No doubt whatsoever for me, Gerrie Nel every time.
Roux made me cringe with his voice, style and what has been described as deferential by a previous poster I found smarmy.
Hi Iam
The trial being televised gave us all a great opportunity to the insight of courtrooms other than the US trials. And I would wish we could do that here. As it is, we have some appeal cases being televised here.
But it also let us see the personalities in real life and real time. So it wasn't just interesting to the legal minds, but to the public too. And I think the public learnt a lot from this trial whoever was interested. Even though a very sad a tragic case, it was also fascinating IMO.
I think both Roux and Nel are very adept at their jobs. For some it's whether one likes the tactics or personalities. And of course their style is also to be considered.
Roux had a tough job and Nel had the limitations of a unprotected crime scene plus police failings. So I feel they both went hell for leather with what they had. And I think the judge was lacking in certain experiences in a high profile case like this even if she was a judge for some time.
I preferred Nel's style but I feel he just didn't have enough circumstantial evidence for the charge and didn't ask some crucial questions in hindsight. And I think Roux took advantage of that which is the defence right to do so.
Though in a case like this where the majority of the evidence was circumstantial the prosecution were always going to be at a disadvantage as they have to convince the judge of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the defence just have to put the doubt there.
CH was always the most likely verdict IMO as it was a safe conviction on the evidence that was provided to the court. i don't know why the state thought they'd get a conviction for either of the murder charges there was just not the evidence for a safe conviction.
The sentence is another thing altogether only serving 10 months of a 5 year sentence is too little time.
Though in a case like this where the majority of the evidence was circumstantial the prosecution were always going to be at a disadvantage as they have to convince the judge of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the defence just have to put the doubt there.
CH was always the most likely verdict IMO as it was a safe conviction on the evidence that was provided to the court. i don't know why the state thought they'd get a conviction for either of the murder charges there was just not the evidence for a safe conviction.
The sentence is another thing altogether only serving 10 months of a 5 year sentence is too little time.
I agree with you to a greater extent. But to be honest I do believe there was/is enough evidence to have proved Murder.
Circumstantial evidence, regardless of quality, by the sheer quantity of it compared to the one piece of firm evidence/witness, OP himself, sort of swung the balance a bit for me.
I do believe Nel will be successful in getting things changed.
Thanks for those links, booty! The second one was chilling reading. Hazel Kidson is a vile, evil woman, really cold and calculated too. And I suspect it could well have been her who was behind the attack on her husband in 1994 too, she could have staged the break-in! The poor husband.
There were a couple of things in that article about Kidson that reminded me of OP in court (although HK seemed to be calmer, more premeditated in her actions and less emotional than OP):
the bejewelled 52-year-old sat clutching her miniature Bible. “I always carry it with me,” she later explained.
Kidson also said she was haunted by the killing. “It’s killing me. Why do you think I look like this [she had apparently lost a considerable amount of weight in the aftermath]? I can never be happy.”
Ostentatiously religious and moaning about how much SHE was suffering... it seems to be a pattern with murderers in South Africa! >:(
Both Nel and Roux to appear on Question Time? They wouldn't know much about British politics but they might talk more sense than our politicians. They are good friends apparently, or at least respectful of each other's legal careers.
David Dimbeldy 'a question from the audience? Yes, Ian from York; 'So, emm, Barry, deep down do you believe oscar is guilty of a heinous crime?' 'Ermm, well having studied the evidence, I'll have to pass judgement on that and pass you over to my learned colleague, Gerrie
Thanks for those links, booty! The second one was chilling reading. Hazel Kidson is a vile, evil woman, really cold and calculated too. And I suspect it could well have been her who was behind the attack on her husband in 1994 too, she could have staged the break-in! The poor husband.
There were a couple of things in that article about Kidson that reminded me of OP in court (although HK seemed to be calmer, more premeditated in her actions and less emotional than OP):
Ostentatiously religious and moaning about how much SHE was suffering... it seems to be a pattern with murderers in South Africa! >:(
Good post - it was all about, but look at Me...look at MY suffering after what HE did to her. He was probably tutored by Roux to pursue the god-fearing, innocent plight that Masipa fell for. Roux will have seen it all before in SA.
Though in a case like this where the majority of the evidence was circumstantial the prosecution were always going to be at a disadvantage as they have to convince the judge of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the defence just have to put the doubt there.
CH was always the most likely verdict IMO as it was a safe conviction on the evidence that was provided to the court. i don't know why the state thought they'd get a conviction for either of the murder charges there was just not the evidence for a safe conviction.
The sentence is another thing altogether only serving 10 months of a 5 year sentence is too little time.
Though in a case like this where the majority of the evidence was circumstantial the prosecution were always going to be at a disadvantage as they have to convince the judge of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the defence just have to put the doubt there.
CH was always the most likely verdict IMO as it was a safe conviction on the evidence that was provided to the court. i don't know why the state thought they'd get a conviction for either of the murder charges there was just not the evidence for a safe conviction.
The sentence is another thing altogether only serving 10 months of a 5 year sentence is too little time.
The only chance the prosecution have is to exploit the wording of Masipa's verdict as it is obvious that she believed that the intruder version was possible.
The problem for the prosecution is then that a change of verdict depends on firing 4 shots into small occupied cubicle when the intruder story does not apply and OP was not feeling terrified and vulnerable.
I cannot see the CH being changed and as the appeal against sentence has been turned down then not much will change for OP IMO.
Porky; here we go again. They can find it was in fact murder of either Reeva or this "intruder" op had magically produced. Hence the sentence will change upon the SCA's verdict. Masipa's choice to not challenge the decision of her sentence matters not a jot. 15 years minimum is on the horizon for op and rightly so.
Meanwhile, as it's Sunday, op is building a wendy house in his cell with that hanky of his. He's going to call it "remorseful".
Porky; here we go again. They can find it was in fact murder of either Reeva or this "intruder" op had magically produced. Hence the sentence will change upon the SCA's verdict. Masipa's choice to not challenge the decision of her sentence matters not a jot. 15 years minimum is on the horizon for op and rightly so.
Meanwhile, as it's Sunday, op is building a wendy house in his cell with that hanky of his. He's going to call it "remorseful".
The only way the sentence can change "upon the SCA's verdict" is if the SCA change the verdict. I will remind you that the verdict has been reached on the finding that it is reasonably possible that OP believed there was an intruder. This has not been directly challenged in the appeal and nor can it be as it is a finding of fact.
Therefore the SCA will only be considering whether OP is guilty DE given that he acted thinking there was an intruder. It will be impossible, given this acceptance, to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he fired DE.
The best the prosecution can prove is that a reasonable person would not have acted as OP did without being in fear of their life in the circumstances he describes.
The only way the sentence can change "upon the SCA's verdict" is if the SCA change the verdict. I will remind you that the verdict has been reached on the finding that it is reasonably possible that OP believed there was an intruder. This has not been directly challenged in the appeal and nor can it be as it is a finding of fact.
Therefore the SCA will only be considering whether OP is guilty DE given that he acted thinking there was an intruder. It will be impossible, given this acceptance, to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he fired DE.
The best the prosecution can prove is that a reasonable person would not have acted as OP did without being in fear of their life in the circumstances he describes.
In my opinion this should have been found to be so flawed that a retrial was ordered. Anything else is just tinkering with a mess really.
The only way the sentence can change "upon the SCA's verdict" is if the SCA change the verdict. I will remind you that the verdict has been reached on the finding that it is reasonably possible that OP believed there was an intruder. This has not been directly challenged in the appeal and nor can it be as it is a finding of fact.
Therefore the SCA will only be considering whether OP is guilty DE given that he acted thinking there was an intruder. It will be impossible, given this acceptance, to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he fired DE.
The best the prosecution can prove is that a reasonable person would not have acted as OP did without being in fear of their life in the circumstances he describes.
Your first sentence says it all. The rest is merely retorical bull.
The only way the sentence can change "upon the SCA's verdict" is if the SCA change the verdict. I will remind you that the verdict has been reached on the finding that it is reasonably possible that OP believed there was an intruder. This has not been directly challenged in the appeal and nor can it be as it is a finding of fact.
Therefore the SCA will only be considering whether OP is guilty DE given that he acted thinking there was an intruder. It will be impossible, given this acceptance, to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he fired DE.
The best the prosecution can prove is that a reasonable person would not have acted as OP did without being in fear of their life in the circumstances he describes.
Your first sentence says it all. The rest is merely rhetorical bull.
Do you not think the "intruder" is a finding of fact then?
Ridiculous. Do you not think the more years this drags on his story becomes more prepostorus? Even for him? I think he will be found out eventually despite his pleas of innocence and despite him sticking to his ridiculous version of events. Carl! Where is your brother's phone?
Ridiculous. Do you not think the more years this drags on his story becomes more prepostorus? Even for him? I think he will be found out eventually despite his pleas of innocence and despite him sticking to his ridiculous version of events. Carl! Where is your brother's phone?
The judgement states:
"From the above it cannot be said that the accused did not entertain a genuine belief that there was an intruder in the toilet, who posed a threat to him."
This was a fact found by the court. The law regarding this finding was not challenged in the appeal so it stands and will not be questioned by the SCA.
Ridiculous. Do you not think the more years this drags on his story becomes more prepostorus? Even for him? I think he will be found out eventually despite his pleas of innocence and despite him sticking to his ridiculous version of events. Carl! Where is your brother's phone?
Lots of things are preposterous but they still exist (e.g. a duck-billed platypus). The apparent unlikeliness of his story has never been a problem for me. Odd/strange/weird things happen all the time, and the 'intruder in the toilet' was just one of them.
The judgement states:
"From the above it cannot be said that the accused did not entertain a genuine belief that there was an intruder in the toilet, who posed a threat to him."
This was a fact found by the court. The law regarding this finding was not challenged in the appeal so it stands and will not be questioned by the SCA.
FOUR bullets that bought silence willl say otherwise, as is the directive of the SCA and Nel. I don't think Roux will be overly-concerned with the outcome of this. He made his money. He played the game.
Lots of things are preposterous but they still exist (e.g. a duck-billed platypus). The apparent unlikeliness of his story has never been a problem for me. Odd/strange/weird things happen all the time, and the 'intruder in the toilet' was just one of them.
So what was Carl doing fiddling with his brother's phone? Tears of guilt and remorse.
FOUR bullets that bought silence willl say otherwise, as is the directive of the SCA and Nel. I don't think Roux will be overly-concerned with the outcome of this. He made his money. He played the game.
The 4 bullets is really the only really strong bit of evidence that the prosecution have.
The 4 bullets is really the only really strong bit of evidence that the prosecution have.
And you know....it just doesn't make the grade.
If the SCA run this by the book, unlike Masipa, who hell knows what she was doing anyway, FOUR bullets = Intention to Kill. It's only a question whether they side with Nel that he shot at Reeva. All evidence and his own testimony points to this.
1 bullet brought screams. 4 brought silence. He's a cowardly bastard.
If the SCA run this by the book, unlike Masipa, who hell knows what she was doing anyway, FOUR bullets = Intention to Kill. It's only a question whether they side with Nel that he shot at Reeva. All evidence and his own testimony points to this.
1 bullet brought screams. 4 brought silence. He's a cowardly bastard.
As Porky points out the power of the SCA is limited in regard to factual matters.
However that is irrelevant as in this case as there has been a clear misinterpretation of the law not fact. Masipa erred in her understanding of DE when she referred to Pistorius not ‘knowingly’ shooting Reeva as he thought she was in the bedroom; of course the identity of the victim is irrelevant. This was an error Masipa clumsily tried to remedy at a later stage and indeed an error she indirectly acknowledged by granting leave to appeal.
However, that said it would be naïve not to expect the judges of the SCA to indirectly consider the following which may well impact on their findings.
a) The court whilst acknowledging that Pistorius had a propensity to be untruthful decided to be selective about which parts of his story were believable instead of taking the accepted route of dismissing all of his evidence as unreliable.
b) A violent temper, extreme jealousy and a readiness to reach for a much loved gun are ingredients that make for a potent mix. Pistorius clearly possessed all those ingredients in abundance.
c) In SA the fear of the ‘swart gevaar’ is deeply etched on the white subconscious and is therefore a ready-made and obvious ‘excuse’ to reach for in order to avoid a murder charge.
d) In this instance there would be an extremely strong motivation to take all measures possible to avoid a murder verdict given the consequences of the loss of international reputation, a significant income totally reliant on sponsorship and of course freedom.
In my opinion, had this been a trial by jury, the above would have had been given much greater consideration and in all likelihood would have resulted in a murder conviction.
Therefore it is not inconceivable that in the interests of justice the SCA will take a similar view in using such issues and maybe others to ‘weight’ their findings on law.
Comments
Hi Iam
The trial being televised gave us all a great opportunity to the insight of courtrooms other than the US trials. And I would wish we could do that here. As it is, we have some appeal cases being televised here.
But it also let us see the personalities in real life and real time. So it wasn't just interesting to the legal minds, but to the public too. And I think the public learnt a lot from this trial whoever was interested. Even though a very sad a tragic case, it was also fascinating IMO.
I think both Roux and Nel are very adept at their jobs. For some it's whether one likes the tactics or personalities. And of course their style is also to be considered.
Roux had a tough job and Nel had the limitations of a unprotected crime scene plus police failings. So I feel they both went hell for leather with what they had. And I think the judge was lacking in certain experiences in a high profile case like this even if she was a judge for some time.
I preferred Nel's style but I feel he just didn't have enough circumstantial evidence for the charge and didn't ask some crucial questions in hindsight. And I think Roux took advantage of that which is the defence right to do so.
;-)
Though in a case like this where the majority of the evidence was circumstantial the prosecution were always going to be at a disadvantage as they have to convince the judge of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the defence just have to put the doubt there.
CH was always the most likely verdict IMO as it was a safe conviction on the evidence that was provided to the court. i don't know why the state thought they'd get a conviction for either of the murder charges there was just not the evidence for a safe conviction.
The sentence is another thing altogether only serving 10 months of a 5 year sentence is too little time.
I agree with you to a greater extent. But to be honest I do believe there was/is enough evidence to have proved Murder.
Circumstantial evidence, regardless of quality, by the sheer quantity of it compared to the one piece of firm evidence/witness, OP himself, sort of swung the balance a bit for me.
I do believe Nel will be successful in getting things changed.
Thanks for those links, booty!
There were a couple of things in that article about Kidson that reminded me of OP in court (although HK seemed to be calmer, more premeditated in her actions and less emotional than OP):
Ostentatiously religious and moaning about how much SHE was suffering... it seems to be a pattern with murderers in South Africa! >:(
David Dimbeldy 'a question from the audience? Yes, Ian from York; 'So, emm, Barry, deep down do you believe oscar is guilty of a heinous crime?' 'Ermm, well having studied the evidence, I'll have to pass judgement on that and pass you over to my learned colleague, Gerrie
Good post - it was all about, but look at Me...look at MY suffering after what HE did to her. He was probably tutored by Roux to pursue the god-fearing, innocent plight that Masipa fell for. Roux will have seen it all before in SA.
*turns light back on*
Some info about Barry Roux.
http://whoswho.co.za/barry-roux-590229
Nel and Roux in a previous case 1999
http://www.news24.com/xArchive/Archive/Greeff-trial-postponed-to-February-20000929
Dentist Dr Casper Greeff for the murder of his wife.
;-)
Fair comment IMO.
The only chance the prosecution have is to exploit the wording of Masipa's verdict as it is obvious that she believed that the intruder version was possible.
The problem for the prosecution is then that a change of verdict depends on firing 4 shots into small occupied cubicle when the intruder story does not apply and OP was not feeling terrified and vulnerable.
I cannot see the CH being changed and as the appeal against sentence has been turned down then not much will change for OP IMO.
Meanwhile, as it's Sunday, op is building a wendy house in his cell with that hanky of his. He's going to call it "remorseful".
The only way the sentence can change "upon the SCA's verdict" is if the SCA change the verdict. I will remind you that the verdict has been reached on the finding that it is reasonably possible that OP believed there was an intruder. This has not been directly challenged in the appeal and nor can it be as it is a finding of fact.
Therefore the SCA will only be considering whether OP is guilty DE given that he acted thinking there was an intruder. It will be impossible, given this acceptance, to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he fired DE.
The best the prosecution can prove is that a reasonable person would not have acted as OP did without being in fear of their life in the circumstances he describes.
In my opinion this should have been found to be so flawed that a retrial was ordered. Anything else is just tinkering with a mess really.
Your first sentence says it all. The rest is merely retorical bull.
Your first sentence says it all. The rest is merely rhetorical bull.
A good point worth repeating
Repeated....damn the phone is a mare on ds - still, could be worse as op tries to construct a wigwam in his new home..
I can see you might not have understood my point.
Do you not think the "intruder" is a finding of fact then?
Ridiculous. Do you not think the more years this drags on his story becomes more prepostorus? Even for him? I think he will be found out eventually despite his pleas of innocence and despite him sticking to his ridiculous version of events. Carl! Where is your brother's phone?
The judgement states:
"From the above it cannot be said that the accused did not entertain a genuine belief that there was an intruder in the toilet, who posed a threat to him."
This was a fact found by the court. The law regarding this finding was not challenged in the appeal so it stands and will not be questioned by the SCA.
Lots of things are preposterous but they still exist (e.g. a duck-billed platypus). The apparent unlikeliness of his story has never been a problem for me. Odd/strange/weird things happen all the time, and the 'intruder in the toilet' was just one of them.
FOUR bullets that bought silence willl say otherwise, as is the directive of the SCA and Nel. I don't think Roux will be overly-concerned with the outcome of this. He made his money. He played the game.
So what was Carl doing fiddling with his brother's phone? Tears of guilt and remorse.
The 4 bullets is really the only really strong bit of evidence that the prosecution have.
And you know....it just doesn't make the grade.
If the SCA run this by the book, unlike Masipa, who hell knows what she was doing anyway, FOUR bullets = Intention to Kill. It's only a question whether they side with Nel that he shot at Reeva. All evidence and his own testimony points to this.
1 bullet brought screams. 4 brought silence. He's a cowardly bastard.
As Porky points out the power of the SCA is limited in regard to factual matters.
However that is irrelevant as in this case as there has been a clear misinterpretation of the law not fact. Masipa erred in her understanding of DE when she referred to Pistorius not ‘knowingly’ shooting Reeva as he thought she was in the bedroom; of course the identity of the victim is irrelevant. This was an error Masipa clumsily tried to remedy at a later stage and indeed an error she indirectly acknowledged by granting leave to appeal.
However, that said it would be naïve not to expect the judges of the SCA to indirectly consider the following which may well impact on their findings.
a) The court whilst acknowledging that Pistorius had a propensity to be untruthful decided to be selective about which parts of his story were believable instead of taking the accepted route of dismissing all of his evidence as unreliable.
b) A violent temper, extreme jealousy and a readiness to reach for a much loved gun are ingredients that make for a potent mix. Pistorius clearly possessed all those ingredients in abundance.
c) In SA the fear of the ‘swart gevaar’ is deeply etched on the white subconscious and is therefore a ready-made and obvious ‘excuse’ to reach for in order to avoid a murder charge.
d) In this instance there would be an extremely strong motivation to take all measures possible to avoid a murder verdict given the consequences of the loss of international reputation, a significant income totally reliant on sponsorship and of course freedom.
In my opinion, had this been a trial by jury, the above would have had been given much greater consideration and in all likelihood would have resulted in a murder conviction.
Therefore it is not inconceivable that in the interests of justice the SCA will take a similar view in using such issues and maybe others to ‘weight’ their findings on law.