Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~

[jay-jay]

OP doing well in prison according to Barry Bateman :
http://news.iafrica.com/sa/982757.html

Good .. coz he'd better get used to it.

2 years today :-(

 

[Deleted member 102539]

14.02.2015 - two years







R.I.P. beautiful Reeva!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

But then again, this description is at odds with a recent report.

Although correctional officers have refused to discuss his treatment in prison, one guard, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Eyewitness News that the Paralympian is being treated 'like royalty'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hoots-Reeva-Steenkamp-dead.html#ixzz3Rj8pDJfd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Originally Posted by Sherbert

Masipa found OP's mistaken identity scenario credible because he had stated to witnesses from the outset that he thought Reeva was an intruder.

However, in a country where it is considered unconstitutional to water down the right to silence by drawing an adverse inference from failure to provide a consistent account from the outset, (quite apart from the issue that OP's story may have been self-serving), how can it be acceptable to draw a favourable inference from the existence of pre-trial consistent statements? Isn't this the equivalent of drawing an adverse inference from silence?

Well said, Sherbert. A statement is no less a lie because it was put forth immediately and often to anyone within earshot. Sociopaths are notorious for calculating, preemptive falsehoods. If Masipa was not overtly bribed, she must be the most ridiculously naive judge on the face of the earth (ie, he must be innocent - who could come up with such a story so quickly at the bloody crime scene unless it was the truth?). *headdesk*

 

[soozieqtips]

I see the Daily Fail is short on fact-correcting staff again...

Pistorius has served four months of 15 year 'culpable homicide' sentence

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...happens-high-profile-prisoner-says-guard.html

On a related note, if he really is being treated better than other prisoners, why aren't the bosses clamping down on it?

 

[screecher]

^ Perhaps $$$$$$$?

 

[Sherbert]

Well said, Sherbert. A statement is no less a lie because it was put forth immediately and often to anyone within earshot. Sociopaths are notorious for calculating, preemptive falsehoods. If Masipa was not overtly bribed, she must be the most ridiculously naive judge on the face of the earth (ie, he must be innocent - who could come up with such a story so quickly at the bloody crime scene unless it was the truth?). *headdesk*

Thanks, Lux. It's good to see you here after a long time. I agree - there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why these consistent statements could not have been entirely self-serving.

And the shenanigans with the mobiles are inconsistent both with innocence and heartbreak, imo.

 

[Sherbert]

A recent interview with Reeva's mother:

http://www.enca.com/media/video/enca-talks-reeva-steenkamp%E2%80%99s-mother-june?playlist=107

 

[AJ_DS]

Thanks, Lux. It's good to see you here after a long time. I agree - there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why these consistent statements could not have been entirely self-serving.

And the shenanigans with the mobiles are not conducive either with innocence or heartbreak, imo.

A few thoughts…

Firstly...

When someone (accused or witness) is shown to have given previous inconsistent versions or statements, it negatively affects his credibility… right ?

… so it reasons that previous consistent versions or statements would positively affect credibility.

BUT credibility does NOT guarantee truthfulness… as someone can be a highly credible liar.

Secondly…

One must objectively look at the possible versions available

In any death by gunshot there are 4 basic scenarios :

1- Unintended discharge : gun went off by accident

2- Intended discharge, unintended target : stray bullet, ricochet, unforeseen background, etc.

3- Intended discharge, intended target, lawful intent : self-defense

4- Intended discharge, intended target, unlawful intent : murder

A- It's obvious that someone with even minimal gun training could never allege the gun went off by accident 4 times (although OP ridiculed himself in attempting to do so on the stand)… which leaves #2-3-4

B- It's also obvious that someone having discharged his gun 4 times, inside his house, at a closed door, with a decent grouping, at 3AM could never allege target practice or recreational shooting… which leaves only #3-4

C- It's obvious that anyone having shot and killed someone would instinctively want to avoid #4 for obvious reasons… which leaves only #3

D- The fact is OP had but one single option left : self-defense…

Since he could never make Reeva into a threat to his life, the mistaken identity intruder story was the only way to go… It basically boils down to "I didn't know it was Reeva"… if not Reeva, what could possibly be behind the closed door of the second story master bedroom en suite bathroom commode in the middle of the night that would compel someone to shoot ??

The intruder/burglar is also the ONLY available option

Many of us have followed the Trial and the evidence for the past 2 years… can anybody provide an alternate version ?

Thirdly…

One must objectively look at the nature of the version given… a version can be complex or simple… convoluted or straightforward… corroborated or contradicted… etc...

Conclusion...

- On the first point, even Masipa had to admit OP was a poor witness

- On the second point, OP delivered the ONLY available version

- On the third point, OP delivered a constantly evolving version that was ultimately counterintuitive, unreasonable, nonsensical AND was contradicted multiple times by material evidence as well as witness testimony

… put these 3 elements together and one would have to conclude the accused version is a clumsily tailored fabricated lie !!

How Masipa (and the 2 assessors) could possibly come to a different conclusion is an unexplained mystery.

 

[Colin de France]

A few thoughts…

Firstly...

When someone (accused or witness) is shown to have given previous inconsistent versions or statements, it negatively affects his credibility… right ?

… so it reasons that previous consistent versions or statements would positively affect credibility.

BUT credibility does NOT guarantee truthfulness… as someone can be a highly credible liar.

Secondly…

One must objectively look at the possible versions available

In any death by gunshot there are 4 basic scenarios :

1- Unintended discharge : gun went off by accident

2- Intended discharge, unintended target : stray bullet, ricochet, unforeseen background, etc.

3- Intended discharge, intended target, lawful intent : self-defense

4- Intended discharge, intended target, unlawful intent : murder

A- It's obvious that someone with even minimal gun training could never allege the gun went off by accident 4 times (although OP ridiculed himself in attempting to do so on the stand)… which leaves #2-3-4

B- It's also obvious that someone having discharged his gun 4 times, inside his house, at a closed door, with a decent grouping, at 3AM could never allege target practice or recreational shooting… which leaves only #3-4

C- It's obvious that anyone having shot and killed someone would instinctively want to avoid #4 for obvious reasons… which leaves only #3

D- The fact is OP had but one single option left : self-defense…

Since he could never make Reeva into a threat to his life, the mistaken identity intruder story was the only way to go… It basically boils down to "I didn't know it was Reeva"… if not Reeva, what could possibly be behind the closed door of the second story master bedroom en suite bathroom commode in the middle of the night that would compel someone to shoot ??

The intruder/burglar is also the ONLY available option

Many of us have followed the Trial and the evidence for the past 2 years… can anybody provide an alternate version ?

Thirdly…

One must objectively look at the nature of the version given… a version can be complex or simple… convoluted or straightforward… corroborated or contradicted… etc...

Conclusion...

- On the first point, even Masipa had to admit OP was a poor witness

- On the second point, OP delivered the ONLY available version

- On the third point, OP delivered a constantly evolving version that was ultimately counterintuitive, unreasonable, nonsensical AND was contradicted multiple times by material evidence as well as witness testimony

… put these 3 elements together and one would have to conclude the accused version is a clumsily tailored fabricated lie !!

How Masipa (and the 2 assessors) could possibly come to a different conclusion is an unexplained mystery.

....this is why it's going to appeal ...

 

[AJ_DS]

....this is why it's going to appeal ...

Hmmm… I'm pretty sure that's incorrect Colin…

As I understand it the appeal is not to revisit whether OP told the truth or if his version was a fabrication… as Masipa has ruled she believed him and his story… ruling which cannot be appealed

The appeal is to determine whether OP's own version meets the requirements for Dolus Eventualis rather than Culpable Homicide

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Oscar’s family in price-fixing cartel scandal
http://www.iol.co.za/business/compa...-fixing-cartel-scandal-1.1806040#.VLu7eaT9meV

In light of individual and collective actions of this family, this news doesn’t surprise me one bit.

You don’t get to be part of the global, dog-eat-dog 1% by being nice, generous or honest (unless it's a strategic move ... see smiling Uncle Arnie handing out cold drinks to journalists in front of his house). Such people meticulously calculate and choreograph each and every move, every press release, every public prayer circle in their exclusive self-interest.

The US is rife with this same entrenched personal and corporate pathology - the toxic cancer of money + religion* (eg., Koch Brothers, Mitt Romney, any ultra-hardcore Republican, etc.).

If they can’t hide behind money they’ll hide behind religion.

Like all malignant narcissists, no matter what they do (or don’t do), they’ve always got an excuse (blame everyone else), they’re always right, always above reproach, always innocent, always above the law.

True sociopaths.

It’s all about 100% CONTROL to stay top dog - by whatever means necessary.

In his defense, OP the rotten apple doesn’t fall far from his rotten family tree.

As far as fining the Pistorius conglomerate - little more than useless.

The problem with corporate civil/criminal “fines” is that they’re merely the cost of doing business to these psychopaths - business expenses. Fines don’t turn these predators honest - they simply find ever more creative, devious ways to screw everyone, to maintain total dominance. Profit-above-all demands it. Even after paying off paltry fines, they still get to keep the vast balance of their ill-gotten gains. Real consequences, real punishment don’t exist in their world.

Global power brokers like the Pistorius Dynasty laugh at fines. (Here in the US, did you know Wall Street’s fines are TAX-DEDUCTIBLE? LOL Yep, the same folks who nearly crashed the global financial network even profit off their criminal fines. That’s how rotten, rigged and sick the entire system is. While you and I would rot in prison - the 1% merely “settles” their crimes ... kinda like killer Oz settled with only 10 months.) With zero incentive, why would the power-elite ever stop their “cartels”? It’s the best pay-to-play game in town ... and politico-corporatists make the rules.

As they write out their “fine” (and bribe) checks, as they serve their token VIP prison sentences, they keep on screwing the rest of us on every socio-economic level with a sly wink and a righteous hallelujah tweet.

* Or more properly, money as religion.

 

[GR_Turner]

A few thoughts…

Firstly...

When someone (accused or witness) is shown to have given previous inconsistent versions or statements, it negatively affects his credibility… right ?

… so it reasons that previous consistent versions or statements would positively affect credibility.

BUT credibility does NOT guarantee truthfulness… as someone can be a highly credible liar.

Secondly…

One must objectively look at the possible versions available

In any death by gunshot there are 4 basic scenarios :

1- Unintended discharge : gun went off by accident

2- Intended discharge, unintended target : stray bullet, ricochet, unforeseen background, etc.

3- Intended discharge, intended target, lawful intent : self-defense

4- Intended discharge, intended target, unlawful intent : murder

A- It's obvious that someone with even minimal gun training could never allege the gun went off by accident 4 times (although OP ridiculed himself in attempting to do so on the stand)… which leaves #2-3-4

B- It's also obvious that someone having discharged his gun 4 times, inside his house, at a closed door, with a decent grouping, at 3AM could never allege target practice or recreational shooting… which leaves only #3-4

C- It's obvious that anyone having shot and killed someone would instinctively want to avoid #4 for obvious reasons… which leaves only #3

D- The fact is OP had but one single option left : self-defense…

Since he could never make Reeva into a threat to his life, the mistaken identity intruder story was the only way to go… It basically boils down to "I didn't know it was Reeva"… if not Reeva, what could possibly be behind the closed door of the second story master bedroom en suite bathroom commode in the middle of the night that would compel someone to shoot ??

The intruder/burglar is also the ONLY available option

Many of us have followed the Trial and the evidence for the past 2 years… can anybody provide an alternate version ?

Thirdly…

One must objectively look at the nature of the version given… a version can be complex or simple… convoluted or straightforward… corroborated or contradicted… etc...

Conclusion...

- On the first point, even Masipa had to admit OP was a poor witness

- On the second point, OP delivered the ONLY available version

- On the third point, OP delivered a constantly evolving version that was ultimately counterintuitive, unreasonable, nonsensical AND was contradicted multiple times by material evidence as well as witness testimony

… put these 3 elements together and one would have to conclude the accused version is a clumsily tailored fabricated lie !!

How Masipa (and the 2 assessors) could possibly come to a different conclusion is an unexplained mystery.

Didn't Judge Masipa decide Oscar didn't know it was Reeva because his story was corroborated by the witness evidence and phone times?

 

[GR_Turner]

Deleted post

 

[Interested Bystander]

Devi Shakaree of Carte Blanche discusses the approach to sentence in the Oscar Pistorius Trial of the Century and examines if Oscar is actually sorry.
Prof James Grant and Judge Chris N Greenland try to help. Recorded during the trial but realeased only today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lru3ESBYH4g&feature=youtu.be&a

 

[AJ_DS]

Didn't Judge Masipa decide Oscar didn't know it was Reeva because his story was corroborated by the witness evidence and phone times?

This is where the NPA failed in its task IMO…

Nel stated that the phone data was common cause BUT failed to provide an alternate timeline which reflected the testimony evidence.

Basically, Roux exploited 2 "holes" :

- Dr. Stipp's first call to estate security which rang but was never answered… as Dr Stipp testified to

- Dr. Stipp last call to estate security which was obviously a misdial because it lasted 0 seconds… this call was not directly addressed by Dr. Stipp but it was indirectly addressed because it was made AFTER Dr. Stipp had been inside OP's house and went back outside to inquire if an ambulance had been called

With these 2 phone calls, Roux had the opportunity to skew/shift the timeline twice to discredit the State's witnesses.

 

[GR_Turner]

This is where the NPA failed in its task IMO…

Nel stated that the phone data was common cause BUT failed to provide an alternate timeline which reflected the testimony evidence.

Basically, Roux exploited 2 "holes" :

- Dr. Stipp's first call to estate security which rang but was never answered… as Dr Stipp testified to

- Dr. Stipp last call to estate security which was obviously a misdial because it lasted 0 seconds… this call was not directly addressed by Dr. Stipp but it was indirectly addressed because it was made AFTER Dr. Stipp had been inside OP's house and went back outside to inquire if an ambulance had been called

With these 2 phone calls, Roux had the opportunity to skew/shift the timeline twice to discredit the State's witnesses.

Do you think the court was wrong in their approach of looking at the phone times and using them to accept Roux's version?

 

[Mr Fossil]

OP upgraded to category A prisoner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rison-privileges-upgraded-good-behaviour.html

 

[AJ_DS]

Do you think the court was wrong in their approach of looking at the phone times and using them to accept Roux's version?

I believe both Court and State share responsibility :

- The State failed to provide the Court with a timeline… Failure that was compounded by the availability of the Defence timeline and the absence of an alternate timeline.

- The Court failed to scrutinize the Defence timeline and accepted it as factual evidence.

Telephone logs can be invaluable but they are useless if not put into context of testimonial evidence

E.g.

Dr Stipp testified he called estate security twice :

1. First call after the first set of bangs… call which rang but was not answered

2. Second call after the second set of bangs… call which was answered by Baba


A. Dr. Stipp's detailed billing was not entered as evidence nor was it available at Trial.

B. The estate security landline detailed billing was used at Trial and entered into evidence.

C. Because Dr. Stipp's first call to security was never answered it naturally did not appear on security's detailed billing.

D. Roux was able to shift Dr. Stipp's first call to security to 3:15:51 establishing the first set of bangs at around 3:15:51… shifting all of Dr. Stipp's and Annette Stipp's testimony… which naturally ended up contradicting other evidence and making no sense.

E. Security detailed billing indicates a call from Dr. Stipp at 3:27:14 (0 sec.)… this was an obvious misdialed number which Dr. Stipp did not mention/remember.

F. At 3:27:14 Dr. Stipp had already left his house, had already been inside OP's house, had already witnesses Reeva's condition, ...

G. Roux was able to shift Dr. Stipp's second call to security to 3:27:14 making the second set of bangs at around 3:27:14… therefore shifting all of Dr. Stipp's and Annette Stipp's testimony… which naturally ended up contradicting other evidence and making absolutely no sense whatsoever.

H. With this skewed timeline, Roux was able to say all the blood-curdling screaming and cries for help had to come from OP alone because Reeva was already dead when it was heard by witnesses.


What troubles me even more than Roux's tactics :

- Why did the State fail to provide the Court with Dr. Stipp's detailed billing ?

- Why did the State fail to provide the Court with Charl Johnson's detailed billing ?

… these would have readily been available, would have corroborated testimonies and would have provided the means to produce a complete un-skewable timeline.

- Why did Nel not reexamine Dr. Stipp on the 3:27:14 (0 sec.) phone call to estate security ?

- Since Nel had the opportunity to study Roux's closing arguments, he had to know where Roux was heading with his skewed timeline… Why did Nel not provide an alternate un-skewed timeline or at very least challenge and explain to the Court the skewing in Roux's timeline ?

… all these obvious failures amount to something quite suspicious IMO because they were central in OP's acquittal of the murder charge.

 

[GR_Turner]

I believe both Court and State share responsibility :

- The State failed to provide the Court with a timeline… Failure that was compounded by the availability of the Defence timeline and the absence of an alternate timeline.

- The Court failed to scrutinize the Defence timeline and accepted it as factual evidence.

Telephone logs can be invaluable but they are useless if not put into context of testimonial evidence

E.g.

Dr Stipp testified he called estate security twice :

1. First call after the first set of bangs… call which rang but was not answered

2. Second call after the second set of bangs… call which was answered by Baba


A. Dr. Stipp's detailed billing was not entered as evidence nor was it available at Trial.

B. The estate security landline detailed billing was used at Trial and entered into evidence.

C. Because Dr. Stipp's first call to security was never answered it naturally did not appear on security's detailed billing.

D. Roux was able to shift Dr. Stipp's first call to security to 3:15:51 establishing the first set of bangs at around 3:15:51… shifting all of Dr. Stipp's and Annette Stipp's testimony… which naturally ended up contradicting other evidence and making no sense.

E. Security detailed billing indicates a call from Dr. Stipp at 3:27:14 (0 sec.)… this was an obvious misdialed number which Dr. Stipp did not mention/remember.

F. At 3:27:14 Dr. Stipp had already left his house, had already been inside OP's house, had already witnesses Reeva's condition, ...

G. Roux was able to shift Dr. Stipp's second call to security to 3:27:14 making the second set of bangs at around 3:27:14… therefore shifting all of Dr. Stipp's and Annette Stipp's testimony… which naturally ended up contradicting other evidence and making absolutely no sense whatsoever.

H. With this skewed timeline, Roux was able to say all the blood-curdling screaming and cries for help had to come from OP alone because Reeva was already dead when it was heard by witnesses.


What troubles me even more than Roux's tactics :

- Why did the State fail to provide the Court with Dr. Stipp's detailed billing ?

- Why did the State fail to provide the Court with Charl Johnson's detailed billing ?

… these would have readily been available, would have corroborated testimonies and would have provided the means to produce a complete un-skewable timeline.

- Why did Nel not reexamine Dr. Stipp on the 3:27:14 (0 sec.) phone call to estate security ?

- Since Nel had the opportunity to study Roux's closing arguments, he had to know where Roux was heading with his skewed timeline… Why did Nel not provide an alternate un-skewed timeline or at very least challenge and explain to the Court the skewing in Roux's timeline ?

… all these obvious failures amount to something quite suspicious IMO because they were central in OP's acquittal of the murder charge.

If you were the court, on what basis would you have rejected Roux's timeline?