Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[AW2B]

the judge was never told he was there, though. Frank's presence was never put into evidence.

wow!! :shame:

 

[Cherwell]

I just read this article.
Anette Stipp was referring to Chiziweni?! Did he initially said that he heard a woman screaming then retracted that statement later?! Or was she referring to a female domestic worker?
It's confusing because the article made reference to her husband's statement regarding Chiziweni..then talked about Anette's statement regarding "THE" domestic worker giving the impression that she was also talking about Chiziweni..

Most of you are way more knowledgeable about this case than me..so who was she talking about?


BIB



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-at-Pistorius-home-on-night-of-shooting.html

Mrs Stipp was talking about her own employee, not Frank.

 

[AW2B]

Mrs Stipp was talking about her own employee, not Frank.

And the prosecution didn't call her to testify?!

 

[jay-jay]

I'm reading through Judge Masipa's judgement again, I'm a glutton for punishment..... so this really irks me...

1. At the time of the incident there was no one else in the accused’s
house except the accused and the deceased. Therefore it could only
have been one of them who screamed or cried out loud.

Frank Chiziweni was sleeping on the premises, I can't understand why J Masipa discounts him. Does not compute. No matter he claims to have heard and seen nothing, he has to be accounted for otherwise it's an misrepresentation of the facts of that night, so what else is missing? It looks to be a sham, smoke and mirrors. :banghead: JMO

http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/140915OPJudgment.pdf

Well, not only was Frank on the premises .. but Reeva herself was still actually alive before she was shot, so quite how Masipa can say that 'at the time of the incident there was no-one else in the accused's house except for the accused and the deceased. Therefore it could only have been one of them who screamed or cried out loud.' What an absolute load of nonsense .. Reeva was alive in that house, and she was also more than capable of screaming, at the time of the incident. What planet is that judge on, for god's sake?

 

[AW2B]

The judge was never told he was there, though. Frank's presence was never put into evidence.

It's my understanding the police questioned Chiziweni and he did give a statement that he was sleeping in the first floor next to the kitchen but heard nothing...the police reports were not introduced into evidence? So Masipa didn't read those reports?

 

[AW2B]

Well, not only was Frank on the premises .. but Reeva herself was still actually alive before she was shot, so quite how Masipa can say that 'at the time of the incident there was no-one else in the accused's house except for the accused and the deceased. Therefore it could only have been one of them who screamed or cried out loud.' What an absolute load of nonsense .. Reeva was alive in that house, and she was also more than capable of screaming, at the time of the incident. What planet is that judge on, for god's sake?

I agree Jay-Jay..

Masipa said that the screams occurred AFTER Reeva was already shot and incapable of screaming...she totally ignored the witnesses who heard a woman screaming! She ignored everything that points to Pistorius being guilty..

 

[PrimeSuspect]

The judge was never told he was there, though. Frank's presence was never put into evidence.

Barry Roux does mention him, for some reason J Masipa and her assessors didn't take note.

Carice Stander mentions Frank was at the crime scene outside OP's house when she drove up. Roux and Nel never went any further into that line of questioning.

On the witness list, Frank is number 10 and his address is listed as OP's address.


Curiously, Monday's court hearing also witnessed the first mention of Pistorius' housekeeper, who was in the athlete's house on the night Steenkamp was shot.

Frank Chiziweni, who is from Malawi, is understood to have been asleep in his quarters next to the kitchen, the Telegraph reports this morning. Giving evidence for the defence on Monday, Carice Viljoen was the first person to refer to Chiziweni – whom she mentioned only by his first name – saying that when she arrived at Pistorius' house, Frank was standing in the road.

Chiziweni is understood to have told police he heard nothing at all. It does seem surprising that this is the first time the presence of another person in the house has been raised during this trial, particularly given the testimony given by various neighbours – who were presumably further away – about the shouts, screams and shots they say they heard.

The Telegraph reports Barry Roux, Pistorius's lead defence counsel, saying he would not be calling Chiziweni to give evidence: “He says he was asleep. We’re not going to be calling him.”

Chiziweni was listed as a potential state witness, but was not called by the prosecution either.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/oscar-pistorius-trial-murder-reeva-steenkamp-6-may

 

[steveml]

True.

Would it have mattered, imo, no.

We've witnessed what was important to J Masipa. OP prayed to god and sobbed and puked = innocent.

I'm not sure where this presumption that Masipa is one to fall for court dramatics has come from? There's plenty of information that clearly shows the absolute opposite during her long career, indicating that a judge of her calibre isn't the slightest bit interested in anything of this nature. It rather demeans the professionalism of such people to suggest that something so petty would influence her verdict.

 

[Cherwell]

Barry Roux does mention him, for some reason J Masipa and her assessors didn't take note.

Carice Stander mentions Frank was at the crime scene outside OP's house when she drove up. Roux and Nel never went any further into that line of questioning.

On the witness list, Frank is number 10 and his address is listed as OP's address.


Curiously, Monday's court hearing also witnessed the first mention of Pistorius' housekeeper, who was in the athlete's house on the night Steenkamp was shot.

Frank Chiziweni, who is from Malawi, is understood to have been asleep in his quarters next to the kitchen, the Telegraph reports this morning. Giving evidence for the defence on Monday, Carice Viljoen was the first person to refer to Chiziweni – whom she mentioned only by his first name – saying that when she arrived at Pistorius' house, Frank was standing in the road.

Chiziweni is understood to have told police he heard nothing at all. It does seem surprising that this is the first time the presence of another person in the house has been raised during this trial, particularly given the testimony given by various neighbours – who were presumably further away – about the shouts, screams and shots they say they heard.

The Telegraph reports Barry Roux, Pistorius's lead defence counsel, saying he would not be calling Chiziweni to give evidence: “He says he was asleep. We’re not going to be calling him.”

Chiziweni was listed as a potential state witness, but was not called by the prosecution either.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/oscar-pistorius-trial-murder-reeva-steenkamp-6-may

BIR - Did Roux actually say that in court? It sounds more like an answer given in response to a question from a reporter.

 

[akp]

I am just speculating here: one possible reason both PT and DT were quiet about Frank could be this. PT listed him as a witness, but were apprehensive he could turn out to be a hostile witness. DT didn't risk calling him because then he would face cross examination from Nel and may end up revealing details that would damage OP's version completely.

 

[toevlugsoord]

Quick question and I apologize if this has been asked already.
I've read two recent articles that are interviews with Barry Steenkamp, Reeva's father.
He mentions that he and Reeva's mom believe there is more to the story that wasn't discussed in court.
He also said if Oscar is watching (to the interview being given) then he'll know what he's talking about.
What does Barry know???

"but things did happen, and things happened there that haven't been brought up, I know that," said Barry."


"I think there was more to the whole story coming up to the actual shooting, the killing. If he's watching, he'll know what I'm talking about."

Articles I'm referring to:
1) http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/off-the...ther-questions-pistoriuss-version_178621.html

2) http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...pistorius-trial-there-is-still-a-missing-link

 

[Giles]

Quick question and I apologize if this has been asked already.
I've read two recent articles that are interviews with Barry Steenkamp, Reeva's father.
He mentions that he and Reeva's mom believe there is more to the story that wasn't discussed in court.
He also said if Oscar is watching (to the interview being given) then he'll know what he's talking about.
What does Barry know???

"but things did happen, and things happened there that haven't been brought up, I know that," said Barry."


"I think there was more to the whole story coming up to the actual shooting, the killing. If he's watching, he'll know what I'm talking about."

Articles I'm referring to:
1) http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/off-the...ther-questions-pistoriuss-version_178621.html

2) http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...pistorius-trial-there-is-still-a-missing-link

There is a little bit more here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ur-daughter-Reeva-Steenkamps-mother-says.html

“What didn’t seem to come out in the trial was that a pair of her jeans were found on the ground outside the open bathroom window. What were they doing there?” said Mrs Steenkamp.
“I know my daughter and she was extremely tidy and organised, she sorted out her cupboards every week and would never have left her clothes on the floor.”

 

[steveml]

But Junebug, there is something objective: Oscar admits to killing Reeva. This isn't a case in which we're not sure who the killer was and just picked on the significant other - we KNOW that OP shot her.

There are other things we know as well. We know that Reeva had her cellphone with her in the bathroom. We know that she was dressed. We know that she had remarked on problems in their relationship in the past.

If the only thing this case had going for it was the belief that OP couldn't possibly have screamed like a woman, I would agree with you that this verdict was correct. But it isn't.

Any time one person kills another past all possibility of hiding his involvement, of course he is going to make up a story for why he is justified. What other alternative would he have? Those justifications are necessarily going to rest heavily on the accused's state of mind: if he can't say it was a total accident, either he'll claim to have acted in self-defense, or to have not been in his right mind at the time (OP tried a little bit of both). Obviously, we can't read OP's mind to "prove" that he is lying, but neither are we compelled to accept every irrational exculpatory fantasy simply because OP asserted it.

If we did, there would be almost no way to convict someone of murder in domestic violence cases. All the accused would ever have to do was say "I was sleepwalking," or "I thought she was a burglar" or "I believed that the gun was was a toy" and we would have to accept it without question, just because there is no way of absolutely establishing a person's subjective state of mind.

As you mention above, the prosecution were not required to pin the murder on an individual. This by nature should make the prosecutions task easier.

Their task didn't become easier in this trial, as they couldn't find sufficient incriminating flaws in the version of the accused.

Now, common sense tells us that since the best legal heads in the country of SA have spent countless months, weeks and hours on this case, and still could not provide enough weight of evidence to support their charge, only a few conclusions can be drawn :-

1. The prosecution team were not very good.
2. The judge was inexperienced and naive.
3. The prosecution overcharged their case.
4. The version of the accused could well be reasonably possibly true.

I struggle to believe that the prosecution team were not competent, and I know from Masipa's past that she is certainly not inexperienced or naive.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Temper
Gun lover
Alcohol issues
Liar
Womanizer / cheater
Jealous
Sore loser
Perfectionist
Insomniac*
Control freak
Aggressive
Narcissistic
Entitlement issues
History of conflict / assault / arrest / accidents

The first three items alone are a recipe for disaster.

Throw in all the rest and you get Feb 14 2013.

Oscar is a landmine.

All it took was one person to take the wrong step at the wrong time.

Is anyone really surprised that he shot four Black Talons through a locked, closed door into a screaming, terrified, unarmed, defenseless woman?

How could EVERYONE except Oscar be either “mistaken”, “unreliable”, “not credible” or a flat-out liar ... when, in fact, Oscar himself has been proven to be not only unreliable, not credible and a flat-out liar but evasive, argumentative and manipulative?

How could multiple state witnesses (consistent, unbiased, with nothing to gain) be discarded wholesale in favor of an accused who has every incentive to LIE every step of the way?

Given the totality of the evidence, the witnesses, OP’s own toxic testimony, his multiple versions and multiple defenses - the entire “mosaic” - how could anyone rationally believe it was an accident, a case of “mistaken identity”?

OP’s own character, personality and history say otherwise.

* Why do I include insomnia? Insomnia can be a crucial factor in many physical and mental disorders.
OP’s tweets constantly complained about hardcore insomnia and jet lag (one year he took 97 international air flights).
What does chronic, severe insomnia and cumulative sleep deprivation do to one’s mind, to one’s mental well-being, to cognitive and behavioral functions, to one’s entire life?
It certainly doesn’t help if you’ve already got a host of other severe issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation

Laurie A Claase @LaurieAClaase ? Jul 2
#OscarTrial Highlights Day 36: Derman - OP is disciplined, focused, vigilant, drug-free, anxious, has a hand tremor and a sleep disorder

 

[lithgow1]

As you mention above, the prosecution were not required to pin the murder on an individual. This by nature should make the prosecutions task easier.

Their task didn't become easier in this trial, as they couldn't find sufficient incriminating flaws in the version of the accused.

Now, common sense tells us that since the best legal heads in the country of SA have spent countless months, weeks and hours on this case, and still could not provide enough weight of evidence to support their charge, only a few conclusions can be drawn :-

1. The prosecution team were not very good.
2. The judge was inexperienced and naive.
3. The prosecution overcharged their case.
4. The version of the accused could well be reasonably possibly true.

I struggle to believe that the prosecution team were not competent, and I know from Masipa's past that she is certainly not inexperienced or naive.

How about a number 5.

5. Money, power, influence and fame trumped the interests of justice, leading to key witness, forensic and expert evidence being overlooked or ignored by a judge who erred in the application of the law in order to find a story that smelled like BS right from the start to be reasonably, possibly true.

Works for me and though I am no 'verified attorney' plenty of South African ones have expressed extreme disquiet with Judge Masipa's reasoning and the verdicts she arrived at. How else does one explain him being found not guilty on the relatively minor charge of possession of ammunition without a licence when it was in HIS safe in HIS house and the person who he claimed it belonged to, his own father no less, refused to verify that that was the case. And that's just one little thing about all this that is baffling, to say the least.

 

[steveml]

I agree Jay-Jay..

Masipa said that the screams occurred AFTER Reeva was already shot and incapable of screaming...she totally ignored the witnesses who heard a woman screaming! She ignored everything that points to Pistorius being guilty..

That's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. You either have to accept that the witnesses were mistaken, or believe that it's perfectly possible for someone to scream after they are effectively dead. As we have nothing in the records of history to show any such phenomenon the judge really had no alternative.

I agree that it would be quite a leap to suggest that the witnesses didn't hear screams, if indeed it could only have been one person, but that's never been the claim of the defence in this trial. It's far more reasonable and sensible for Masipa to believe that the witnesses mistook OP's screams for that of a woman than for her to set a new legal precedent by making a judgment based on a scientific miracle.

 

[akp]

As you mention above, the prosecution were not required to pin the murder on an individual. This by nature should make the prosecutions task easier.

Their task didn't become easier in this trial, as they couldn't find sufficient incriminating flaws in the version of the accused.

Now, common sense tells us that since the best legal heads in the country of SA have spent countless months, weeks and hours on this case, and still could not provide enough weight of evidence to support their charge, only a few conclusions can be drawn :-

1. The prosecution team were not very good.
2. The judge was inexperienced and naive.
3. The prosecution overcharged their case.
4. The version of the accused could well be reasonably possibly true.

I struggle to believe that the prosecution team were not competent, and I know from Masipa's past that she is certainly not inexperienced or naive.

It is possible perhaps to argue that the prosecution could have handled a few things better, still what they did do should have been good enough to get Dolus directus comfortably. But once I go through the verdict document, it tells me that nothing would have been good enough. It is so incoherent and self-contradictory at places that even if OP had admitted to killing Reeva knowingly, the verdict would have probably read: `the witness was untruthful; I am not persuaded that the admission made by him can be entirely relied upon'!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I'm not sure where this presumption that Masipa is one to fall for court dramatics has come from? There's plenty of information that clearly shows the absolute opposite during her long career, indicating that a judge of her calibre isn't the slightest bit interested in anything of this nature. It rather demeans the professionalism of such people to suggest that something so petty would influence her verdict.

Steve, it would be great if you would like to further the discussion by proving JMasipa was NOT swayed by OP praying to god and his deep remorse shown after the killing and during the court because he had to relive the event and also, she believes he had GAD at the time he murdered Reeva. Maybe you could find where she said more to the contrary?

How do you know what J Masipa is interested in or is thinking? I know for a fact she is a deeply religious woman, I'm using her own words to validate what I'm saying, you're using emotional fueled language to express offence on her behalf. Why?

When a judge is beyond reproach it will be a sad day indeed.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

BIR - Did Roux actually say that in court? It sounds more like an answer given in response to a question from a reporter.

I'm searching Cherwell, will get back to you soon.

 

[Giles]

As you mention above, the prosecution were not required to pin the murder on an individual. This by nature should make the prosecutions task easier.

Their task didn't become easier in this trial, as they couldn't find sufficient incriminating flaws in the version of the accused.

Now, common sense tells us that since the best legal heads in the country of SA have spent countless months, weeks and hours on this case, and still could not provide enough weight of evidence to support their charge, only a few conclusions can be drawn :-

1. The prosecution team were not very good.
2. The judge was inexperienced and naive.
3. The prosecution overcharged their case.
4. The version of the accused could well be reasonably possibly true.

I struggle to believe that the prosecution team were not competent, and I know from Masipa's past that she is certainly not inexperienced or naive.

I agree.

1. I thought the prosecution did a good job, but I do think that a better job could have been done with their closing argument.

2. The judge seems perfectly competent to me.

3. I don't think the prosecution overcharged their case. They clearly believed fully that Oscar was guilty of murder. They only had the circumstantial evidence to go on and it clearly all pointed towards intentional murder.

4. The only person who needs to be convinced that the accused version could reasonably possibly be true is Judge Masipa (unless it goes to appeal) and it is a subjective decision. What is reasonably possible for one person may not be to another and in this instance she decided it was. She is best placed to make this judgement, having all the evidence at her disposal and also getting to see Oscar testify and look into his eyes. I can understand the Steenkamp's disappointment and anger however, the judgement was confusing and leaves too many questions unanswered...