Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[sleuth-d-]

To add to soozieqtips questions do you also think it is 'common sense' to base a verdict on the assumtpion that a person crying and showing remorse AFTER the fact means that they could never have intended to perform the crime of which they are accused. Now that's an opinion of Judge Masipa's where I can see much discretion but precious little common sense reasoning in.

and is it common sense for a judge to rely [quite heavily] on the killer for an explanation of the killing. the one person that has the most to lose in the room... and equally the one person that could have the most to gain by fabrication.

truth or fabrication
1. re: the killer: "The accused’s evidence is important as the accused is the only one who can tell this court how the incident happened."
2. under oath the killer is "an evasive witness."
3. killer has contradictory defences: "A perusal of the evidence of the accused shows a number of defences or apparent defences". there is only one version of the truth... why is the killer putting forward defence options?
4. the judge nevertheless is satisfied the killer's version is reasonably possibly true.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Considering the state was going for Directus, I was amazed that the state didn't make more of the jeans below the bathroom window.

Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead in the toilet, several metres directly above where they lay. I believe that she didn't have her phone and they were dropped, unbeknownst to Pistorius, as a last ditch effort to raise an alarm of some kind.

Annoying that Pistorius wasn't pressed on it. It would have been interesting to hear his explanation.

notes re: clothes
her bags were fully packed apart from two items - both jeans.
if the jeans were left out to dry, why was one pair lying on the floor in the bedroom.

is the vest top reeva was wearing the same top she was wearing in the video filmed at the security gate.
why was she wearing op basketball shorts?


as there was a photo of the vest top, has anyone ever seen a photo of the basketball shorts reeva was wearing?

 

[eimajjjj]

http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2014/09/19/pistorius-has-become-a-source-of-racial-shame

 

[Madeleine74]

That's a nice theory, that Masipa was really falling on her sword so someone else (i.e. the appeals judges) could be the ones to convict OP of a greater offense, but that just seems fanciful. Couldn't she have recused herself if she didn't think she could serve as judge in this trial? Couldn't she just as easily have claimed to be ill and gone on a leave of absence? And what guarantee is there the next level of judges won't also be intimidated and agree with Masipa?

Masipa started with the outcome she wanted OP to have and attempted to work her way backwards in her explanation. It makes no sense because she didn't apply the law to the actual testimony, she took a circuitous, nonsensical path. Her reasons remain mysterious except for the one conclusion: she wanted to.

S.A. sees OP as their national treasure. Right or wrong, accurate or not, he will not be treated like anyone else, even if underneath all his accomplishments he's really just a very common hothead immature guy with too much money and too little common sense.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Questions about an appeal:

- If he appeals, will Nel simply submit legal documents? If not and it's more complicated, will it be televised?

- Would the appeal likely involve "higher" judges who simply read the transcripts and make their decision(s) from that? If not, what will it entail and, if more complicated, will it be televised?

- How long do appeals take?

- Would there be another bail hearing?

If either the State or defence wish to appeal, they must first apply to Masipa for leave to appeal. If leave is granted, the matter would be listed before either a full court of the High Court (3 judges) or it could go direct to the Supreme Court of Appeal (3-5 judges). The SCA is the highest court of appeal except for constitutional matters.

The Supreme Court of Appeal decides cases upon the record of the proceedings before the lower court and after considering the written and oral arguments presented. Witnesses do not appear before the court, and the parties need not be present during the hearing of an appeal. A written judgment is usually handed down shortly after the argument.

The Court hears appeals on fact and has a relatively wide discretion to make its own factual findings. Because of this jurisdiction, judges have to read the record of the full proceedings in the lower courts.

The judges to the SCA are appointed from the ranks of high court judges. As the SCA is a higher court, so too are its judges

I doubt very much it would be televised.

I don't know about bail.

 

[turaj]

Well just watched the BBC3 Truth documentary. It is a good summary of the before/during/after in simple terms (for us non legal folks) and it becomes clear for me in this show that the judge simply believed nothing of the prosecution's case and witnesses and Roux in retrospect did a good job of raising doubts which I guess was all that was necessary to get past the murder verdict. Yes I said that Roux did a good job (I mean his client is walking free and not convicted of murder)! I think his timeline was the best part of the case and given a judge likes facts rather than feelings she went with that and Nel did little on that front. As others have said in order to have had a chance he should gone step by step with the timeline to overcome its impact on the judge. So now its all about the sentence and if it is significant jail time where he is really in custody this will all die down ...if not well the speculation will continue.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2014/09/19/pistorius-has-become-a-source-of-racial-shame

Mr Steinberg is entitled to his opinion, I don't happen to agree.

 

[Sherbert]

Mr Steinberg is entitled to his opinion, I don't happen to agree.

Neither do I - he's looking for a theory when he really doesn't need to and the danger is that people in authority have a tendency to buy into this nonsense.

 

[JudgeJudi]

David Dadic's latest blog. He's got lots to say about people's comments re Masipa and her judgment.

http://whosyourdadic.com/2014/09/19/judgment-day/

 

[JuneBug67]

Just out of interest and with all respect is there anything at all in Pistorious's version of events that troubles you? Any aspects of his evidence and the case in general that make you pause and think 'well that sounds highly unlikely' or do you believe that while on the stand he told 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth?'. TIA

I believe the evidence supports his fundamental story: that he fully believed there was an intruder in the bathroom, that he shot in fear for his safety and that he was devastated and profoundly shocked when he realized the reality of the situation. As the judge and others here said he wasn't a great witness for himself, but I don't really hold that against him and I certainly don't hold it against the body of evidence that supports his basic story.

 

[JuneBug67]

Why should that be accepted? It was never the evidence of the expert.

He said the panel was prised out of the door using the bat after the gunshots.

The other marks on the door that were shown to be caused by the bat could have happened before or after the gunshots....no way to tell scientifically.

It was the evidence of the State's expert that the bat 'strikes' came after the guns shots. He subsequently qualified that he could only attest that one of the strikes came after the gunshots. But the logical and reasonable conclusion is that one set of sounds was gunshots and one set of sounds was bat strikes. Which is exactly what the logical, reasonable judge concluded.

 

[wb180]

It was the evidence of the State's expert that the bat 'strikes' came after the guns shots. He subsequently qualified that he could only attest that one of the strikes came before the gunshots. But the logical and reasonable conclusion is that one set of sounds was gunshots and one set of sounds was bat strikes. Which is exactly what the logical, reasonable judge concluded.

That argument shows the fallacy in making assumptions as facts.

 

[JuneBug67]

None of us know what the majority of legal minds think about this case. We know what the majority of legal minds that engage social media and talk to media think. And beyond that your argument consists of not one but two logical fallacies: argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

David Dadic's latest blog. He's got lots to say about people's comments re Masipa and her judgment.

http://whosyourdadic.com/2014/09/19/judgment-day/

While I agree, he certainly took awhile to get to the point, lol.

I've disagreed with a few Judges comments after sentencing in Australia over the years too, I haven't resorted to calling them retarded or stupid, but bias, yes I have, out of touch, yes again.

We've had a judge made a comment that a rape victim was asking for it, we've had a judge sentenced 2 teenage boys to jail for stealing a man's lunch for pete's sake! The boys hadn't eaten for 2 days and the judge said in his mind, it was the lowest thing a person could do, steal a working man's lunch!!!
Another judge said in her opinion a 10 yr old aboriginal girl raped by 4 or 5 teenage boys invited them to do so, and she wasn't harmed by the experience!

Tell me if these 3 judges are not out of touch, are not biased for whatever reason?! OP is not the be it and end all of everything, the people have a right to express their opinions. Low types will resort to name calling, that's nothing new. JMO

 

[wb180]

I believe the evidence supports his fundamental story: that he fully believed there was an intruder in the bathroom, that he shot in fear for his safety and that he was devastated and profoundly shocked when he realized the reality of the situation. As the judge and others here said he wasn't a great witness for himself, but I don't really hold that against him and I certainly don't hold it against the body of evidence that supports his basic story.

So nothing troubles you. Got it. OP is lying but also telling the truth. At the same time. This guy really is amazing at same time split personalities.

 

[JuneBug67]

This is precisely what I'm referring to. You are to talking about the acceptance of two disputed events.

I am asking whether it stands to reason that OP's version would have happened or whether four witnesses all incorrectly identified male screams as female, or that a fatal shooting on Valentine's day isn't intimate partner homicide.

It doesn't stand to reason, as the phrase is commonly understood and it is why so many are angry at the verdict.

It is not disputed that at least one of the bat strikes came after the shots were fired. That was the evidence of experts for the both the defense and the state. The state never provided any theory of the crime that accounted for the first set of sounds beyond establishing that two of them couldn't be proven to have come after. The defense did account for both sets of sounds reasonably, logically and in line with other objective timeline evidence.

There are always many facts in a case. Reason is about understanding which ones are defining. The order of gunshots and bat strikes, supported by objective timeline evidence, is defining. As I said initially events cannot have unfolded the way the state put forth once this evidence is understood. It then follows that there must be an alternative explanation for many people hearing a woman scream. Here it is clearly that Oscar was indeed screaming in a way that could be perceived as coming from a woman. We heard him get high pitched in court. We heard that a close neighbour mistook his crying as coming from a woman. We know that various factors could serve as reinforcements to witnesses who believed they heard a woman scream. It's not mysterious at all.

Oscar went to bed with a gun every night and got up in the night with it to face perceived danger before. Any night that these circumstances unfolded had the same odds to end up like this. In this light there is nothing special about Valentine's Day.

 

[wb180]

None of us know what the majority of legal minds think about this case. We know what the majority of legal minds that engage social media and talk to media think. And beyond that your argument consists of not one but two logical fallacies: argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority.

Yes I don't have the specific statistics on whether the legal minds qualified to practise and has met up with practising certificate fees under South Africa law has voted all at the same to meets the over 50% threshold to consider majority.

I guess the outrage currently experience in SA and rest of the world who has followed this case really is nothing.

 

[Cherwell]

I believe the evidence supports his fundamental story: that he fully believed there was an intruder in the bathroom, that he shot in fear for his safety and that he was devastated and profoundly shocked when he realized the reality of the situation. As the judge and others here said he wasn't a great witness for himself, but I don't really hold that against him and I certainly don't hold it against the body of evidence that supports his basic story.

Why? What is it that persuades you that he is telling the truth?

 

[vansleuths]

It's the person who started the petition.

It's definitely worth sending it to the NPA and letting them know that they have public support behind them if they decide to appeal.

I was just checking my email this morning and saw that I had a response from the Chief Director of Communications at the NPA regarding some information that I sent them about the Pistorius trial.

 

[lithgow1]

I believe the evidence supports his fundamental story: that he fully believed there was an intruder in the bathroom, that he shot in fear for his safety and that he was devastated and profoundly shocked when he realized the reality of the situation. As the judge and others here said he wasn't a great witness for himself, but I don't really hold that against him and I certainly don't hold it against the body of evidence that supports his basic story.

Thanks and fair enough, but what immediate fear for his safety did he have with any intruder on the other side of a door that immediately necessitated four death-dealing shots? He has certainly created a precedent for someone to shoot someone in their bathroom and then claim fear and ignorance as their justification. Of course my take is diametrically opposed to your's as I believe he was fully aware of who was on the other side of the door since witnesses heard her screaming and any shock and devestation on his part after the shooting was largely because of the awareness of what he had done and the likely repercussions of his actions.