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

[JudgeJudi]

<Respectfully snipped>

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!

The following is one of Judge Greenland's comments:

"In Oscar’s case, the State failed to prove this “actual reconciliation” beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, it was not the State’s case that Pistorius foresaw that he was going to kill the “intruder” and reconciled itself to that possibility”

Now what result did Oscar accept would follow – ??????

a) given that he claims that he was bent on defending himself and Reeva;
b) that is such defense he was using a lethal weapon:
c) that his act of “defense” involved firing four (4) bullets with lethal ammo in the direction of his perceived enemy ??????????
d) that his perceived enemy was human ????

On these facts it is actually generous to talk about him having to “foresee” the death of a human being behind the door.

It is actually more correct to say that he fully intended to kill a person behind the door – -and Judge Masipa herself had said that it was Oscar’s defense that he had killed Reeva “by mistake” thinking she was an intruder.

Only a lunatic would not “understand” that firing 4 shots through a door behind which there is a human or humans will result in death as a matter of probability.

The Judge seems to have been unmindful of the fact that ALL the medical experts EXCLUDED and diminution in Oscar’s mental capacity and appreciation of reality at the time".

Don't you just love the way Judge Greenland expresses himself.

 

[wb180]

The whole judgment by Masipa was just plain weird. It didn't make any sense at all. Even some of the minor offences, he was acquitted. Maybe someone can enlighten me through logic and common sense rather than emotion.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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.

It sounds as though the entire Pistorius family has a gene that expresses profound arrogance and invulnerability!!! They all seem to carry a copy of it.

 

[JudgeJudi]

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.

Everyone thought Mangena was an excellent witness, and guess what, apparently he's not even mentioned in Masipa's judgment!!!!!!! And Masipa said the shots were fired in "quick succession". Oh, but wait, according to Roux there were 2 double taps, that is until Nel was cross-examining OP and he then said his counsel made a mistake and that he had told Roux they were fired in "quick succession". Right. And she bought that hook, line and sinker after Mangena said he wouldn't have been able to do it.

My blood pressure's rising.

 

[cottonweaver]

Stepping away from the conspiracy fears here's another legal critique from someone who appears qualified....

Prof Pierre de Vos's blog- Claude Leon Foundation Chair in Constitutional Governance at the University of Cape Town,
written on Day 1 of verdict, highlights his reservations

"As intention is tested subjectively, the pivotal question would be what the actual state of mind of Pistorius was at the time when he killed the victim. Did he really believe that he was acted in self-defence and did he really believe that he was using reasonable means to avert the threat? I could not tell whether the court accepted this defence....

For me the puzzling part of the judgment is the reasoning employed by Judge Masipa to come to this conclusion. Amongst others, she found that all the evidence suggest that he was truly distressed about having killed Reeva Steenkamp. How could he subjectively have foreseen that he would kill her if after the fact he was so distressed?

But although this might show that he did not subjectively foresee that he would kill Reeva Steenkamp, it says nothing about subjectively foreseeing that he would kill who he had thought was an intruder hiding behind the door. Given all the evidence presented in court about Pistorius&#8217;s knowledge of guns and what the bullets he used would do to a person, it is unlikely in the extreme that Pistorius did not foresee that the person behind the door (who he might have thought was an intruder) would be killed.

I might be wrong or might have misheard, but to my mind the judge did not engage with this issue in sufficient detail to explain convincingly why she found that Pistorius did not have the dolus eventualis to kill an unknown person behind the toilet door.

Given that Pistorius himself was unclear about what he felt and believed when he pumped four bullets through the door, and given the absolute improbability that any person (even somebody who is not at all reasonable in his or her actions) would not have foreseen the possibility of killing somebody in those circumstances, the lack of detailed analysis not linked to Pistorius&#8217;s intention to kill Reeva Steenkamp, raises questions about the finding.....

Of course, it is not easy for any judge to make a decision about what is in the mind of the accused. In order to convict Pistorius of murder the judge in this case had to look at all the facts and had to decide that she was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that &#8211; subjectively &#8211; Pistorius had foreseen that by pumping four &#8220;zombie stopper&#8221; bullets into a toilet door behind which a human being was standing could lead to the killing of that human being. In doing so the mere say so of Pistorius that he did not foresee this would not be the only evidence to consider.

In the Pistorius case the question is whether there was any reason to believe Pistorius did not share the foresight that his actions could lead to the killing of a human being. The judge found that there was. The question is whether the facts support such a finding"

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co....ntion-to-kill-someone-behind-the-toilet-door/

and one of his tweets:"I love the fact that the #Oscartrial stimulated debate about law. Hate the fact that so many of the arguments neither logical or informed" in this tweet he is telling us to lay off the judge on a personal level.

https://twitter.com/pierredevos

 

[lithgow1]

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.

That was my thought exactly - she only found him guilty on the one charge where she almost had no choice but to do so but even then didn't seem to think his blatant lying re the incident had any further implications. The more this sinks in the more things I find to puzzle over - her almost complete rejection of all State evdidence, both expert and layperson, and her almost complete acceptance of Pistorius's version desite acknowledging its many flaws. Plus it is still mind boggling that she could take his tears and remorse after the event as an indication of his thoughts and intentions before the shooting. I guess she has never done or said anything she has immediately regretted and wished could be taken back. I don't want to jump on any bribery bandwagon so all I can think of is she felt sorry for Pistorius and has thus tied herself into legal knots to find him ways out - or she is not nearly as smart as I thought she was. The fact that there was so much evidence she didn't even address in her findings is worriesome in the extreme and as someone else pointed out, she spent more time dissecting the implications of Darren Fresco's mendacity than she did on OP's.

 

[pandax81]

That was my thought exactly - she only found him guilty on the one charge where she almost had no choice but to do so but even then didn't seem to think his blatant lying re the incident had any further implications. The more this sinks in the more things I find to puzzle over - her almost complete rejection of all State evdidence, both expert and layperson, and her almost complete acceptance of Pistorius's version desite acknowledging its many flaws. Plus it is still mind boggling that she could take his tears and remorse after the event as an indication of his thoughts and intentions before the shooting. I guess she has never done or said anything she has immediately regretted and wished could be taken back. I don't want to jump on any bribery bandwagon so all I can think of is she felt sorry for Pistorius and has thus tied herself into legal knots to find him ways out - or she is not nearly as smart as I thought she was. The fact that there was so much evidence she didn't even address in her findings is worriesome in the extreme and as someone else pointed out, she spent more time dissecting the implications of Darren Fresco's mendacity than she did on OP's.

I remember when we were little, for some reason I thought it would be fun to go into the front room and smash a porcelain figure from the mantelpiece against the wall. The figure smashed to bits and the thrill was quite minimal. I heard my mum call out, and before I knew it, I was sobbing, gathering the pieces and begging my little sister to help me fix it. When my mum came in, quick as a flash I said we were just jumping around when it fell off. With such limited time to think up that story, and the witnessed conduct post-incident, clearly I should have been entitled to my acquittal, but my mum, not being the calibre of a high court judge, gave short shrift to this defence. I forgive her however, as I learned my lesson and grew up to be quite safe around ceramics.

 

[turaj]

Basically, I believe, it comes down to fact that Judge Masipa just didn't get convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Because let's look at what she did - she dismissed all the ear witnesses. That means that, essentially, nobody heard anything, in other words, only 2 people in the world who saw or heard anything during all this were Oscar and Reeva, and one of them is dead. So we are left with only Oscar's account, with no one to corroborate or go against his word.

There is the point that Oscar was caught in lies on the stand. Apparently, she chalked this up to his nervousness and also some mental disorder which she herself placed upon him (in her head, based on his courtroom antics/act).

So the above ^^^ acts as nullification for any lies he was caught in.

Then we have forensics. I think she (in her head) dismissed all the forensics as well, because of the sloppy work of the investigators and all the drama that went on in all of that. So there goes forensics out the window.

So basically she put in her mind that she was left with no ear witnesses, no other witnesses,and no forensics.

On top of that, she could not come up with any motive in her head for which there was any evidence.

So, because she did feel firmly convinced, she found him Not Guilty.

Perhaps that is also what a jury would have done had it been in the U.S., who knows.

I think that basically that is how she came up with her verdict, and then she just threw some legal mumbo jumbo around in her reasoning to make it sound like she came up with in some "legal" fashion. But I think she came to her decision much as any regular person would (by "regular" I mean layperson).

JMO.

and don't forget the impact that Dr. Stipp's (I think it was his) observation that OP was crying and asking God to help etc. She put much weight on that...which is really one man's opinion of the reaction and to me she can't really say what the reaction was..I can't imagine it would have any significant impact on the verdict. I'm not as upset with the verdict as I am with the reasoning that she provided to get to the verdict.

 

[Forensics]

I know a few of us Websleuthers were wondering what Gerrie Nel was doing when the verdict was being delivered. He appeared to be industriusly taking notes with his head down for most of the time. Maybe the following extract gives us a clue.

"From the moment on Thursday when it became clear Masipa was going to find him not guilty of murder, Gerrie [Nel] started talking to the team about a possible appeal. Mark my words, he is studying case law as we speak," said a senior member of the prosecuting team.

Nel and everyone involved in the prosecution, including the team of detectives and experts, were "completely gutted" at the judge's verdict, the Sunday Times was told.

"We have all lost cases ... we listened to Masipa, with the greatest of respect, and the finding just didn't make sense.

"We will do what we always do. Calm down, sit around a table and look at the facts and then fight back," said the senior member of the prosecuting team.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/special/...dge-under-fire-while-state-is-urged-to-appeal

 

[turaj]

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

Well I do think the mother is "money grubbing" for sure but putting that aside I think most of what she says in true and things like no gifts just seem exactly what you would expect from this guy. I have also read that he clearly was dating other women during the time he knew Reeva but I think they are really too afraid to say anything. I would be afraid too...just like Frank is...and probably all being paid. There has been many many Rand paid to keep people from coming forward which has to figure into the total picture here. We simply never got the total story and more importantly the Steenkamp family is still looking for what really happened.

 

[turaj]

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.

He will be keeping the OJ legacy going...I remember OJ wrote something called "If I did it" and I assume it was a flop. The two are really alot like except one was in their prime the other burned out.

 

[akp]

On a lighter note, Roux must be regretting why in his HOA did he say that the case should have been of culpable homicide and also admitted oscar's guilt in Tasha's. Had it not been for this carelessness of his, Oscar would have been acquitted completely!

 

[turaj]

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&#8217;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&#8217;s situation.

Terribly dangerous.

At least a new disability precedent didn&#8217;t get chucked into the bargain as well!"

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

Can't you just see some defense attorney in the coming years quoting the Pistorius case and verdict setting precedent that if a defendant is upset after committing the crime the verdict should be in favor of the defendant????

 

[turaj]

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.

In most cases no cameras and thus this whole thing would have gone down and I know my reaction would be there must have been great evidence that it was just a terrible accident or "mistake" and being naive I would just assume the judge did the right thing. But now come the cameras and we all were able to see the evidence and case unfold and therefore this was a very bad case to have so many legal questions on the table after such a verdict. Cameras are good!!

 

[turaj]

<Respectfully snipped>



The following is one of Judge Greenland's comments:

"In Oscar&#8217;s case, the State failed to prove this &#8220;actual reconciliation&#8221; beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, it was not the State&#8217;s case that Pistorius foresaw that he was going to kill the &#8220;intruder&#8221; and reconciled itself to that possibility&#8221;

Now what result did Oscar accept would follow &#8211; ??????

a) given that he claims that he was bent on defending himself and Reeva;
b) that is such defense he was using a lethal weapon:
c) that his act of &#8220;defense&#8221; involved firing four (4) bullets with lethal ammo in the direction of his perceived enemy ??????????
d) that his perceived enemy was human ????

On these facts it is actually generous to talk about him having to &#8220;foresee&#8221; the death of a human being behind the door.

It is actually more correct to say that he fully intended to kill a person behind the door &#8211; -and Judge Masipa herself had said that it was Oscar&#8217;s defense that he had killed Reeva &#8220;by mistake&#8221; thinking she was an intruder.

Only a lunatic would not &#8220;understand&#8221; that firing 4 shots through a door behind which there is a human or humans will result in death as a matter of probability.

The Judge seems to have been unmindful of the fact that ALL the medical experts EXCLUDED and diminution in Oscar&#8217;s mental capacity and appreciation of reality at the time".

Don't you just love the way Judge Greenland expresses himself.

and the critical factor is that the door went to a "room" more in keeping with a telephone booth and it was right there in front of the courtroom. Shots fired through a door in a normal size bathroom would be a different story.

 

[turaj]

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.

all along I have felt that the "machine" organized by Uncle Arnold was moving along and would be ready to roll after the verdict/sentencing. I think on a parallel track (literally) he is working out and getting ready for the first competition he can get into based on Oct. 13th. You don't just start competing without prep and he will literally have nothing after sentencing but his running.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

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

I am South African and it is part of our culture to NEVER show up empty handed, much less when you visit loved ones. It is considered very bad form, and downright rude.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

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!!!!

In addition to all this Masipa just gave drug dealers and smugglers a giant loophole. That kilo of cocaine in my suitcase??? Oh no, that is not mine!!!

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

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.

This is very true. I am South African and there is a great deal of corruption. There is also a programme called BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) that allows employers to hire a black person over a white person even if the white person has more experience and/or better qualifications.

 

[soozieqtips]

Soozieqtips:Why is there a cheeseburger in the RH corner?

Surely one WSer can crack this secret code?

What's up with the hamburger?

BIB - Court hadn't adjourned for lunch yet, so Judge Masipa confiscated Michelle Burger's burger?

:smile: