Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

JudgeJudi said:

GN: And it was definitely not two double taps?
OP: That is correct, M'Lady.
GN: Why would Mr Roux think and put to Mangena, Captain Mangena that you fired two double taps?
OP: I am not sure, M'Lady. But that is what he put to Mr Mangena and in the first break I corrected him and said to him that it was not a double tap.
GN: But before we go to you correcting him, why would he say that?
OP: I am not sure, M'Lady.
GN: No.. it is impossible. Mr Roux will not say something, forget the correction. Mr Roux will not put something to a witness that is not your version. Why would he say two double taps?
OP: M'Lady, the only explanation I could think off (sic), is that when we spoke about training in firearm training, you fire… you learn to fire two shots, which is in a double tap. It is called a double tap. And I think that maybe Mr Roux put that to Mr Mangena. I cannot say why he did it, but I corrected him [indistinct 12:44:42]
GN: You see, he went further. He said to Mr Mangena that it is your version that you fired two double taps. It was not that, ‘Is it possible?’ He put it as a version.
OP: I understand that, M'Lady.
COURT: Mr Nel, he has answered. He cannot say. All he knows is that he corrected Mr Roux.
GN: May I ask a follow-up question then. The only reason why he would do that, is if you told him. He would not do it any other way.OP: That is incorrect, M'Lady. I did not say that. I did not tell Mister… I have not tell (sic) Mr Roux that I had fired a double tap at any point.
…

Counsel DO NOT make incorrect statements like this. They only ever put what their client has instructed them. As wily and as cunning as the Silver Fox is, his client, IMO, was always going to say, and did say, exactly what he wanted to despite Roux's best endeavours.

Click to expand...

This was such a great moment during trial - Nel had Oscar and Roux brilliantly cornered - and right on cue, Masipa shuts it down.

JudgeJudi said:

I totally agree with you Paul. Roux is no fool. He must have known OP was guilty, and if so, his duty was to ensure he got a fair trial, not to try and get him off. I've said it before but I'll say it again, I have no respect for him at all. He is a "gun for hire". Nel has beaten him twice thus far in huge trials, the other one being Selebi. As my grandfather used to say, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it".

Click to expand...

Judge, I love your grandfather!

lisasalinger said:

Really fantastic post, Paul!

Click to expand...

Thanks Lisa, that means a lot coming from you.

TBH I've always believed since the trial that Pistorius was/is a "narcopath" A sociopath with narcissistic tendencies. I loved your book Fugitive and the work you did looking in his narcissism. It crystallised other research I'd read on the psychological/psychiatric aspects.

I believe Masipa and Henzen Du Toit were his victims too. Another two empaths who, like Reeva, were lambs to the slaughter. Oscar and Roux played them like a Stradivarius. What is terrifying is how two seemingly powerful, educated women could fall victim to such devious play acting.

The truth is empaths and apaths are easy prey to such narcopaths no matter what their gender, race or background. The outcry for and against Masipa during and after the trial has sadly detracted from the real truth which is Pistorius is an extremely dangerous and manipulative sociopath from whom society needs protecting not just for 5, 10, 15 years but until he is so old he is rendered physically incapable of preying on another innocent.

There are a multitude of reasons why he should be locked up but his murderous, reckless, unconscionable nature and resulting danger to society is the greatest.

lisasalinger said:

This was such a great moment during trial - Nel had Oscar and Roux brilliantly cornered - and right on cue, Masipa shuts it down.

Click to expand...

So bizarre.

I don't understand why the Judge did not require clarification from counsel on this point.

Why did Roux ask this question if it was not to be OPs version? He mislead the Court and the witness - so he should have been required to explain himself.

mrjitty said:

So bizarre.

I don't understand why the Judge did not require clarification from counsel on this point.

Why did Roux ask this question if it was not to be OPs version? He mislead the Court and the witness - so he should have been required to explain himself.

Click to expand...

If Nel had for some reason misled the Court and a witness you can be sure she'd have sought clarification. Therein lies the answer! Bias, cognitive dissonance, prejudging...

Paul Connelly said:

If Nel had for some reason misled the Court and a witness you can be sure she'd have sought clarification. Therein lies the answer! Bias, cognitive dissonance, prejudging...

Click to expand...

But on the other hand Roux got away with it. When Mrs Burger stuck to her guns that she heard a woman screaming and not Pistorius, Roux said to the court he would call an expert witness at some point during the trial who would testify that Pistorius screams like a woman when he is anxious.

No such witness was ever called which can only lead one to conclude there never was such a person. In fact Roux was deliberately trying to mislead and intimidate Mrs Burger by making her believe an ‘expert’ would contradict her evidence and therefore throw doubt in her mind.

Masipa should have jumped on the misleading of Mrs Burger when it was apparent this was a case of the ‘expert who never was’ but instead she herself without the need of expert opinion also believed he could scream like a woman. Unbelievable!

Belgarion said:

But on the other hand Roux got away with it. When Mrs Burger stuck to her guns that she heard a woman screaming and not Pistorius, Roux said to the court he would call an expert witness at some point during the trial who would testify that Pistorius screams like a woman when he is anxious.

No such witness was ever called which can only lead one to conclude there never was such a person. In fact Roux was deliberately trying to mislead and intimidate Mrs Burger by making her believe an ‘expert’ would contradict her evidence and therefore throw doubt in her mind.

Masipa should have jumped on the misleading of Mrs Burger when it was apparent this was a case of the ‘expert who never was’ but instead she herself without the need of expert opinion also believed he could scream like a woman. Unbelievable!

Click to expand...

Indeed, shockingly so.

She's a disgrace to her fellow judges and her countrymen. I don't buy all this nonsense about criticism of Masipa is borne out of the inherent racism, elitist snobbery and misogyny prevalent in post-apartheid South Africa.

I have no truck with any of the 3 and as an Irishman living in England no subconscious prejudice against a poor, black woman judge. On the contrary I'd positively applaud it but Masipa was an unmitigated disaster and I have no reservations in saying that.

I don't have any of the emotional baggage many South Africans carry from both sides of the racial divide. To me the White, privileged, highly educated Roux was a shyster who shamed and prostituted his profession and Masipa was a gullible, naive, biased, emotionally compromised idiot who threw out her reputation alongside her objectivity. I'm appalled by the pair of them.

Paul Connelly said:

Indeed, shockingly so.

She's a disgrace to her fellow judges and her countrymen. I don't buy all this nonsense about criticism of Masipa is borne out of the inherent racism, elitist snobbery and misogyny prevalent in post-apartheid South Africa.

I have no truck with any of the 3 and as an Irishman living in England no subconscious prejudice against a poor, black woman judge. On the contrary I'd positively applaud it but Masipa was an unmitigated disaster and I have no reservations in saying that.

I don't have any of the emotional baggage many South Africans carry from both sides of the racial divide. To me the White, privileged, highly educated Roux was a shyster who shamed and prostituted his profession and Masipa was a gullible, naive, biased, emotionally compromised idiot who threw out her reputation alongside her objectivity. I'm appalled by the pair of them.

Click to expand...

I'm pleased to meet someone who feels exactly the same way I do.

The shock and injustice of all of this doesn't lessen over time, it actually increases with the expectation that still exists, now in the form of an appeal. It is absolute rot.

And they are fools not to know it, because it undermines everything Pistorius desires. With every deluded step he makes, he pushes his goal further and further away. Actually I'm not even sure of that, because I think he may be mentally incurable.

RSBM

Belgarion said:

The most reasonable explanation for the .38 ammunition in his safe was that he had a firearm of that calibre on order and he bought some ammunition for it before he was licensed to do so. Illegal, yes, but not a big deal, probably happens a lot in places like SA and who’s to know if it is in a safe.

So, Pistorius should have just admitted he chanced his luck and unfortunately got caught. However, that would have meant accepting responsibility which of course is an anathema to him. So instead he spins a story so ridiculous that he might just as well have said it was aliens who transported it into his safe.

Pistorius said he was ‘looking after’ the ammunition which belonged to his father, Henke, who he didn’t speak to and who would not admit to owning it. A father who lived at the time in Port Elizabeth some 800 miles away who just happened to be driving past Pistorius’ house when he was away and just decided, for no apparent reason, to pop into the house, and put some ammunition in the safe. There was no obvious admission at the trial that his father had a key to the house or a combination to the safe.

Would have been so much easier to have told the truth and accepted responsibility. However, as we know Pistorius is hard wired to do neither

Click to expand...

His lying was unnecessary and I'm sure Roux would have explained to him the consequences of being found guilty of the two further offences (the illegal possession of the ammo and shooting through the sunroof). Sentences for these would have run concurrently with whatever he received for killing Reeva. This is the usual practice for lesser offences. I can explain why if anyone doesn't understand the reason for this.

Regarding his lying, this is from Sam Taylor's mother, Trish.

"Another discovery I soon made about Oscar was that he could fabricate the truth as easily as most people breathed. Our family always made sure we were together for Christmas and 2011 was no different. By mid-December, the whole family was in our new home in Somerset West near Cape Town. Oscar had hired a house not far away for himself and his best friends from Boxing Day, so I invited him to come down earlier to spend Christmas with Sammy and the rest of us.

He demurred, saying he couldn’t come down any earlier, as he had training commitments.

It was heartbreaking to hear later that he’d had the worst Christmas Day ever, all on his own and really missing his mum. He told us that for lunch he went down to the petrol station nearby and bought himself two pies.

Some time later, however, he told us how he had celebrated Christmas with the family of his best friend Alex and they had all had a wonderful day. He was oblivious to the fact he had told us a completely different story a little while earlier".

He's a compulsive liar and in all probability this won't change no matter how much psychotherapy he receives. With few exceptions, most compulsive liars aren’t able to be helped because first, they feel they have no reason to change, and second, they have no desire to be helped.

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles...er-by-the-mother-of-his-ex-girlfriend/189483/

Paul Connelly said:

Indeed, shockingly so.

She's a disgrace to her fellow judges and her countrymen. I don't buy all this nonsense about criticism of Masipa is borne out of the inherent racism, elitist snobbery and misogyny prevalent in post-apartheid South Africa.

I have no truck with any of the 3 and as an Irishman living in England no subconscious prejudice against a poor, black woman judge. On the contrary I'd positively applaud it but Masipa was an unmitigated disaster and I have no reservations in saying that.

I don't have any of the emotional baggage many South Africans carry from both sides of the racial divide. To me the White, privileged, highly educated Roux was a shyster who shamed and prostituted his profession and Masipa was a gullible, naive, biased, emotionally compromised idiot who threw out her reputation alongside her objectivity. I'm appalled by the pair of them.

Click to expand...

In respect of Masipa's competence having discovered that it was her alone who chose the assessors I had great unease over her choice when more about them became known.

Given that this was going to be a televised high profile trial to the extent that the SA justice system would be on display to the world one would have expected the assessors to be at least persons with extensive legal background and experience.

So I was shocked to read about the male assessor Masipa had chosen - Themba Mazibuko

In general the most common phrase used in the media was ‘little is known about him’

After some delving the best I could ascertain was that Mazibuko was ‘fresh out of university’ and had never ‘played an active role in a court’ until the Pistorius trial.

I cannot understand to this day why Masipa should put such a young inexperienced person into a role where in the eyes of the world he had enough power to partly decide Pistorius’ fate.

Perhaps in a moment of madness her previous social worker background came to the fore and she decided to show the world what fantastic job experience opportunities black college kids get in SA.

Whatever her ‘reasoning’ I would suggest at the outset it showed the world just how she was capable of making irrational decisions – a trait which then followed her through the trial itself.

I'll bet OP basks in the fact that all the experts and arm chair detectives argue about who is right - and he alone knows the truth and will never confess to anyone.

lisasalinger said:

This was such a great moment during trial - Nel had Oscar and Roux brilliantly cornered - and right on cue, Masipa shuts it down.

Click to expand...

Agree. Massipa was like the fake referees that you see in WWE wrestling. The ref knows who is going to win. But once a wrestler gets hurt. The referee is in charge of backing down the other wrestler until the hurt wrestler can get his strength back in order to declare him victor later due to the ref turning a blind eye at the right premeditated time. Jmo

Belgarion said:

In respect of Masipa's competence having discovered that it was her alone who chose the assessors I had great unease over her choice when more about them became known.

Given that this was going to be a televised high profile trial to the extent that the SA justice system would be on display to the world one would have expected the assessors to be at least persons with extensive legal background and experience.

So I was shocked to read about the male assessor Masipa had chosen - Themba Mazibuko

In general the most common phrase used in the media was ‘little is known about him’

After some delving the best I could ascertain was that Mazibuko was ‘fresh out of university’ and had never ‘played an active role in a court’ until the Pistorius trial.

I cannot undertand to this day why Masipa should put such a young inexperienced person into a role where in the eyes of the world he had enough power to partly decide Pistorius’ fate.

Perhaps in a moment of madness her previous social worker background came to the fore and she decided to show the world what fantastic job experience opportunities black college kids get in SA.

Whatever her ‘reasoning’ I would suggest at the outset it showed the world just how she was capable of making irrational decisions – a trait which then followed her through the trial itself.

Click to expand...

BIB: I don't think it was irrational. With what we now know the most obvious answer is she prejudged the trial or she was compromised in some other manner. She knew what she wanted and she picked the assessors to assist her.

If what you say about the judge's right to pick their own assessors is true, it makes a mockery of the fact the judge can be overruled by her assessors. Talk about preemption! Thank God we have juries in this country.

FromGermany said:

I'll bet OP basks in the fact that all the experts and arm chair detectives argue about who is right - and he alone knows the truth and will never confess to anyone.

Click to expand...

…… or as he says ‘he and God know the truth’ That would be of course his version of ‘God’ a sort of ‘God for all Seasons’ to suit Pistorius’ needs

Belgarion said:

But on the other hand Roux got away with it. When Mrs Burger stuck to her guns that she heard a woman screaming and not Pistorius, Roux said to the court he would call an expert witness at some point during the trial who would testify that Pistorius screams like a woman when he is anxious.

No such witness was ever called which can only lead one to conclude there never was such a person. In fact Roux was deliberately trying to mislead and intimidate Mrs Burger by making her believe an ‘expert’ would contradict her evidence and therefore throw doubt in her mind.

Masipa should have jumped on the misleading of Mrs Burger when it was apparent this was a case of the ‘expert who never was’ but instead she herself without the need of expert opinion also believed he could scream like a woman. Unbelievable!

Click to expand...

BIB, this is not correct and not the only conclusion to be drawn.

Roux made it clear that it was not necessary to play any audio tapes of screams because the sound expert that they called was able to address all of the questions that were raised.

ApplesInMyBra said:

I've always wondered why counsel and judges had to wear disguises?

Click to expand...

The reign of Charles II (1660-1685) made wigs essential wear for polite society. They were a fashionable item for all gentlemen of wealthy and established social classes. By 1680 most judges and barristers wore wigs in court; they were simply following the fashion of the day. At that time they signified wealth and status.

Junior barristers wear a full black gown made of cotton or modern fabric. QCs/Senior Counsel wear silk gowns. The design derives from the style of mourning gown adopted by the Bar following the death of Charles II in 1685. .

http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules..._barristers_solicitors/04_barristers_wigs.htm

Traditional judicial garb imbued in a lay person a sense of solemnity and dignity of the law. This was regarded as particularly useful in criminal trials, where respect for authority may be lacking. Traditional garb sends a powerful if not forthright message to all participants in a proceeding. By setting a highly authoritative tone, the barristers’ attire commands a high level of professional respect for their skilled advocacy and the proceedings.

http://www.hearsay.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=677&Itemid=48

mhiforme said:

BIB, this is not correct and not the only conclusion to be drawn.

Roux made it clear that it was not necessary to play any audio tapes of screams because the sound expert that they called was able to address all of the questions that were raised.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that when Roux stated that he would bring an expert witness to ‘testify that Pistorius screams like a woman when he is anxious’. That Ivan Lin proved this was the case?

Paul Connelly said:

Indeed, shockingly so.

She's a disgrace to her fellow judges and her countrymen. I don't buy all this nonsense about criticism of Masipa is borne out of the inherent racism, elitist snobbery and misogyny prevalent in post-apartheid South Africa.

I have no truck with any of the 3 and as an Irishman living in England no subconscious prejudice against a poor, black woman judge. On the contrary I'd positively applaud it but Masipa was an unmitigated disaster and I have no reservations in saying that.

I don't have any of the emotional baggage many South Africans carry from both sides of the racial divide. To me the White, privileged, highly educated Roux was a shyster who shamed and prostituted his profession and Masipa was a gullible, naive, biased, emotionally compromised idiot who threw out her reputation alongside her objectivity. I'm appalled by the pair of them.

Click to expand...

This goes to far for me.

In NZ or England or Australia for example, you do not become a High Court Judge until you have a 25+yr glittering career as Advocate, Prosecutor, Solicitor General etc.

I knew guys at my firm who were working towards getting to the bench. The first step was to become a leader in your area of advocacy (e.g. a top partner at your firm). Or you might become a QC in chambers and on from there. Or you might follow the Nel career track. Earn your spurs as a prosecutor and eventually reach the bench by that route.

The key thing is that you then get Judges on the bench who

A) are the elite professionals who are now transferring 25 years Court experience to the bench
B) absolutely the leaders in the profession - with the seniority
C) are bring subject matter expertise (trial court experience, commercial litigation, medical, tax, public law etc).

The problem in RSA is they are making political appointments of journeymen to the bench. 7 years of unspectacular career and suddenly a High Court Judge?

But I understand this to be a product of Apartheid.

RSA don't have the big year groups of elite legal talent form the late 80s and early 90s to draw on yet.

So people have come thru too quickly.

Hopefully this will work out in the future

mrjitty said:

This goes to far for me.

In NZ or England or Australia for example, you do not become a High Court Judge until you have a 25+yr glittering career as Advocate, Prosecutor, Solicitor General etc.

I knew guys at my firm who were working towards getting to the bench. The first step was to become a leader in your area of advocacy (e.g. a top partner at your firm). Or you might become a QC in chambers and on from there. Or you might follow the Nel career track. Earn your spurs as a prosecutor and eventually reach the bench by that route.

The key thing is that you then get Judges on the bench who

A) are the elite professionals who are now transferring 25 years Court experience to the bench
B) absolutely the leaders in the profession - with the seniority
C) are bring subject matter expertise (trial court experience, commercial litigation, medical, tax, public law etc).

The problem in RSA is they are making political appointments of journeymen to the bench. 7 years of unspectacular career and suddenly a High Court Judge?

But I understand this to be a product of Apartheid.

RSA don't have the big year groups of elite legal talent form the late 80s and early 90s to draw on yet.

So people have come thru too quickly.

Hopefully this will work out in the future

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it's too far, I was trying to show restraint

I take your point about the legacy issues but I think she was a good judge. You look at some of her previous judgements and she was sound. I just think she allowed her empathy to overshadow her objectivity and further allowed it to pervert her logic and reasoning in her judgement to give him the lightest possible punishment. You may well be right re the legacy issues but I do think she purposely did what she did. Even if she had a misguided conscience judges are not allowed to let it influence how they apply the law and she failed miserably.

JudgeJudi said:

I want to respond to your long response to my post Paul, but it will take time and I'll have to break it up into segments. Quoting excerpts from the transcript is much better than random quotes here and there because you get the whole context of what is being said. Unfortunately this ends up in very long posts which may not be appreciated by the majority. With Christmas nearly upon us, I have a huge amount to do and I'm burning the candle at both ends, and have been for a long time. I might leave it until after then.

Click to expand...

Thanks JJ, I look forward to that. I know how busy you must be and this is perhaps a good time to thank you and all the other WS'ers who devote their precious time and energies to the interests of justice and truth. So Salute! Sounds like you'll more than deserve a glass of wine come the big day! Cheers. :toast: