Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[Interested Bystander]

I'm just reading Masipa's verdict and I'm starting to feel like a right plonker. It's now become completely clear to me why she accepted OP's version:

"During the course of the trial it became clear that some of the sounds that witnesses interpreted as gunshots were actually not gunshots, butsounds of a cricket bat striking against the toilet door. It was also notcontradicted that the shots were fired first and that the striking of the door, using a cricket bat, followed thereafter. " (When exactly did the state concede that? Please show me).

If you accept that that is the case, you are almost certainly going to come to the conclusion that OP's version (well, one of them) is correct. You can dismiss all the "it was a woman screaming" evidence, because the medical evidence indicates RS could not have screamed repeatedly (only possibly immediately and briefly after the hip shot, although Masipa dismisses that too). You can conclude the ear witnesses were plain wrong ("Significantly Ms Burger refused to concede that she could have missed hearing the first sounds – that is the shots – as she might have been asleep at the time and that what she heard was a cricket bat striking against the toilet door. "

You can disregard Stipp's intermingling of male and female voices because you know that can't be true, because you know it was shots-screams-bat. You can also gloss over the bits of evidence that don't quite fit (Mangena's duff....duff duff duff now becomes Masipa's "the shots were fired in quick succession" - which rules out the possibility of RS screaming completely). You don't really need to consider the State's case that the forensic evidence showed only one of the bat hits was definitely made after the shots and that it could not be proven whether the others happened before or after.

So the inability of the State to give even a hypothesis as to what the first set of noises was (bat on bath panel? air gun (remember the hole in the bedroom door?), bat on toilet door????) and her assertion that the State agreed the shots came before the bat hits, made it a foregone conclusion for Masipa that it was shots-screams-bat.

Once you conclude that, you can also dismiss those DV warning lights "I'm scared of you sometimes" because, if the shots came before the bat noises, OP just made an honest mistake and fired four shots at a burglar, although not anticipating that anyone might get killed, of course.

I don't think Nel ever accepted that the shots came before the bats but he didn't make a big deal of it. Perhaps he should have. At the end of the HoA Masipa asked him if he agreed with the time line and he quite clearly said only the telephone records. To me that clearly said he did not agree with the order of the bats/shots. He also stated during the trial that he disagreed with Roux about the times of the shots. Nel stated 3.17am for the shots, Roux earlier. Masipa and her assessors must not have comprehended what he meant or chose to ignore his comment.

There seem to be many factual mistakes but unfortunately Nel, at the moment, cannot appeal those. If an appeal is granted and the proposed new law passed I wonder whether he will be allowed to use facts or whether the OP case will fall under retrospective law. If Nel makes an appeal it is likely to be 18 months or more before it is heard unless it is fast-tracked like the trial. I can see this going on for years if Masipa doesn't give OP a stiff CH sentence (in which case Nel might accept this rather than continue fighting for justice). Even so OP will appeal a custodial sentence. I can see it now!

 

[JuneBug67]

I'm just reading Masipa's verdict and I'm starting to feel like a right plonker. It's now become completely clear to me why she accepted OP's version:

"During the course of the trial it became clear that some of the sounds that witnesses interpreted as gunshots were actually not gunshots, butsounds of a cricket bat striking against the toilet door. It was also notcontradicted that the shots were fired first and that the striking of the door, using a cricket bat, followed thereafter. " (When exactly did the state concede that? Please show me).

If you accept that that is the case, you are almost certainly going to come to the conclusion that OP's version (well, one of them) is correct. You can dismiss all the "it was a woman screaming" evidence, because the medical evidence indicates RS could not have screamed repeatedly (only possibly immediately and briefly after the hip shot, although Masipa dismisses that too). You can conclude the ear witnesses were plain wrong ("Significantly Ms Burger refused to concede that she could have missed hearing the first sounds – that is the shots – as she might have been asleep at the time and that what she heard was a cricket bat striking against the toilet door. "

You can disregard Stipp's intermingling of male and female voices because you know that can't be true, because you know it was shots-screams-bat. You can also gloss over the bits of evidence that don't quite fit (Mangena's duff....duff duff duff now becomes Masipa's "the shots were fired in quick succession" - which rules out the possibility of RS screaming completely). You don't really need to consider the State's case that the forensic evidence showed only one of the bat hits was definitely made after the shots and that it could not be proven whether the others happened before or after.

So the inability of the State to give even a hypothesis as to what the first set of noises was (bat on bath panel? air gun (remember the hole in the bedroom door?), bat on toilet door????) and her assertion that the State agreed the shots came before the bat hits, made it a foregone conclusion for Masipa that it was shots-screams-bat.

Once you conclude that, you can also dismiss those DV warning lights "I'm scared of you sometimes" because, if the shots came before the bat noises, OP just made an honest mistake and fired four shots at a burglar, although not anticipating that anyone might get killed, of course.

Exactly! It's the precise reasoning I and others here have put forward for months. Masipa does not arbitrarily dismiss ear witnesses testimony, she in fact says that they were genuinely mistaken in what they heard as would be shown by what she referred to as the chronology of events. They were not mistaken because they were unreliable, they were unreliable because they were mistaken.

Not conceding something and not contradicting something are two different things. The state could not contradict the defence position that the shots came first because the evidence of their own witness supported that. They could not concede it because it would blow up their own case. Instead they effectively completely sidestepped the first sounds all together in their theory of the crime. It was a completely untenable strategy.

Early in her judgement she described much of the evidence of 'paling in significance' to what she put forth as the three things that were the key to the case: gunshots, screams in the night and bat strikes. The case really is solved right there. When the evidence supports the gunshots coming first and the inability of the defendant to scream after her wounds the states case falls completely apart.

What we are left with is:

-order of events consistent with Oscar's story
-behaviour consistent with past actions - always sleeping with gun near, approaching perceived danger with a gun
-no evidence of premeditation
-ballistics consistent with Oscar's claim of being on his stumps
-ballistics consistent with Oscar's claim of firing from the position he claimed to be in which in turn is consistent with his described fearful approach to the room
-behaviour consistent with seeking immediate help
-observed behaviour consistent with extreme distress

My belief is that the evidence supports Oscar's story as the truth, but at the very minimum people should see why this was the correct verdict in a legal sense as far as knowing he was shooting at Reeva.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the assertion of the door being hit by the cricket bat exactly the same number of times as the number of shots, extremely odd?

Burger heard a .. duff .. duff, duff, duff .. and that was supposedly (according to Masipa) the cricket bat? How odd that it matches up exactly with Mangena's excellent ballistics report regarding the shooting itself. Funny that, isn't it.

What I think was grossly unfair in the trial was that OP got to see what the witnesses were going to say and the State get to see nothing. I know this is the norm but it does put the Prosecution in a difficult situation. So if Stipp said 3 hits for second sounds OP would inevitably say 3 hits if he wanted his version of 3 bat hits to be believed.

 

[jay-jay]

OK, a question for those in the 'it was all a horrible accident' camp .. could you explain why Reeva was standing up, facing the toilet door when Pistorius shot her?

.. imo, she couldn't have just finished having a pee, and was just about to exit the door, because:

1) he would've heard the toilet flush
2) she would've wondered what all the shouting was about, and would've been in a more protected body position, probably to one corner of the toilet as well as taking more of a curled up position (i.e. that's an automatic thing, in order to protect 'ones' major organs) as opposed to standing up completely straight and facing the door directly
3) she would've put a call in to the police from behind the toilet door when OP had shouted at her to, either that or she would've called out and asked what was going on before phoning them .. it would've been one or the other, but she did neither.

There is only one reason, and one reason only, that she was stood bolt upright behind that toilet door and that is because they were both arguing. No other reason.

 

[JuneBug67]

Unfortunately, a good synopsis of the way she did her logic

It was exactly the right way to "do logic". Logically!

 

[jay-jay]

What I think was grossly unfair in the trial was that OP got to see what the witnesses were going to say and the State get to see nothing. I know this is the norm but it does put the Prosecution in a difficult situation. So if Stipp said 3 hits for second sounds OP would inevitably say 3 hits if he wanted his version of 3 bat hits to be believed.

BIB .. yup, and he sat there scribbling it all down on his notepad.

 

[JuneBug67]

OK, a question for those in the 'it was all a horrible accident' camp .. could you explain why Reeva was standing up, facing the toilet door when Pistorius shot her?

.. imo, she couldn't have just finished having a pee, and was just about to exit the door, because:

1) he would've heard the toilet flush
2) she would've wondered what all the shouting was about, and would've been in a more protected body position, probably to one corner of the toilet as well as taking more of a curled up position (i.e. that's an automatic thing, in order to protect 'ones' major organs) as opposed to standing up completely straight and facing the door directly
3) she would've put a call in to the police from behind the toilet door when OP had shouted at her to, either that or she would've called out and asked what was going on before phoning them .. it would've been one or the other, but she did neither.

There is only one reason, and one reason only, that she was stood bolt upright behind that toilet door and that is because they were both arguing. No other reason.

I find a degree of irony in the fact that it is the people who are so certain about what they can't truly be certain about who are most dismissive of Oscar's misplaced certainty that night.

This unfolded over a very short time comparatively and standing up near the door is completely consistent with trying to listen outside to try to comprehend what was going on and to put yourself in a position to exit quickly if necessary. She could hear Oscar but she does't know where the potential danger is relative to him - why would she form an immediate response of calling out?

 

[jay-jay]

and the inability of the defendant to scream after her wounds

~snipped~

Masipa very cleverly twisted that to make it that Reeva couldn't have screamed after all of her wounds .. well, we know that .. but a number of experts have said that she could've, and would've, screamed immediately upon being hit in the hip. Once again, Masipa chose to ignore this, and manipulate it so that it fitted in with the verdict she wanted to give.

 

[mirage1]

We are not talking about a lack of evidence here, we are talking about actively exculpatory evidence that is absolutely foundational to the truth and to this verdict. So I appreciate you at least addressing the issue. Most skip right over it like it doesn't even exist.

I am glad you don't like to skip over evidence that is absolutely foundational to the truth and to this verdict. So let's focus on the photographic evidence of the fans and the duvet which directly contradict Oscar's version. Infact so badly that Oscar admitted his story could not be true unless the police moved them before the photos were taken. What are your views on this?

You claim Oscars story 'held up' when in reality it was full of inconsistencies like the above.

You can argue about precise time lines of the shots and bat strikes all you want, but at the end of the day, you had 4 witnesses that said they heard female screams, not male. This can't be ignored, especially when the defense refused to offer recordings of Oscar screaming like a woman which any defence would do if infact the accused did scream like a woman, considering how incriminating that evidence was.

Even totally ignoring that evidence, we are left with an absolutely implausible story that cannot be reasonably true to any rational intelligent person. You also claim you did not give any value to Oscars testimony and whether it was believable or not, which is again amazing because the case hinges on his story.

How can you believe his story when it includes him standing in the bathroom screaming at reeva, and she does not make a noise? That alone is not reasonably possibly true.

 

[JuneBug67]

What I think was grossly unfair in the trial was that OP got to see what the witnesses were going to say and the State get to see nothing. I know this is the norm but it does put the Prosecution in a difficult situation. So if Stipp said 3 hits for second sounds OP would inevitably say 3 hits if he wanted his version of 3 bat hits to be believed.

There was physical evidence on the door that supported three bat strikes as per the state. The defence claimed the possibility of a fourth one higher up on the cross of Vermulen, while Oscar himself testified to recalling three. So it's not a great example of trying to game the evidence.

 

[mirage1]

Oscar wasn't sitting behind a keyboard like we are parsing every inch and every moment of his progression. He had a terrible misperception in an instant and then was in a full blown state of fight or flight terror. That part has never been hard for me to understand as a possibility. The biochemical products of fight of flight affect physical, emotional and cognitive processes. Focus narrows and tightens, both visually and mentally. People with adrenaline coursing through their bodies are prone to perceive ambiguous situations as hostile and prone to aggression, particularly if they are emotionally reactive. A single state of mind and body over a couple of minutes, not a highlight reel of Oscar's failures of "common sense".

The key question is why would he have such a terrible misconception and if it was reasonably possible. If he knew Reeva was awake, and then a few minutes later he heard a noise in his bathroom, WHY would he automatically believe it was an intruder rather than her innocently going to the bathroom, and further more WHY wouldn't he have checked if it was reeva by asking or checking the bed before he stormed into the bathroom shooting? It makes zero sense and is not possibly true. The whole premise of his story is outrageous, even before we get into everything else.

 

[JuneBug67]

~snipped~

Masipa very cleverly twisted that to make it that Reeva couldn't have screamed after all of her wounds .. well, we know that .. but a number of experts have said that she could've, and would've, screamed immediately upon being hit in the hip. Once again, Masipa chose to ignore this, and manipulate it so that it fitted in with the verdict she wanted to give.

The point is that Reeva cannot have been the source of the screaming described by witnesses between the first and second sounds. End of premeditation case. Whether Reeva screamed in the moments between shots is speculative. Whether Oscar would have heard her is also speculative. Nobody testified about any screams during the first set of bangs. The testimony about screams during the second set of sounds had the screams lasting throughout and a few moments after the bangs. Consistent in my mind with Oscar screaming while bashing the door and in the moments after he dropped the bat and until he pried open the panel.

 

[Cherwell]

I don't think Nel ever accepted that the shots came before the bats but he didn't make a big deal of it. Perhaps he should have. At the end of the HoA Masipa asked him if he agreed with the time line and he quite clearly said only the telephone records. To me that clearly said he did not agree with the order of the bats/shots. He also stated during the trial that he disagreed with Roux about the times of the shots. Nel stated 3.17am for the shots, Roux earlier. Masipa and her assessors must not have comprehended what he meant or chose to ignore his comment.

That's right, and he also said he would need to check through the rest. I wonder if he was ever given the opportunity to do so and to add his comments. In fairness he should have been, since he had only just heard it for the first time.

 

[mirage1]

I'm just reading Masipa's verdict and I'm starting to feel like a right plonker. It's now become completely clear to me why she accepted OP's version:

I don't want to get into the time line of the shots, bat etc, but lets pretend we had no ear witnesses. Would Oscars version still be reasonably possibly true? I don't think so.

Regarding the screams. Apparently Masipa and some people have concluded the witnesses were mistaken, but for that to be true they all made the exact mistake and mistook a males screams for a woman. Has anyone ever heard 1 person ever do that, let alone four? Preposterous.

 

[mirage1]

.

What we are left with is:

-order of events consistent with Oscar's story
-behaviour consistent with past actions - always sleeping with gun near, approaching perceived danger with a gun
-no evidence of premeditation
-ballistics consistent with Oscar's claim of being on his stumps
-ballistics consistent with Oscar's claim of firing from the position he claimed to be in which in turn is consistent with his described fearful approach to the room
-behaviour consistent with seeking immediate help
-observed behaviour consistent with extreme distress
.

None of this is inconsistent with Oscar murdering Reeva in a fit of rage.

 

[delilah]

Exactly! It's the precise reasoning I and others here have put forward for months. Masipa does not arbitrarily dismiss ear witnesses testimony, she in fact says that they were genuinely mistaken in what they heard as would be shown by what she referred to as the chronology of events. They were not mistaken because they were unreliable, they were unreliable because they were mistaken.

Not conceding something and not contradicting something are two different things. The state could not contradict the defence position that the shots came first because the evidence of their own witness supported that. They could not concede it because it would blow up their own case. Instead they effectively completely sidestepped the first sounds all together in their theory of the crime. It was a completely untenable strategy.

Early in her judgement she described much of the evidence of 'paling in significance' to what she put forth as the three things that were the key to the case: gunshots, screams in the night and bat strikes. The case really is solved right there. When the evidence supports the gunshots coming first and the inability of the defendant to scream after her wounds the states case falls completely apart.

What we are left with is:

-order of events consistent with Oscar's story
-behaviour consistent with past actions - always sleeping with gun near, approaching perceived danger with a gun
-no evidence of premeditation
-ballistics consistent with Oscar's claim of being on his stumps
-ballistics consistent with Oscar's claim of firing from the position he claimed to be in which in turn is consistent with his described fearful approach to the room
-behaviour consistent with seeking immediate help
-observed behaviour consistent with extreme distress

My belief is that the evidence supports Oscar's story as the truth, but at the very minimum people should see why this was the correct verdict in a legal sense as far as knowing he was shooting at Reeva.

...except it's reasoning based on an assumption not a fact.

 

[delilah]

I don't want to get into the time line of the shots, bat etc, but lets pretend we had no ear witnesses. Would Oscars version still be reasonably possibly true? I don't think so.

Regarding the screams. Apparently Masipa and some people have concluded the witnesses were mistaken, but for that to be true they all made the exact mistake and mistook a males screams for a woman. Has anyone ever heard 1 person ever do that, let alone four? Preposterous.

Like I said above, she doesn't really entertain the possibility that even one of the witnesses was correct, because they can't be, because she 'knows' the shots came before the bat. She thinks this is an indisputable fact - but it isn't.

 

[JuneBug67]

Like I said above, she doesn't really entertain the possibility that even one of the witnesses was correct, because they can't be, because she 'knows' the shots came before the bat. She thinks this is an indisputable fact - but it isn't.

It was an uncontradicted fact as far as the court was concerned. It was put forth by the defense and supported with objective physical evidence by both experts. This is so pivotal. If you can't appreciate the significance of this you will never appreciate why this is the correct verdict legally as far as targeting Reeva and almost certainly the truth in fact.

 

[JuneBug67]

None of this is inconsistent with Oscar murdering Reeva in a fit of rage.

Great! Now where would a scrap of evidence for that be?

 

[JuneBug67]

...except it's reasoning based on an assumption not a fact.

No. It's a perfectly reasonable extrapolation from the known fact that at least one back strike followed the gun shots, and two and only two sets of gunshot like sounds were heard. It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion when the state provided NOTHING in the way of an alternative explanation and NOTHING in terms of a comprehensive timeline analysis.