Post sentencing discussion

[vansleuths]

Could I address just a few points in this?

This is the same Arnold Pistorius who, just minutes after the verdict was read, distastefully used the court as his stage to vocalise his "gratitude" to the judge for clearing OP of murder -

Do remember that Pistorius was a national South African hero. The interest in this case was so great that it was the first trial in South African history that was televised. The media/public wanted to know the opinion of the Pistorius family. If uncle Arnold had not made a public comment here where all of the media had already assembled, where and when should he have done it. It was simply easier to do it at this point while everyone was already assembled.

while Reeva's family were still sitting there (I think).

If memory serves me right, they were not there but in either case, they could have very easily left through the exit door.

This is the same AP who publicly criticised Nel for doing his job.

He criticized Nel AND the media for pursuing this as a pre-meditated murder case. Early on, there were breaking reports saying that Pistorius has used a bat to crack Reeva's skull while in a steroid rage. All of this was proved to be false.

This is the same AP, who, along with other members of the family, helped shape OP into the killer he became, by not doing more to hold him to account for his previous atrocious behaviour.

Pistorius is not a young boy, he is a young adult, in his 20s and as such, he is responsible for his own decisions. None of us were around the Pistorius dinner table. What's to say that uncle Arnold didn't tell OP to tone it down a notch but with OP's fame, money and lifestyle, he simply told uncle Arnold to shove it.

I'm pretty sure he'd have known about Carl wiping the phone, too!

Entirely speculation, no proof that he knew.

The mere fact of him taking the kids in and treating them as his own doesn't mean much if his parental skills were lacking to such an extent that one of the "kids" felt entitled to get away with murder.

Only those that adopt a child that is abused or unwanted know what a challenge it can be to raise this child. The child brings with him/her a lot of baggage. You may use OP and his crime as an example of poor parenting skills by uncle Arnold, but he has lots of biological children and as far as I know, none of them are on trial for murder.

Could it be that there is something different about OP and his brother and sister. Let's start with no biological parents. Studies have shown that kids that grow up without a dad in their life have a higher degree of aggression. Here's a small snippet from just one of many articles ""Growing up without a father could permanently alter the structure of the brain and produce children who are more aggressive and angry, scientists have warned"

 

[JudgeJudi]

Think also of the loss of income while they sat in court every day too for seven months and now to find out it's not over yet must be devastating.

It would have been far more easy for OP to plead guilty in the first place.

They've gone from thinking they're going to be winners to probably being losers of so much money, time off work, and reputation and OP will probably still spend many years in prison when he could have already a year ago been in prison serving his time. It will certainly be interesting to observe how this all works out. I am even wondering whether Arnold would even want OP to be staying at his house again if he ever does get house arrest as they could be in conflict now. I am also curious about whether OP's father will be called upon to pay OP's legal debt. If OP is eventually charged with murder and the sentence extended, then it will be a long time before OP can re-pay the debt (unless he has money offshore that they can access, of course.) I often wonder where all his money has gone if he was earning so much as there seems to be a large deficit between his income and sold assets and it could not have been just taxes!

OP was an adult when he committed this crime. No-one other than him is responsible for any fees incurred unless Arnold made an agreement with the the DT. As it was never going to be just a couple of thousand rand, if there was an agreement it would have been in writing. Arnold did put up the bond, which he'll be getting back within a few weeks, so if what we've heard so far is true, I don't understand why he and the rest of the family are so upset about the legal fees. Something's not quite right here. Roux, as a professional, would never disclose anything about his client. It's all considered privileged information just the same as what you tell your doctor. Of course if it's leaked, that's a different thing entirely. I still think Roux will act for OP whether or not he's paid. Everyone knows he's made a fortune out of this trial and it wouldn't look good at all if he gave up now. Pure speculation though. You always have to expect the unexpected with this matter.

I'm still wondering about the off-shore accounts. If there's money stashed away, that's probably where it is.

 

[vansleuths]

For those interested in the appeal process and what hurdles lay before Nel, this is a good read:

https://criminallaw101andbeyond.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/seekoei-beeld.pdf

 

[Estelle]

OP was an adult when he committed this crime. No-one other than him is responsible for any fees incurred unless Arnold made an agreement with them. As it was never going to be just a couple of thousand rand, it there was an agreement it would have been in writing. Arnold did put up the bond, which he'll be getting back within a few weeks, so if what we've heard so far is true, I don't understand why he and the rest of the family are so upset about the legal fees. Something's not quite right here. Roux, as a professional, would never disclose anything about his client. It's all considered privileged information just the same as what you tell your doctor. Of course if it's leaked, that's a different thing entirely. I still think Roux will act for OP whether or not he's paid. Everyone knows he's made a fortune out of him and it wouldn't look good at all if he gave up now. Pure speculation though. You always have to expect the unexpected with this matter.

I'm still wondering about the off-shore accounts. If there's money stashed away, that's probably where it is.

Wouldn't OP have had a contract with Roux et al to pay the legal fees monthly? If he got behind with his payments, then surely they could have set a budget. I would have thought that the lawyers would have asked how much money OP had to spend on legal fees first and kept to that amount? Oldwage should have been dismissed from the beginning to save on costs. Then again Roux has had a lot of publicity to attract other clients so maybe he was happy to continue whether the legal bills were paid or not.

 

[Estelle]

For those interested in the appeal process and what hurdles lay before Nel, this is a good read:

https://criminallaw101andbeyond.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/seekoei-beeld.pdf

There is a discussion on the above link here:

http://criminallawza.net/2014/10/29/the-seekoie-hurdle/

 

[Estelle]

"There is another welcome aspect to this. The SCA is one of the examples of our legal system at its best, because the emotion is stripped away. Some of our biggest judicial personalities are there - people like the SCA

Judge President Lex Mpati (all intellectual dignity),

Judge Mahomed Navsa (aggressive erudition itself), or

Judge Azhar Cachalia (who once memorably told Ngoako Ramatlhodi that it would be ridiculous to instruct the Springbok coach to ensure that he had an Indian person in the tight-five).

The sight of these judges, or any of their colleagues, being broadcast around the world would be one of the best adverts we could produce for our country. It would be a completely different scenario to the theatrics of those countries still backward enough to use the jury system, where lawyers go for emotion, rather than the law.

And then to the question that all media people will ask immediately: will it be televised? Will the judges give permission? While it’s a little too early to give a definitive answer, it is probably going to be yes."

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-10-27-the-pistorius-appeal-bring-it-on/#.VFHXelfdNOe

 

[Deleted member 102539]

OP was an adult when he committed this crime. No-one other than him is responsible for any fees incurred unless Arnold made an agreement with them. As it was never going to be just a couple of thousand rand, it there was an agreement it would have been in writing. Arnold did put up the bond, which he'll be getting back within a few weeks, so if what we've heard so far is true, I don't understand why he and the rest of the family are so upset about the legal fees. Something's not quite right here. Roux, as a professional, would never disclose anything about his client. It's all considered privileged information just the same as what you tell your doctor. Of course if it's leaked, that's a different thing entirely. I still think Roux will act for OP whether or not he's paid. Everyone knows he's made a fortune out of him and it wouldn't look good at all if he gave up now. Pure speculation though. You always have to expect the unexpected with this matter.

I'm still wondering about the off-shore accounts. If there's money stashed away, that's probably where it is.

It is about the fees. Arnold (and OP) was told, the process would take 6 weeks and not more than 6 months. I understand as he had objected to the length of the trial.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/l...ius-trial-into-south-african-classrooms-57316

Live Broadcasts Take Pistorius Trial Into South African Classrooms


Oscar Pistorius has his tie adjusted by his uncle Arnold Pistorius, right, in court during his ongoing murder trial in Pretoria on July 3.
AP
Pretoria: Live television broadcasts of the murder trial of South African Olympian Oscar Pistorius have taken the dramatic case into living rooms around the world - and into classrooms in his home country.

When Faith Kholofelo took her exams in June she faced a question about the trial - one of many students being taught legal principles through the courtroom lens.

While adults have been quick to judge the innocence or guilt of the star sprinter, students are taught to take a more measured approach and see Pistorius as innocent until proven guilty.

"Teachers say we must wait until the court decides," said Kholofelo, an 18-year-old dressed in the grey and yellow school uniform of Lotus Gardens Secondary School in Pretoria, the country's administrative capital.

Pistorius, known as the "Blade Runner" for his prosthetic legs, is charged with murdering his model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on the night of Valentine's Day last year.

The double-amputee claims he mistakenly shot Steenkamp through a locked toilet door, believing she was an intruder in his upmarket Pretoria home.

Prosecutors argue that he deliberately killed the 29-year old law graduate after an argument.

"You have the right to fight until you're found guilty or innocent," said Donnavan Fourie, a 14-year-old wearing a green tracksuit jacket with a black backpack slung over his shoulder.

"Everyone has the right to a fair trial. But you have to speak the truth," said Fourie, on his way to Laerskool Boerefort in Pretoria.

"If you don't speak the truth, someone will find out."

- 'Reserving judgement' -

As the Pistorius trial enters its last stages - lawyers presented final arguments this week - the decision to allow the trial to be broadcast live is already reaping educational benefits.

"I'm not certain that in his decision to broadcast the trial (the judge) had education in the forefront of his mind, but it has had that unintended side effect and it has been a powerful tool," said Kelly Phelps, a senior law lecturer at the University of Cape Town.

"I think adults have been very quick to jump to judgement, whereas students have been much more open minded, much more sceptical in their approach," said Phelps, who uses the Pistorius trial to teach legal concepts such as the burden of proof and inferential reasoning.

"Students are reserving their judgements until they've seen all the facts play out."

 

[Exchange973]

THAT must be what got you so fired up in post #1002! Ha!

Fundamentally, I agree with you, bro, but some people sincerely don't agree with either of us.

It's always been interesting to me how people can look at exactly the same thing and come to two diametrically opposite conclusions about it - like this face/vase picture/optical illusion thing.

I haven't seen many posts from them in awhile but there's a group (albeit rather smaller) of brave folks who were active in this forum before the verdict, who strongly voiced the minority opinion.

I was always mystified about what they were seeing in every twist and turn of the trial, that I was 100% not seeing.

They may have been asking themselves the same thing about what I wrote.

I can't speak for others, but the reasons I do not post anymore are that everytime someone challenged the conventional (on this forum at least) way of thinking, we were labelled "pistorians" who were seduced by OP's fame and were, putting it bluntly, stupid and naive. We were told that no reasonable person could believe what we were saying, and to wait for the verdict when we would be put in our place. A number demanded to know if I would accept the verdict. I said that I would, and asked the same question back - to no response.

So I thought to myself "wait until the verdict, where common sense will prevail". Instead, rather than accepting Masipa's findings, she was immediately labelled incompetent and in the pay of OP's uncle. At that point, I saw that there was really no point, and that the majority of this forum wasn't concerned about the objective truth, but rather pursuing an odd hatred and obsession with OP and proving he committed pre-meditatated murder, and closing their minds completely to any facts that pointed the other way.

So I still read, and often roll my eyes, but I don't think there is much to be added from contributing to the discussion. Masipas's judgment is being appealed, but only on the law. The facts as she found them will stand. I, for one, believe she was right (albeit, I would have relied on different reasoning).

For the record, not that it will make any difference, I should say that (i) I think OP is a nasty piece of work (ii) I think he committed murder; I do not think that he believed that Reeva was in the toilet, but I believe that he intended to kill the intruder he genuinely thought was there (iii) I think 5 years is far too low in prison, it should be 15.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/07/...-about-celebrity-not-south-africa-280549.html

The Pistorius Trial Is a Parable About Celebrity, Not South Africa

This was easy in the case of Boshoff, a marketing manager unknown outside the tool business. Pistorius was something else entirely. Born with a rare condition that necessitated amputation of both legs when he was 11 months old, Pistorius was raised by a headstrong, gun-toting mother who refused to allow him to succumb to self-pity. He would stand his ground. He would play rugby and run like any other boy. And lo, he did just that, eventually sprinting to fame and fortune on his sci-fi blades.

Pistorius’ position was complicated by neighbours who maintained that some ominous **** went down in his house on the night of February 13, 2013. They said they heard a bitter argument around midnight, followed some hours later by the sound of a woman screaming, and then a fusillade of gunshots.

If we are to be honest, it was this story of lust, jealousy and vengeance that propelled Reeva’s death to the top of the world’s news agenda, creating anticipation so intense that most American and European TV networks hired local fixers and cameramen and committed massive resources to covering the murder trial.

Or was it? In the end, I don’t think so. In the end, Pistorius was a parable about celebrity, not South Africa. Oscar and Reeva were the golden *couple, the heroic disabled athlete and his beautiful ‘it’ girl. Reeva was by most accounts an almost *perfect human being, but the blade runner had a fatal flaw. Even his family acknowledges that he coped badly with fame, becoming a spoiled, arrogant brat, drinking too much and using fast cars and dangerous guns to pull girls and impress his swashbuckling buddies. His recklessness cost a life and he deserved the prison sentence handed down to him.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I can't speak for others, but the reasons I do not post anymore are that everytime someone challenged the conventional (on this forum at least) way of thinking, we were labelled "pistorians" who were seduced by OP's fame and were, putting it bluntly, stupid and naive. We were told that no reasonable person could believe what we were saying, and to wait for the verdict when we would be put in our place. A number demanded to know if I would accept the verdict. I said that I would, and asked the same question back - to no response.

So I thought to myself "wait until the verdict, where common sense will prevail". Instead, rather than accepting Masipa's findings, she was immediately labelled incompetent and in the pay of OP's uncle. At that point, I saw that there was really no point, and that the majority of this forum wasn't concerned about the objective truth, but rather pursuing an odd hatred and obsession with OP and proving he committed pre-meditatated murder, and closing their minds completely to any facts that pointed the other way.

So I still read, and often roll my eyes, but I don't think there is much to be added from contributing to the discussion. Masipas's judgment is being appealed, but only on the law. The facts as she found them will stand. I, for one, believe she was right (albeit, I would have relied on different reasoning).

For the record, not that it will make any difference, I should say that (i) I think OP is a nasty piece of work (ii) I think he committed murder; I do not think that he believed that Reeva was in the toilet, but I believe that he intended to kill the intruder he genuinely thought was there (iii) I think 5 years is far too low in prison, it should be 15.

Sorry, I just can not understand that someone else simply does not understand.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I think that's a really interesting idea, Mr F. I had wondered about that some time ago when I concluded that the second set of "shots" must have been the fatal bullets. So what were the first which sounded "the same"? And "if it quacks like a duck" etc. But I have such a visceral dislike of guns that I never would have thought about checking out the magazine, which is very clever - thank you! This would make the forensic team unbelievably sloppy, which I am prepared to believe sadly. Although of course shots could have been fired from the pistol on other occasions - could ballistics tell how recent?

The jeans outside the window also made me curious. What else could have gone out the window? But has anyone determined whose jeans they are? That was one sniffer dogs could have sorted pdq.

But the MAIN reason I didn't favour a second set of real shots was because I thought it would have woken more people than just the Stipps, especially as it would have been shot out into the open air. I'm pretty sure Estelle van der Merwe heard the second set of bangs, not the first. And the dogs would have barked, as they did for the second set. But certainly not to dampen your enthusiasm, as if anything could. It is an interesting idea, and brainstorming is a great problem-solving tool, and it may well be correct.

Thinking about it now, the more Barry Roux claimed in his pseudo-sincere voice that we KNOW there were only four shots fired, the more I am inclined to believe it is false. He's a good barometer. But then I flip back to the lack of disturbance. And the dogs that didn't bark. And the Stipps were not alert for the first. And other considerations. Hmm.

The first sounds being gunshots is one of a number of possibilities but one which I favour for the moment. I don't think it necessarily makes forensics sloppy because they would not know they needed to look for this (since everything else seems to fit together). And we mustn't forget that, in spite of my measurements, it is still possible that the magazine has more bullets in it than I've figured.

I think the first shots would have been fired from within the bedroom (or bathroom) and aimed outside, so no louder than the second set. The Stipps hear the first shots because Annette Stipp is already awake and their balcony windows are open. But my main point re. less people hearing the first shots is this: how many people were living and sleeping on the estate that night, including some living nearer the ear witnesses, who didn't hear anything? And of those that did, how many heard all the second shots? I think the progression of first shots, dogs barking, screaming, second shots gradually woke a few people but surprisingly few when you think of the potential number that lived near enough.

I think it is possible that the cricket bat (striking the toilet door) has become a distraction and confused the issue. It has allowed the Defence to build a plausible alternative scenario for what happened that evening. I don't think the bat was heard by anyone. Just like the barging of the bedroom door wasn't, or whatever caused the dent in the bath panel (as well as the potentially louder sounds above).

 

[Fuskier]

Could I address just a few points in this?

Do remember that Pistorius was a national South African hero. The interest in this case was so great that it was the first trial in South African history that was televised. The media/public wanted to know the opinion of the Pistorius family. If uncle Arnold had not made a public comment here where all of the media had already assembled, where and when should he have done it. It was simply easier to do it at this point while everyone was already assembled.

If memory serves me right, they were not there but in either case, they could have very easily left through the exit door.

He criticized Nel AND the media for pursuing this as a pre-meditated murder case. Early on, there were breaking reports saying that Pistorius has used a bat to crack Reeva's skull while in a steroid rage. All of this was proved to be false.

Pistorius is not a young boy, he is a young adult, in his 20s and as such, he is responsible for his own decisions. None of us were around the Pistorius dinner table. What's to say that uncle Arnold didn't tell OP to tone it down a notch but with OP's fame, money and lifestyle, he simply told uncle Arnold to shove it.

Entirely speculation, no proof that he knew.

Only those that adopt a child that is abused or unwanted know what a challenge it can be to raise this child. The child brings with him/her a lot of baggage. You may use OP and his crime as an example of poor parenting skills by uncle Arnold, but he has lots of biological children and as far as I know, none of them are on trial for murder.

Could it be that there is something different about OP and his brother and sister. Let's start with no biological parents. Studies have shown that kids that grow up without a dad in their life have a higher degree of aggression. Here's a small snippet from just one of many articles ""Growing up without a father could permanently alter the structure of the brain and produce children who are more aggressive and angry, scientists have warned"

BIB Firstly, is there a link for the article quoted in your last paragraph please Vansleuths?
Secondly, it is a relief to see that some are aware of the impact of poor fathering upon young male offspring. I was disappointed that Judge Masipa adopted the 'blame' conveniently placed on OP's dead mother as being one who was overly anxious and slept with a gun under her pillow. She had 3 children she was rearing in highly unstable, apartheid SA. She had a duty to protect her children and herself. Where was OP's father? What impact did his role modelling have during their upbringing? What kind of parenting did he offer or lack thereof? So convenient to blame the mother who cannot defend herself IMO. Given the status of women in SA, OP's mother would most likely have endured disadvantage and vulnerability as a SA white woman rearing three children on her own. Where was Henke? did he abandon his responsibility to his own children? what was his influence? My opinion only.

 

[kaos]

I don't use Twitter but for those wondering about deleted tweets, there are sites that allow you to view them.

 

[pandax81]

I posted these points before, but to recap...

The procedures to be followed as specified in Law

Conviction:
- The prosecutor must apply to the trial court and request that it reserve question(s) of law
- These must be question(s) of law that arose on the trial (therefore Seekoei cannot be one of these questions yet, just argument)
- If the trial court refuses to reserve some or all of the questions, the prosecutor then has 21 calendar days to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal, the time limit may be extended on application if a good reason is shown

Sentence:
- The prosecutor must apply to the trial judge for leave to appeal the sentence
- The time limit is 14 calendar days within passing of sentence, last day to apply Tue 4 Nov, this may be extended on application if a good reason is shown

Bail:
-If a question of law is reserved, the trial court, if it thinks fit, may order that the accused be released on bail until the matter is heard and decided

Sources:
- Sections 316-321 Criminal Procedure Act
- Section 1 Criminal Procedure Act: " “day” means the space of time between sunrise and sunset "
- Section 4 Interpretation Act: states that for any Act of Law and for any purpose, the number of days must be interpreted to be ordinary days unless stated otherwise (one caveat that does not apply here: except the last day of a time limit which cannot fall on a Sunday or Public holiday, so in these cases it is the next available day which becomes the last day)
- High Court judgment on time limits for appeals specifies "14 ordinary days" http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2013/165.pdf

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The first sounds being gunshots is one of a number of possibilities but one which I favour for the moment. I don't think it necessarily makes forensics sloppy because they would NOT??? know they needed to look for this (since everything else seems to fit together). And we mustn't forget that, in spite of my measurements, it is still possible that the magazine has more bullets in it than I've figured.

I think the first shots would have been fired from within the bedroom (or bathroom) and aimed outside, so no louder than the second set. The Stipps hear the first shots because Annette Stipp is already awake and their balcony windows are open. But my main point re. less people hearing the first shots is this: how many people were living and sleeping on the estate that night, including some living nearer the ear witnesses, who didn't hear anything? And of those that did, how many heard all the second shots? I think the progression of first shots, dogs barking, screaming, second shots gradually woke a few people but surprisingly few when you think of the potential number that lived near enough.

I think it is possible that the cricket bat (striking the toilet door) has become a distraction and confused the issue. It has allowed the Defence to build a plausible alternative scenario for what happened that evening. I don't think the bat was heard by anyone. Just like the barging of the bedroom door wasn't, or whatever caused the dent in the bath panel (as well as the potentially louder sounds above).

inserted and bbm = Am I right or not?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I don't use Twitter but for those wondering about deleted tweets, there are sites that allow you to view them.

I wonder, where?

 

[jay-jay]

I will remove you from the collective "we", but don't delude yourself thinking that you know all there is to know about the Steenkamp and Pistorius family. It's always easy to see the victim as angelic and in this case, the family of the convicted as demonic, but people are not black and white, but rather shades of grey and the media is very good at portraying these stereotypes.

If the tables had been turned and Reeva shot Pistorius, how different would the conversation on this forum be?

1. Would we be talking about what a national hero Pistorius was, someone that did an incredible amount of charity work?
2. Would we be talking about Reeva and how she cheated on Pistorius while she found her fifteen minutes of fame on a dime a dozen reality show and how she was worried about Pistorius finding out?

Think about it. Whatever wrong you feel uncle Arnold has done, his love for family is undeniable and he took in three kids from another family. That's love, kindness and generosity, something I respect and admire.

Probably best if I don't reply to your post above, especially the BBM.

.. oh, just to address the 'If the tables had been turned and Reeva shot Pistorius, how different would the conversation on this forum be?' .. that's a pointless thing to say because she didn't shoot him. However, I have watched crime programmes where the woman has murdered (either their husband or their children) and I feel exactly the same about them as I do about Pistorius. This has nothing to do with any kind of sistahood sticking up for a sista, just for the sake of it.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/carl-pistorius-dodged-charge/

How Carl Pistorius dodged a charge

 

[Mr Fossil]

inserted and bbm = Am I right or not?

You are, well spotted. I've corrected my original post. Thank you