Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[ColonelMustard]

A lot of hard work & long hours (and expense) to handle this as a "pro bono" case when the client is both grandson & like a son, to one of the more wealthy families in South Africa. Roux isn't that naive to think the financial resources have dried up (just because public being duped). I believe Roux knows OP has more assets as well (likely hidden previously, due to possible civil claim from Steenkamp's).

I don't know what's gone on / going on with Roux's remuneration (or not) but surely Uncle Arthur could have chosen another defense attorney, if he wanted to. Maybe Roux didn't want him to. With a high-profile case like this, maybe Roux volunteered his services for reasons of ego.

Just saying...

 

[ColonelMustard]

The two assessors AND the judge decide the facts but the two assessors can overrule her on the facts.

1. There wouldn't be repercussions for them personally. However, even though it's unusual, the State can appeal a conviction and an appeal court looks at all the trial evidence. That's why they can set aside the verdict and/or sentence.

2. The fact that the State can't appeal the facts is pretty much universal. In the case of countries where juries are involved, they decide the facts. In essence the assessors are the SA equivalent of a jury. Judges and juries frequently get it wrong and this is why the appeal process is so important but usually on the part of the accused who can pretty well appeal on any grounds.

A couple of things I forgot to mention in my post:

When you listen to a trial, your attention is focused on the story as it's unfolding. By the time it's concluded and you know that story, that's the time to go back a second time because more often than not you'll pick up the inconsistencies that you've missed the first time around, and I've mentioned this before. What I'm truly surprised at though is that we all missed these errors by Masipa. I can only assume it was because all our attention was diverted to the reasons she was handing down on how she reached her verdict and what the verdict was going to be. Leaving the law aside, are there any other black and white errors regarding the facts that are 100% wrong, not just our opinion that they're wrong.

I'm really curious that since the verdict, its become patently obvious that the NPA are extremely interested in gathering all Mr Fossil's information. This information relates to facts, not law. Why have they been so interested in facts? Mr Fossil, I'm not asking you to address this because I know you can't compromise yourself on matters you may know. Nevertheless, I'm wondering if factual matters can still come into play in the State's appeal. I know that the appeal court will read the entire trial transcript so obviously the facts are important to them notwithstanding the State is appealing on questions of law. Secondly, are they interested in any other factual matters.

First of all, thanks so much for your detailed and thoughtful reply, Judgejudi. I really appreciate it.

All three of them must have gotten the facts wrong since JM said they were unanimous. Let me rephrase that.... how is it POSSIBLE for those 3 people - even ONE of the 3! - to get the EASIEST and MOST STRAIGHT FOWARD facts about the locations of the injuries wrong???? It's as UNfathomable to me as JM's verdict.

The whole thing has been surreal.

You wrote, "...the appeal court will read the entire trial transcript..." THAT'S a relief!! I really wasn't sure.
If I was on the court of appeal, I'd have the videos running, too, just to pick up voice inflections, plus to really appreciate the humor, "Mr. Dixon, are you a SOUND expert!!" and, "We were eating pork chops, M'lady." and " "Because I already KNOW there are two more startles coming!"

I'd read the transcript, hopefully watch the video for further clarity, and then when I read the verdict, I'd be saying out loud to myself, "What the h€ll?!"

 

[ColonelMustard]

I wonder at what point either one or both of the assessors realized they got the locations of he wounds wrong.

When they did - IF they have! - would they just be like, "Oops" or, "Oh, well, it doesn't really matter," or what.

Simply from the standpoint of professionalism and minimum essential requirements, I'd be mortified.

It would be like, if I was the typist, and the final copy went through with a bunch of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors.


I did hear the wrong locations of the wounds when JM was reading out the verdict. I just closed the lid of my computer. I knew I was either dreaming, delusional, has eaten a really bad taco, or had just entered "The Twilight Zone".

[video=youtu;NzlG28B-R8Y]http://youtu.be/NzlG28B-R8Y[/video]

 

[LemonMousse]

I'm sorry but I have to say this..............................I'm sick and tired of hearing about Carl Pistorius wiping/syncing OP's phone from the crime scene I really am.
He would be arrested and probably in jail if he had.
I do not believe for one second that he did that and the prosecution allowed him to do it because they struck a 'deal' with the defence....................it was a murder scene for god's sake.
That cannot happen and I don't believe it for one second unless someone shows me proof not innuendos.

Sorry Val nothing against your post

Why didn't he deny it then?

 

[G.bng]

You've got me there... I've been wondering as much myself.

Another thing I find curious is why the SA lawyers involved in this case don't date their legal pleadings. They don't date the document itself nor do they indicate the date they signed it. imo

Sorry to contradict you but both State and Defence do date their legal pleadings specifically as the date signed and presumably the day the docs are filed at court will be stamped by the clerk.

If you're interested in the dates here's those I have except for 2 or 3 where the docs are not complete so unknown the date:

OP - BAIL Application - OP - 19th February 2013
State - HOAs Bail Application - State - 19th February 2013
HOAs - State - 30th July 2014
HOAs - Defence - 31st July 2014
Response to State's HOAs - Defence - 4th August 2014
Appeal - State - 3rd November 2014

 

[G.bng]

Why didn't he deny it then?

Who asked him if he did wipe, syn, or whatever the phone it except for possibly the police if there really is any substance at all to this report which I doubt unless the prosecution is in also involved in the conspiracy to cover up for OP. And to whom is he supposed to deny it? Sign himself up on WS and post here "I didn't do it!"? And would anyone here believe it if he did ? And why would anyone bother if it will just fall on deaf ears?

I really find it rather worrying that you, I, or anyone could find themselves accused of saying or doing something we didn't do and the fact we didn't go running to declare it to the media, hire people to go along the streets with placards, tweet it a million times, or rush to speaker's corner to announce it with a loud speaker it can be automatically taken to mean guilt.

A simple denial proves zilch less still if your not likely to be believed anyway, in which case it's fighting a losing battle with the masses because the more you insist the less likely you are to be believed, like a fish biting it's tail. Best tactic, ignore, and let people think what they will because that's what they will do anyway and there's nowt one can do to change it.

 

[808]

This is the most detailed analysis of the verdict I have seen :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnK8WlAvncE

He gets into the dollus eventuallis as it applies to SA law.

I hope this isn't someone taking the Pistorian coin he seems to have a lot of qualifications and is driving some good cancer initiative. MOO:moo:

 

[lithgow1]

Who asked him if he did wipe, syn, or whatever the phone it except for possibly the police if there really is any substance at all to this report which I doubt unless the prosecution is in also involved in the conspiracy to cover up for OP. And to whom is he supposed to deny it? Sign himself up on WS and post here "I didn't do it!"? And would anyone here believe it if he did ? And why would anyone bother if it will just fall on deaf ears?

I really find it rather worrying that you, I, or anyone could find themselves accused of saying or doing something we didn't do and the fact we didn't go running to declare it to the media, hire people to go along the streets with placards, tweet it a million times, or rush to speaker's corner to announce it with a loud speaker it can be automatically taken to mean guilt.

A simple denial proves zilch less still if your not likely to be believed anyway, in which case it's fighting a losing battle with the masses because the more you insist the less likely you are to be believed, like a fish biting it's tail. Best tactic, ignore, and let people think what they will because that's what they will do anyway and there's nowt one can do to change it.

When have the Pistorius family ever ignored a rumour, accusation or insinuation? Their PR person is always issuing statements and IIRc they did in this case to the effect that 'whatever accusations are made tomorrow about phone wiping they have no bearing on this case'. I'll go now and try to find the PR release.

 

[lithgow1]

Here you go G.bng:

In a statement on Wednesday night, the Pistorius family reacted in advance to the EWN article.
“We are not sure of the allegations which are to be made or the source of such allegations, but we are not aware of any deletions having been affected by Oscar or effected on his instructions that could be relevant to this trial or could have impacted on this trial,” the statement said.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/10/pistorius-brother-suspected-wiping-phone-data-killing/

 

[Val1]

Who asked him if he did wipe, syn, or whatever the phone it except for possibly the police if there really is any substance at all to this report which I doubt unless the prosecution is in also involved in the conspiracy to cover up for OP. And to whom is he supposed to deny it? Sign himself up on WS and post here "I didn't do it!"? And would anyone here believe it if he did ? And why would anyone bother if it will just fall on deaf ears?

I really find it rather worrying that you, I, or anyone could find themselves accused of saying or doing something we didn't do and the fact we didn't go running to declare it to the media, hire people to go along the streets with placards, tweet it a million times, or rush to speaker's corner to announce it with a loud speaker it can be automatically taken to mean guilt.

A simple denial proves zilch less still if your not likely to be believed anyway, in which case it's fighting a losing battle with the masses because the more you insist the less likely you are to be believed, like a fish biting it's tail. Best tactic, ignore, and let people think what they will because that's what they will do anyway and there's nowt one can do to change it.

You do know the purpose of this forum don't you? It's to sleuth... sometimes that means to attach weight to things that may not have video proof or a confession.

Kind of like how OP's sister has not come forward and confessed to theft from the crime scene of RS's handbag but if you believe CS's testimony that's what it was and in fact RS's handbag was removed from the crime scene.

Just like OP's cell was stolen from the crime scene and when you figure out who had left the crime scene the same time as the cell showed movement and from accounts relayed here showed some kind of tracks linking it to CP's "Hulk" laptop, then just perhaps we don't need his confession to come to a fairly accurate conclusion that he had it and since his background is in computer studies it's also quite likely he may have had something to do with any tampering done to it.

This is not to be taken personally by you or anyone else, we are simply doing what this forum is for, sleuthing and trying to come up with what really happened.

 

[Giles]

This is the most detailed analysis of the verdict I have seen :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnK8WlAvncE

He gets into the dollus eventuallis as it applies to SA law.

I hope this isn't someone taking the Pistorian coin he seems to have a lot of qualifications and is driving some good cancer initiative. MOO:moo:

Thanks for the link, it is a good find. There are some intelligent observations and comments here. I think his explanation is balanced and fair.

This is why we need the appeal, we need to fully understand the reasoning behind the decision. If Masipa had reasoned her judgement like this guy, I for one, would have felt a lot better about it.

It's a shame the video is put together in such a 'user unfriendly' way. It's like someone was experimenting with some new video editing software and tried to be a little too clever... Anyhow, a minor detail, the content is really interesting.

Thanks again.

 

[Interested Bystander]

This is the most detailed analysis of the verdict I have seen :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnK8WlAvncE

He gets into the dollus eventuallis as it applies to SA law.

I hope this isn't someone taking the Pistorian coin he seems to have a lot of qualifications and is driving some good cancer initiative. MOO:moo:

Very interesting, thank you, but I need to play it again and turn off the sound so that I can concentrate on what the captions say.

I found there were some obvious mistakes in his "storyline". One being that OP knew the gun law as was testified in court BUT the lawyer seemed to either not know this or chose to ignore it. Also, OP stated that he made the decision that to fire a warning shot in the shower room could have killed himself (ie aware that shooting in a confined space could cause death and would almost definitely have done so by firing 4 shots into a confined space, even by ricochets). Surely this shows intent. You know it is wrong and potentially lethal and yet continue to shoot.

There were other points I found inconsistent but I may come back to this after reading the captions. It would be interested to hear what Prof Grant and Greenland would make of this video.

 

[soozieqtips]

~snipped~

I really find it rather worrying that you, I, or anyone could find themselves accused of saying or doing something we didn't do and the fact we didn't go running to declare it to the media, hire people to go along the streets with placards, tweet it a million times, or rush to speaker's corner to announce it with a loud speaker it can be automatically taken to mean guilt.

BIB - have you kept up with the news? I ask, because you seem to be presenting as fact that this allegation wasn't denied (on the presumed basis that "what would be the point as no one would believe it anyway"). However, OP's family, as usual, were quick to refute the allegations in the media before they even knew what exactly what it was they were refuting.

So now you doubt the phone was ever wiped and it was just made up for... what? Can you explain then, why OP's family said they were “not aware of any deletions having been affected by Oscar or effected on his instructions that could be relevant to this trial”. Note that they did not say they were "not aware of any deletions"... just that they were not aware of any deletions "that could be relevant to this trial".

As it was NOT up to them to decide what was and what wasn't relevant, you don't need to be Sherlock to know this was yet another cover up. It would be naive beyond the extreme to believe there was an innocent reason for removing evidence from a crime scene, and then handing it back once it had been tampered with.

 

[ColonelMustard]

This is the most detailed analysis of the verdict I have seen :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnK8WlAvncE

He gets into the dollus eventuallis as it applies to SA law.

I hope this isn't someone taking the Pistorian coin he seems to have a lot of qualifications and is driving some good cancer initiative. MOO:moo:

Warning: When I get upset, I can't think straight, type straight, use correct language, cogently express my ideas, and use the correct terminology. So, if you read this, you find nothing but errors to quibble about. I'm hoping that someone might understand the gist of what I'm saying.

The guy in the video: If his analysis is correct then I think South African law needs to be changed. If I'm understanding this correctly, it sounds absolutely crazy to me.

One of his examples (which he stresses several times seems a ridiculous possibility ) had Oscar killing Reeva in a rage. This guy said something like, "This wouldn't be murder because Oscar would never shoot Reeva because he would know that it would ruin his career."

What!??

Using this line of reasoning someone could use anything as an excuse. It seems circular to me. EVERYONE's life runs the possibility of being ruined if they shoot someone behind a closed door in a small space with Black Talon ammunition, so that line of reasoning would not just apply to OP.

Moreover, it it flies in the face of psychiatric research? common sense? that when one is in a rage, they aren't even having logical thoughts. They're blinded by pure emotion. At that moment, in a rage when the trigger is pulled, the gunman isn't thinking about ANYTHING.

I don't understand Humphries at all, either, in terms of the US. To me, if the RR crossing gate is down, anything you do about crossing the tracks is reckless. A bus full of children get killed, it's murder. IN SA, it isn't murder because the driver would never knowingly have put himself in a situation where he might also be killed????

WTF?

My own example to make my point.

Some parents in the US have personal religious beliefs that prayer, starvation, rattlesnakes, whatever are superior to medicine. In the past, they used these methods on their children in medical crises and often the children died from lack of proper medical care -- some of which would have been very minor. Parents such as these claimed no crime had been committed. These were their children, their religious beliefs, and no one had the right to tell them what to do. For awhile, there was nothing anyone could do because there were no laws against it. In the end, the laws were changed and now it's quite simple.

Parents are allowed to martyr themselves but not their children.

Personally, I don't care whether the bus driver foresaw that he himself might die or not. I don't care whether s/he took that risk themselves, but those children had no choice and that driver was responsible for those children. In the US, s/he broke the law JUST by proceeding through a lowered RR gate. That's it. Furthermore, the law was broken because the US has even more stringent laws for school buses. Before they can cross any railroad tracks, even if the gates are UP, they have to come to a full stop, visually look both ways and open the front door of the bus and keep it open as the bus proceeds across the tracks.

That bus driver tried to go around the gates and beat the train????? S/he murdered those kids in a a secular martyrdom , if you will.

I also got crazy when the guy kept saying wrongful / unlawful, which I guess in SA are interchangeable. To me they are two completely different things. Right and wrong are moral calculations. Lawful and unlawful are legal calculations. Some part of all of this has to do with whether the person knew something was wrongful/unlawful or not.

WTF? Everyone could say that they, as an individual in that situation on that day, had no idea what the law was or not. In MOST cases, how could you prove that they didn't know what the law was or conversely that they did.

In the US, the mantra is, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." That's got it's own problems but the buck stop there. The buck stops somewhere.

SA law seems very subjective to me and that every convoluted excuse in the book can come into play, which gives all the advantages to the accused.

I mean, really. OP didn't commit murder because he would never murder someone in a rage because he knew it would ruin his career??? I'm telling' ya. That's a crazy way of thinking, in my American non-legal mind.

PLUS the narrator said he hadn't watched /followed the whole trial?? To me, if you don't know all about a case, how can try to explain any of it to others?

 

[ColonelMustard]

Very interesting, thank you, but I need to play it again and turn off the sound so that I can concentrate on what the captions say.

I found there were some obvious mistakes in his "storyline". One being that OP knew the gun law as was testified in court BUT the lawyer seemed to either not know this or chose to ignore it. Also, OP stated that he made the decision that to fire a warning shot in the shower room could have killed himself (ie aware that shooting in a confined space could cause death and would almost definitely have done so by firing 4 shots into a confined space, even by ricochets). Surely this shows intent. You know it is wrong and potentially lethal and yet continue to shoot.

There were other points I found inconsistent but I may come back to this after reading the captions. It would be interested to hear what Prof Grant and Greenland would make of this video.

My guess is that they'd think he was a hack -- also probably in the Kelly Phelps school of whatever she pretends she's an expert in or has an expert opinion about.

 

[LemonMousse]

Who asked him if he did wipe, syn, or whatever the phone it except for possibly the police if there really is any substance at all to this report which I doubt unless the prosecution is in also involved in the conspiracy to cover up for OP. And to whom is he supposed to deny it? Sign himself up on WS and post here "I didn't do it!"? And would anyone here believe it if he did ? And why would anyone bother if it will just fall on deaf ears?

I really find it rather worrying that you, I, or anyone could find themselves accused of saying or doing something we didn't do and the fact we didn't go running to declare it to the media, hire people to go along the streets with placards, tweet it a million times, or rush to speaker's corner to announce it with a loud speaker it can be automatically taken to mean guilt.

A simple denial proves zilch less still if your not likely to be believed anyway, in which case it's fighting a losing battle with the masses because the more you insist the less likely you are to be believed, like a fish biting it's tail. Best tactic, ignore, and let people think what they will because that's what they will do anyway and there's nowt one can do to change it.

Seriously?

If I was accused of a very serious crime by a reporter in a book, I would issue a statement denying it. Anyone would, and it's faintly ridiculous to imagine otherwise.

The Pistorii did issue a statement on Carl's behalf stating that nothing relevant to the case was wiped. That may be true, but I think it is quite, quite clear that something was wiped and the phone was synched.

But if you are right, then I look forward to Barry Bateman and Mandy Weiner having to explain themselves in a civil court when they are being sued. That's what happens to people who simply make things up and publish them in international books...not to mention sell the story in the press and tweet about it.

The best tactic is not to ignore when there are accusations of criminal activity - and in any event, they didn't ignore it, did they? They issued a statement before the story even broke.

 

[soozieqtips]

~snipped~

Seriously?

If I was accused of a very serious crime by a reporter in a book, I would issue a statement denying it. Anyone would, and it's faintly ridiculous to imagine otherwise.

The Pistorii did issue a statement on Carl's behalf stating that nothing relevant to the case was wiped. That may be true, but I think it is quite, quite clear that something was wiped and the phone was synched.

BIB - I would also sue them for libel. As the clan haven't mentioned bringing a libel case against the authors, I'll assume it's because they know it can't be disproved.

 

[LemonMousse]

~snipped~


BIB - I would also sue them for libel. As the clan haven't mentioned bringing a libel case against the authors, I'll assume it's because they know it can't be disproved.

Quite.

And let's not forget too.....Bateman and Weiner also claimed that the NPA were on the verge of charging CP and only didn't because of a deal made with the defence.

Not denied by either the NPA or Roux. I suppose they think silence is the best tactic too, eh?

 

[4MrsB]

Here's a link to an interesting article posted today. It states that Oscar is getting a PRIVATE BATH built for him in prison "so Oscar doesn't have to walk past a number of prisoners to get to the toilet".

I find this hard to believe. (I might be inclined to believe it if Oscar had actually received a lengthy sentence for killing Reeva. Uncle Arnold would make appropriate "donations" and OP would be fixed up with some special accommodations. But as one article stated, "Oscar didn't receive a sentence, more like a phrase". So not buying it.) At the end of the article a Correctional services spokesperson, Wolela, stated not so. The bath was being built before OP found guilty and sentenced.

Article also states OP moved to different wing after a prisoner flooded the wing Oscar housed in. The wing he was moved to is somewhat "smaller, less comfortable and tighter security". He was moved due to fear he might slip. He will be moved back after the wing & it's flood damage has been fully repaired.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-pistorius-gets-private-bath/

I'm guessing most of article just tabloid "fuel" for their CityPress readers, but a few small tidbits of info that some may want to read.

 

[ckra1000]

<Respectfully snipped>



The point of my post wasn't that these errors had any impact on her decision at all, including ignoring Saayman. Her hearing doesn't come into the matter at all. She would have had a daily court transcript made available to her the following day.

Notwithstanding that, it was her legal duty and also the assessors' duty to analyse the transcript and get the facts correct. That these errors were in her judgment shows that this was not done. If there were errors on this very basic aspect, one can only imagine what others may have been involved when it came to anything technical. Possibly that's why the State's case was disregarded completely - too hard, too technical, required her and the assessors to think. All she did was follow Roux's timeline and matched it up with some phone calls.

She can't reach a just and proper sentence if she doesn't know the facts, and clearly she does not. The injuries were just an illustration of this, not a reflection of their overall importance.

IMO she's either extremely inexperienced in criminal trials, even though she's obviously done some and dished out very harsh sentences, very incompetent, lazy, biased or something else. JMO

@JudgeJudi ... I think we are on the same page.

I had understood that the reporting of the injuries were just an example of inaccuracies and that means there will be more.

I support your thoughts on her taking too shallow a view of the case. For me, the explanation may be that she was just looking for a simple answer and didn't want to (lazy) or couldn't (lack of experience/poor team analysis/not intelligent enough) take into account the more complex aspects that arose. IMO, she was trying to find a way to ignore the complexities, rather than explain them .... whilst this forum thrives on the complexities and small details, which I appreciate. Without this forum I would have missed a number of details which would guide one towards a guilty or not-guilty judgement. I think she did too.

When she was so quiet during the proceedings, I was suspicious. When she did ask a question, it always appeared to be cringe-worthy. I thought she wasn't asking many questions because she didn't want to appear foolish in front of a world audience or wasn't following the proceedings very well (perhaps her poor hearing came into play during live testimony). She needed things spelling out for her and if they weren't, she tried to find a way to ignore them rather than analyse them.

I'm hopeful that all these shortcomings will be overcome by the appeal process.