RESTITUTIO was published on 19 September 2014, exactly 7 days after Judge Thokozile Masipa pronounced her controversial verdict; Oscar Pistorius not guilty on the charge of murdering Reeva Steenkamp in his home on Valentine’s Day 2013. On the same day RESTITUTIO was published, the South African Police announced the latest crime statistics:

17 068 people were murdered in South Africa over the past year. That’s 47 people per day; 800 more than the previous year. Reeva Steenkamp, however, will not be counted among those numbers.

The question RESTITUTIO asks is: ‘why not?’ And ‘where to from here’?

South African freelance photojournalist, Nick van der Leek, and forensic profiler and criminologist, Laurie Pieters-James, have teamed up for the first time to interrogate the subterranea behind the Oscar trial. Additional insights via the popular American analyst Juror13 provide international perspectives to the story. In sum, a trio of analysts means a singular narrative reinforced into an even more powerful, and thoroughly-considered story.

RESTITUTIO takes the reader on a journey through intellectual rivers and deserts, mountains and storms, until finally a guiding metaphor emerges…and presents us with an Abyss. Whether we float over it or plunge into it depends on how we respond to our own (individual and societal) ‘wrongness’. Can we even acknowledge ‘Being Wrong’?

The RESTITUTIO narrative seeks answers on this very central question and then probes an even darker mythos…our prospects for Ernest Becker’s brutal questions on the human condition. Is there an escape from evil for us? And from death (by crime in South Africa, for example)? Is there a way for us to find our way back to real reconciliation and true legitimacy?

The authors interrogate these questions using the Oscar Trial as a taking-off point.

Highlights of RESTITUTIO include stories by:

1. Sonja Raath. The last journalist to interview Reeva Steenkamp, writes candidly about her thoughts, feelings and firsthand experience when she met the couple at the Virgin Active Sports Awards, and her interactions with Reeva afterwards.

2. Criminologist and analyst for CNN, Laurie Pieters-James. Pieters-James, co-writer of Shattered Lives (the story of Dirk Prinsloo and Advocate Barbie) describes her impressions of Hilton Botha, who she had the opportunity to converse with during the bail hearings, which she attended in person. Pieters-James also provides insight into the (often disturbed) psyches of the fanatic Oscar followers, better known as the Pistorians.

3. Juror13. Over the past year and a half, South Africans have been in mourning, along with the grieving Steenkamp family. Has justice been done? Disappointment in the spring of 2014 is widespread following the verdict. US-based courtroom analyst and blogger, Juror13 interrogates the grief that societies suffer in the wake of such verdicts. Juror13 also describes her personal experiences of 9/11 and the Newtown Elementary school shooting in Connecticut. How can a nation move forward after such abominations?

4. Nick van der Leek. The author provides more poignant insights and analysis into the Oscar trial, into its ironies (the victim’s family being less emotional than the accused throughout), but also draws the reader further, far further than REVELATIONS, on a journey to the Existential Abyss…and beyond.

45 Replies to “RESTITUTIO”

  1. In a nutshell:-
    The supporters of the decision keep spouting “reasonably possibly true”.
    Try as I might I cannot see that the test is met.
    For an adult, especially of Oscar’s background, well accustomed to intense confrontational pressure who, on his own story, advanced, armed to rid himself of the threat of an intruder, to be held not to have foreseen that he MIGHT kill a human is not “possible” and CERTAINLY NOT “reasonable” ..
    … unless you first accept that he was non compos mentis, and/or delusion at the time, and ALL the medical experts excluded this.

    The Court has ARBITRARILY assigned itself the right to accept that which no reasonable mind will accept, meekly claiming that it could not disbelieve this thoroughly bad witness in his denial that he did not intend to kill Reeva, even though he had consistently stated that it was a “mistake” as he thought it was an intruder … NOT that he had NOT intended to kill/shoot a human being.
    Arbitrary means approach that is not supported by fact, evidence or circumstance.

    The Court claimed that the State had not proved intent to kill, despite the fact that it was common cause that the accused pointed a firearm in the direction of a human being and fired four (4) shots, of which three (3) found their mark and killed a the human being.
    Again this is an ARBITRARY rejection of that which any sentient mind would accept.

    With the greatest respect, the whole approach is irrational … and that CANNOT be the law.
    It certainly cannot have anything to do with JUSTICE.

    1. Hear hear.

      I was shocked at the poor quality of the written judgement.

      It is of course legitimate to reach conclusions of key points of evidence.

      But to fail to even discuss key points or to articulate reasoning?

      Under NZ law, to fail to address so many key matters in the written decision would leave the verdict wide open on appeal.

    2. Thank you, Judge Greenland, for taking the time to post here. I appreciate your opinions.

      Many of us are very disheartened at the outcome and I feel it’s so important that we have honest discussions about our concerns, in the spirit of hopefully affecting change.

      These trials don’t take place in a vacuum, nor should they. The outcomes don’t only affect the families, they mean something to all of us as neighbors, contributing members of society and as human beings. We all need to demand better.

    3. The standard for this charge is ‘subjective’ … meaning it does not matter what a ‘reasonable’ would do, but what was in the accused mind when he pulled that trigger…

  2. 4 bullets, well-grouped, deadly black talons shot into a closed , tiny room with Reeva standing up and facing to door, piercing screams, blood-curdling, pause after 1st shot, change in direction: SCREAMS SHOW INTENT by gun-crazy, trigger-happy gun enthusiast Oscar!! State proved this, forensics, blood spatter, IF THIS IS NOT MURDER THEN WHAT IS??? SO DISAPPOINTED in Jidge Masipa, had such high hopes fo her applying the facts and her mind and reading between the lines and providing JUSTICE!! What now?? Will Gerrie appeal?? Please Gerrie appeal the Judges finding by incorrect test and question of law: didnt matter who was behind the door, his intent was to UNLAWFULLY kill because he knew the gun rules and yet he went ahead and did it, not once but 4 times!! Please we need justice for Reeva and for us as society to feel protected feom gun crazy trigger happy arrogant, entitled, narcissists. Judge Masipa you let Reeva down, her dear parents and family and friends, but mostly you allowed an arrogant, cocky little narcissist to pull the wool over your eyes! And thats not good enough for women in the land of ours, we demand justice and…common sense….and the correct application of the law to the facts! Gerrie Nel you did your utmost best for Reeva, please dont leave it there, APPEAL FOR MURDER, that will then be true justice!#inmemoryofreeva♥

  3. Congrats on the book spot J13!

    A plea!

    Is there anyone/anywhere where a cohesive prosecution timeline has been put together?

    Anyone can see that Masipa’s timeline creates as many problems as it solves.

    I feel constructing a properly reasoned timeline could offer insight to this case.

    Of course we have the issue that we do not have a copy of exhibit Q, nor any other call logs presented.

    Under SA law – will these documents be publicized?

  4. Thank Judge Chris N Greenland. You make sense to a layman like me. I was totally confused by Judge M ruling.

    For whatever happens to OP let be. God really seems to be in his favour.

    1. Hi Nick


      As chance would have it – I was now checking out your books and saw you guys collaborated on a timeline and I read some samples.

      I purchased Revelations just now and will check that out.\


  5. I started writing a book on this trial titled “The Oscar Pistorius Trial of the Century. Through the eyes of a Judge.”.
    I intended to time its publication with the date of sentencing.
    I have decided to dump the project.
    This is because I cannot avoid the book now being a very bad indictment on the system and the Court.
    It will serve only to bring our system. the Court and the country into further disrepute.
    I just don’t have the stomach for such bad karma in my life any more.

  6. Hi J13

    I now had a chance to review your timeline etc in detail by going through the various posts and I just wanted to record here that I believe you are correct.

    Roux hoodwinked the Court with 2 tricks.

    First the timing of the Johnson call is hearsay. Roux is relying on Johnson’s own notes of his iphone log – but these are clearly not the primary source of this information. In NZ this “evidence” would not be admissible as proof of what time it was.

    Furthermore, there is no evidence to reconcile the security phone clock with Johnson’s iPhone clock. The security phone log is internally consistent but we cannot know how the iphone relates to it. I am stunned that there is no discussion on this matter – even to indicate how the Court produced this timeline. If there are in fact comprehensive call logs from the networks for every call – why was this not mentioned by anyone?

    Second – there simply is no evidence that there were 4 bat sounds mistaken for 4 gunshots.

    This comes only from OPs completely unreliable testimony and is a absurd piece of coincidence.

    Forensics indicate only 2 bat marks on the door.

    Therefore we can make the following conclusions about the hidden timeline.

    1. Mike N reliably sets the timing for the shooting in the minutes before 3.16. This is corroborated by Stipp.

    2. No gunshots or mistaken shots occur after 3.15 [security log time]

    3. After 3,16 – only OP is heard crying. Reeva is dead by the time the Mr & Mrs N are awake.

    4. What Johnson hears must be the same gunshots that woke Mrs N and were heard by Stipp. The exact timing of his clock does not matter as there objectively are no further sounds to hear.

    5. The gunshots silence the screams – multiple witnesses.

    6. The Stipps hear a commotion and what they believed were gunshots at 3.02. From the state of the bathroom there was clearly plenty for them to hear. They observed the light on. Stipp reports 3 bangs (not 4!) A key point is that their timing by the clock of 3.17 (but 3-4 mins fast) actually fits with the security log and with Mike N. I believe this means that the “3.17” bangs per Stipp Radio Clock actually occur at 3.14ish per Security log clock.

    This leads one to wonder if the security log clock is actually 2-3 mins slow compared to real time?

    So this is the timeline we are left

    Before 3am the couple are arguing downstairs. Heard by van der Merwe. A classic Domestic Violence scene develops. At some point Reeva locks herself in the toilet.

    From 3.02 OP is smashing up the bathroom. Especially the bath access panel and the tiles.

    Critically Stipp’s hear and see this.

    They are the only ones who mistake these noises for shots.

    As the shouting (testimony OP) and screaming continue more witnesses wake up and also confirm 2 voices.

    Reeva is shot at most 2-3 mins prior to Mike N / Dr Stipp getting thru to Baba from 3.15.51-3.16

    All witnesses hear the screams silenced by the shots. No further sounds will be heard. Only Johnsons’s iphone clock disagrees as to what time this happens.

    Laughably, pistorious will claim that the screams were actually him, silencing himself, with a cricket bat.

    And with that – I am ending my Pistorious case addiction!!

    1. Hey James, thanks. Defies logic, doesn’t it?! The timeline absolutely cannot be determined by only one set of phone records. That is a ruse by the Defense and unfortunately many people have fallen for it, including the Judge. There are a lot of working pieces to the evidence between 3am and 3:24-ish (when the Standers arrived). ALL of it needs to be considered and put in its proper place.

      It is also imperative to examine the details of what each witness saw, not just heard – for instance, did they look out the window moments after the crying and see a mini-cooper out front (Montshuane) or did they look out their bedroom window and see the security vehicle at the Stipps (The N’s)? Incidentally, the Defense witnesses all describe a MAN crying. How is it that they can properly identify the sex of a person, but the earlier witnesses can’t?

      I have made my argument for Screams vs Cries for months now. I’m a bit at the end of my rope that people are so caught up in the Defense BS. I’m not ending my case participation, but I am somewhat ending my timeline argument because I just don’t know where else to go with it. It’s concrete and logical to me, unlike the Defense’s assertions.

    2. EVDM was one of the most crucial State witnesses for the State, and in rejecting her testimony, the judge cites three reasons:
      1. she could not understand what was being said or in what language was the `female voice’ speaking,
      2. she was not sure about the source of the voice,
      3. her husband confirmed the loud cry after the bangs as OP’s voice.

      About point (1), I really do not know what to say. Surely this can not by itself be a valid reason for ignoring what she did hear. But let us go to points 2 and 3. As some people have pointed out, it is debatable whether what EVDM’s husband said should be acceptable or hearsay, but in any case fact is that the judge did accept her husband’s confirmation. Now that implies, post facto, that EVDM did in fact know that the sound was indeed from OP’s house, because all the sounds starting from 1:56 emanated from the same place.
      Second, her husband only identified the loud cry after the bangs as OP’s, not the argument that EVDM heard since 1:56. But again, let us assume even that voice was male voice. The source now being identified as OP’s house, male voice could only have been OP himself. Isn’t it much more damning for OP’s version then that he was wide awake and was arguing with someone (which could only be Reeva) for an hour prior to the incident?

    3. you are missing a very important link here as I did before seeing the actual timeline as presented by Roux and not contradicted by Nel…..the attempted call @3:17 to 10111 by Dr. Stipp,, as he was dialing on this call, he heard the 2nd sounds..and Anitta Stipp looked at her clock as she stepped read 3:17…Mr. N had heard the earlier shots..not these..

  7. Dear Judge Chris Greenland,

    Would love to know your thoughts on the following comparison:

    1) Sportsman kills daughter in mistake for thief: Sportsman shoots & kills driver of vehicle being driven AWAY from his home posing NO threat at all.
    Verdict: Culpable Homicide. No Jail sentence.
    Public Reaction: Very sympathetic.
    Notes: Sportsman appears genuinely upset in what he has done.

    2) Sportsman kills girlfriend in mistake for intruder: Sportsman shoots & kills person behind toilet door in own home. Possibility that sportsman viewed situation as threatening.
    Verdict: Culpable Homicide. Sentence pending.
    Public Reaction: Outrage.
    Notes: Sportsman appears more concerned about avoiding jail than showing genuine remorse in what he has done.

    Now it seems to me that case 1 is more Dolus Eventualis than case 2. But everyone was sympathetic in case 1 and the sportsman wasn’t charged with murder.

    1. You have a certified legal and licensed gun owner who shoots for a hobby and in his spare time.
      Owner of numerous firearms and ammunition, some illegally.
      Passed a firearm competency test.
      No mental defects.
      Fully aware of the damage black talon ammunition aka zombie stoppers have on a watermelon and brain.
      Aware of the small size of the toilet cubicle.

      Are we to believe that given the above one could not have forseen the death of a person in the cubicle after firing off 4 rounds?
      Highly improbable and not likely.

      Also, Versveld concedes that OP probably would have lost balance if both his hands were stretched out when firing, but OP says he never fell.
      If OP had rested his back against the wall in anticipation of the recoil then his claim that the gun went off accidentally is a clear lie as it would mean he intended to fire. That equals murder.

      Besides the above, lets look at what OP said caused him to fire
      , a noise startled him. First he said it was movement, this then changed under cross examination to wood moving.
      Strange because he said himself the door never opened and the handle never moved. The inly other thing loose in the cubicle was a magazine rack it Nel showed him via the blood spatter and blood drops that it NEVER moved, even the defence witness, Dixon, agreed. Also RS was up against the door and the rack was in the opposite side of the cubicle.

      So from this we know there was no noise that caused him to startle and fire, that only leaves an intention to deliberately shoot and kill, he did not get a fright and it was not an involuntary action.

      1. I agree with what crackzn says:

        In scenario 1, although it would appear there was a criminal act – the shooter did not lie about what happened and there was no suggestion that the mistake was not genuine.

        In scenario 2 – not so much.

      2. Jason — Sorry – -my mistake>
        Here we are in the realms of public sympathy, and the issue of intrinsic justice, as the two are related in terms of the test -“justice must be done and seen to be done”.

        The essential difference between the two scenarios is that, as regards Scenario 1,, the victim was shot whilst being “genuinely” mistaken for an escaping thief.
        You are entitled to shoot an escaping thief if that is the only means of preventing the escape.
        It is one of the grounds of “justifiable homicide”.
        So the public perception would be one of “genuine mistake” in persona..

        As regards scenario 2 Reeva Steenkamp was an innocent young woman who was “gratuitously” shot and killed for making a sound in a toilet, in the sanctuary and security of the suburban home of her lover.
        The public perception is that there was little that was “genuine” about any of this, especially in view of OP’s telling of this story in Court.

      3. “You are entitled to shoot an escaping thief if that is the only means of preventing the escape. It is one of the grounds of “justifiable homicide”.”

        Thank you very much for putting me right about SA law – I didn’t know that. In that case the two scenarios are completely different in matters of law as in scenario 1 the Law allowed the sportsman to use his gun.

    2. Jason — here we are in the realms of public sympathy, and the issue of intrinsic justice, as the two are related in terms of the test -“justice must be done and seen to be done”.

      The essential difference between the two scenarios is that, as regards Scenario 1,, the fact of the matter is that the victim WAS A CRIMINAL, and was shot to prevent him getting with his crime.

      As regards scenario 2 Reeva Steenkamp was an innocent young woman who was “gratuitously” shot and killed for making a sound in a toilet, in the sanctuary and security of the suburban home of her lover.

      1. @ Judge Geenland

        Sorry but in scenario 1, there was no real criminal. It was the shooters daughter who he mistake for a car thief.

        @ Jason

        OP hasnt got the sympathy the shooter in scenario 1 (visagie) because OP fabricated a version of the nights events which tells us what he said happened never in fact happened, how can the public sympathise with him if he has lied about the evenings events?
        Visagie never lied so there was no reason to believe he intentionally killed his daughter.

      2. @ Judge Greenland

        I don’t think you are you are correct, under no circumstances may you intentionally shoot and kill a fleeing intruder, car thief etc in south africa, nor may you shoot and kill someone to stop them getting away with their crime unless the crime puts you or another persons life in imminent danger.

        I am surprised.

      3. @crackzn. Only 1 bullet was fired. That’s a difference, right there. There were other witnesses. There was a tangible cause to the shots, something moving away (a car), and quickly. It was “beyond doubt” there was no animosity between father and daughter. The same cannot be said of Oscar and Reeva, given Reeva’s long messages 6 days, and 17 days, before she was shot. They had big ups and downs. The biggest difference is also one of plausibility: It was not in doubt what happened with the Springbok player. No “weird tale” needed to be told, to convince a court it was “possible” he was telling the truth. In Oscar’s case, we are struck by a long chain of coincidences where he and Reeva, of like mind, go one after another from bedroom to bathroom, failing to communicate, everything happening almost like a clockwork mechanism, where she even manages to lock the door without him hearing, and then fails to speak up as he shouts, and then, quite by chance, 3/4 bullets hits her and the 4th is the head shot. Then we have Oscar’s strange claims about the gun going off “by mistake” – now rejected by the court as untrue. And no real answer why he fired four times. It remains a mystery. These are some of the issues to take into account when trying to draw a comparison. Note, the Springbok player was charged with murder, initially, but it was dropped, as the circumstances were crystal clear. Oscar and Reeva’s circumstances have been anything BUT clear. It remains enigmatic, even now – and even the judge said as much, in remarking that parts of his story “don’t make sense”!

      4. @Crackzn: Above post only in relation to the lack of “real criminal” in the Springbok case, and Oscar’s case. They are often given as points of comparison. So purpose of my post, as above, was to highlight many of the differences.

  8. Honorable Judge Greenland! Great man, wish you had been the judge on the Oscar Trial (many have said that!) and I hope that Oscar’s Karma will catch up to him soon and bites him in the butt!

    1. I am guessing here because I don’t know SA trial procedure so well – however it is likely simply a question of Court room tactics.

      The first point is that via the photo evidence, the state has indeed entered everything it can realistically say about the Jeans, the broken bath panel, the bedroom door etc.

      They are firmly in evidence and suggestive of a fight.

      Where possible, the state’s witnesses have commented on these items. e.g the bath – it was not possible to say what kind of impact caused the damage

      So with the jeans – it is likely the State cannot prove they definitely belonged to Reeva and have no witness to call on the Jeans who can add anything – therefore not discussed.

      So now to Pistorius.

      He offers an explanation for the Bedroom door, but not for the bath panel and not for the jeans.

      So in essence the state has a win already here as they are not explained. That is a gamble for the defence not to address those matters.

      So what of Cross Examination?

      The first question to which I do not know the answer, is whether the State may X on matters not covered in EIC. At least in some Courts this is not allowed – although it is allowed in England.

      A second tactical question, is whether it is a good idea for the state to X on the jeans & the bath panel?

      The EIC on the bedroom door was clearly a lie. Nel does not know what the accused will say about the other items. Is it a trap?

      So one can easily see why the State might just leave those critical aspects unexplained.

      I was surprised that these matters were not directly mentioned in closing however.

      But again I was not sure of the rules.

      Perhaps Nel simply felt it was best to have these bad, unexplained things lurking over the defence?

  9. I still maintain OP knew he was shooting to kill RS. The neat grouping of the bullet holes and direction change shown by Mangena shows INTENTION to kill the person behind the door.

    His actions afterwards gave him away. He checks the bed hoping to find her there after all the screaming and gunshots? Wouldnt she have ESCAPED via the bedroom door in fear for her life. And, yes, OP did say he didnt check the door. Why would he, he said, when the whole incident took place in the bathroom! Defies logic.

    His story will never add up. How the Judge agrees he was a poor witness and still believes his bag of lies, and conviniently ignores damning evidence is also beyond me. Defies logic.

  10. If we cut Judge Masipa some slack we can say maybe she wants to avoid appeal from either side. She has ruled CH. There is no chance defense will appeal against that.
    Come sentencing, combined with the other gun charge, Mr OP may easily get a min of 15 yrs in jail. Maybe then the state will decide not to appeal.

    1. Hi James, this is the only conclusion that I have been able to reach; otherwise, nothing makes sense to me… although admittedly I am just a layperson. I hope that Masipa is planning on giving him the maximum sentence on both charges, which I believe is 15 years + 5 years. That is the only way for at least some justice to be seen to be done. OK, Pistorius and his supporters etc., can still maintain forevermore, that he was ‘just’ negligent or made a mistake but, the fact is, he is still a killer and always will be – there is never any getting away from that.

      1. Just wanted to ask a question if someone knows. I’ve read that Judge Masipa is VERY lenient on first time offenders, even Culpable Homicide and may impose house arrest and a fine and that’s all. Given her leniency thus far, I wouldn’t be surprised.
        Recently, though, on a TV documentary, a judge was discussing retribution and punishment for a crime. He said Restitution is giving society a sense that the person charged and convicted would be receiving what was justified for their actions. He continued “In other words, they got what they deserved for what they did.” (it was a murder-for-hire case and she got 20 years). In the OP case, it seems society at large in no way feels like there is restitution and doesn’t society have any input at all? I hope so, I hope the judge can see what’s going on and give the correct sentence (the longest possible).

    2. Marcey,

      The next stage of the court process is the sentencing hearing where the State and The Defence argue for jail time or suspended jail time (i.e. no jail time). The State have to accept the court finding that it is Culpable Homicide (maybe they can appeal that later) – that is they cannot suggest that OP is a murderer in the sentence hearing. They will have to base their arguments on reckless and extreme negligent behaviour and assume OP testimony was more or less correct (as per the Courts finding).

      1. Hi Jason, thanks for that explanation. I didn’t realise that the State and Defence would be further involved (except for any appeals) and that it would just be a case of Judge Masipa delivering her decision/the sentence next month.

        With regard to what I was saying about OP being a killer; I know we can’t call him a murderer due to the CH verdict, and we have to accept that verdict unless an appeal finds otherwise. However, he has killed someone regardless of the circumstances so, he is and always be a killer – he can never get away from that fact or being called such. 🙂

  11. On September 23, I ran across a Youtube video on Pistorius verdict created by and featuring South African lawyer and professor, Ms. Brenda Wardle,

    People here know that I am haunted by the “why” of this verdict.
    The problem I have isn’t that the misapplication of South African law was a rookie mistake. The problem is that correctly applying it was a no brainier.

    On the 23rd, I was moved to submit the following comment, which I share here in its rather lengthy entirety. For what it’s worth, here it is.


    Ms, Wardle,

    Thank you for your continued analyses of the Pistorius trial. I deeply appreciate that you have “put yourself out there” because you certainly didn’t have to.

    I’m among a large group of people, globally, who have not only followed every minute of this trial together online, we have also made a concerted effort, as best we can as intelligent lay people, to learn and understand the specifics and nuances of South African law.

    In the video, above, you state “.. it is the – judgement – that I am critical of, the reasoning within that judgement. I believe the principles have been misapplied.” Then you stop.

    You continue speaking but you stop before addressing the real question – the pink elephant in the living room (as we say in America), and that is WHY she erred. Again, the problem for me isn’t THAT she erred but why she erred.

    I agree 150% that there is no place for the disgraceful and disrespectful criticism of the judge that has occurred but I am not surprised. Those reactions are primarily the fruit of abject frustration and a perception on the part of the public that, metaphorically-speaking, we are being treated like “children”. There’s a secret (the “why”) that we don’t know.

    What we do know is that the “adults” do know and that, most likely, “they’re” never going to tell us. Yes, we will never know the “why” – even though knowing might actually help us and would change the reactions the “adults” don’t like (criticism threats, etc.) In actual situations (with this dynamic) involving actual children, many merely wonder and accept things Others don’t have the capacity to articulate their feelings and instead, act out – often inappropriately.

    I think that most people floating around out here, including many of the worse offenders in the verbal abuse of the Judge, actually agree with your conclusion. They share your sentiments, and those of Judge Greenland and Grant, et al, that the Judge made a mistake; an error in the law. But why would a a learned, respected, experienced, knowledgeable, veteran judge, which all of us had absolute faith in – that we assumed was witness to the same trial we were – make an error in the law – an error that intelligent, well educated lay persons and others (without the same advantages, privileges, and luxury of excellent educations), alike, didn’t make any mistake about at all?

    I think that’s what has people going off the deep end, endlessly speculating – Why? WHY did Judge Masipa make such an error? Some speculation about it is very thoughtful, some outrageous, some bitter, some grossly inappropriate, and most of all confused and bewildered. It’s simply inexplicable to us. It doesn’t make any sense and THAT’S what we / I want to know. Unfortunately, I’m quite sure that we never will.

    I feel confident that, behind closed doors, legal folks “in the know” privately share with one another exactly what they know, think, and suspect the reason(s) is that she erred but none, that I have yet run across, have been willing to to share their opinions with the public. Like you, they simply say THAT she erred.

    I get it. When there’s a problem, people typically close ranks and, often in professional settings, people risk negative personal repercussions if they dare speak the truth outside of the club – let alone in public.

    So, everyone stops short. Because of that, I don’t think anyone should be surprised by the public’s reaction to the verdict. What people imagine is often FAR worse than any reality that exists but, given nothing else – nothing genuine and concrete to go on, speculation …the good, the bad, and the ugly… is the result. It often runs rampant; it often runs amok.

    I think that the only thing that will move things beyond the point at which they currently are is an appeal – and a successful one. Short of that, the public will speculate forever and much of it, unfortunately, will not be pretty.

    Personally, if Pistorius were sentenced in mid-October to, let me grossly exaggerate here for a moment and say 100 years, I still want an appeal. I am hopeful that will happen because on this website, calmer and wiser minds than my own, postulate that a large part of the motivation would be so as not to let the legal opinion stand to be cited in future cases. I can only hope that’s correct.

    We were SO close to justice on September 11, 2014, yet we knew within a split second of her reading the verdict, that all had been lost. What we still don’t know is why.

  12. Here is a thought. The Judge accepted the Defence’s time line. Gunshots at about 3.12 bat strikes at about 3.17 am first phone call at 3.19 am.

    So why did OP call at 3.19 am and not at 3.13 am?
    Why did he say everything was fine when Pieter Baba called him on the phone?

  13. There is so much damning evidence against Mr OP that easily shows the untruthfulness in his stories. People have proved, in my view, beyond doubt that the man lied. WHY did he have to lie, unless he saw it better to take his chances, lie, and get off with the least possible sentence, than to tell the truth and be sent away to the gallows. So far it has worked for him. It would be a real pity for the Judge to give him anything less than maximum on both. He killed and lied about it

    Law is for the PEOPLE not just for a few special learned ones on the subject. It has to MAKE SENSE to society. I dnt buy the ideology that bcoz i never studied law i must not understand court cases and pass my own personal judgement. OUR brothers/sisters are murdered/raped. I dont need a law masters degree to see the obvious, such as in this case.

    OP has to do maximum time. To SA… with such high crime stats, stop wondering and asking why so much violent crime… the system allows offenders to get away with their evil deeds so easily after all. Lets wait and see the Judges views come sentencing.

    1. Well said Jaymes, I agree wholeheartedly! !!

      Im also disturbed by people saying we are not allowed or it is in bad taste to criticise a judge or at least a judgement, I totally disagree!!
      I have followed every MINUTE of this trial and will bet money I have listened to key evidence word for word of Youtube, especially OP evidence in chief and cross examination that I can quote some exact sentences word for word, more than most including some court officials , no names mentioned.
      I cannot see how it it possible that he cant be at absolute very least be convicted of dolus eventualis and I am of the opinion that they had a fight and he shot her.

      How anyone , regardless of qualifications, cannot see this is totally mind blowing to me and tells me 1 thing, they HAVE NOT LISTENED ENOUGH TO NOR UNDERTSOOD THE EVIDENCE!!!

      I hope to God he gets the maximum 15 years and has bail revoked immediately instead of being allowed to appeal his sentence while out on bail.

  14. James and Crackzn….spot on! I too wish we had had the very learned Judge Greenland sitting in that seat!!!! I am fully entitled to critisise Judge Masipa despite not having a law degree 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: