Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[mrjitty]

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.

By international standards Masipa is quite inexperienced for a High Court Judge - let alone one handling a case of this complexity.

Indeed in NZ, it would be Nel & Roux who have the experience level to be appointed to the High Court bench.

She has only 7 years experience as an advocate. No decent experience as a prosecutor. Certainly never attained QC level.

In NZ she would not even be appointed to the District Court so soon.

 

[Cherwell]

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.

Indeed, but I found it odd that he was not mentioned at all (I don't count Carice). And it's downright disturbing that his presence was actually denied in court - that is, it was clearly stated that only OP and RS were in the house, and nobody else. This appeared to be common cause.

Surely they could have obtained a written statement from Frank which could have been submitted to the court, thus putting his presence into evidence. We have all drawn our own conclusions as to how he could possibly have been there and yet insist he heard nothing.

 

[mrjitty]

Of course his presence is in evidence.

He just did not testify.

It would be completely appropriate for the Judge to say he was there but no conclusions can be drawn because he did not give evidence.

But you can't airbrush him from existence!

 

[Cherwell]

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.

By international standards Masipa is quite inexperienced for a High Court Judge - let alone one handling a case of this complexity.

Indeed in NZ, it would be Nel & Roux who have the experience level to be appointed to the High Court bench.

She has only 7 years experience as an advocate. No decent experience as a prosecutor. Certainly never attained QC level.

In NZ she would not even be appointed to the District Court so soon.

I agree with mrjitty. I was dumbfounded and then appalled when I realised how very little legal experience Masipa actually had.

 

[lithgow1]

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...

Trouble for me Giles is that yes she had all the evidence at her disposal but seemed to take a very 'pick and mix' attitude towards it, disregarding strong ballistic and pathology evidence without providing an explanation as to why she chose to do that. Forget the civilian witnesses but what about Cpt Mangena and Prof Saayman? I am also still very disquieted at her bald, bold statement that OP's distress after the event meant he could never have intended to shoot Reeva Steenkamp. I asked SteveML about this a day or two ago but have yet to hear back but it doesn't matter really - no explanation, including one from the judge herself, would convince me that such a conclusion is not naive in the extreme given so many cases in the past when distraught people, weeping on TV and emotionally appealing to the public, have turned out to be cold calculating killers.

 

[Giles]

Trouble for me Giles is that yes she had all the evidence at her disposal but seemed to take a very 'pick and mix' attitude towards it, disregarding strong ballistic and pathology evidence without providing an explanation as to why she chose to do that. Forget the civilian witnesses but what about Cpt Mangena and Prof Saayman? I am also still very disquieted at her bald, bold statement that OP's distress after the event meant he could never have intended to shoot Reeva Steenkamp. I asked SteveML about this a day or two ago but have yet to hear back but it doesn't matter really - no explanation, including one from the judge herself, would convince me that such a conclusion is not naive in the extreme given so many cases in the past when distraught people, weeping on TV and emotionally appealing to the public, have turned out to be cold calculating killers.

I found the judge's dismissal of all the states expert witnesses quite alarming, especially (as you mention) Professor Saayman and Captain Mangena. Captain Mangena was certain that Oscar couldn't have been shot in quick succession, and yet somehow the judge dismissed this without comment.

Yes, I saw quite a disturbing documentary recently where killers were seen weeping on tv and appealing to the public for information etc. before they were caught. It's a shame we didn't get to see Oscar testify - there were reporters in court who said his emotions seemed fake as there were no tears when he was breaking down.

 

[AW2B]

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.

BRBM

It would be the only logical conclusion she can reach AFTER she ignores/discounts the evidence that REFUTES that conclusion!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I'm sorry to everyone for repeating what many have you have posted before, but here we go, J Masipa's sentimental comment about Oscar Pistorius. What else is it, if not sentiment? Was it fair?

Oscar Pistorius’s sensational murder trial has been put on hold until June 30, and he has to report Monday to a Pretoria mental institution.

But unlike a lot of the other patients, Pistorius won’t be spending the night in the forbidding hospital.

Saying she doesn’t want to “punish him twice,” Judge Thokozile Masipa broke with precedent Tuesday and allowed the disabled South African sprinter to be treated as an outpatient during his 30-day evaluation.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...al-30-day-mental-assessment-article-1.1798846

 

[jay-jay]

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”?

~rsbm~

.. mind you, I think there might be a whiff of truth in Pistorius saying there was an intruder .. i.e Reeva .. she suddenly became an intruder in his house, after a huge fight and probably why it was so easy for him to come up with the intruder word (although that one would've been pretty easy for a pathological liar like him to think up on the spot anyway).

 

[PrimeSuspect]

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

You're right, I can't find any evidence of Roux mentioning Frank in any shape or form. There is just Carise and Wolmarans account of meeting Frank on their arrival at separate occasions.

Surely the assessors could have asked? :banghead:

 

[cottonweaver]

That is precisely why I was so happy when the graphic analysis I did of the timeline (based simply on call data and witness testimony) before the HOAs were out proved it could not have been Reeva screaming and therefore could only have been OP.

Because I can't think of anything worse than living the rest of my life believing the State's version, i.e. that for some FIFTEEN minutes (from 3:02 aprox per the State's HOAs based on Stipp's 2-3 min fast clock up until AFTER 3:17, per the State's HOAs based on Johnson's 3:16+58 second call) my daughter, according to the State's version, would have been screaming, terrified and petrified and in fear of her life and out of her mind. And if Reeva's parents don't come to realise that the Stipps timings must be wrong and the timeline proves they are, then her parents will have to live and die believing the State's version, i.e. that despite hearing shots and a woman's terrified and petrified screams, the Stipps took some 12 minutes before calling for help when had they called security within ONE, or at the very most TWO minutes of first hearing the screams Reeva could well be alive today. I mean, compare the Stipp's actions with those of Johnson and Burger who called security within 4-5 mins of hearing a woman screaming and they hadn't even heard shots. Or even worse, compare the Stipps with Mr Nhlengethwa who called security within FIFTEEN to TWENTY SECONDS of only hearing a man crying, no shots, just a man crying. That is a good neighbour not the Stipps. I personally would never forgive the Stipps even though Dr Stipp later went to see if he could help but by then, after waiting TWELVE minutes listening to my daughter screaming for her life before calling for help I would have to say that was just too little too late. jmho.

Respectfully G.bng, I read all those posts in the threads concerning that and wasn't AJDS disputing the facts that you had based your timeline on.
Correct me if I'm wrong or I can go back and re-read them.

 

[akp]

The situation vis-s-vis Frank reminds me of zugzwang in chess: normally making a move is advantageous, you can attack, you can defend etc. But in certain situations a player's position becomes worse because he/she has to make a move.
It is the same here - none of the two, PT or DT, want to make the first move involving Frank.

 

[AW2B]

I'm sorry to everyone for repeating what many have you have posted before, but here we go, J Masipa's sentimental comment about Oscar Pistorius. What else is it, if not sentiment? Was it fair?

Oscar Pistorius’s sensational murder trial has been put on hold until June 30, and he has to report Monday to a Pretoria mental institution.

But unlike a lot of the other patients, Pistorius won’t be spending the night in the forbidding hospital.

Saying she doesn’t want to “punish him twice,” Judge Thokozile Masipa broke with precedent Tuesday and allowed the disabled South African sprinter to be treated as an outpatient during his 30-day evaluation.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...al-30-day-mental-assessment-article-1.1798846

"punish him twice"!!!

She's definitely biased! That was before the verdict...was she anticipating to find him guilty? So what other punishment she was referring to? To stand trial?

 

[jay-jay]

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.

Why would Pistorius be screaming for his life, though? Blood-curdling screams, screams which became more intense, screams which reached a climax just before shots were heard (Bang ... bang, bang, bang shots .. which match up perfectly with Mangena's expert findings). Answer: he wouldn't be .. he might very well have been wailing, crying, shouting, but there is no way on this earth that he would've been screaming blue murder. That was Reeva.

 

[lithgow1]

I found this article interesting, coming as it does from a slightly different angle:

http://www.biznews.com/health/2014/04/oscar-pistorius-reason-not-guilty-murder/

 

[cottonweaver]

By international standards Masipa is quite inexperienced for a High Court Judge - let alone one handling a case of this complexity.

Indeed in NZ, it would be Nel & Roux who have the experience level to be appointed to the High Court bench.

She has only 7 years experience as an advocate. No decent experience as a prosecutor. Certainly never attained QC level.

In NZ she would not even be appointed to the District Court so soon.

Thanks mrjitty. This is very interesting to me - I would have liked to have known this pre-trial. Do you have any link where I can read more about this?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I found this article interesting, coming as it does from a slightly different angle:

http://www.biznews.com/health/2014/04/oscar-pistorius-reason-not-guilty-murder/

Excellent article, if it wasn't such a serious topic, it would be comedic. The trigger pulled his finger and the love of weapons made him like the Manchurian Candidate. And at the end of the day, all the things that didn't matter in the final verdict, but should have.

 

[foxbluff]

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

I know what you mean about Frank, however, I don't think it was a mistake by the Judge as it was common cause that there were only two people in the house that night.

 

[mirage1]

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

did you watch the trial? Nel tore Oscars version to shreds. The most incriminating flaw was the fan, duvet, curtains , photo evidence which contradicted oscars version.

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks mrjitty. This is very interesting to me - I would have liked to have known this pre-trial. Do you have any link where I can read more about this?

Hi

You can see the list here - click on the names for their profiles - I had a look over all the ones appointed in recent years.

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/high/judges/

You've got silks, former deputy solicitor general, law society presidents, former prosecutors. Generally 20yrs experience at least. Usually a partner in their firm.

A Judge career track amongst the partners I knew was to have the big successful career at the firm, then maybe jump out as a barrister, try to get your silk and then angle for the bench

Of course it depends a bit if you were commercial, criminal etc.

This guy I knew - check out his CV - it is epic.

His career as a partner at RMac alone was legendary (NZs top firm) - so that is what you are up against to become a High Court Judge.

Justice SK graduated LLB (Hons) from Victoria University in 1981 (winning the Chapman Tripp Centenary Prize for his graduating year) and LLM from Cambridge University in 1985. He was a junior lecturer in law at Victoria University 1980-82, a partner in the Wellington firm Perry Wylie Pope & Page 1985-88, and a litigation partner at Russell McVeagh 1988-2005. He was chairman of partners of that firm 2003-05. Justice K joined the independent bar in 2005, and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2007. He was one of the founding members of Stout Street Chambers in Wellington. He had a wide trial and appellate practice in commercial, contract, equity, competition, environmental and public law litigation. At the time of his appointment Justice K was also the Pro-Chancellor of Massey University, Honorary Lecturer in Law at Victoria University and Chairman of the New Zealand Markets Disciplinary Tribunal, the stock exchange disciplinary tribunal. He was appointed to the High Court in April 2011 and sits in Wellington.