Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[Mr Fossil]

I'm almost done re-watching OPs cross examination.

At least as I'm hearing it, when he was first recounting how he moved along the passage to the bathroom, he had previously said that it was pitch dark in the bedroom. When Nel asked how he could see where he was walking, OP said he was able to make out the bathtub(?), faintly because the bathroom was somewhat illuminated by ambient light coming in from the outside.

At a mid-point in OP's testimony, Nel pressed him hard about the light again and how it had been seen on. He asked OP who had turned it on. OP denied it was him and denied it was Reeva. Nel then gave him the old, "Well, if it wasn't you and it wasn't Reeva, who did turn it on? ...

On the final morning of OP's testimony (4/15), Nel asked him, again, who turned on the light. Now, without skipping a beat, he said Reeva did. Nel asked whether she turned it on before or after she went into the toilet. OP said it was before. Nel, asked him again to verify that's what he said, and OP said straight out, again, that Reeva had turned it on and it was before she went into the toilet.

Beyond being so confused that he didn't know what he was saying, if he was tailoring this story, too, it would have been in the wrong direction, would it not?

Anyway, re-watching this after such a long time and knowing what I know , now, OP's detailed inconsistencies are much easier for me to identify.

BIB Are you sure you aren't confusing this with when Nel asks who opened the bathroom window?

This is from the transcript for 15 April:

Nel: Mr Pistorius, the two things that I just want to go back to before we proceed from where we ended yesterday and that is, on your version, Mr Pistorius, the deceased must have opened the bathroom window.
OP: That is correct, M'Lady.
Nel: Now on your version, would she have done that before or after she has been to the toilet?
OP: Before, M'Lady.
Nel: Now, so she, on your version, she opened it, the door, before she went to the toilet.
OP: No, M'Lady.
Nel: Ag, no, after… let me say it again, I perhaps mis-… When did she open the window?
OP: She opened the window before she went to the toile, M'Lady.

From full transcript of OP's evidence in chief and cross examination

 

[Mr Fossil]

Manqoba Mchunu @ManqobaMchunu
#OscarPistorius: if successful the state can therefore appeal at the Supreme courts of Appeals in Bloemfontein. #SABCNews

#OscarPistorius: if unsuccessful the state can petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal President to overturn ruling. #SABCNews

#OscarPistorius: after hearing the arguments Masipa will again have to decide whether to grant the state leave to appeal or not.

#OscarPistorius: Masipa will also decide on a date in which the arguments will be heard. #SABCNews

#OscarPistorius Judge Thokozike Masipa is expected to hear the arguments for leave to appeal, as the presiding judge in the trial #SABCNews

https://twitter.com/ManqobaMchunu

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Barry Bateman retweetete
EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 34 Min. Vor 34 Minuten

#OscarPistorius The NPA is asking whether the court 'correctly applied the principles of Dolus Eventualis to the accepted facts'.
0 Antworten 18 Retweets 0 Favoriten
Barry Bateman retweetete
EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 36 Min. Vor 36 Minuten

#OscarPistorius NPA: 'Not enough emphasis was placed on the horrendous manner in which deceased died coupled with the gruesome injuries'.
0 Antworten 17 Retweets 2 Favoriten
Barry Bateman retweetete
EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 39 Min. Vor 39 Minuten

#OscarPistorius NPA argues that sentence is 'shockingly light, inappropriate and would not have been imposed by any reasonable court'.
0 Antworten 34 Retweets 4 Favoriten
Barry Bateman retweetete
EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 43 Min. Vor 43 Minuten

BREAKING The NPA has officially filed papers appealing the

 

[Deleted member 102539]

EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 9 Min. Vor 9 Minuten

#OscarPistorius NPA asking if court correctly looked at circumstantial evidence, OP's defences mutually destructive, plethora of defences.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Mr Fossil,

I know the toilet is a very, very small room. Mangena said Reeva was standing behind the door, the first round shattered her hip, the second ricocheted, the third hit her arm and the fourth her head. I’m not disputing anything Mangena said but just want to see if you think the following scenario is remotely possible with your timelines etc. Before going into that, you remember Roux told Mangena that OP did two double taps and Mangena said he can do it because he’s an expert but he very much doubted that it would be possible for OP. Later, (after hearing Mangena say that) OP denied it was double taps and blamed his counsel for that error. No way is that possible that Roux would make that up. OP had to have told him. Nel even said words to the effect, “Mr Roux wouldn’t say that. He’d jump up now and say something if what I’m saying is incorrect”.

I’ve always believed that there was an argument, they never went to sleep and that OP always had his prostheses on.

I can understand if Reeva’s standing behind the door that he can easily locate her by voice. However, once she falls back onto the magazine rack after that devastating injury – and I do believe she’d be screaming loudly at this point – what are the odds of OP being lucky enough for shots 3 and 4 to hit her, particularly the one to the head because it’s a small part of the body. At a shooting range he had a headshot score of 96% over 300m but he now he’s firing from one side of a closed door.

Is the following possible:

Reeva runs into the toilet and locks the door. OP chases after her, bat in hand.
He hits the bath plate, then possibly the wall. Reeva’s standing behind the door screaming.
He retrieves his gun from the bedroom.
He does one double tap, the first shot hitting her hip.
When Mangena was talking about the double taps he said the kickback would have changed the direction and been higher.
The second shot was higher, to the right and ricocheted. Could this be because he’s not an expert and can’t do a successful double tap? OP didn't consider B, C, and D a good grouping. C and D are very closely grouped whereas B is not that close to them.
He then uses the bat a second (or third) time to hit the door, and then kicks out the panel.
He takes aim, they can both see each other and she cries, “No, no, please no” and screams a blood-curdling scream. He shoots the third and fourth rounds.

 

[mirage1]

1. If anyone here came to the conclusion that this was dolus directus , I'd really appreciate knowing your reasoning, if you'd be willing to share.

1st reason is he knew it was reeva

Even if you believe his story, he still pointed and deliberately shot at someone behind a door 4 times, if that is that intent to kill then what the hell is? 10 shots? His excuse about aiming lower is laughable because 4 shots at any height is highly likely to kill.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

eNCA ‏@eNCAnews 10 Min.Vor 10 Minuten

State appeal on #OscarPistorius sentence: judge didn't take into account that OP fired 4 shots through toilet door, with "no room to escape"

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/141104NPA.pdf

The NPA's legal papers

 

[Deleted member 102539]

EWN Reporter ‏@ewnreporter 3 Min.Vor 3 Minuten

#OscarPistorius NPA says 'court did not discuss, accept or reject circumstantial evidence rendering the version of the accused impossible'.

 

[BritsKate]

http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/141104NPA.pdf

The NPA's legal papers

From your link, reasons for appeal:

- Sentence shockingly light.
- Judge did not consider (many factors) to include number of shots; type of ammunition; firearms training; and that Reeva was in a locked room with no chance of escape - bordering on dolus eventualis. (My note: I'd argue it's the bloody definition of DE, if not more. Bordering my left knee!)
- Judge over-emphasised personal circumstances of the accused and erred in considering anxiety, post traumatic stress, and potential remorse.
- Judge erred in over-emphasising rehabilitation and reformation at the cost of retribution.
- Not enough emphasis was placed on the horrendous manner in which the deceased died coupled with the gruesome injuries she sustained when the accused shot and killed her. (My personal fave.)
------------------------------------------------------

I am so grateful they're pursuing this.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Mr Fossil,

I know the toilet is a very, very small room. Mangena said Reeva was standing behind the door, the first round shattered her hip, the second ricocheted, the third hit her arm and the fourth her head. I’m not disputing anything Mangena said but just want to see if you think the following scenario is remotely possible with your timelines etc. Before going into that, you remember Roux told Mangena that OP did two double taps and Mangena said he can do it because he’s an expert but he very much doubted that it would be possible for OP. Later, (after hearing Mangena say that) OP denied it was double taps and blamed his counsel for that error. No way is that possible that Roux would make that up. OP had to have told him. Nel even said words to the effect, “Mr Roux wouldn’t say that. He’d jump up now and say something if what I’m saying is incorrect”.

I’ve always believed that there was an argument, they never went to sleep and that OP always had his prostheses on.

I can understand if Reeva’s standing behind the door that he can easily locate her by voice. However, once she falls back onto the magazine rack after that devastating injury – and I do believe she’d be screaming loudly at this point – what are the odds of OP being lucky enough for shots 3 and 4 to hit her, particularly the one to the head because it’s a small part of the body. At a shooting range he had a headshot score of 96% over 300m but he now he’s firing from one side of a closed door.

Is the following possible:

Reeva runs into the toilet and locks the door. OP chases after her, bat in hand.
He hits the bath plate, then possibly the wall. Reeva’s standing behind the door screaming.
He retrieves his gun from the bedroom.
He does one double tap, the first shot hitting her hip.
When Mangena was talking about the double taps he said the kickback would have changed the direction and been higher.
The second shot was higher, to the right and ricocheted. Could this be because he’s not an expert and can’t do a successful double tap? OP didn't consider B, C, and D a good grouping. C and D are very closely grouped whereas B is not that close to them.
He then uses the bat a second (or third) time to hit the door, and then kicks out the panel.
He takes aim, they can both see each other and she cries, “No, no, please no” and screams a blood-curdling scream. He shoots the third and fourth rounds.

Mangena says that it can't be a double tap because the second shot would have hit Reeva close to where the first shot hit her. He says there has to be a pause (which corresponds to what Burger and Johnson testified, without knowing the significance of the pause). Here's a summary from Juror13's blog:

Based on Reeva’s wounds, Mangena testifies that double taps would be impossible. All of her wounds would have been in one vicinity of the body based on how quickly those bullets would have been fired. She would not have had the single hip wound and then subsequent wounds in different locations from different angles. So there must have been a pause in between that first shot and the series of the next 3 shots. This aligns with the ear witnesses Burger and Johnson who heard an initial gunshot, then a pause, and then 3 more shots.

Also, in your scenario you've just kicked out the panel that shots C and D go through haven't you?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

http://journals.sfu.ca/jgcee/index.php/jgcee/article/view/103/163

Before the death of his girlfriend, Pistorius was involved in another shooting death on his property in which a man was killed. He was not charged, but rumors circulate that a friend took the heat for him, and that the shooting was racially motivated. These incidents were not discussed on LetsRun. As one participant on LetsRun admitted after the death of Reeva Steenkamp at Pistorius’s hands, “signs of [his] flaws and eventual demise were readily apparent long ago” but were ignored (not my real name, 2013).

OMG, there was already a killing before?? I didn't know.

OMG, FG! From your link, it was mentioned on this site, http://www.letsrun.com/ I assume anonymously, I wish someone could investigate.

 

[BritsKate]

As I'm re-watching Op's testimony, your question jogged my memory of two questions I'd like to ask.

1. If anyone here came to the conclusion that this was dolus directus , I'd really appreciate knowing your reasoning, if you'd be willing to share.

2. There was a discussion between Nel and OP about whether he intended to kill whoever was behind the door. He said no, that if he was trying to kill the intruder he would have shot much higher and to the right - near the door handle /lock, where someone would conceivably be standing if they were coming out to to "get him".

I think that all things indicate that Reeva was standing up facing the door when she was first shot. If OP knew that - or didn't - why DID he / WOULD he aim low and to the middle?

Thanks, in advance, for replies to both questions.

Screams. Dolus directus. I have always believed the ear witnesses and thus, have always believed OP knowingly and deliberately targeted Reeva.

I could sit here all day and hypothesize how I might kill someone. I could even plan it. But no one knows until they are in that moment what will happen. What if you slip? What if the victim screams? Fights back? There are just too many variables to consider. I do know OP is not the first convicted killer to claim innocence on the basis if they intended to kill someone, they'd have done it 'better'.

At the end of it, using the ammunition he was, any one of her wounds had lethal potential.

 

[patCee]

From your link, reasons for appeal:

- Sentence shockingly light.
- Judge did not consider (many factors) to include number of shots; type of ammunition; firearms training; and that Reeva was in a locked room with no chance of escape - bordering on dolus eventualis. (My note: I'd argue it's the bloody definition of DE, if not more. Bordering my left knee!)
- Judge over-emphasised personal circumstances of the accused and erred in considering anxiety, post traumatic stress, and potential remorse.
- Judge erred in over-emphasising rehabilitation and reformation at the cost of retribution.
- Not enough emphasis was placed on the horrendous manner in which the deceased died coupled with the gruesome injuries she sustained when the accused shot and killed her. (My personal fave.)
------------------------------------------------------

I am so grateful they're pursuing this.

Bordering on DE also stood out to me in a couple of places. I'm glad they referred to his awareness a ricochet could hit him and placed himself accordingly before shooting. Bordering on premeditation?

 

[Val1]

I'm still amazed at how two people were supposedly able to leave a bed looking like only one person had spent any time on it...


Or how someone would leave something like this out while claiming to be sooo in love with someone else, heck even if just dating someone you don't leave pics of "ex" gf's on display, it's called respect. Methinks that call to this "ex" as OP was entering the complex had quite a bit to do with what happened later that night.


Also, why would anyone keep a cheque like this on their kitchen counter? Weren't the London games months before or was this just a display copy(trophy)?


Or how anyone, let alone a judge, could possibly think that shots like this weren't meant to hit someone sitting on the loo....


Pics thanks to http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/

 

[Deleted member 102539]

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/otherspor...ic-medals-after-steriod-claims-in-muder-trial........... (doesn't work?, please do a search)

Oscar Pistorius could lose London 2012 Paralympic medals after steriod claims in murder trial

Pistorius, who has been charged with the premeditated murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, faces the additional ignominy of having his Paralympic world records annulled and having to return his London 2012 Paralympic medals if evidence is given during his trial that he was taking steroids before or during the London Games.

The World Anti-Doping Agency said that it would allow the criminal proceedings to run their course rather than open an immediate case against him.

“Wada is aware of the newspaper reports suggesting that steroids were found at the home of Oscar Pistorius,” Wada said in a statement to Telegraph Sport. “As this is a police matter, Wada and the South Africa Institute for Drug-Free Sport must work appropriately with the police. Bearing in mind the ongoing police investigation, Wada must refrain from making any statement at present.”

It is standard procedure for Wada and other anti-doping agencies to wait for a criminal investigation to finish before they take formal action, although evidence presented in the Pistorius trial could be used in a sports hearing.

That's reason enough for SA ............. I know, you understand.

 

[Val1]

OMG, FG! From your link, it was mentioned on this site, http://www.letsrun.com/ I assume anonymously, I wish someone could investigate.

Wouldn't Nel be able to find something like that out? Surely any deaths at that location couldn't have been scrubbed too? Though that would probably be why Roux was looking so smug after that cop testified about what little crime that complex had had.... that's when that info should have come out if it's true. I wonder who the friend was that was supposed to have taken the fall for him that time?

 

[JudgeJudi]

http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/141104NPA.pdf

The NPA's legal papers

I just love it, all of it. Conviction, sentence AND the unlawful possession of the ammunition is in.


As LIGHT destroy DARKNESS TRUTH will destroy the EVIL


Let's all have a :toast: and hope that the :scale: of justice will now favour Reeva.

We can now sit back and wait for the :fireworks: to start.

 

[lithgow1]

Thanks for the tweets peoples - IMO the appeal is nicely hard-hitting in its wording, such as 'NPA asks should a court '"trawl through a plethora of defences and pick one for the accused" or rather reject his evidence' and 'NPA also asking why Masipa dismissed the circumstantial evidence in the case and how she could have relied on OP's version'.

I'm very pleased to see that they are asking the same questions that are asked here and similarly, the tone borders on the incredulous.

 

[cottonweaver]

As I'm re-watching Op's testimony, your question jogged my memory of two questions I'd like to ask.

1. If anyone here came to the conclusion that this was dolus directus , I'd really appreciate knowing your reasoning, if you'd be willing to share.

2. There was a discussion between Nel and OP about whether he intended to kill whoever was behind the door. He said no, that if he was trying to kill the intruder he would have shot much higher and to the right - near the door handle /lock, where someone would conceivably be standing if they were coming out to to "get him".

I think that all things indicate that Reeva was standing up facing the door when she was first shot. If OP knew that - or didn't - why DID he / WOULD he aim low and to the middle?

Thanks, in advance, for replies to both questions.

BIB Nick van der leek's theory* was that he aimed at that height because she had her phone in her hand and was threatening to call the place, thus an initial aim at the phone, in rage, to stop her.

It's a very good question. Why mid point shots? As posted previously, some trained gun users say when a target is not visible that a mid shot "covers" many eventualities - ie. in case a person is crouching, sitting - I dunno if that is the case here. However I do think, training kicks in even in a rage-filled impulsive person.

But I have always thought that she was either trying to placate him OR simply listening to what he was up to/gauging his position from behind that door, hence her facing it. I don't think she knew he had a gun aimed on it even if he verbally threatened her of that OR was really about to shoot because she would have not been front frontal on door, too exposed. Naturally I think she was terrified.

( Of course Leek's theory means, she had her phone with her and that she likely locked that door herself because he could have got in there and taken the phone off her. He was a strong guy.)

I still feel that he was aiming from that angle, instead of himself aiming directly at that door, face on, because he did not want to give away his position and reveal that indeed he had the gun trained on her.

If indeed she had locked that door maybe it could be firing towards the lock in anger? Not convinced about that one but just saying...
and even if that were true he would know he would hit her and with that ammo, do lethal damage. (ie. Not saying he was just trying to fire lock out)

It's in one of his earlier books*, pre collaborations with Lisa Juror 13 that I downloaded months ago - will try and find excerpt later and paraphrase it- still packing up for a house move here so apologies for likely delay. Websleuths is providing great displacement activity!