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

[bajas]

I don't know what the rules are in SA and whether they have such a thing as wrongful death lawsuits, but this is an avenue for the Steenkamps if they want to take it. The Goldman's did this to OJ and were in his face till this day.

While it puts a lot of pressure on the convicted person, it also does put a lot of pressure on the family trying to collect the money and I don't know if Mr. Steenkamp's heart could withstand this pressure.

The one advantage that the Steenkamp's have that the Goldman's didn't is OJ was retired and his pension was off the table. OP has lots of years left to generate income and any future income would be part of the claim.

It is my understanding that the Steenkamps claimed, and accepted, a settlement from Oscar prior to the trial. They also won't do press interviews for less than ZAR 500 000.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/reevas-parents-want-r-500-000-interview/

Sorry, you will have to copy and paste the link.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Apols if someone has already posted this, published 13 Sept:

'As Steenkamp's parents expressed dismay at the verdict and headed home to Port Elizabeth, Pistorius's manager and agent, Peet van Zyl, revealed that the double amputee athlete intends to put his side of the story on paper.

"He will write his own book," he told the Observer. "We've discussed it. We've talked about ideas and concepts. I'm not going to go into details now."

Van Zyl said: "I will sit down with him once everything is done and decide what we are going to do. We have to wait until 13 October before we can think about anything. After that we will tell the world what we are going to do."

Ben Williams, books editor of South Africa's Sunday Times, said a book by Pistorius "could go either way. If you do it right, you could have the sports biography of the century. On the other hand, he's not the most popular person in some circles so you could have a tremendous backlash that sinks the book. Look what happened to Julian Assange's autobiography."
'It's because Oscar was the person who defined South Africa," Williams added. "I thought he was going to be the next iconic figure after Nelson Mandela. It's all gone horribly wrong and the amount of interest is spectacular. I've no doubt there will be a made-for-TV movie – that's definitely going to happen."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/13/oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamp-book

Anybody else spot was this report is actually saying? It is that no one within the OP Camp is expecting him to go to jail - they are so confident, that as soon as the 13th is out of the way, they will be back to normal, promoting the OP brand.

I'm assuming sales of the audio version will be the highest. Because anyone who buys the book will be someone that is too stupid to be able to read.

 

[cottonweaver]

Back to the legal issues:

The Law Thinker blog is quite good because it sets out the Editors view on why JM applied law correctly but then the commenters, some of whom are "Verified Attorneys" in SA post cogent responses of why she got it wrong.
(And this is why it bothers me when posters say the judgment should have been easy - its complex but, big proviso, with seemingly basic errors on her part. )

This is from commenter Daniel- commenting half way down the web page in Comments:
"P.S. With foresight redefined correctly he would no doubt be found to possess it, almost by default, as a trained, competent gun owner, how can he fail to appreciate that bullets into a small space might kill. His voluntariness was not in doubt either – she ruled out his startle – so he decided to fire (otherwise he couldn’t even be culpable). The judge even stated he had the foresight he might fire as far back as the bedroom and ‘was not candid’. The gun was ready to fire – and then he did so. he knew the person was there. The person was even the cause of the shooting, on his own evidence.

So once all that would be accepted, it would have to be dolus eventualis, unless and ONLY unless he could persuade someone that it was only “culpable” to try to ‘defend’ yourself through a door like that. This aspect was not discussed at all because the “foresight” was dispensed with using “mistaken identity” to rule it out. However if that comes back, it is then a valid question why the argument was not addressed explicitly by the judge, since it would be necessary to determine if it still qualifies as a situation in which a person might sincerely fear for their life unless they act with force.

We don’t know the answer to that question, however, the prosecutor made arguments as to why not. “The trigger was not tangible.” “The accused failed to substantiate the 3rd startle.” “It would be different if it was not a closed door” “It is PROVOKED PPD.”

Masipa took the “mistaken identity” theory about foresight from some examples in the defense heads, without any references, they just proposed some “principle” for her to consider. She accepted the principle, but it does not accord with “error in persona”, how it actually works, in practise.

If the appeal judges would agree both with that statement, so that the “foresight” was present after all, and furthermore that it was indeed provoked PPD and not a valid one [which she did not make a finding about at all] then the charge level would have to go up.

Many lawyers believe that would be the correct outcome because they don’t want the precedent that you can claim self-defence on such a minimal grounds as hearing a noise through a door. It is getting dangerous, even reckless, for people as it will be hard to prosecute if more and more situations can be described as a “perceived self-defence”…

I believe that’s why people are getting anxious about what just happened, rightly so."

http://thelawthinker.com/judge-masipa-got-it-right-oscar-pistorius-and-the-intention-to-kill/

 

[cottonweaver]

Throwing this one in as it connects to a post from Jay-Jay upthread: JM made a mistake on purpose.( Sorry Ja-Jay , can't find your original post .)

"......The assessors only help her on the facts, not the law…

She got the idea (the mother shooting a little girl through a door when she got a fright) from an example the defence shoved into their heads of arguments. They put some other arguments in there and she threw those ones out.

However she accepted this one, on foresight in relation to killing intruder not being possible since it was really reeva, which is the controversial one.

It’s possibly a deliberate mistake if she doesn’t want to expose her assessors to problems from finding Pistorius guilty of murder. It did cross my mind. She’s a very clever lady, I don’t think she made a mistake by mistake in fact lol.

If the appeal court reverse this aspect and make it “eventualis” that isn’t a big change in the charge level and the majority of the ruling would stand, plus, it would be perhaps a panel of 5 senior judges instead.

I’d say it must be on the cards, anyway… but, we’ll see. Maybe the NPA will just drop it, and wait for the next poor sucker who isn’t so famous before some judge gets around to reversing it properly."

http://thelawthinker.com/judge-masipa-got-it-right-oscar-pistorius-and-the-intention-to-kill/

PS Judge Greenland's one of the commenters in the comments section so its not full of morons!

 

[cottonweaver]

Final one from Daniel here is worth quoting

"Dangerous judgement IMO.

1. Mistaken identity becomes a defence to murder (even with intent)
2. Self-defence in response to sound through a closed door is credible (that’s a new line in the sand, no other case law for non-moving doors).
3. Plead self-defence without another witness, and you do not need to back it up by being candid.

In effect increasing bounds on the laws for Oscar’s situation.

Terribly dangerous.

At least a new disability precedent didn’t get chucked into the bargain as well!"

http://thelawthinker.com/judge-masipa-got-it-right-oscar-pistorius-and-the-intention-to-kill/

 

[mirage1]

Speaking about the 'sound' Oscar heard that caused him to shoot, it's just another reminder of one his major lies that were exposed. He claims the sound he heard was from the magazine rack, so lied that it was situated at the front of the toilet, where reeva was when she was shot, yet the photos show it was at the back of the toilet, well away from her, where it was not possible to move and create the noise. This was clearly exposed as a lie by Nel during cross examination yet seemingly ignored by the judge.

 

[soozieqtips]

Apols if someone has already posted this, published 13 Sept:

'As Steenkamp's parents expressed dismay at the verdict and headed home to Port Elizabeth, Pistorius's manager and agent, Peet van Zyl, revealed that the double amputee athlete intends to put his side of the story on paper.
"He will write his own book," he told the Observer. "We've discussed it. We've talked about ideas and concepts. I'm not going to go into details now."

Van Zyl said: "I will sit down with him once everything is done and decide what we are going to do. We have to wait until 13 October before we can think about anything. After that we will tell the world what we are going to do."

Ben Williams, books editor of South Africa's Sunday Times, said a book by Pistorius "could go either way. If you do it right, you could have the sports biography of the century. On the other hand, he's not the most popular person in some circles so you could have a tremendous backlash that sinks the book. Look what happened to Julian Assange's autobiography."
'It's because Oscar was the person who defined South Africa," Williams added. "I thought he was going to be the next iconic figure after Nelson Mandela. It's all gone horribly wrong and the amount of interest is spectacular. I've no doubt there will be a made-for-TV movie – that's definitely going to happen."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/13/oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamp-book

BIB - I'm guessing it will be categorised under "fiction".

 

[Lyra500]

I don't know what the rules are in SA and whether they have such a thing as wrongful death lawsuits, but this is an avenue for the Steenkamps if they want to take it. The Goldman's did this to OJ and were in his face till this day.

While it puts a lot of pressure on the convicted person, it also does put a lot of pressure on the family trying to collect the money and I don't know if Mr. Steenkamp's heart could withstand this pressure.

The one advantage that the Steenkamp's have that the Goldman's didn't is OJ was retired and his pension was off the table. OP has lots of years left to generate income and any future income would be part of the claim.

I tell you what - if there is a way for them to launch a civil lawsuit and money is the stumbling block, I would be more than happy to donate a few quid. I reckon if they set up a just giving account they could get that money together, no problem.

Of course the emotional strain would still be huge.

I feel so terrible for them.

 

[newone]

It is my understanding that the Steenkamps claimed, and accepted, a settlement from Oscar prior to the trial. They also won't do press interviews for less than ZAR 500 000.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/reevas-parents-want-r-500-000-interview/

Sorry, you will have to copy and paste the link.

At risk of sounding totally crass....I say good for the Steenkamps
there is no amount of $ that could alleviate their suffering but I am so frustrated that OP may prosper from his nasty deeds and go on with his professional career. I hope that they are successful in their civil suit v OP as well

 

[jay-jay]

Apols if someone has already posted this, published 13 Sept:

'As Steenkamp's parents expressed dismay at the verdict and headed home to Port Elizabeth, Pistorius's manager and agent, Peet van Zyl, revealed that the double amputee athlete intends to put his side of the story on paper.

"He will write his own book," he told the Observer. "We've discussed it. We've talked about ideas and concepts. I'm not going to go into details now."

Van Zyl said: "I will sit down with him once everything is done and decide what we are going to do. We have to wait until 13 October before we can think about anything. After that we will tell the world what we are going to do."

Ben Williams, books editor of South Africa's Sunday Times, said a book by Pistorius "could go either way. If you do it right, you could have the sports biography of the century. On the other hand, he's not the most popular person in some circles so you could have a tremendous backlash that sinks the book. Look what happened to Julian Assange's autobiography."
'It's because Oscar was the person who defined South Africa," Williams added. "I thought he was going to be the next iconic figure after Nelson Mandela. It's all gone horribly wrong and the amount of interest is spectacular. I've no doubt there will be a made-for-TV movie – that's definitely going to happen."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/13/oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamp-book

Well I sincerely hope that not many people buy it .. even if just out of curiousity, because their curiosity will be putting money in OP's pocket, and they will effectively be facilitating a murderer who got off.

 

[jay-jay]

Originally, in Feb 2013, Nike "suspended" Oscar's contract, as did Oakley (as I'm sure all the sponsors did). Nike has now announced it has "terminated" Oscar's contract.

I guess it's actually the same thing really. They just "suspended" it initially (ads stopped, $$ stopped) waiting for all the facts/evidence to be presented before slamming the door for good.(Hopefully, Oakley will be making the same announmemt soon - although they may have already terminated his contract, as opposed to being suspended, long ago.)

I think it's quite good that Nike have terminated it at this point .. it will have more impact.

 

[jay-jay]

I'm assuming sales of the audio version will be the highest. Because anyone who buys the book will be someone that is too stupid to be able to read.

~rsbm~

:lol: .. brilliant, HF!

 

[Jake18]

Back to the legal issues:

The Law Thinker blog is quite good because it sets out the Editors view on why JM applied law correctly but then the commenters, some of whom are "Verified Attorneys" in SA post cogent responses of why she got it wrong.
(And this is why it bothers me when posters say the judgment should have been easy - its complex but, big proviso, with seemingly basic errors on her part. )

This is from commenter Daniel- commenting half way down the web page in Comments:
"P.S. With foresight redefined correctly he would no doubt be found to possess it, almost by default, as a trained, competent gun owner, how can he fail to appreciate that bullets into a small space might kill. His voluntariness was not in doubt either – she ruled out his startle – so he decided to fire (otherwise he couldn’t even be culpable). The judge even stated he had the foresight he might fire as far back as the bedroom and ‘was not candid’. The gun was ready to fire – and then he did so. he knew the person was there. The person was even the cause of the shooting, on his own evidence.

So once all that would be accepted, it would have to be dolus eventualis, unless and ONLY unless he could persuade someone that it was only “culpable” to try to ‘defend’ yourself through a door like that. This aspect was not discussed at all because the “foresight” was dispensed with using “mistaken identity” to rule it out. However if that comes back, it is then a valid question why the argument was not addressed explicitly by the judge, since it would be necessary to determine if it still qualifies as a situation in which a person might sincerely fear for their life unless they act with force.

We don’t know the answer to that question, however, the prosecutor made arguments as to why not. “The trigger was not tangible.” “The accused failed to substantiate the 3rd startle.” “It would be different if it was not a closed door” “It is PROVOKED PPD.”

Masipa took the “mistaken identity” theory about foresight from some examples in the defense heads, without any references, they just proposed some “principle” for her to consider. She accepted the principle, but it does not accord with “error in persona”, how it actually works, in practise.

If the appeal judges would agree both with that statement, so that the “foresight” was present after all, and furthermore that it was indeed provoked PPD and not a valid one [which she did not make a finding about at all] then the charge level would have to go up.

Many lawyers believe that would be the correct outcome because they don’t want the precedent that you can claim self-defence on such a minimal grounds as hearing a noise through a door. It is getting dangerous, even reckless, for people as it will be hard to prosecute if more and more situations can be described as a “perceived self-defence”…

I believe that’s why people are getting anxious about what just happened, rightly so."

http://thelawthinker.com/judge-masipa-got-it-right-oscar-pistorius-and-the-intention-to-kill/

I'm just catching up a bit now. Thanks for that, very interesting.

Judge Greenland in the comments is adamant that a mistake was made and that the author of the article was wrong. He writes "With respect there is the same superficial intellectualism in this article that infused the approach in Court." LOL

He goes on to say "The article also simply ignores that in stating the test for dolus eventualis the Judge completely mis-stated the test by saying that foreseeable had to relate to Reeva. As much as she came back the next day and tried to 'save' the situation".

This does give my completely non legal mind hope because it tallies with what happened in the courtroom - the Judge made her ruling, then there was a lot of discussion in chambers then an abrupt, seemingly early ending. There was a legal discussion that she may have salvaged the situation by this next-day amendment but maybe not if it had to be pointed out to her and if the written judgement didn't reflect that ?

 

[Jake18]

In dismissing Premeditated murder Masipa said "The accused is a very poor witness, an evasive witness". Then went on to say "the accused was clearly not candid with the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone, as he had a loaded firearm in his hand". My interpretation of Masipa's words are that she is saying that she believes he intended to shoot someone. How can she then go on to say that he could not foresee that he could kill the person behind the door, it just defies logic. She also said that she believes Oscar when she says that the shots were rapid fire, to state that, she had to have totally dismissed the ballistic evidence contradicting Oscar's version of how he fired the shots........Beam me up now Scotty!!!!

BIB This is the part that annoys me greatly. I was expecting careful weighting of ALL the evidence, not just "Let's go with Oscar's version even though I'll concede he was a crap witness but he showed great remorse and prayed to his god and tried to *resuscitate her so the rest must be true". Mangena, I thought, was an excellent witness and his ballistic evidence was powerful and thorough. Yet, somehow, that's less important than Oscar's whimpering, snotty, puking "grief".



*Possibly the worst form of resuscitation I've ever come across.

 

[JudgeJudi]

She did, however, find on Thursday that: 'A reasonable person would have foreseen if he fired shots at the door, the person inside the toilet might be struck and might die as a result.'

Chris Greenland, a retired South African high court judge, said this was a serious inconsistency.

… 'I am utterly bemused that this mistake was made.

'I can't wrap my head around it. I have never seen a judge make such a big mistake especially when she had so much time to arrive at a judgement. 'It's inexplicable.

'She has misinterpreted herself with regard to the law because she herself said previously that Oscar Pistorius's defence was that he was not guilty of murder because he killed her by mistake thinking that he was shooting at an intruder.

'Now, during her verdict, she made a statement that was inconsistent because she found that he had not foreseen that he would kill the human being on the other side of the door.

'That was erroneous - she had already set out the law.

'It was a fundamental mistake.'

He believes the state would have a strong case on appeal.

Criminal lawyer Martin Hood added: 'I'm shocked.

‘I think she’s going to get quite a lot of criticism from the judiciary and the legal system.

‘This could really open the door to systematic abuse of our legal system by people who shoot their partners and claim self-defence.

'If someone can shoot in an irresponsible manner, and even in a negligent manner and not be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, then it means that we are not able to use the law as a tool to address violent crime in this country.’

Stephen Tuson, a law professor at Johannesburg's University of Witwatersrand, said the state would arguably be able to appeal on dolus eventualis (which is Latin for 'indirect intent').

'How can you shoot four bullets through a door and not foresee their death?', he told Bloomberg News.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-cleared-murdering-lover-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

 

[Jake18]

BIB This is the part that annoys me greatly. I was expecting careful weighting of ALL the evidence, not just "Let's go with Oscar's version even though I'll concede he was a crap witness but he showed great remorse and prayed to his god and tried to *resuscitate her so the rest must be true". Mangena, I thought, was an excellent witness and his ballistic evidence was powerful and thorough. Yet, somehow, that's less important than Oscar's whimpering, snotty, puking "grief".



*Possibly the worst form of resuscitation I've ever come across.

Quoting myself, sorry.

I'd prefer to believe that she fell for his "grief" and "remorse" than anything more sinister being at play. My South African friends in Australia tell me that everything in SA is for sale if you have the money but by definition they're a biased group in that they left partially because of the corruption. Im not a conspiracy theorist by nature but some doubts are creeping in.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

This is OT but it's along wait til Oct 13th to see if we'll have a reasonable custodial sentence and an appeal.

In the meantime this is quite interesting - whatever you think of Sam Taylor & her mum- if you think they're money-grubbing liars then perhaps keep on scrolling? There have been thousands of posts re the missing Valentines Day gift from Oscar since i started reading WS although I never got into that conjecture. I think, this account of his habits confirms what you have all said all along- there was no intended gift and this plausibly contributed to the argument that night.

'Despite being incredibly well off – he was earning millions a year at this stage – he found it very hard to give. He seemed to hold on to everything. He was always saying how much richer everyone else was than he was.

I was often amazed that he would come visit or stay at our house and never bring a thing, not a slab of chocolate, or a bottle of wine, as most people would, when visiting. It just never seemed to enter his head. Sam, who was studying for her marketing degree and working part time for me, wasn’t earning much money, but always gave him presents – beautiful Christmas and birthday presents – whereas he almost never gave her anything, not even a Christmas card. It was very strange that he couldn’t even give a token of his good wishes.

It’s not that Sam expected it, but she was over the moon when he did give her a bunch of flowers on Valentine’s Day.

He would often say things like: “I’m shopping for your Christmas present” or “I am going to get you this or that”. There were always promises, but then nothing would come of them.'


http://www.iol.co.za:80/the-star/how-oscar-ruined-my-son-s-birthday-1.1750057#.VBVI7c2viPU

What a stingy little so and so. :hilarious: If he continues to pursue the young ones he'll need to do better than that, he's not getting any younger.

Concerning Sam Taylor and co., I don't mind in the least they're selling their story and I believe them too, maybe I'm a sucker for a sob story, obviously J Masipa is too, except it's OP's story.

OP will definitely try to make a killing from all this publicity to facilitate his nightclub, yachting, expensive cars, young blondes, trips to Italy, 'lifestyle'. JMO

 

[cottonweaver]

I'd prefer to believe that she fell for his "grief" and "remorse" than anything more sinister being at play. My South African friends in Australia tell me that everything in SA is for sale if you have the money but by definition they're a biased group in that they left partially because of the corruption. Im not a conspiracy theorist by nature but some doubts are creeping in.

Even one of the "Law Thinker " comments from my last link- and it sounds like its from a SA lawyer - says same -ie. they couldn't risk him being incarcerated- so she was pressurised to go CH as it was the only one where she could poss get suspended sentence. Surely not!???? Goes against the whole motivation of televising it and what they needed to prove about the fairness of SA justice - esp as he had been so leniently dealt with with all his previous infringements. Everyone in SA talks about the corruption levels - they were attempting to show Justice could not be bought - so it just doesn't make sense.

 

[Jake18]

Even one of the "Law Thinker " comments from my last link- and it sounds like its from a SA lawyer - says same -ie. they couldn't risk him being incarcerated- so she was pressurised to go CH as it was the only one where she could poss get suspended sentence. Surely not!???? Goes against the whole motivation of televising it and what they needed to prove about the fairness of SA justice - esp as he had been so leniently dealt with with all his previous infringements. Everyone in SA talks about the corruption levels - they were attempting to show Justice could not be bought - so it just doesn't make sense.

It couldn't be reasonably possibly true. Could it?

It also makes me suspicious that the only lesser gun charge OP was charged with was the one Roux sort of admitted guilt for in the HOA.

 

[Lyra500]

It couldn't be reasonably possibly true. Could it?

It also makes me suspicious that the only lesser gun charge OP was charged with was the one Roux sort of admitted guilt for in the HOA.

Indeed.

And the most ridiculous judgement in the lesser charges relating to the possession of the .38 bullets - "the state has not proved that OP meant to possess the ammunition" (despite him having a gun on order which required those bullets) was a charge which could carry a significant custodial sentence (up to 15 years).

I dare say finding OP guilty on that count together with CH would have made it nigh on impossible to avoid a custodial sentence overall, so the only thing to do was to acquit him. Disgraceful.

The final proof will come at sentencing - if OP escapes with no custodial sentence it would seem to show an entirely corrupt process in my view, which would be hugely disappointing.

Since the Pistorius clan appears to 'own' the entire SA establishment (if OP's bragging and the general demeanour of the clan is anything to go by), what real hope is there for justice?

Shocking.

I wonder if they actually care about what their machinations have done to further degrade the image of SA. Probably not - insight doesn't seem to be one of their strong suits.

If I am wrong and he does get a decent custodial sentence, I will be delighted to see at least a semblance of justice, but that comment about waiting until the 13th before continuing with work on the book sounded so very confident that nothing would be getting in the way of future plans that I am not hopeful.