Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

......what it does say though is that there was poor policing, poor detective work, poor prosecution and a poor judge.........and all the world knows...

Are you saying the state was incompetent?

 

[Colin de France]

Are you saying the state was incompetent?

....of course and i have done right from the start......a terrible job, no discipline, no order......a right mess..

 

[aftermath]

....of course and i have done right from the start......a terrible job, no discipline, no order......a right mess..

But no chance of any corruption within that incompetency?

 

[GR_Turner]

I

Well, let's see. For starters, yes, Michelle Burger was awakened by a woman's screams shortly after 3 a.m. In Day1, Part 1 of her testimony she describes how she bolted upright in bed at the sound of a woman's screams, as did her husband, who then went to the balcony to better hear. So factually speaking, we are not off on good footing here, are we?

I don't think it is odd at all that she did not hear the first set of "bangs." I presume those were the initial bat strikes against the toilet door and it does not surprise me that it took the blood-curdling screams of another woman to wake Michelle Burger out of a deep sleep at 3:00 in the morning.

Various witnesses all testified to hearing everything from "blood-curdling" screams to crying and whimpering at various times during the events that unfolded that night. I have to take each individuals's testimony for what it is, given the varieties of wakefulness, distance and orientation vis-a-vis building mass and acoustical dynamics at that time of night. Most of the "crying" descriptions, however, appear to follow the final "bangs" and seem to be mostly heard by neighbors closer to Pistorius' house.

The timing of these reported vocalizations is more important IMO-- did they precede or follow the shots? Were they audible from certain directions only? What distance were they heard? Did they likely originate from upstairs or downstairs? What was the emotional content of the screams, cries, yells, shouts or voices people described? I tend to believe people who heard a lengthy set of focalizations and are certain they could distinguish two separate voices-- both a male and a female.

It was not very clear to me that Mr. And Mrs. VdM were discussing the same voices they individually heard. I think it may be possible, given their physical locations in their own house, that she heard Reeva and he may have indeed heard Oscar "crying" after the final gunshots. And let's not forget Stander's daughter wondering out loud on the stand "what happened to the lady?"

Everyone heard their own version of the bangs and/or shots fired. Even Michelle Burger's husband testified that he heard 4-5-6 possible shots fired when she was very certain she heard only four shots: Bang (interval) Bang, Bang, Bang. This could be explained by the fact that he was out on their bedroom balcony when he heard those shots and there easily could have been echo retorts bouncing off the houses. I don't overlook these different reports at all-- I accept them on a case-by-case basis, whereas it appears Masipa dismissed all reports of a woman screaming before, during and yes, immediately after the fatal head shot. (Please... I am not an acoustics expert but I can appreciate that different sounds have different wave lengths and may travel at different speeds. It is not hard to understand how the shots and screams may have taken longer to travel the 177 meters between Oscar's house and the Burger/Johnson residence and Burger may have legitimately heard Reeva's final scream right after the last shot was heard.)

Roux's cross examination may have impressed you and Masipa, but all it proved to me that the more valuable a witness is for the prosecution the more Roux will badger, distort and ignore their testimony. Burger answered him several times and he glossed right over it with his charade of pretending she would not answer affirmatively or negatively. I can't understand why Masipa and Nel put up with that. She told him she learned there was not an intruder from the media reports and that NO ONE (including Oscar, I might add) was saying there actually had been an intruder and she repeatedly tried to explain to him why she quickly understood that if that woman was not screaming in mortal fear facing down an intruder, then obviously if it was Oscar who shot her, then she was screaming bloody murder as he turned his gun on her. Burger KNEW she heard a woman's screams-- and those blood-curdling screams did not arise out of the mere possibility of an as-yet unseen intruder in the house. Burger explained over and over again that those kind of screams occur in the face of imminent harm or if facing death. You don't scream like that unless you actually see an intruder or someone about to harm you or a loved one. When the news broke that Oscar shot Reeva-- what else could she think but Reeva was screaming in fear of Oscar-- not the imaginary intruder. Roux absolutely had to defeat this witness by whatever means possible.

I personally believe Oscar bashed in the toilet door first-- allowing sound to travel out through the broken panels and allowing Reeva to see her killer aiming at her from the safety of his position at the corner of the passageway.

She was an incredible witness and only those pre-disposed to Oscar's version of events would dismiss her honest and determined testimony.

I don't think it much matters what woke her, but I think Johnson said it was him getting out of bed. The 'crying' witnesses heard something after a bang and so did the 'screaming' witnesses as there were 2 sets of bangs. It's hard to see how Mr and Mrs VdM could have been talking about different noises as they were both hearing them at the time of the conversation.

My view of Roux's abilities is irrelevant. He simply showed that Mrs Burger's evidence might have been tainted by her absolute belief in the state's version. He did this by asking her questions which she wouldn't answer and even altered her evidence to aid the state - her 'it must have been a mockery' comment about the male helps and her description of the screams 'fading' after the last shot when previously they had lasted for a few seconds after are examples. I wouldn't dismiss her evidence on this basis but I'd be cautious about believing that she was saying what she actually heard at the time and not what she had come to believe she heard once she knew about the accusation against OP.

 

[GR_Turner]

....wrong again....... courts constantly take previous history into account plus family and social background, shooting out of car windows, or shooting dogs is a good indicator of the type of person we are dealing with and as i have said before a good jury would of made the right decision....no doubt this will be corrected at the appeal.....

Evidence actually has to be entered into the court record for a judge or jury to use it. Otherwise it's just gossip. Would you want to be convicted on the basis of 'I always thought there was something funny about him' or 'I met him once and he wasn't nice at all' kind of gossip?

 

[Colin de France]

But no chance of any corruption within that incompetency?

......incompetency to corruption in such a high profile case would be stretching things too far, the risk of getting caught was too great....when i agree with incompetency it's to do with the order of the investigation and the judicial discipline which i found lacking, for the prosecution i certainly wasn't won over by Nel who i found to be surfing on his image just a little too much to be bearable....

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Using 'evidence' from outside the courtroom involves assuming it is correct and not biased and that you have taken equal account of all kinds of 'evidence' and not just those bits that make OP look bad. Moreover, even if the above were true, you assume you can judge someone's guilt on the basis that they might be 'the kind of person who would do that'. None of this is true imo.

I think he probably did fire out of the window or sunroof at various times but that the judge was right to say that it was unproven because their evidence was quite different about what happened.

It was 5 years, not 10 months. And yes, if he didn't mean to shoot her, in the SA context it doesn't seem unreasonable.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/sentencing-guidelines/southafrica.php#Guidelines
A. General Sentencing Principles
In exercising their discretion during sentencing, trial courts are required to consider broad, judge-made guiding principles known as the “triad of Zinn,” named after the 1969 case of S v. Zinn.[18]

However, if the offense involves violence, the aggravating factors may be “the degree and extent of the violence used, the nature of any weapon, the brutality and cruelness of the attack, the nature and character of the victim, including whether the victim was unarmed, or helpless, and so on.”[25] Other aggravating factors applicable to this leg of the triad may include the fact that the crime was planned or that the crime is difficult to solve because it may be difficult to apprehend the offender.[26]

The second element of the triad, considering the personal circumstance of the offender (also known as individualization), requires that the sentence fit the offender. The sentence would be aggravated by a number of factors, including if the person is a repeat offender, [28] had a morally unacceptable motive such as greed, lacks remorse, committed the offense by abusing a position of trust, or is a professional criminal.

The third leg of the triad requires that a sentence serve the public interest. This incorporates the traditional purposes of punishment (deterrence, rehabilitation, protection, and retribution) into the sentencing considerations.[33]

The triad of Zinn has been the subject of much criticism. It has been called “elementary, vague and unsophisticated.”[40] In particular, the ambiguity of the triad has often led to a situation in which judges impose sentences instinctively and use the guidelines established by the triad to justify the sentences.[41] In addition, the triad has also been criticized for failing to emphasize the role of victims.[42] According to the Law Reform Commission, this, coupled with the failure of the legislature and others “to provide a clear and unambiguous framework for the exercise of sentencing discretion,” has created uncertainty and inconsistency in sentencing in the country.[43]

 

[Colin de France]

Evidence actually has to be entered into the court record for a judge or jury to use it. Otherwise it's just gossip. Would you want to be convicted on the basis of 'I always thought there was something funny about him' or 'I met him once and he wasn't nice at all' kind of gossip?

...now you're being silly...i was referring to what can be entered into the court i thought i had made myself clear.....

 

[aftermath]

......incompetency to corruption in such a high profile case would be stretching things too far, the risk of getting caught was too great....when i agree with incompetency it's to do with the order of the investigation and the judicial discipline which i found lacking, for the prosecution i certainly wasn't won over by Nel who i found to be surfing on his image just a little too much to be bearable....

So do you think the media report that police told the Steenkamps that Reeva's skull was crushed with the cricket bat was an example of media creativity, or an incompetent police leak (incompetent because someone made and revealed an assumption before the forensic information was in)? Or neither of these?

 

[Colin de France]

So do you think the media report that police told the Steenkamps that Reeva's skull was crushed with the cricket bat was an example of media creativity, or an incompetent police leak (incompetent because someone made and revealed an assumption before the forensic information was in)? Or neither of these?

......that's just one part of the affair, it's not that, it's the whole investigation, there was no depth to it, the police didn't dig hard enough, nothing was pushed to it's limit......that's the feeling i get....maybe the police are holding things back, i don't know.......the trial only made things worse....

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.theweek.co.uk/oscar-pist...rius-what-will-he-do-when-he-gets-out-of-jail

Oscar Pistorius: what will he do when he gets out of jail?

Commentators from across the world have expressed a similar view. Writing in the Herald Sun, Wendy Tuohy, says the "obscenely" early release "cannot be called justice". Describing it as a "slap in the face" for Reeva's grieving parents, she adds: "You wonder if fame and connections count for more than a woman's life."

In The Guardian, Joan Smith claims the early release "speaks volumes" about attitudes towards male violence in South Africa. "In a country where gender inequality is entrenched, this is how easy it is for a well-known man to usurp the role of victim," she writes.

But South Africa's Daily Maverick newspaper says that "procedurally, there is nothing untoward about Pistorius spending only ten months of this sentence behind bars". This course of events was "virtually guaranteed" from the moment Judge Thokozile Masipa sentenced the athlete to five years in jail (Masipa's trick) for culpable homicide, says the newspaper.

 

[aftermath]

......that's just one part of the affair, it's not that, it's the whole investigation, there was no depth to it, the police didn't dig hard enough, nothing was pushed to it's limit......that's the feeling i get....maybe the police are holding things back, i don't know.......the trial only made things worse....

Not corrupt but not digging hard enough yet pushing through a DD claim?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

But no chance of any corruption within that incompetency?

IMO All had order from the very top, to deal with this horrible, horrific, massive murder as harmless as possible.

Therefore, the professional witnesses (police, experts) could not testify reasonable, they did not remember or maybe left off something. The prosecutor also had been applied to thumbscrews and exactly then broke Nel's interrogation from when the accused had almost been confessed. Roux had fear the accused would say too much and in the wrong way. The judge had just decided as little mild that an acquittal was not the end result. Everything just so that the public had a certain satisfaction with a conviction but did not learn the full truth that would be very, very, very shameful - 1. for the country that this Hero had hyped, 2. for the Sports Confederation Olympic Committee that the Hero had hyped and 3. for the Hero himself.

Google translation isn't supporting me well, sorry.

 

[mrjitty]

......incompetency to corruption in such a high profile case would be stretching things too far, the risk of getting caught was too great....when i agree with incompetency it's to do with the order of the investigation and the judicial discipline which i found lacking, for the prosecution i certainly wasn't won over by Nel who i found to be surfing on his image just a little too much to be bearable....

This has always been a silly meme

Police corruption is typically seen where a prosecution is deliberately botched

What would be the point of police corruption designed to falsely implicate the defendant?

How do "corrupt" police make money out of that?

In this case the corruption points the other way - e.g. allowing key evidence to walk from the crime scene rather suggests favouring the accused.

 

[Colin de France]

This has always been a silly meme

Police corruption is typically seen where a prosecution is deliberately botched

What would be the point of police corruption designed to falsely implicate the defendant?

How do "corrupt" police make money out of that?

In this case the corruption points the other way - e.g. allowing key evidence to walk from the crime scene rather suggests favouring the accused.

...i agree, i don't think that there was corruption by the police.....maybe you should ask aftermath and Turner they seem to think there was ...

 

[mrjitty]

Not corrupt but not digging hard enough yet pushing through a DD claim?

Imagine "pushing" a DD prosecution when the police find Reeva with her head blown apart, the weapon lying on the floor and no one else at the scene!

 

[Marfa Lights]

I don't think it much matters what woke her, but I think Johnson said it was him getting out of bed. The 'crying' witnesses heard something after a bang and so did the 'screaming' witnesses as there were 2 sets of bangs. It's hard to see how Mr and Mrs VdM could have been talking about different noises as they were both hearing them at the time of the conversation.

My view of Roux's abilities is irrelevant. He simply showed that Mrs Burger's evidence might have been tainted by her absolute belief in the state's version. He did this by asking her questions which she wouldn't answer and even altered her evidence to aid the state - her 'it must have been a mockery' comment about the male helps and her description of the screams 'fading' after the last shot when previously they had lasted for a few seconds after are examples. I wouldn't dismiss her evidence on this basis but I'd be cautious about believing that she was saying what she actually heard at the time and not what she had come to believe she heard once she knew about the accusation against OP.

How did Burger "alter" her evidence to aid the state? Does adding more descriptive detail (i.e. describing the woman's screams as "blood-curdling") during testimony qualify as altering evidence (I presume you refer to her police statement)?

Shall we talk about OP's evidence and how it differed from his bail application?

What Burger absolutely believed in was what she clearly heard with her own two ears which was substantiated by what her husband also heard that night.

Re: Estelle van der Mewe-- I just listened to her testimony again. She said she was awakened around 1:56 a.m. by sounds of a couple arguing which continued for about an hour. Although she could not distinguish what they were saying or even what language they were speaking, she says she heard the irritating sounds of a woman's voice. Around 3:00 she was disturbed again by the sound of four gunshots. Her husband got up to investigate and confirmed those were gunshots they heard. He got up and looked out their window but could not see anything and went back to bed. Then they began to hear a commotion outside and her husband called security. She says it was shortly after that that they heard someone crying out loud and her husband told her it was Oscar crying. She said it sounded like a woman crying to her. So, while some witnesses testified Oscar's crying can sound like a woman crying, it is important to place this event correctly in the timeline.

I am not sure if this is the latest version of Mr. Fossil's timeline spreadsheet, but it's extremely helpful. I can't help but wonder why the state never produced any kind of similar timeline analysis:

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...=file,xlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AP15bEJh--E96sg

 

[mrjitty]

...i agree, i don't think that there was corruption by the police.....maybe you should ask aftermath and Turner they seem to think there was ...

It's from the Amanda Knox playbook

Of course the defence couldn't really offer any such evidence at trial - so its in the realm of wild speculation

The reality rather goes in the other direction

The defence tampered with key evidence from which no prosecution followed.

Key police officers seemed to have been rather less the thorough

 

[aftermath]

...i agree, i don't think that there was corruption by the police.....maybe you should ask aftermath and Turner they seem to think there was ...

Wrong again.... I said it was more likely the media got creative. But accepted as a possibility that someone within the police may have leaked information/false information for a financial incentive.

 

[aftermath]

Imagine "pushing" a DD prosecution when the police find Reeva with her head blown apart, the weapon lying on the floor and no one else at the scene!

The poster I was replying to suggested the police didn't dig hard enough. Are you saying that they didn't need to as those three details made DD pretty conclusive?