Trial Discussion Thread #53 - 14.12.9, Day 42 ~ final verdict~

[Susza]

Will sentencing really take a whole week, from 13 to 17 October?

 

[MeeBee]

Attorney Clifford Gordon believes verdict was correct.

 

[Paul Connelly]

Sentencing starts Monday 13 October through to Friday 17 October. Mark your diaries everyone.

OP is expected to call family members, social worker, psychologist and friends re mitigation, and unlike the trial, they will testify first. The State is expected to call the most witnesses.

Those of us who live outside South Africa should use what little influence we have to voice our sense of injustice for Reeva by writing to the respective South African Embassy/Consulate.

It is clear JM believes his version and his faux remorse. No character evidence was allowed that shows what a vile, obnoxious, excuse for a man OP is. I implore you to raise your disgust for how it appears he has hoodwinked a high court judge, who despite him being such a poor witness, chose to believe his version unquestionably. Explain to them how you will never, ever set foot in South Africa unless justice is done and he is imprisoned for a reasonable amount of time.

It isn't much and it may be futile but we owe it to Reeva to voice our disdain and try to ensure we speak for her in her silence. The law is the law and maybe Masipa was right that CH was a competent finding, but he should go away for the upper end of the sentencing scale and we know he will not because she believes him.

We post on here all the time so, it's not beyond us to post our comments to the South African ambassadors and ensure ours and Reeva's voice is collectively heard.

 

[turaj]

Apparently the Pistorius family gave Masipa a RAND of applause when she left court earlier.

I find that completely offensive and would have expected a judge to discourage that...JM did nothing...almost took a bow.

 

[aa9511]

Those of us who live outside South Africa should use what little influence we have to voice our sense of injustice for Reeva by writing to the respective South African Embassy/Consulate.

It is clear JM believes his version and his faux remorse. No character evidence was allowed that shows what a vile, obnoxious, excuse for a man OP is. I implore you to raise your disgust for how it appears he has hoodwinked a high court judge, who despite him being such a poor witness, chose to believe his version unquestionably. Explain to them how you will never, ever set foot in South Africa unless justice is done and he is imprisoned for a reasonable amount of time.

It isn't much and it may be futile but we owe it to Reeva to voice our disdain and try to ensure we speak for her in her silence. The law is the law and maybe Masipa was right that CH was a competent finding, but he should go away for the upper end of the sentencing scale and we know he will not because she believes him.

We post on here all the time so, it's not beyond us to post our comments to the South African ambassadors and ensure ours and Reeva's voice is collectively heard.

Yes and we know they need tourists as noted by the many Come Visit South Africa commercials they are paying for in the US and probably Europe and other places as well.

 

[lithgow1]

This has some interesting info on how the sentencing will work. Hope that the State calls many people - and that this time they are actually listened to. Did the judge cover at all why she believed RS made no sound at the first shot when that was not at all what the pathologist said? In my recollection she didn't. I'm not only disappointed in the verdict but also very dubious about her and her line of thinking now.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-pistorius-found-guilty-of-negligent-homicide-082559102.html

 

[turaj]

And probably a few $ as well.

Actually I thought that was the currency in SA??

 

[aa9511]

Perhaps some blame should be put on Nels, too. I saw on CNN this morning where the correspondent from the courtroom was saying that Masipa found the witnesses credible, but just thought they were "mistaken." Because, according to her timeline, they couldn't have possibly heard Reeva screaming because Reeva's fatal shot would have already occured at that time. So they must have been hearing Oscar screaming and they are just mistaken.

So I did not watch the closings, but did Nels give a concrete timeline?? And work into that timeline each witness?

It sounds to me almost like maybe Nels did not lay everything out clearly for the Judge?

 

[turaj]

Yes and we know they need tourists as noted by the many Come Visit South Africa commercials they are paying for in the US and probably Europe and other places as well.

Love to travel and SA has never really been on my radar...now it is definitely off.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I can't get my head round Masipa discounting so many State witnesses on the basis that their testimonies either contradicted each other, or were embellished by what they'd read in the media, and were therefore unreliable. Yet she bought OP's BS, when she had already deemed him to be a very poor witness who changed his story. Where's the logic in that? Or the justice?


http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rius-guilty-culpable-homicide-reeva-steenkamp

What did she mean by this, do you think? Also, how did she know what was being said in the media? So does this mean the witnesses tailored their evidence and OP did not?

So sorry for these silly questions, I'm just at a loss. I bawled my eyes out before. I'm taking this a bit harder than I thought.

 

[MeeBee]

Perhaps some blame should be put on Nels, too. I saw on CNN this morning where the correspondent from the courtroom was saying that Masipa found the witnesses credible, but just thought they were "mistaken." Because, according to her timeline, they couldn't have possibly heard Reeva screaming because Reeva's fatal shot would have already occured at that time. So they must have been hearing Oscar screaming and they are just mistaken.

So I did not watch the closings, but did Nels give a concrete timeline?? And work into that timeline each witness?

It sounds to me almost like maybe Nels did not lay everything out clearly for the Judge?

That's exactly what happened and that was one of Nel's grave mistakes. The only conclusion I can come up with is he did not have an explanation for it so had no choice but to ignore it.

 

[MeeBee]

What did she mean by this, do you think? Also, how did she know what was being said in the media? So does this mean the witnesses tailored their evidence and OP did not?

So sorry for these silly questions, I'm just at a loss. I bawled my eyes out before. I'm taking this a bit harder than I thought.

She did not say they were embellished by the media, but they may be having trouble distinguishing what they personally experienced between what they'd heard from other sources. Not that they were dishonest, just that they may be subconsciously including information they'd heard in the media or from others.

 

[soozieqtips]

This has some interesting info on how the sentencing will work. Hope that the State calls many people - and that this time they are actually listened to. Did the judge cover at all why she believed RS made no sound at the first shot when that was not at all what the pathologist said? In my recollection she didn't. I'm not only disappointed in the verdict but also very dubious about her and her line of thinking now.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-pistorius-found-guilty-of-negligent-homicide-082559102.html

BIB - not that I can recall. She didn't really address anything at all that put OP in a bad light. Anything negative, like his lies, or his poor testimony, was explained away as being 'natural' under the circumstances. The duvet, the blood spatter on the carpet, the stolen phone, the 'everything's fine' to security moments after killing his g/friend, the countless points she could have brought up (and didn't) make me wonder about her reputation for handing down tough sentences to men who commit crimes against women. Reeva has lost not only her life, but any form of justice for the brutal crime against her. Now her family will grieve all over again, while OP will carry on pretty much as he has since he killed Reeva in that little toilet, without a care in the world. Taking someone's life doesn't seem to mean much in that family.

 

[Mr Fossil]

No matter how you write the law, at the end of the day its upto subjective interpretation. Oscar admitted to firing at intruders coming out in self defence, which is my opinion goes well beyond the 'foresee possibly' threshhold, its demonstration of intent to kill.

Now the judge had concluded it a reasonable possibility he did not 'foresee possibly', when he shot 4 times into the toilet. I can't see what holes there are to plug or what is wrong with the law. Oscar admitted to shooting at a door, what else can you say to prove? She, for some reason gives Oscar unbelievable benefit of the doubt that is implausible. Even if you totally accept Oscar's story, he still murdered someone, according to the law imo.

Any grown adult knows that if you shoot at someone there is a possibility you will kill them, yet ultimately the judge concluded there is a reasonable possibility that Oscar does not know shooting 4 times at someone at close range could possibly kill them.

I don't disagree with what you say but I'm trying to understand the law and how it is being applied by Masipa.

For Dolus Eventualis the law says that the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OP reconciled himself to the fact that in firing his gun it would result in the death of whoever was in the toilet. This is a subjective standard meaning what OP actually foresaw and actually reconciled himself to, as a consequence of his action. Not what he should have foreseen (or, it would appear, probably did foresee). So ... how would the State prove that? Can anyone give me an example please. In this case it would appear that OP simply saying "I didn't intend to kill anyone" apparently suffices to tell the judge that he didn't foresee that he would kill anyone even though he armed himself, went towards the perceived danger and fired four black talon rounds into a small toilet cubicle knowing that there was someone inside. But if that is the case, every murderer would say that - how would anyone get convicted of Dolus Eventualis? We can't be in his head (perish the thought)!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Not for me I'm afraid. I don't understand how the "even if he probably did so" bit squares with "subjectively ... did not foresee". Perhaps you can enlighten me?

ETA I think I can answer this for myself. Whether he probably foresaw is not important legally, it is whether he reasonably possibly did not foresee and acted regardless of the consequences that is at the heart of this. Masipa feels that the State did not plug this hole. He fired at the door but she cannot prove that, at the time, he reasonably possibly believed he would kill someone. It is the law that is the problem here.

The number of changes I keep making to this show how confused I am!

Also, did you get the part about him being reasonable or was that unreasonable? So if he is unreasonable he cannot foresee shooting 4 black talon bullets in close proximity of a door will kill the person on the other side.

If he is reasonable, he should have foreseen blah, blah,blah but he did not.

Pfffftttt....

 

[Z&BsMommy]

I hope you are right, but it looks doubtful thus far..

 

[Z&BsMommy]

I think he may get a year in jail or prison. Maybe.

I hope you are right, but it looks doubtful thus far..

 

[AlexUK]

Love to travel and SA has never really been on my radar...now it is definitely off.

I've always fancied doing the 'garden route' or the 'wine regions' tour, or just a safari but no way would I want to visit now!

 

[soozieqtips]

What did she mean by this, do you think? Also, how did she know what was being said in the media? So does this mean the witnesses tailored their evidence and OP did not?

So sorry for these silly questions, I'm just at a loss. I bawled my eyes out before. I'm taking this a bit harder than I thought.

She said the witnesses had given evidence based partly on what they'd read in the media, so it wasn't reliable. Embellishing is to 'add untrue details' to a story. She did add that they weren't being dishonest.

It's strange though, that OP actually admitted on the stand that some of his testimony was based on what other witnesses had heard, and he'd reconstructed his defence on some of their evidence (with the excuse he couldn't remember everything.) Yet Masipa accepted his 'reconstruction' and slung out the State witnesses testimonies!

 

[Z&BsMommy]

I find that completely offensive and would have expected a judge to discourage that...JM did nothing...almost took a bow.

I agree 100%.. Ridiculous, show some decency to Reevas family..