It's oh so quiet. Shhh. Shhh. It's oh so still. Shhh. Shhh.
You're all alone. Shhh. Shhh. And so peaceful until....
Its going to get very noisy in here when it dawns that things are not going to change for OP and further blame will be heaped on the SA judiciary. Incompetence, bribery and corruption. Oh deary me.
I never cease to be amazed at what Pistorius’ siblings put on their Twitter pages.
This little gem from Aimee Pistorius……..
An old Cherokee told his grandson, ‘My son there is a battle between two wolves inside us all’
One is Evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, ego and lies.
The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness, empathy and truth.
The boy thought about it, then asked his grandfather which wolf wins in the end.
The old man replied, ‘It is the one you feed.’
Now I wonder which wolf she thinks brother Oscar has been feeding.
Do you think she should be told
Oh my...I think Aimee knows. An interesting quote.
Its going to get very noisy in here when it dawns that things are not going to change for OP and further blame will be heaped on the SA judiciary. Incompetence, bribery and corruption. Oh deary me.
Interesting phrase
I assume you mean in your opinion the SCA are going to dismiss the appeal and conclude Masipa’s judgment was correct?
Yeh and it's a shame Nel didnt make a point that the text messages that day show Reeva tactfully telling Oscar she did not want to be at his, but he kept persuading her. I suspect Oscar told her how nasty this Memmory girl was being to him and I wonder with the issues Reeva had with him she was wondering hmmm what's he really like, also with the speech where she was recalling times with an abusive boyfriend I wonder if he made some comment and lightbulb went off in her head and she saw this was an abusive relationship and answered back and it escalated?
Add all their issues from before and that there was no valentines gift from oscar and with babyshoes in the picture, you have so many reasons for there to be an argument.
Yes, seems she wasn't looking to go or then stay, slighly different slant. Question is why did Oscar want her there? He had no Card or Present, somewhat telling at any level you want to view it. Without looking it up again, my understanding is that she arrived before him, there was no food and she made a trip to the Supermarket. This raises other questions, did he decide during the day that he had now some "pressing" reason to see her? His life style? What did Frank do all day there exactly?
It's been talked through before about all the things likely to be coming to a head. Some believe that she had decided to call it a day and was now taking onboard all the warnings to her career and his controlling behaviour. Her Valentines Card was to have been left for the morning as she was intending not to stay. The picture / photo present was likely to have been sorted much earlier. The latter perhaps a little dig on what he had lost and as he likes to keep photos up of his Babyshoes?
What is it with Pistorius and nicknames for his string of girlfriends?
Jenna Edkins was ‘babyshoes', Reeva was ‘baba’ Samantha Tayler was ‘little butterfly’ and no doubt others
Some may consider he was ‘putting his mark’ on them with what could be construed as ‘undignified’ names
I did think Nel was going down this route at one time when he asked Van Zyl about Pistorius’ pet names for his girlfriends.
Many people give pet names to partners so its difficult to read to much into that. Perhaps someone might know it there is significance to "Babyshoes", what it might refer to etc. Small feet? More of interest obviously was the fact she was on the phone to him for 9 mins before arriving that evening, Perhaps the last female to speak to him and someone very close, a confidant. Was she advising, egging on, or trying to calm him down?
Many people give pet names to partners so its difficult to read to much into that. Perhaps someone might know it there is significance to "Babyshoes", what it might refer to etc. Small feet? More of interest obviously was the fact she was on the phone to him for 9 mins before arriving that evening, Perhaps the last female to speak to him and someone very close, a confidant. Was she advising, egging on, or trying to calm him down?
In a statement issued on Wednesday night, the Pistorius family says they are not aware of any deletions on the athlete’s phone that could have affected the trial.
How could they be aware of any affect or otherwise if it had been deleted or did Carl tell the ‘family’ that he had deleted some stuff from Oscar’s phone that he nicked from the house but not to worry as it’s not anything that could affect the trial
You couldn't make this stuff up...........well unless your name is Oscar and he has a degree in 'make believe'.
I'm wondering if the SCA will treat his evidence as having no value, not because he was a poor witness but because he is not likely to admit culpability, to decide the case on the objective evidence.
I'm wondering if the SCA will treat his evidence as having no value, not because he was a poor witness but because he is not likely to admit culpability, to decide the case on the objective evidence.
It's a fact if the court accepts it as such.
If the rule is that all accused will lie to help themselves then no one will ever be found not guilty.
I'm wondering if the SCA will treat his evidence as having no value, not because he was a poor witness but because he is not likely to admit culpability, to decide the case on the objective evidence.
The problem the SCA has to grapple with is it is Masipa’s factual finding that she found some of his evidence ‘reliable’ whilst also making a finding he was an ‘unreliable witness’
This should never have happened as has been pointed out numerous times
The problem the SCA has to grapple with is it is Masipa’s factual finding that she found some of his evidence ‘reliable’ whilst also making a finding he was an ‘unreliable witness’
This should never have happened as has been pointed out numerous times
Of course she did not and would never have said this.
Of course she did not and would never have said this.
She said he was a 'very poor witness', an 'evasive witness' and 'contradicted himself'.
A very poor and evasive witness is an unreliable witness.
She also said he seemed more concerned about the impact his answers to the questions might cause, and that when confronted with contradictions he often blamed his legal team.
She went on to say that usually 'untruthful evidence' in an accused is 'of importance' when a court determines guilt or innocence, but just because the accused is 'untruthful' doesn't mean he is 'probably guilty'.
In other words, she was saying he gave 'untruthful evidence' too.
Christa, thanks for posting the link to the interview with Cassidy Taylor-Memmory! I had never seen that before. I agree with Flashfiction that it is revealing how Cassidy does not comment about those last questions. I don't have much legal knowledge but I am guessing that perhaps Cassidy can't speak on certain subjects even if she wanted to, for legal reasons. And I suspect another reason that she has been quiet is because of the harrassment, threats and abuse she got from "the media and public" since she first made the allegations against OP. We all know how deranged some of OP's hardcore supporters can be, and who knows what they could have threatened her with? >:( And OP's family/representatives could have said all kinds of things to Cassidy too. Before OP killed Reeva, he had such a 'heroic' reputation and money to win most legal cases easily- and to ruin the reputation of someone who spoke out against him. And I don't know what resources Cassidy had to fight OP in court. Maybe Cassidy got tired of it all as she felt she would never get proper justice as she was up against such a powerful enemy.
While I don't think that OP injured Cassidy on purpose, his reaction to the incident speaks volumes. I think if you injure someone at your house by accident then it's up to you to take responsibility and get help for them, even if it's a person you don't like!
Plankwalker, you raise another interesting point, about OP wanting to keep Reeva at the house. This mirrors the situation over New Year 2012/2013 when OP told Reeva to stay at his house while he went off to Cape Town (and according to Reeva's friend Kristin, Reeva told her that OP would freak out if any male friends of theirs came over to the house- OP expected Reeva to either be completely on her own, or just have female friends over).
It is actually a very common tactic of abusive men to want to know where their partner is all the time if the abuser goes away. And a lot of abusers have a double standard where they can go away and cheat and do whatever they like, but they would freak out at the very thought of another man getting anywhere near their partner. In Mandy Thomas's book You Can't Run, which is about a long abusive relationship she was in, she described how her ex would often leave for long periods of time (she later found out that he had FIVE children by another woman who he was seeing at the same time he was with her) but would ask Mandy's neighbours to spy on her because he didn't want her leaving the flat (unless it was to take their children to school). And if he found out that she'd been out while he was away, or even had taken longer than usual taking the kids to school, he would beat her when he returned. >:( I have heard so many similar stories from other women about this kind of behaviour and also experienced it myself in the abusive relationship I was in. My ex went abroad for a short time to stay with some relatives, and during that time, he called my house and I wasn't there. Then the next time he called and I did answer the phone, he went berserk, screaming at me and accusing me (with no proof whatsoever) of having an affair with his brother! And actually, I remember now, he had originally wanted me to stay at his flat while he was away, but I said I couldn't because his flat was too far away from the college where I was studying at the time. Thankfully I persuaded him and he let me stay at my own house, although he wasn't happy about it!
In the STaylor book, mother recounts how Sam had to provide selfies photographing the background to prove where she was all the time, whilst they were dating. !!
I did download the book a year or so ago, but can't find it at the moment.
She said he was a 'very poor witness', an 'evasive witness' and 'contradicted himself'.
A very poor and evasive witness is an unreliable witness.
She also said he seemed more concerned about the impact his answers to the questions might cause, and that when confronted with contradictions he often blamed his legal team.
She went on to say that usually 'untruthful evidence' in an accused is 'of importance' when a court determines guilt or innocence, but just because the accused is 'untruthful' doesn't mean he is 'probably guilty'.
In other words, she was saying he gave 'untruthful evidence' too.
In my opinion one could concluded quite safety he was definitely not a ‘well trousered’ chap at all.
In some circles he would qualify as an absolute bounder yet despite that some still chose to believe his ‘intruder’ story.
Its going to get very noisy in here when it dawns that things are not going to change for OP and further blame will be heaped on the SA judiciary. Incompetence, bribery and corruption. Oh deary me.
They can't leave 4 bullets as accidental or an act of negligence on the law books, especially with no threat to his life or actual intent to defend found in his evidence.
Would be murderers everywhere will think all they have to do is bung their missus in a cupboard, open a window, fake a bit of fear and hey presto - a slap on the wrist.
Here’s an interesting parallel about what should be done in the event of a person judged to be lying in court
Former Conservative MP Tim Yeo has lost his libel case against The Sunday Times over a "cash for advocacy" claim.
In the High Court, Judge Mr Justice Warby said he found some of Mr Yeo's evidence "utterly implausible" and, overall, he did not present "convincingly".
"I can think of none who convincingly claim to have no interest in money, yet end up with an annual income in excess of £200,000," the judge said.
"I do not consider that Mr Yeo is such a person. In my judgment this evidence was untrue.
"I am not persuaded that it was honest either."
Mr Justice Warby said he was also unable to accept Mr Yeo's evidence that he was unable to remember an email which mentioned a "generous remuneration package".
The case was dismissed.
Lessons there for Masipa on how to deal with the evidence of persons judged to be lying under oath
If the rule is that all accused will lie to help themselves then no one will ever be found not guilty.
Question of degree porky
There is an obvious expectation that a person should tell the truth under oath.
Of course that doesn’t always happen, small distortions of the truth creep in and a lot of the time, if noticed of course, they are factored into the final deliberations.
However, when a person like Pistorius continually lies to the extent it becomes an insult to one’s intelligence then it’s a different matter.
At that point the whole of the evidence should be dismissed.
There is an obvious expectation that a person should tell the truth under oath.
Of course that doesn’t always happen, small distortions of the truth creep in and a lot of the time, if noticed of course, they are factored into the final deliberations.
However, when a person like Pistorius continually lies to the extent it becomes an insult to one’s intelligence then it’s a different matter.
At that point the whole of the evidence should be dismissed.
'continually lies ' is a bit of an embellishment of what Masipa actually found.
You obviously don't believe he was in fear of his life but Masipa did and that remains a fact found from the trial. If someone kills in (mistaken) self defence then that is direct intent. But in the case of the direct intent against the intruder it is intent without the perceived unlawfulness. If you are scared for your life and you shoot to kill you are intending to save your own life. Are you suggesting that you have to start worrying about unlawfulness in that situation, because if you are then no one would ever be able to legally defend themselves.
You absolutely do have to worry about lawfulness when you discharge a lethal weapon at another human being. Your actions have to be justifiable under the laws of self-defense. It is not enough to simply claim "I thought I was in danger of my life" and therefore legitimately think that you would be entitled to use lethal force no matter what the circumstances. As a licensed firearms owner, he knew the laws of self defense fully well.
Various requirements must be met before the defensive act will be considered lawful.
The attack must be:
commenced or imminent;
against a legally recognised interest; and unlawful.
The action made in defence must be:
necessary to avert the attack;
reasonable in terms of the amount of force used; and
directed against the attacker.
Thus, the action taken must be in response to a currently pending aggressive action, and the law specifically rules out any action being taken, on the one hand, pre-emptively or, on the other, in ‘revenge’.
And as Masipa herself admitted:
The court is however entitled to look at the evidence as a whole and the circumstances of the case to determine the presence or absence of intention at the time of the incident.
Try this (using Masipa's judgment only substituting the words "an unidentified human" where she used "the deceased" with reference to Reeva. From p. 3327 of her judgment):
I now deal with dolus eventualis or legal intent. The question is:
1. Did the accused subjectively foresee that it could be I]an unidentified human[/I
behind the toilet door and
2. Notwithstanding the foresight did he then fire the shots, thereby
reconciling himself to the possibility that it could be I]an unidentified human[/I in
the toilet.
Now ask yourself this question and after removing the deceased (Reeva's) identity from the equation-- do you still agree with her that the answer has to be no??:
The question is: Did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant death, yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the circumstances of this case the answer has to be no. (From p. 3328 of her judgment.)
This looks to me like an error in logic and in the application of the test for Dolus eventualis. I will wager that is what it will look like to the SCA as well.
It does not matter that she accepted he lacked DIRECT INTENT to kill the intruder because he was in fear for his life-- that is why she ruled out Dolus directus toward the intruder.
But she should have applied the test for Dolus eventualis toward the intruder as well-- it is a different standard or form of intent than DD and is not redundant to consider it. Instead she only applied the tests for DE toward the "deceased" or Reeva.
Comments
Its going to get very noisy in here when it dawns that things are not going to change for OP and further blame will be heaped on the SA judiciary. Incompetence, bribery and corruption. Oh deary me.
Oh my...I think Aimee knows. An interesting quote.
Interesting phrase
I assume you mean in your opinion the SCA are going to dismiss the appeal and conclude Masipa’s judgment was correct?
Have you recently seen any flying pigs porky?
Yes, seems she wasn't looking to go or then stay, slighly different slant. Question is why did Oscar want her there? He had no Card or Present, somewhat telling at any level you want to view it. Without looking it up again, my understanding is that she arrived before him, there was no food and she made a trip to the Supermarket. This raises other questions, did he decide during the day that he had now some "pressing" reason to see her? His life style? What did Frank do all day there exactly?
It's been talked through before about all the things likely to be coming to a head. Some believe that she had decided to call it a day and was now taking onboard all the warnings to her career and his controlling behaviour. Her Valentines Card was to have been left for the morning as she was intending not to stay. The picture / photo present was likely to have been sorted much earlier. The latter perhaps a little dig on what he had lost and as he likes to keep photos up of his Babyshoes?
What is it with Pistorius and nicknames for his string of girlfriends?
Jenna Edkins was ‘babyshoes', Reeva was ‘baba’ Samantha Tayler was ‘little butterfly’ and no doubt others
Some may consider he was ‘putting his mark’ on them with what could be construed as ‘undignified’ names
I did think Nel was going down this route at one time when he asked Van Zyl about Pistorius’ pet names for his girlfriends.
Many people give pet names to partners so its difficult to read to much into that. Perhaps someone might know it there is significance to "Babyshoes", what it might refer to etc. Small feet? More of interest obviously was the fact she was on the phone to him for 9 mins before arriving that evening, Perhaps the last female to speak to him and someone very close, a confidant. Was she advising, egging on, or trying to calm him down?
http://ewn.co.za/2014/10/02/pistorius-the-hulk-and-babyshoes-what-the-court-didnt-hear
Can the word of a defendant be construed as a factual finding?
From the article….
In a statement issued on Wednesday night, the Pistorius family says they are not aware of any deletions on the athlete’s phone that could have affected the trial.
How could they be aware of any affect or otherwise if it had been deleted or did Carl tell the ‘family’ that he had deleted some stuff from Oscar’s phone that he nicked from the house but not to worry as it’s not anything that could affect the trial
You couldn't make this stuff up...........well unless your name is Oscar and he has a degree in 'make believe'.
I tried to reply to this and I ended up on a thread about de registering
It's a serious question.
Is it fact?
I'm wondering if the SCA will treat his evidence as having no value, not because he was a poor witness but because he is not likely to admit culpability, to decide the case on the objective evidence.
It's a fact if the court accepts it as such.
If the rule is that all accused will lie to help themselves then no one will ever be found not guilty.
The problem the SCA has to grapple with is it is Masipa’s factual finding that she found some of his evidence ‘reliable’ whilst also making a finding he was an ‘unreliable witness’
This should never have happened as has been pointed out numerous times
Of course she did not and would never have said this.
Well if you want her exact words….
He was not truthful when asked about his intention that morning…..the accused was clearly not candid with the court
I reckon that’s close enough to being unreliable, don’t you?
She said he was a 'very poor witness', an 'evasive witness' and 'contradicted himself'.
A very poor and evasive witness is an unreliable witness.
She also said he seemed more concerned about the impact his answers to the questions might cause, and that when confronted with contradictions he often blamed his legal team.
She went on to say that usually 'untruthful evidence' in an accused is 'of importance' when a court determines guilt or innocence, but just because the accused is 'untruthful' doesn't mean he is 'probably guilty'.
In other words, she was saying he gave 'untruthful evidence' too.
While I don't think that OP injured Cassidy on purpose, his reaction to the incident speaks volumes. I think if you injure someone at your house by accident then it's up to you to take responsibility and get help for them, even if it's a person you don't like!
Plankwalker, you raise another interesting point, about OP wanting to keep Reeva at the house. This mirrors the situation over New Year 2012/2013 when OP told Reeva to stay at his house while he went off to Cape Town (and according to Reeva's friend Kristin, Reeva told her that OP would freak out if any male friends of theirs came over to the house- OP expected Reeva to either be completely on her own, or just have female friends over).
It is actually a very common tactic of abusive men to want to know where their partner is all the time if the abuser goes away. And a lot of abusers have a double standard where they can go away and cheat and do whatever they like, but they would freak out at the very thought of another man getting anywhere near their partner. In Mandy Thomas's book You Can't Run, which is about a long abusive relationship she was in, she described how her ex would often leave for long periods of time (she later found out that he had FIVE children by another woman who he was seeing at the same time he was with her) but would ask Mandy's neighbours to spy on her because he didn't want her leaving the flat (unless it was to take their children to school). And if he found out that she'd been out while he was away, or even had taken longer than usual taking the kids to school, he would beat her when he returned. >:( I have heard so many similar stories from other women about this kind of behaviour and also experienced it myself in the abusive relationship I was in. My ex went abroad for a short time to stay with some relatives, and during that time, he called my house and I wasn't there. Then the next time he called and I did answer the phone, he went berserk, screaming at me and accusing me (with no proof whatsoever) of having an affair with his brother!
Basically, these tactics are all about CONTROL!!
In the STaylor book, mother recounts how Sam had to provide selfies photographing the background to prove where she was all the time, whilst they were dating. !!
I did download the book a year or so ago, but can't find it at the moment.
In my opinion one could concluded quite safety he was definitely not a ‘well trousered’ chap at all.
In some circles he would qualify as an absolute bounder yet despite that some still chose to believe his ‘intruder’ story.
They can't leave 4 bullets as accidental or an act of negligence on the law books, especially with no threat to his life or actual intent to defend found in his evidence.
Would be murderers everywhere will think all they have to do is bung their missus in a cupboard, open a window, fake a bit of fear and hey presto - a slap on the wrist.
It will be murder.
Former Conservative MP Tim Yeo has lost his libel case against The Sunday Times over a "cash for advocacy" claim.
In the High Court, Judge Mr Justice Warby said he found some of Mr Yeo's evidence "utterly implausible" and, overall, he did not present "convincingly".
"I can think of none who convincingly claim to have no interest in money, yet end up with an annual income in excess of £200,000," the judge said.
"I do not consider that Mr Yeo is such a person. In my judgment this evidence was untrue.
"I am not persuaded that it was honest either."
Mr Justice Warby said he was also unable to accept Mr Yeo's evidence that he was unable to remember an email which mentioned a "generous remuneration package".
The case was dismissed.
Lessons there for Masipa on how to deal with the evidence of persons judged to be lying under oath
Question of degree porky
There is an obvious expectation that a person should tell the truth under oath.
Of course that doesn’t always happen, small distortions of the truth creep in and a lot of the time, if noticed of course, they are factored into the final deliberations.
However, when a person like Pistorius continually lies to the extent it becomes an insult to one’s intelligence then it’s a different matter.
At that point the whole of the evidence should be dismissed.
'continually lies ' is a bit of an embellishment of what Masipa actually found.
OK
Evidence that was mostly lies punctuated with occasional moments when the truth almost saw the light of day
Better?
Well... That's still a complete embellishment of what Masipa actually found. So, no. No better.
You absolutely do have to worry about lawfulness when you discharge a lethal weapon at another human being. Your actions have to be justifiable under the laws of self-defense. It is not enough to simply claim "I thought I was in danger of my life" and therefore legitimately think that you would be entitled to use lethal force no matter what the circumstances. As a licensed firearms owner, he knew the laws of self defense fully well.
Quoting once again from: https://www.issafrica.org/pubs/CrimeQ/No.8/duPlessis.htm
And as Masipa herself admitted:
Try this (using Masipa's judgment only substituting the words "an unidentified human" where she used "the deceased" with reference to Reeva. From p. 3327 of her judgment):
Now ask yourself this question and after removing the deceased (Reeva's) identity from the equation-- do you still agree with her that the answer has to be no??:
This looks to me like an error in logic and in the application of the test for Dolus eventualis. I will wager that is what it will look like to the SCA as well.
It does not matter that she accepted he lacked DIRECT INTENT to kill the intruder because he was in fear for his life-- that is why she ruled out Dolus directus toward the intruder.
But she should have applied the test for Dolus eventualis toward the intruder as well-- it is a different standard or form of intent than DD and is not redundant to consider it. Instead she only applied the tests for DE toward the "deceased" or Reeva.
The SCA will pick up the slack.