mncube said in an sms.

He denied a Sunday Times report that State prosecutor Gerrie Nel would discuss the matter with National Director of Public Prosecutions Mxolisi Nxasana on Monday. Nxasana would reportedly decide whether to appeal.

According to the report, the appeal process was scheduled to start on November 3.

 

[AW2B]

Does anyone know what David Dadic was referring to in this tweet?

David Dadic @DavidDadic · 1h 1 hour ago
Inasmuch as no one can tell you how to deal with this & I'm not sure if its the Steenkamps or their advisors but things are going awry there

 

[JudgeJudi]

Thank you. I agree that she screams after the first shot (and probably to the last shot). I'll add it to the detail. I'll also align the bat strikes to the end of Mr N's call. The initial purpose of the chart was to show broadly how the witness testimony could fit together if Johnson's call time was wrong. I'll be adding detail and particularly supporting facts & testimony over the next week.

ETA: I have a much clearer version of the chart but I'm holding off putting it up until I'm sure all the key components are in place as it takes a while to make changes and I want to minimise my effort!

The first shot was to the hip, not to the right of the door, the second missed, the third was to the arm and the fourth to the head according to Mangena. Was it Mrs Stipp who said Reeva's voice tailed off after the last shot. I think Roux said she couldn't have screamed after the head shot, however if the scream had already started just before the fourth, it would have stopped a second or two after.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Does anyone know what David Dadic was referring to in this tweet?

David Dadic @DavidDadic · 1h 1 hour ago
Inasmuch as no one can tell you how to deal with this & I'm not sure if its the Steenkamps or their advisors but things are going awry there

I was just about to post that myself. What on earth can it mean. It's making me worried and nervous.

 

[jay-jay]

The first shot was to the hip, not to the right of the door, the second missed, the third was to the arm and the fourth to the head according to Mangena. Was it Mrs Stipp who said Reeva's voice tailed off after the last shot. I think Roux said she couldn't have screamed after the head shot, however if the scream had already started just before the fourth, it would have stopped a second or two after.

BBM .. yes, and considering it was in the toilet/bathroom it would've been very echoey in there, so the sound of her screams may have bounced around for a brief moment after she had a shot to the head, which would account for it appearing to tail off after the last shot.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Does anyone know what David Dadic was referring to in this tweet?

David Dadic @DavidDadic · 1h 1 hour ago
Inasmuch as no one can tell you how to deal with this & I'm not sure if its the Steenkamps or their advisors but things are going awry there

Sunday Times front page

Please read and tell us! :smile: I have no access.


JustMe ‏@LuckyBrie83 2 Std.Vor 2 Stunden

@DavidDadic Sorry to bombard you with endless questions, but doesn't it then render the msgs less relevant?

David Dadic ‏@DavidDadic 2 Std.Vor 2 Stunden

@DkChoco Sunday Times has a front page article in them today. Some interesting stuff.

 

[AW2B]

I was just about to post that myself. What on earth can it mean. It's making me worried and nervous.

From the comment...he's referring to Steenkamps or their advisors. Maybe it has to do with June's comment that Masipa made the right decision based on the evidence ..she said that while the State is thinking to appeal the verdict..

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/10/26/june-steenkamp-says-reeva-wasn-t-having-sex-with-oscar

"I think he may have shot once and then he had to go on and kill her because she would have been able to tell the world what really happened, what he's really like.

"He said pulling the trigger was 'an accident'. What? Four times an accident?" June writes in her book. "He said Reeva did not scream, but she would definitely have screamed. I know my daughter and she was very vocal."

Both June and 71-year-old Barry said they believed their daughter was gradually being ground down by Pistorius's constant demands and moody temperament.

Reeva was unhappy when she arrived at Pistorius's house for the last time. CCTV footage, according to her mother, shows her looking miserable as she approaches the gated estate. Something was brewing. The couple were fighting.

The Steenkamps said they believed the testimony of a neighbour who heard two people arguing from 1.56am, which Judge Thokozile Masipa discounted in her verdict.

"There is no doubt in our minds that something went horribly wrong, something upset her so terribly that she hid behind a locked door with two mobile phones," June writes.

Other facts did not add up, said the Steenkamps. Reeva was shot wearing a sleeveless black top and grey tracksuit shorts, "clothes for a summer's day, not her night clothes".

She was facing the door when the first bullet struck her hip, "probably pleading".

Her mother told The Times she was also troubled by police photographs that showed Reeva's jeans strewn across the bedroom floor, because Reeva was a "neat freak". "She would never leave them on the floor. She was tidy to the extreme."

In the book, Reeva's mother dissects every text, tweet and e-mail in the brief relationship, looking for hidden meaning.

She concludes that it was volatile and unpredictable.

Reeva said Pistorius scared her, and that he picked on her "incessantly".

"Either of them could have received a Valentine's Day message from another admirer that might have sparked a row," says June.

June told Hello! magazine this week that Pistorius's jail term was "the best sentence we could have expected".

(This article has been updated.)

 

[JudgeJudi]

Wasn't there another incident in a restaurant when OP was drunk, and verbally abusive to a couple on another table and his friends led him away? I'm sure I remember it being published somewhere but I can't find it now.

I'm pretty sure when I did my first list this same question was asked, perhaps by you. I couldn't find that incident then and I still can't. If you can remember anything else, please let me know.

 

[jay-jay]

Here is a quote from Samantha Taylor referring to her time with him. He was probably using his Blackberry as the iPhone 5 wasn't released until September 2012. The Blackberry also runs WhatsApp.

"You know, we both suffer from insomnia. Often I would wake up and he would be sitting on his phone. I often saw her name, although it was not saved under 'BabyShoes" at the time. It was 'Jenna Edkins'. I often saw her name. If he was showing me a photo on his phone and her WhatsApp message would pop up - we fought over that a lot. She was a very big problem in our relationship, a huge problem."

~rsbm~

.. and remember that propped up pillow in the crime scene photo of the bedroom? Someone was definitely sitting up in bed doing something that night, the pair of them weren't asleep as Pistorius tries to suggest .. no-one sleeps with a pillow up like that. I think he was doing exactly the same on the night of the 13th as Sam said there .. it does appear to be usual for him to do this, and in combination with the evidence of the way that pillow is propped up, I just cannot see it as being any other scenario.

The propped up pillow is on the RH side of the bed as you look at it from the foot of the bed, which therefore means Pistorius .. if still awake and sitting up in bed .. would've been on the RH side of the bed, and which is consistent with all the things on the floor on each side of the bed.

 

[JudgeJudi]

From the comment...he's referring to Steenkamps or their advisors. Maybe it has to do with June's comment that Masipa made the right decision based on the evidence ..she said that while the State is thinking to appeal the verdict..

But that was days ago when she made that comment. June said she and Barry were going home as they left the court. I was wondering if the Steenkamps have just been informed by their advisors that an appeal is going to be made and perhaps they aren't coping with the news very well because they're emotionally drained and feel they can't face any more. Something is obviously happening and if things are going awry, that doesn't sound too good to me.

There's only so much anyone take. First the death of their daughter, then this ridiculously long trial and all the accompanying media attention. They wouldn't be able to get away from it even if they stayed at home. You couldn't turn on the TV or radio, buy a newspaper or even a magazine without it staring you in the face. They're getting on in age and Barry's health is poor. I feel desperately sorry for them. I imagine they just want to live out the rest of their lives in peace.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Tyrone Maseko @tyronemaseko · 4 Std. Vor 4 Stunden

If newspaper reports are to be believed it would appear Roux won an arm-wrestling match against uncle Arnie over the direction of the trial
0 Antworten 2 Retweets 0 Favoriten