Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

aftermath said:

You say CP couldn't have known what was important... I would suggest that if he knew about his brother's communication with jenna edkins he would know that might be important. Or you could be right - how could he know? - Hence the total wipe. Or maybe OP mentioned to CP about his phone call to Jenna? Or maybe OP told him to wipe the phone? Or maybe he decided to save everything as backup and it was accidentally wiped (as has been suggested here or elsewhere). The wider point is.. We can only guess as to who decided to take the phone and why they took it and why it ended up getting wiped.
Pistorius as clear -thinking criminal mastermind is not the only option.

Why is it almost impossible that someone who hasn't just killed his girlfriend might be thinking comparatively clearly enough to do something that he feels might be in the best interest of his brother? I say comparatively because if he did decide to take the phone it was a stupid thing to do - so could well be the result of someone who wasn't thinking completely straight.

Click to expand...

It's all possible, but I don't believe CP would have done anything without consulting OP.
e.g. "What about your phone, is there anything there you should worry about?"

Cherwell said:

It's all possible, but I don't believe CP would have done anything without consulting OP.
e.g. "What about your phone, is there anything there you should worry about?"

Click to expand...

Another very real and credible posibility, IMO

soozieqtips said:

BIB - So in none of your scenarios is OP guilty of directly tampering with evidence, either because his brother took the decision to do it without being asked to, or because OP wasn't thinking straight? The scenario where OP knows exactly what he is doing and what he needs to hide isn't even an option? This is why the posts come across as trying to absolve him of everything, because even in a situation where his own phone is removed and wiped, you still try and shift the responsibility onto someone else, never him! As you know, I think he's as guilty as sin (having followed the trial every day and listened to the evidence) so him destroying evidence and trying to avoid justice for Reeva is just what I'd expect someone of his slimy character to do.


Maybe not the only option, but the most likely option given his cowardly and devious character.

Click to expand...

BIB - please reread my post - i wrote very clearly: 'Or maybe OP told him to wipe the phone'. That is a definite acknowledgement that Pistorius might have made that instruction /decision himself. It is a very clear possibility. Again, my wider point is that it is not the only possibility. So no. Not trying to shift the blame at all. Just trying to consider fairly where the blame for the phone should lie. I have also followed the case from pre bail hearing through to its current SCA verdict. Watched the trial footage, pored over articles and transcripts.

Colin de France said:

....not "simply" because we don't know nothing about the lead up to the shooting........for the time being we have a sentence but no evidence from before the shooting to back it up ........maybe apart from the screams.......still a long way to go yet.....

Click to expand...

yeah BiB..................and what else do you need fgs (screams heard by several people) c'mon you've just convicted him of murder with those words...............I like your posts but I'm confused ..............

If you think the screams from Reeva were real..............which you've just eluded too? Then what's your problem with calling him a cold blooded murderer?
Cos that's what he is IMO..................he executed her in cold blood and he knew what he was doing of that there is no doubt.

Deleted

aftermath said:

BIB - please reread my post - i wrote very clearly: 'Or maybe OP told him to wipe the phone'. That is a definite acknowledgement that Pistorius might have made that instruction /decision himself. It is a very clear possibility. Again, my wider point is that it is not the only possibility. So no. Not trying to shift the blame at all. Just trying to consider fairly where the blame for the phone should lie. I have also followed the case from pre bail hearing through to its current SCA verdict. Watched the trial footage, pored over articles and transcripts.

Click to expand...

Quite simply it either lies with Pistorius himself for instructing the removal of the phone as there was an urgent need to delete from it incriminating material

Or it lies with CP who instinctively knew his brother’s immoral habits well enough to realise there was a good chance he would have incriminating material on his phone that would need deleting.

Either way the obvious haste to commit a criminal act in removing a phone (and indeed a handbag) and deleting whatever was on it does not paint a picture of Pistorius as an innocent person with nothing to hide.

On the contrary it conjures up a picture of a rather devious individual who will go to any extreme in order to save his sorry arse

Paul Connelly said:

Yes, what's interesting is that here in the UK, the press are far more circumspect in publishing these kind of stories since the Leveson Inquiry and the tightening of the PPC code of conduct. The mail are renowned for making mountains out of molehills but they aren't renowned for defamatory accusations. They must be pretty sure of their facts given the dire consequences for Pistorius if this story can be substantiated and themselves if it can't.

Tellingly, Annelise Burgess did not give an unequivocal no when asked to comment. No doubt she's grilling him right now about the burner phone he doesn't have. No wonder he wanted access to the internet as part of his bail conditions, then again, maybe she was on the non-existant/spuriously affiliated LSE course with him.

There'll be some plausible explanation for this mix-up. If not there's always GAD!

Edit: I wonder if this is machiavellian Roux's preparatory gambit in appealing to the CC on the grounds that Oscar cannot receive a fair trial/sentencing. Any of our resident legal eagles care to comment?

Click to expand...

BIB:

Anneliese Burgess, the Pistorius's family spokeswoman, slammed the Nina F reports.

She said: "This is devoid of all truth. We don't know who this individual is. I must add that this is not the first time we have had to deal with this kind of tabloid fabrication and I cannot counter stories that are not based in reality. We reserve our legal rights in this regard."

Click to expand...

http://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/saturday-star/textview


Regardless of her statement (she's their paid PR rep and always has an excuse for OP's screw ups), the story sounds super fishy to me.

"Nina F" went to the media to throw him under the bus, but why wouldn't she reveal her last name?

She claims they exchanged tons of texts and pics, but where are the screenshots?

After he admitted who he really was she said "F you," but then fell back in love and started communicating with him again because he continued to send pics of himself?

As soon as he said he wanted to marry her she told him she wanted to see him and could get on a plane that day, but he told her no?

How could he possibly call her the day he was sentenced to prison when they immediately remanded him into custody straight from the courtroom?

Why on earth would she take an 11 hour international flight to go see him at his uncle's house uninvited?

And after security refused to let her see him, she left a letter asking him to get back in touch but.............crickets?

IMO Nina F is either a batshit crazy stalker or she was catfished by someone impersonating OP. We know he started flirting and dating other women shortly after murdering Reeva, but the details of this story are too sketchy for me to believe.

The woman shown as Nina F. is somehow known to me but I don't get it, why.
If I have an idea then I will let you know.

Val1 said:

Perhaps some whatsapp msgs between him and his old buddy FH about RS? Re this tweet:

View attachment 85889

Click to expand...

FH was Reeva's buddy (after being a pair for a month or so). FH had warned her to get involved with OP. He meant it well for her.


Reeva Steenkamp was warned of Oscar Pistorius’s violent streak by a former boyfriend, rugby player Francois Hougaard.

Friends have revealed how the pair remained close after breaking up last summer and how Hougaard had “a serious talk” with her when he heard she was seeing Pistorius.

Hougaard was apparently aware of the Olympian’s reputation in sporting circles as a jealous, possessive man who could turn violent.

http://sbeta.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/hougaard-warned-reeva-1476166

"Baby, ich will dich heiraten. Mein Leben mit dir verbringen - für immer! Bist du bereit für ein Leben mit mir?", schreibt er am 9. Oktober 2014. Keine zwei Wochen später, am 21. Oktober, muss Oscar Pistorius den Gang ins Gefängnis antreten. Als er Nina F. vorher anruft, weint er. Es ist sein Abschied, sie solle auf ihn warten. Der Kontakt bricht ab.
http://www.news.de/promis/855627494...sraetsel-um-schoene-oesterreicherin-nina-f/2/
Google translation:

"Baby, I want to marry you spend my life with you -.!? Forever Are you ready for a life with me," he wrote two weeks later on October 9, 2014., on 21 October, has the Oscar Pistorius compete transition to jail. When he calls Nina F. previously, he weeps. It is his farewell that she should wait for him. The contact breaks.


IF indeed Nina F. isn't a ghost and IF indeed OP called her previously, then we know what we thought of anyway: He did know his verdict before 21. October! Because he was so calm on that day, we had the impression he was a little bit sedated OR he had known for at least some hours how "Ma" Masipa would sentence him.

Nina F. - you are our evidence to that!

Whilst there is undoubtedly some very suspicious elements in this ‘Nina F’ story one is reminded that, as observers noted and pictures show, Pistorius spent a lot of time in court texting on his phone (between bouts of ‘sickness&#8217. In my opinion his texting habit was yet another demonstration of his supreme arrogance and distain given the situation and I was very surprised such behaviour was not severely admonished by Masipa.

Perhaps yet another example of Masipa bending over backwards to accommodate Pistorius whilst chastising the behaviour of others.

Belgarion said:

Whilst there is undoubtedly some very suspicious elements in this ‘Nina F’ story one is reminded that, as observers noted and pictures show, Pistorius spent a lot of time in court texting on his phone (between bouts of ‘sickness’). In my opinion his texting habit was yet another demonstration of his supreme arrogance and distain given the situation and I was very surprised such behaviour was not severely admonished by Masipa.

Perhaps yet another example of Masipa bending over backwards to accommodate Pistorius whilst chastising the behaviour of others.

Click to expand...

BIB, unless you were in court and looking over his shoulder, how can you say he "spent a lot of time in court texting"? There is no way to quantify your statement.

Yes, he had send some texts while in court but I highly doubt that you could call it "a lot of time.....texting".

Unless you could actually see what was on his phone screen, there's nothing to say that he wasn't studying legal briefs that might aid his case.

mhiforme said:

BIB, unless you were in court and looking over his shoulder, how can you say he "spent a lot of time in court texting"? There is no way to quantify your statement.

Yes, he had send some texts while in court but I highly doubt that you could call it "a lot of time.....texting".

Unless you could actually see what was on his phone screen, there's nothing to say that he wasn't studying legal briefs that might aid his case.

Click to expand...

There are a number of photographs that clearly show him texting which is of course disrespectful to the court to say the least. However in the continuous defence of Pistorius if you wish to believe he was studying ‘legal briefs’ on his phone that’s fine.

All I will say is that he had in front of him a legal team who were highly paid to do just that and if there had been the remotest chance that they had wished to seek his ‘legal assistance’ they could have done so by handing him a piece of paper not ask him to study something on his smartphone!!

However, the concept of Pistorius dispensing ‘legal advice’ to his lawyers between periods of honking up into a green bucket does conjure up an amusing picture

This is totally O/T but sometimes laughter is the best medicine.

[video=youtube;I_3Qye89Guw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_3Qye89Guw&sns=tw[/video]

Just click on Watch this Video on You Tube

Belgarion said:

There are a number of photographs that clearly show him texting which is of course disrespectful to the court to say the least. However in the continuous defence of Pistorius if you wish to believe he was studying ‘legal briefs’ on his phone that’s fine.

All I will say is that he had in front of him a legal team who were highly paid to do just that and if there had been the remotest chance that they had wished to seek his ‘legal assistance’ they could have done so by handing him a piece of paper not ask him to study something on his smartphone!!

However, the concept of Pistorius dispensing ‘legal advice’ to his lawyers between periods of honking up into a green bucket does conjure up an amusing picture

Click to expand...

We do know some of the things he likes to look at, as he did on the evening of 13 February. He may well have been looking at briefs, but legal ones?

OP and his legal team are considering appealing to the ConCourt on the basis that he didn't get a fair trial. The following is from a ConCourt judgment.

Bogaards vs The State (Decided on: 28 September 2012)

The right to a fair trial

49. In this case, the right relied upon is the right to a fair trial as articulated in section 35(3) of the Constitution. Section 35(3) sets out, in a non-exhaustive list, the components of the right to a fair trial. It provides:

“Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right—

(a) to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence;
(c) to a public trial before an ordinary court;
(d) to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay;
(e) to be present when being tried;
(f) to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
(g) to have a legal practitioner assigned to the accused person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
(h) to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings;
(i) to adduce and challenge evidence;
(j) not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;
(k) to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language;
(l) not to be convicted for an act or omission that was not an offence under either national or international law at the time it was committed or omitted;
(m) not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted;
(n) to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing; and
(o) of appeal to, or review by, a higher court.”

70. ...“It is clear also that fairness is not a one-way street conferring an unlimited right on an accused to demand the most favourable possible treatment.”85

Furthermore, in Jaipal, this Court referred to the need for—

“fairness to the public as represented by the State. It has to instil confidence in the criminal justice system with the public, including those close to the accused, as well as those distressed by the audacity and horror of crime.”

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2012/23.html

How was OP treated unfairly?

The problem I have with an ‘appeal on a fair trial’ is the time limit to appeal on such has long expired. Plus such matters should have been taken to the SCA in the first instance.

My understanding is an appeal to the CC can only be as a result of the judgment of the SCA

Does he mean that he didn't get a 'fair trial' at the SCA? Is he saying the SCA has acted like a trial court by ruling on the PPD? I haven't noticed specific mention of an unfair trial in the documents we've seen so far, did I miss it?

Tortoise said:

Does he mean that he didn't get a 'fair trial' at the SCA? Is he saying the SCA has acted like a trial court by ruling on the PPD? I haven't noticed specific mention of an unfair trial in the documents we've seen so far, did I miss it?

Click to expand...

The affidavit won't include everything. We will have to wait until Notice of Grounds of Appeal are filed. This article has more info.

http://www.rdm.co.za/politics/2015/12/09/why-oscar-s-appeal-to-the-constitutional-court-will-fail

Belgarion said:

The problem I have with an ‘appeal on a fair trial’ is the time limit to appeal on such has long expired. Plus such matters should have been taken to the SCA in the first instance.

My understanding is an appeal to the CC can only be as a result of the judgment of the SCA

Click to expand...

Please read the article in post 1019 where all is explained.