Trial Discussion Thread #52 - 14.11.9, Day 41 ~announcement of the verdict~

[turaj]

The judge saw Reeva's autopsy pics (presumably). She heard Capt. Mangena describe the effect of hollow point bullets mushrooming inside her body. She left her seat to stand before the wc cubicle replica during Thomas Wolmarans' testimony to view the trajectory of the 4 bullets ... and still found that OP wouldn't have known that shooting 4 talons/rangers into that tiny space would likely wound or kill whoever was there. She says the shots were rapid, but she heard both Mangena and Wolmarans testify that OP changed position, i.e. moved as he fired, and that each shot required a separate pull of the trigger.

Conclusion: The judge was at a different trial.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Seems clear to me that Masipa only tests Dolus in respect of the deceased rather than a person.

She agrees that he thinks there are intruders in the toilet at the time he fires four shots.

She says he acted unlawfully. I agree and if the test is applied to a person (the intruders) then it is Dolus.

She thinks it's improbable that OP could have made up a story ("it was an intruder") so quickly and maintained such a consistent story. I disagree. It's such a simple story to conceive and relate (it's only a few words) and he didn't have much option. He then went on to develop the story for the bail hearing, plea affidavit, evidence in chief and cross examination ... tailoring it as the evidence worked against him. It then became inconsistent.

 

[asanque]

Chalk me down as another one extremely surprised by the verdict.

Whilst, pre-meditated murder was always a stretch, I thought it was a lock for dolus eventualis.

If you shoot 4 bullets into a small room knowing someone is inside (posing no immediate threat), then for me its pretty clear cut.

The parts that surprised me:
1. It seems that Masipa's judgment was flawed by restricting dolus evenutalis to Reeva being in the room, as opposed to an unknown person.
2. Masipa ruled OP's evidence as unreliable but then accepted his story in full.
3. Masipa ruled out all other prosecution evidence as unreliable but did not really explain why.
For example:
(a) She also didn't comment on how the crime scene could not have looked the way it did unless OP's story was false or the police tampered with the scene.
(b) She readily dismissed the food in the stomach by saying that the science was imprecise (yet OP's team was unable to refute this point via their own expert).
4. Masipa's ruling was that OP could not have made up the intruder story so quickly in the heat of the moment. I would have thought that would be the immediate and only excuse OP could have come up with on the spur of the moment to explain the shooting.
However, it was such a weak defence, he had to keep tailoring his evidence to make up the holes in his story.
5. Masipa ruled that he was genuinely distressed. However, many domestic violence events follow this exact pattern, a violent crime followed by immediate remorse.
6. Masipa ruled that OP was negligent for the purpose of culpable homicide, but her reasoning fell into the exact category of dolus eventualis.

The other person that should bear part of the blame is Nels.

I thought he did a good job overall but made a few key mistakes.
1. He spent too much time on nit picky technical matters and issues of past credibility that impacted nothing but not enough time on the actual incident and motive.
For example: I never really heard him go into detail or question OP hard enough on events of earlier that evening. Why was Reeva fully clothed in the bathroom with her mobile after slipping out on a hot day requiring fans?
2. He didn't spend enough time on events after the shooting (almost no cross on this issue), and Masipa justified her ruling based on events after the shooting (e.g. OP's distress).
There were a lot of anomalies with regards to OP's story both before and after the shooting.
3. He didn't call 'Frank' the housekeeper. Would it have helped? Who knows.
4. Here is a brief list of some questions I thought Nels should have asked but didn't.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ad-26-14-04-15-Day-23&p=10452374#post10452374
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...4-04-14-Day-22/page49&p=10451721#post10451721
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ad-26-14-04-15-Day-23&p=10452123#post10452123
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ad-25-14-04-14-Day-22&p=10449015#post10449015

 

[atthelake]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-pistorius-will-not-be-found-guilty-of-murder-104616981.html

“But a murder charge is out, for the time being anyway. The prosecution can appeal the decision and, if they do, Pistorius could still be convicted of murder, according to legal experts contacted by Yahoo Sports.”


I am not sure this is quite right. In South Africa the double jeopardy law is still in force, unlike in the UK. If he gets a conviction of CH I don't think he can then be charged with murder. Would one of our legal eagles please comment on this.

I think Nel would have to make some sort of challenge before the verdict is given. Is it even possible for him to do that.

A written challenge before the verdict is issued - don't know how that could happen as not basis yet for a challenge perhaps, but we can dream!

 

[atthelake]

I am not surprised in the least at today's events and just confirmed what the country already knows....our justice system is a complete mess. Murders walk out of court every day of the week due to complete incompetence/lost dockets etc etc. I fear the repercussions from today may be huge...already seeing comparisons with Jub Jub being mentioned in more than one SA forum. (Black boy has accident and kills kids:murder 15 years and white boy guns down person: not guilty). South Africans are in an uproar..rightly so. I don't believe the judge has been bribed and thought she was impartial through out the trial...not really sure what's gone wrong.

I have always maintained that I believed OP version of events to be plausible and still do however admittedly, I was very surprised that the judge dismissed the dolus eventualis avenue. I do believe he intended to kill whoever, in his mind, he thought was behind that closed door even if it was fear/adrenalin etc induced but a human being is dead unnecessarily and was hoping justice would be served for the good of all South Africans but looks like it's just another day where the criminals win in this country. Maybe tomorrow will bring better news.

So glad to see familiar faces still around and hope all is well with everyone

Hey Carol, glad to see you back here and hope that you'll be on threads later

 

[Mr Fossil]

A written challenge before the verdict is issued - don't know how that could happen as not basis yet for a challenge perhaps, but we can dream!

I've seen something somewhere about this. Double jeopardy does apply in South Africa. I'll do some digging.

ETA: This report is interesting, see 2.14 onwards. http://www.justice.gov.za/salrc/reports/r_prj73_appeal_2000dec.pdf

This article is also interesting: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/oscar-pistorius-judge-error-prosecutors-article-1.1936371

 

[Chelly]

Judge Masipa's verdict thus far has been disappointing, even shocking for many who have followed this case since its beginning. It appears OP will not receive a harsh verdict & sentence from this Judge. Surely Nel will appeal and eventually Masipa's verdict will be overturned by another judge. I think there is still a long journey ahead. Setting my alarm again for 1:15 a.m.

 

[Val1]

I just clued in my husband to the blatant blunders of today (I am South African and have been following every single day of the trial, and my husband is american and hasn't been following the trial at all, just through me). My husband's response was: I get why you are upset, but aren't you taking this a bit too serious?? Who cares about OP, he is going to suffer for the rest of his life.

I guess it is true, but still, I wanted to see real justice served...

Did you tell how much he's been suffering... holidays in Mozambique, new women, new car, living in a plush mansion, partying with his cousins/friends, yea I wish I could suffer like that, well except for the women.:/

 

[wb180]

Man, I guess the smoke and mirrors worked on the judge. She got so confused with all the different angles and BS, she can't even apply the law correctly. What the heck. Haha

 

[redheadedgal]

oy! not happy so far... but very appreciative for the comments i've been able to read from WS'ers. you guys rock on reporting and analyzing, and oh, the funnies! (forensics' comment about not being thrown out had me rolling lol)

please, my lady, justice for reeva !!

 

[atthelake]

I have to share this. I am laughing here, but I guess it is not funny. But it is. In researching this judge earlier, Wikipedia came up on a google search, so I clicked onto the article. Lo and behold, I learned the judge's middle name is "Pistorius". How strange, I thought.

I read the article and when it came to the part about what her peers think of her, the article stated she is "considered to be a loose cannon", is becoming senile, etc. And this was footnoted by two articles. So I go to each article and read them. Neither has a bad thing to say about the judge. Quite the opposite, she is said to be highly respected by her peers within these articles.

So I then go back to the Wikipedia article. No more derogatory statements. I am beginning to wonder if I am really, really sleep deprived here. Then I glance up and there is no "Pistorius" as the judge's middle name.

Upon checking the history of the Wikipedia article, it was hacked. Cleverly hacked. And with some humor. As in "Pistorius" was her middle name.... Oi Vey! I can't believe I fell for it!

------------------------
Here is what I fell for:

"The State vs Oscar Pistorius

Masipa is the presiding judge in the trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp and several gun-related charges which commenced in the High Court in Pretoria on 3 March 2014.[8][22] She appointed two assessors to assist her in the trial.[23] According to the spokesperson for the South African judiciary, she was not specially assigned to the case because of her gender.[24][25] Following her assignment to the high-profile case, her colleagues reportedly described her as senile, loose canon, incompetent, eloquent-but-misguided and needs to be removed from her post.[8][26]"

*Anonymous* doing their thing.... with a sense of humor? lol ...catching up and about 6 hours of posts to read through, but guys, I do appreciate the humor intertwined with the posts... I really do. It's needed... back to catching up.

 

[wb180]

The so-called legal experts have been wrong on many things thus far. The TV lawyers have been are as bad as the press for sensationalising minor technicalities in an effort to retain public interest. It's worth remembering that many of these lawyers have as much experience at losing cases as they have of winning.

Yep, let's just say dismiss them and say they are all wrong (because they have a 50:50 win lost ratio) and not look at their actual reasoning. That's how we roll in websleuths. haha...not.

 

[Val1]

Aggg really????? And she couldn't mention this in court! Sickening!

To be fair, she couldn't tell stories about things she wasn't asked or crossed on, correct? Plus, who would have believed her, it's the "golden boy" of SA's word against hers and she'd already been portrayed as some bitter little witch with an axe to grind.

 

[atthelake]

I saw a few comments today that perhaps the judge was guided towards the error of her ways and her blantant mistake today...some are speculating that there may be a redirection of her verdict tomorrow...she took a long time to come back to court after lunch, sat for 15 mins and then abruptly called it a day. Wonder what happened in chambers??

I'm thinking that Nell has already challenged her that he is going to file for appeal, and both he and Roux with her... can't think of any other reason than that. I think perhaps that she delayed due to either keeping on EXACT time as she was going to go over her cut off.. (in my dreams it would be that she is allowing Nell time to put something to an emergency appeal... heck, I don't know... just dreaming again as lack of sleep here lol.)

We'll see if trial continues on schedule for CH and verdict - I don't know about SA courts, but I can't imagine an estopple gaah: where did that word come from) to stop procedings BEFORE she reads the verdict. Heard that Nell was writing furiously, so think that perhaps was just telegraphing that he intended to appeal?

I can't imagine that there would be a redirection of any verdict, as what she has read into the record so far would not support a redirection of eventualis. :moo:

 

[JudgeJudi]

No… van der Merwe never looked at the clock when she heard the bangs… the only thing she said was "around 3AM"

The only time she said was 1:56AM when she woke up, looked at the clock and heard a woman arguing loudly.

It seems like Roux made this time up. This is all I could find, but it's not fact IMO.

This 3:12AM time is a fiasco…

"Roux is using the ear witness testimony to plot the timeline for the two sets of sounds.

The defense says the first set of sounds happened between 3:12 and 3:14 a.m and the second set of sounds happened at 3:17 a.m."

http://cnnworldlive.cnn.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_trial_4?Page=146

 

[zwiebel]

Video at link of BBC's Andrew Harding touring OP's home. Shows large bloodstain on carpet down by the side of where bed used to be.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29162620

 

[akp]

She thinks it's improbable that OP could have made up a story ("it was an intruder") so quickly and maintained such a consistent story. I disagree. It's such a simple story to conceive and relate (it's only a few words) and he didn't have much option. He then went on to develop the story for the bail hearing, plea affidavit, evidence in chief and cross examination ... tailoring it as the evidence worked against him. It then became inconsistent.

On the other hand, that he made up a story so soon will lend support to State's contention that it was premeditated.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Isn't Darren Fresco's indeminity supposed to be handled tomorrow? I wonder what the global opinion will be if he's denied indemnity yet Oscar's story is believed lock, stock and barrel.

Maybe he'll get a longer sentence than OP, nothing would surprise at this point.

Oh dear, that'll teach anyone to cross OP. Gawd, revenge must be sweet for OP. :winner:

 

[Harmony 2]

In case you missed it...

Mod note:
Direct quotes from articles need to be linked to the source. Any posts with direct quotes that are missing links will be removed. Moreover, information from tabloid newspapers are not allowed here... thanks

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Seems clear to me that Masipa only tests Dolus in respect of the deceased rather than a person.

She agrees that he thinks there are intruders in the toilet at the time he fires four shots.

She says he acted unlawfully. I agree and if the test is applied to a person (the intruders) then it is Dolus.

She thinks it's improbable that OP could have made up a story ("it was an intruder") so quickly and maintained such a consistent story. I disagree. It's such a simple story to conceive and relate (it's only a few words) and he didn't have much option. He then went on to develop the story for the bail hearing, plea affidavit, evidence in chief and cross examination ... tailoring it as the evidence worked against him. It then became inconsistent.

No wonder J Masipa was incensed about Nel implying OP was a liar, even though she said he called him a liar :no:. Now it all fits into the master plan. jmo

:desert: