An Excerpt from DIABLO: Henri Van Breda

From the chapter

Into Darkness

John Harrison: You should have let me sleep! ― Star Trek Into Darkness


 

Henri ax

Exactly twenty minutes into the court session after lunch, Henri’s advocate draws another line through his checklist, and wraps up his direct examination.

BOTHA:  Did you kill your father with an axe?

The accused casts towards his Judge, and his lips seem to curl involuntarily as he wrestles them into a single, softly spoken word.

HENRI: No.

BOTHA: And did you kill your brother with an axe?

HENRI: No.

As Henri answers his advocate on these direct and dire accusations, something sinister has happened to his posture. There’s a dark look in his eyes. From the fig-leaf position, a classic defensive posture which he’s maintained throughout the day while standing, often pressing down on his right hand with his left, now suddenly his demeanour has transformed into something else. Henri looms in his grey suit, both arms brace the side of the dock in a kind of casual menace. He’s spread out, almost like wings, or the ears of Dumbo the elephant.

Having answered the second question, Henri briefly glances from the Judge to the quivering, key-tapping media gallery on the opposite end of the room. And then to his advocate.

BOTHA: Did you kill your mother with an axe?

HENRI: No.

BOTHA: Did you attack your sister with an axe?

HENRI [Mouth gaping]: No. [Henri almost seems to sigh as he answers that one.]

Look carefully and in each of the four ‘no’s’, Henri answers open-eyed while looking at the Judge, but in each case, blinks moments later.  So it’s no…BLINK, no…BLINK, no…BLINK, no…BLINK.

BOTHA: Did you change the crime scene in any way…?

HENRI [Shakes his head]: No, my Lord.

The throwing of the axe, and the hitting of the axe into the wall, is an incidental way of explaining away the absence of blood, touch DNA and tissue DNA on the leading edge of the implement, and fibres and fingerprints on the haft, throat and grip.

Just as we saw in the JonBenét Ramsey case, in a genuine kidnapping, one would expect to find the fingerprints of the parents’ on the Ransom Note. Didn’t they pick it up and read it?  Or if they wrote the note themselves, were they extra careful not to leave any traces of handling it?

In the same way, we’d expect to find Henri’s fingerprints on the axe based on his version of handling the axe.  This absence shows, perhaps, that in his care not to make a mistake, just as in the Ramsey’s case, he was too careful.

BOTHA: Did you have any reason to attack your family?

HENRI [Seemingly aghast]: No, none whatsoever.

It’s difficult to make out on the livestream, but Henri either glances down or blinks as he says the word “none”.  But Botha’s not quite done.  There are three additional cards he wants to put on the table.

1st Card: No Clean-Up

BOTHA: Did you attempt to wash away any blood on your hands, or body, through the course of that morning?

HENRI: No, my Lord.

Henri’s suddenly deferential again.  In the entire court transcript for October 31st …

 

The first installment of DIABLO is available now on Amazon

Fullscreen capture 20171103 105615 PM

shakedowntitle.com

 

The Dark Matter of the Oscar Behind the Great Pretender [White Horse II Review]

WHITE HORSE II: Oscar Pistorius

Review by Melissa Manzella, August 21, 2016

oscar 1

“A brilliant narrative, replete with super sharp observations of both the case and the characters, this narrative brings the truth into ever clearer focus, and does so by having a kind of running theme on the ‘real’ narrative, Oscar knowingly killed Reeva, versus the ‘bogus’ one, Oscar thought he faced an intruder, referencing both often. In doing this, one really sees the flaws in the bogus one.

These two have such a good grasp of the case, having sorted Oscar long ago, and that now applies to their narrative of what happened the night Oscar killed Reeva, and I consider it to be definitive. In this narrative, the reader is brought early on to what may be a fascinating juncture in the case, this involving the rescheduling of sentence date by Judge Masipa, a matter which otherwise might be seen as an ordinary one, except that it was sentencing and the author was in court and caught the face of surprise on Prosecutor Nel, who obviously wasn’t expecting it.

He also noted an awkward looking Masipa, whom he thought looked to be gazing Roux’s way, for some kind of direction. Perhaps guidance on that date? This is what occurred to Van der Leek as he watched this exchange unfold. She changed it from June 17th, to July 6. With this single observation by Van Der Leek, bewildered trial watchers the world over who’d witnessed two vastly different Oscars at the sentencing hearing as opposed to the sentencing, might have just received clarity. We’re talking about collusion here, or more appropriately, the possibility thereof.

Without giving too much of the book away, the author does establish a plausible nexus between the rescheduling of this sentencing date, and a particular activity Oscar was engaged in at the time, outside of the realm of court. Did it happen? Well, Van der Leek doesn’t commit to saying that it did, but does supply the reader with relevant facts that would support it, and leaves readers to draw their own conclusions. Who knows if there was trickery afoot? Who knows that there wasn’t?

Here’s what I like about Van der Leek, and Wilson too, for that matter. They see something that looks wrong, and aren’t afraid to say it. They’ve always called a spade a spade, and have gone where the evidence has led them. Nick also talks about where he thinks this case went wrong, and it’s his belief that Masipa might have had her limitations, with that said, might simply have been overwhelmed with so much evidence. He thinks the case could have benefitted from a narrative, something that might have served to help her focus. He wishes Nel might have employed such. I tend to agree with him. He mentions that as a legal matter, and especially before a judge, showing motive certainly isn’t required but in this case might have been helpful.

Oscar being the scoundrel that he is, did an interview for ITV weeks before his sentence, looked well as he lied and cried his way through it, and then wouldn’t bother to take the stand in court. Van der Leek considers Mark Williams-Thomas the king of the soft ball questions, noting his bias. This narrative also saw new evidence emerge to do with the blood, and the authors made a crucial find here to do with Reeva that is a real game changer! Wow. I’ve not seen what they found documented anywhere else, so leads me to believe they were first in this finding! Impressive.

Both lament the fact that the bogus narrative is now the legal one, and Nick was incensed at Masipa’s doubling down at sentencing, memorializing this joke of a conviction. I’m hearing now however, that there’s a chance for a counter that may be coming down the pike in White Horse III, and I definitely say cheers to that! Looking forward to that read.”

WHITE HORSE II is Available on Amazon

WH2 Cover

shakedowntitle.com

Our Conclusions In “Deceit” & “Dark Matter” And How Our Journey Took Us To Them

Originally posted August 2015, by Nick van der Leek

Albert Einstein once said, “It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”

One of the tremendously rewarding experiences we [my co-author Lisa Wilson and I] have as authors is our research forces us to set up camp around questions.  We spend time: mornings, afternoons, days, weeks, even months asking questions and pursuing answers.  The amazing thing when it comes to True Crime, especially popular crime, is those answers are out there. One merely needs to go out and make the effort to look for them. And keep looking.  Seek and we do find!

What makes our narratives distinctive, I think, is that Lisa and I, more often than not, work as a team. How many other narratives have two researchers and authors, working from opposite sides of the Atlantic?  While Lisa provides a US perspective as a juror, a researcher and a True Crime buff, I’m most interested in the intuitive subtleties that underlie these cases.  The psychology, the economics, the motives. Human behavior is fascinating, especially when it drives people to the extreme. I’m also intrigued by what these intuitions reveals about us, and society.

humans

I wasn’t always into True Crime, in fact, like Ann Rule, I sort of fell into it by accident.  While Rule worked with Ted Bundy, I was Facebook friends with the model, Reeva Steenkamp, that Oscar Pistorius shot dead in his bathroom.  I didn’t intend to write a novel, I simply started asking questions, and then penned a 12 000 word magazine article [intended as a 4 part series].  That narrative eventually became my first bestseller.

Although I studied law and economics, I left the corporate environment to freelance full-time as a photographer and writer. My great grandfather was a famous South African artist, and my brother and aunt are also both well regarded artists [and yes, freelancers] in their own rights too.  I guess there is something restless in both mine and Lisa’s blood that makes us want to dig beneath the surface, to see expanded perspectives beyond what the media serves us.

I need to not only explore the world beyond my door, but represent it to myself and others in a constructive and meaningful way. I feel passionate about meaning above all, and it’s gratifying to find so much in such grim a setting where someone has lost their life.  When we honor the victims, when we remember them honestly, something unexpected happens: we also set ourselves straight, we also get ourselves [and society to some extent] back on track.

In terms of the Amanda Knox case, I stepped into the bullring for the first time in April this year [2015].  I knew virtually nothing about the case other than it had been newsworthy around the world.  I knew ‘something’ had happened in Italy, and that Amanda Knox was somehow involved [or not] because she was a housemate of a murdered British girl [also a student].  Before I started studying the case I had no bias either way – I didn’t know whether she was guilty or not.  Based on the little media that came my way, there seemed to me to be equal parts bias that she was innocent and…suspicious.

As soon as I started examining the case, literally within a few minutes, my interest was aroused.  It was along the lines of: she’s hiding something.  It was also along the lines that Amanda might be complicit in some way, but probably not involved in the actual murder.  How could she? Why would she?

Again, it is easy to ask these questions and then walk away from them without investing time in their answers. And when they do come they’re…well…stupefying.

While Lisa was in Italy, for work and research, I started working behind-the-scenes on a narrative Lisa and I designed a framework for called DOUBT.  The plan was that Lisa would return and then we would work on the narrative together.  I got so caught up in my own research I started on the narrative and by the time Lisa returned from Italy, DOUBT was done.  Interestingly, upon Lisa’s return, she still wasn’t 100% convinced Amanda was directly responsible for the murder.  The topic resulted in one or two heated Skype calls between us.

A lie repeated often enough [there was no DNA] eventually becomes, if not the truth, then a kind of truism, doesn’t it? A truism isn’t the truth, it’s a platitude. It’s something you say to get rid of inquiring minds.

No DNA? Well, of course there is – at least five instances of it, mixed with Meredith’s blood.  What’s perhaps more bizarre, for example, is the lack of Amanda’s fingerprints in her own home.  A single print? How many of us could say the same about fingerprints in our own homes?  Our computers, door handles, kitchen areas ought to be covered with prints.  Coming back to DNA, not only is Amanda’s DNA present in the villa, but so is Raffaele’s in Meredith’s bloody bedroom.

What’s the chance that Raffaele was at the villa, in Meredith’s room, but not Amanda?  What was he doing there if Amanda wasn’t with him? And is it any surprise that Meredith’s bra, cut with a knife after the murder, also had Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp? This is a guy who had a knife fetish, and who was carrying a knife at the time of his arrest.

In DOUBT [which was banned at first by strident Pro Knoxers and then resurrected as DECEIT], I identified 28 Red Flags.  These were singular signals that seem to show patterns of inconsistency.  Things just didn’t add up.  Indeed, Amanda did seem to be [and still is?] hiding something.  In our follow-up narrative, DARK MATTER, Lisa and I brought a binocular laser-like narrative focus to the four days of intense police investigation following the discovery of Meredith’s body at midday on November 2nd, 2007.

This time, we identified an additional 100+ Red Flags.  In addition to these, we listed several other highly suspicious events amongst other increasingly odd behaviors – not only from Amanda, but also Raffaele. It’s when we pool all of these clues together that a picture begins to emerge.  Patterns emerge.  And suddenly the mystery becomes…less mysterious.

If my initial ‘gut feel’ was that Amanda was simply ‘hiding something’, by the end of DECEIT there was little doubt that there was a lot more going on than that.  In fact, I’ve suggested to Lisa that based on forensic evidence alone [if one threw away all the circumstantial evidence], Amanda would still a have a major case to answer to. Lisa would eventually agree.  Conversely, if one took the entirety of circumstantial evidence, including the on-again-off-again alibi, and simultaneously ignored the totality of forensic evidence, Amanda would still have a major case to answer to.  That’s my opinion.  Lisa’s too, now that she’s gone beneath the surface of this case herself.

The irony is this case is so large, so convoluted, so full of spin and counter-spin, that it is easy to get lost in the details. As we see so often in court cases, it is not a lack of evidence that is a problem, it is the volume of it that gets disconcerting, and frequently confusing.  Confusion and doubt [and ‘reasonable doubt’] go hand in hand.  Of course, being confused by a lot of information is not the same as uncertainty based on a lack of evidence, or based on ambiguous evidence. The evidence isn’t ambiguous.

As such it is Lisa’s and my mission to demystify the eight years culminating in Amanda’s and Raffaele’s ultimate acquittal.  Our narratives, especially the first two or three in the series are probably better suited to newbies [people like us].  In the many narratives to come, Lisa and I expect to be as well versed as some folks on forums and resources like the incredibly valuable True Justice.org.

Before wrapping up, I’d like to share a final insight based on our experience writing another true crime series.  It may seem like Amanda Knox, Jodi Arias and Oscar Pistorius are three distinct individuals, with nothing in common.  But when we look closer, we don’t simply see matches in certain defense schemes, we see entire patterns of conduct [including motive] overlapping, and doing so perfectly.

what you thought

In South Africa, we have a similar situation where the media profit from stories on Oscar Pistorius.  They are reluctant to declare him guilty as that would be slaying a potential ‘cash cow’, and with book deals hanging in the balance [an acquittal is literally worth millions], the media are hedging their bets.

As a person involved in the media, I’m appalled at this, hence our multiple narratives on Oscar, two detailing his motive and the method of what we speculate was premeditated murder.  In terms of Amanda Knox, we suspect a similar game play between the media and Knox.  Both seem to be involved in a kind of PR waltz which both stand to benefit from, if they can dance consistently to their own music.

It was once said of Lance Armstrong that one shouldn’t make Lance Armstrong angry.  Anger is what motivates Lance to win.  And then the punch line: ‘Beating Lance makes him angry.’  Lisa and I have been astonished at the level of organisation and aggressive militancy [and dirty tricks] employed by Amanda’s supporters.  If this was intended to dissuade us from writing, these folks couldn’t be more wrong.

We are not out to make money, Lisa and I, although we care that our narratives resonate and are successful.  What we really care about is justice.  The bottom line, whether one is a criminal, or the supporter of a criminal is you never look good trying to make someone else look bad. The venom and personal insults Lisa and I have endured in our reviews is impressive.  The strategy is clear – attack the credibility of the messenger [since the message itself is problematic].

Our credibility is simple to establish. For my part, I am a professional writer. I did not gain a twitter following of almost 14 000 based on bad writing.  I work and write in partnership with Lisa because her research is often deeper and even more thorough than mine.  For me, our credibility is based on just two tests:  our personal standards and our level of honesty towards ourselves and others.  What distinguishes our narratives from all the others out there is the level of honesty – including self disclosure – both of us bring to our work.

This is because we care about something beyond justice. Besides wanting our readers to have a meaningful and genuine experience reading about these tragic crimes, we – as authors – also want to be enriched.  When we make it a personal journey, the insights and intuitions are truly rewarding. We find how these folks – not only the victim but also the perpetrators – are not so very different from us.  In this sense, if we genuinely learn something from these true stories, Meredith Kercher’s death need not be in vain.

Follow Nick van der Leek @HiRezLife and Lisa Wilson @lisawJ13

shakedowntitle.com

 

 

 

Shakedown Reviews Blade Runner Killer, Oscar Pistorius – Part 2

Listen to clips from the film and hear our views on the relationship between Reeva and Oscar…

Reeva’s Twitter timeline from January – February 2013…

The BEST mommy in the world  #flu #moms #love http://instagr.am/p/USx-pxwPZN/

3:38 AM – 10 Jan 2013

The BEST mommy in the world ☺ #flu #moms #love

A post shared by Reeva Steenkamp (@reevasteenkamp) on

Yaaaaawn!!!! Let me know when you’re done wasting your time trying to wear me down *files my nails*

5:42 PM – 11 Jan 2013

Finally feeling better today! Time to get back into  #brandnewme #2013

12:05 AM – 14 Jan 2013

My favourite sketch at the moment #art #expression #thought #beautiful http://instagr.am/p/UjRot1wPdj/

1:23 PM – 16 Jan 2013

Out of every misery, you WILL find your rainbow. A lesson. A truth. Nothing is a wasted experience if you look with willing eyes!

4:38 AM – 16 Jan 2013

Still can’t believe I went to the movies last night! First time in years!!! It was fun but I prefer DVDs at home. What have u seen lately?

12:00 PM – 16 Jan 2013

” You built your walls so high, no one could climb it. But I’m gonna try boy … Would you let me see beneath your beautiful … ”

18 Jan 2013

My new apartment will have one of these guys in it ….  http://instagr.am/p/UrK8zewPbw/

2:58 PM – 19 Jan 2013

OK blocked and reported times 5. Seriously, if I am that distasteful and repulsive to you then please don’t follow what I am doing. Thanks.

1:45 PM – 21 Jan 2013

This week has taught me that people will say what they like about you regardless&others will believe them.Carry on anyway.Be brave.Be you.

2:17 PM – 27 Jan 2013

28 Jan 2013

Sometimes your blessings lay beneath a mountain of tribulations. Be patient and see them through. You will appreciate them far more!

Some days you just want to stay in bed and nap and think and watch tv and drink tea. It’s those “I need my mommy” days.

8:39 AM – 29 Jan 2013

#FF The most amazing PR company in SA @CapacityR Thank you for always looking after me at events. World class! Cc @CandyGoldring

5:32 AM – 1 Feb 2013

He certainly doesn’t need more followers but he’s beautiful to look at & says some smart stuff too 😉 @OscarPistorius

Fun at the Vaal  http://instagr.am/p/VRiyRowPbb/

12:37 PM – 3 Feb 2013

Thinking of Valentine’s Day well ahead of time – in love with love as Gina Myers put it

 

Grab a copy of the latest @People_SA I’m wearing a few numbers to inspire those ladies looking to spoil their men on Valentines Day 🙂 #Love

10:11 AM – 4 Feb 2013

The queue … Is queueish … At home affairs …. It’s all wrap around and stuff. Fml.

4:25 AM – 4 Feb 2013

Preparing to go overseas?

Feisty

 

Yes, push into the queue that we’ve all been patiently waiting in AND don’t say thank you.

11:55 AM – 6 Feb 2013

New rules:

 

8 Feb 2013

Lying on a blanky in the garden with my @gi_myers breathing in some fresh air and chatting about life. http://instagr.am/p/VeRGH5QPZm/

 

 

Let the hate motivate.

5:12 AM – 6 Feb 2013

 

 

Before you lift a pen or raise your voice to criticise, acknowledge people’s circumstances. You don’t know their struggles. Their journey.

1:54 AM – 8 Feb 2013

 

When it takes you an entire day to try and compose a fitting response, a lacking one at that, rather leave it. It’s just substandard.

7:48 PM – 7 Feb 2013

: Funeral begins for Anene Booysen: ” RIP princess!

Winter Throwback. Myself and at a track day with .

 

 

Excited for a chilled Saturday evening in with good food, movies, popcorn, frozen yoghurt & my boo. #happiness #love #chilling #weekend

6:56 AM – 9 Feb 2013

It’s the last supper with 😦 I think and I will kidnap you forever!!!!

(Martin Rooney leaves 10th of Feb. Murder happens 4 nights later.)

I woke up in a happy safe home this morning. Not everyone did. Speak out against the rape of individuals… http://instagr.am/p/Viq8nNwPRy/

11:17 PM – 9 Feb, 2013

 

When you fall in love with someone’s personality everything about them becomes beautiful.

12:15AM – 9 Feb, 2013

Check out The Link tonight 4 a sneak peek of “Tropika Islands of Treasure” , ,

It’s a beautiful day!Make things happen.Starting my day off with a yummy healthy shake from my boo 🙂

 What do you have up your sleeve for your love tomorrow???

3:37 AM – 13 Feb 2013

WEAR BLACK THIS FRIDAY IN SUPPORT AGAINST AND WOMAN ABUSE

4:34 AM – 13 Feb 2013

 

Revelations

 

shakedowntitle.com

Shakedown Reviews Blade Runner Killer, Oscar Pistorius – Part 1

p14586320_p_v8_aa

Listen to clips, and hear #Shakedown’s review of the film…


 


Reeva’s Twitter Timeline from 2007 – January 2013…

July 31, 2007

keeping a secret…

July 31, 2007

excited to see the King again xxxx.

But in August, whilst auditioning for a spot on Top Billing, and signing up with ice Models, Reeva hints at some financial difficulties in her early days in Johannesburg. She also reveals a protracted struggle to find the right man, losing her phone, the trials and tribulations of the nightclubbing scene, and her innermost feelings of conflict and frustration – did she make the right choice to pursue modelling?  A close friend passes away in the same month and Reeva is missing her parents.

After dropping a few hints, Reeva first mentions Warren on Facebook on October 11, 2007, nearly 4 months after their first meeting.

October 11, 2007

at home doing work…it’s nice having Warren here to keep me company…

But 2008 proves to be a year Reeva would prefer to forget.  On April 7 Reeva posts:

‘[I stand] corrected. You do not get over the past. The past decides when to let go of you.’

On May 8, 2008, Reeva changes her relationship status on Facebook to ‘In a relationship’ although Warren and Reeva have been an item since January.

(They spend Christmas and New Years apart)

Going to miss some of my best people tonight @OscarPistorius @gi_myers @Iamfomo Have the most amazing night crazies! Send piccies 🙂

1:33 PM – 31 Dec 2012

No reply from Oscar or deleted.

I’ve learnt many valuable lessons this year. Thank you 2012 for the education! Above all, “trust your inner voice” stands out for me. #2013

12:52 AM – 31 Dec 2012

Flies to Cape Town on New Years Day

The chauffeurs in Cape Town hey. Nice! http://instagr.am/p/UBZZG0wPV5/

4:38 AM – 3 Jan 2013

Home time! Back to work. Thank you Cape Town & all the special people who made this break memorable! #friends #family #ocean #sunshine

3:40 AM – 7 Jan 2013

Visiting my boo on set. He shoots more than me! I need to up my game!!! #manonfire

3:47 AM – 10 Jan 2013

1506863434 (1)april-screams-in-the-night-oscar-cp

shakedowntitle.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCA Sentencing Appeal of Oscar Pistorius – LIVE Blog – November 3, 2017

Court to hear the case starting at 10:00am local time today.  Live feed on ENCA:  https://www.enca.com/south-africa/supreme-court-to-hear-why-oscar-should-serve-more-time

Follow @HiRezLife for live tweets

JUDGES:

Ronnie Bosielo, Willie Seriti, Pieter Meyer, Colin Lamont, Fikile Mokgohloa

LAWYERS:

Andrea Johnson for prosecution

Barry Roux for defense

UPDATES FROM COURT….

10:00am – Professor James Grant is once again assisting the prosecution

10:05am – Advocate Johnson is up first.  Justice Bosielo seems supportive of Masipa.  He raises his voices and says Oscar has apologized enough, and Steenkamps accepted.

Johnson:  “One really doesn’t know what his [Oscar’s] explanation is…”

10:18am – Advocate Johnson addresses what Oscar could have done more – she raises the point that feeling sorry for oneself is not remorse

10:20am – Johnson is reminding the SCA what their findings were.  She’s fired up, and arguing passionately as she reads from court record.

10:24am – Johnson:  “I refer this court to its judgement – as a matter of common sense at the time the fatal shots were fired the possibility the person behind the door would be killed was clearly an obvious result.”

Can barely keep up with Johnson…she’s racing through the findings, and judges are racing to keep up with her, flipping through the papers.  Only 2 judges have spoken so far.

10:28am – Johnson says dolus eventualis is serious and the mitigating factors delivered by the defense were not sufficient – there were no substantial compelling factors why Oscar received a less than 15 years sentence

10:35am – Johnson says Judge Masipa elevated Pistorius’ regret

10:37am – Justice Meyer:  “Recognition must be given for time already served”  #bullshit

These judges are coming at Johnson hard

10:42am – Johnson says Oscar never explained why he didn’t fire a warning shot, nor can he justify it.  Even if he thought in his mind there was an intruder, he can’t explain the threat he faced.  He could not tell the court what the danger was, yet he fired four shots.

Johnson wants the court to recognize the brutality of this death.

Roux listens with eyes closed, hand to face, deep in thought

Johnson:  “No acceptable reason has been advanced by the accused on why he killed [Reeva]” #hernamewasReeva

10:54am Johnson: “the court misdirected itself by considering rehabilitation as a factor to deviate from minimum sentence”

Johnson speaks the whopping obvious – the first step to proper rehab is acknowledging what you have done.  Oscar has never acknowledged what he’s done… he’s made excuses, sobbed for himself, changed his stories, changed his defenses.

Simply put – there is absolutely nothing that justifies a lesser sentence in this case.

11:02am – Johnson says Reeva had her whole life ahead of her.  “No reasonable court” would have imposed 6 year sentence.  It is shockingly light.  Ends by saying the court [Masipa] misdirected itself.

Court adjourns for tea break.   Such a civilized thing for such uncivilized business.

Nick in court

From Nick:  “Kinda weird seeing both counsels hanging out during adjournment.  Like a family of crows.”

11:30am  Roux is up.  Says he’s responding to the remorse and regret argument.  Roux wants to start here.

Roux argues Oscar wasn’t convicted of murdering Reeva.  Which is unfortunately true.

Meyer:  “Consequences were dire”  There is no explanation for firing 4 shots.

Seriti:  “Which version [of Oscar’s] do we choose?”

The justices are really pushing Roux… WHY shoot 4 times?

Roux starts now with the “slow burn” argument that he used at the last appeal proceedings.  Disabled Oscar has had fears brewing his whole life.  He argues, Oscar has an anxiety disorder.

Meyer:  “Why impose a death sentence on who was in that cubicle?”

10:43am – Roux:  “I cannot stand here and justify the 4 shots.  What I’m trying to do is explain the state of mind.  Maybe if I’m able-bodied, and I don’t suffer from anxiety disorder, and I get there, I would be far more calculated, and think better but that person in that situation did not – he was just firing.  It was his reaction as a result of something he had no control over.  It was not a person standing there with confidence, that feels he can protect himself, that feels he can run away.”

Roux talks himself in circles.  You can’t have a terrified, incompetent, defenseless person then running after & confronting a potentially deadly person.  You also can’t have a person who’s completely not in control of his thinking and faculties, then consciously deciding what he needs to do to defend himself.

Justices are also showing Roux little mercy.

Roux:  Cannot hand down 15 years to a person in that situation that evening.  He argues, Masipa did consider the four shots, the cubicle, the shooter and the circumstances.

Roux says Masipa was unfairly criticized for the sentence she handed down.  Justices debate with him over the issue of retribution when imposing sentences, especially for grave crimes.

Meyer wants to know why Oscar didn’t testify on his own behalf – after the murder conviction, for his sentencing.  Roux wants to pawn it off on the state of his mind, but even the justices can see that’s rubbish.

Seriti points out the obvious – Oscar didn’t testify because he told so many different stories, he was afraid of another cross-exam.  But Roux says he suffers severe PTSD and it was getting worse at that time.

Let’s take a moment to remember, Oscar’s ITV interview – which was given/aired PRIOR to Oscar’s appeal.

Roux ends with:  “We submit that leave be refused”

Johnson back up and reads from Masipa’s judgement.  Even Masipa noted she felt unease over the witness after witness giving testimony about Oscar’s vulnerability – in other words, it was over-emphasized.

Ah, thank you Ms. Johnson.  She brings up Oscar’s television “expose”

Johnson repeats herself saying there is a lack of an admission in terms of acknowledging the wrong and Bosielo cuts her off.  He says “don’t spoil the good point you made”

Johnson:  “This court is duty bound because there were misdirections.  This court has the power to interfere”

Bosielo swiftly ends the hearing and judgement is reserved to future date.

 


What are they saying on Twitter?….

IMG_2537IMG_2539IMG_2543IMG_2544IMG_2555IMG_2557IMG_2558IMG_2560IMG_2561IMG_2562IMG_2563IMG_2564IMG_2565

tweet7tweet4tweet3tweet2tweet

 


IMAGES FROM COURT…

IMG_2551IMG_2552IMG_2553IMG_2554IMG_2556IMG_2568IMG_2569IMG_2570IMG_2572IMG_2573IMG_2575

OP5OP4OP3OP2OPAJ

Roux