Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Legal experts, do you find any substance in the argument so far?
All I see are what we have known from the main trial are Roux's strength: namely, confuse, confound and distract.
 
What has this got to do with mitigation. All he's doing is going through the SCA judgment and cherrypicking.
 
delilah said:
Im just offering my opinion. I'm as entitled to do so as you are. There's no need to be rude.

Masipa seemed unable to accurately interpret the difference between DE and DD. I think if she'd been paid off she would have done a better job of ironing out the mistakes in her judgment.
Click to expand...

I know my friend. I didn't mean to seem rude. I'm truly sorry.

But Oscar and Masipa just makes me upset.

Because I truly feel that if this happened to Masipa female family member; Then she truly would have thought differently.

But I respect your thoughts as well. Because you are right. I doubt Arnold actually paid her off.

But I do think that she likes the worldwide attention and she is making sure that she plays it out all of the way. Jmo.

But I agree with yours as well.
 
It's about time Roux accepted that OP was convicted with murder by the SCA.
 
Well from what I have gleaned for all your posts, it's deeply irritating and predictable - and OP was moved to tears about R mentioning OP's life, this paper says

guardian summary
Roux says this court previously accepted that Pistorius felt himself to be in fear of his life.

He says Masipa’s original judgment was that his actions were “on the border of dolus eventualis” (the principle that he foresaw that firing into the door could cause the death of whoever was behind it) but that he had not foreseen it.

The supreme court ruled that he must have foreseen it.

We are talking about the difference between being on the border and across that border, Roux says. He seems to be suggesting that this is only a small legal nudge, not warranting a sentence uplift from five to 15 years.

#OscarPistorius now crying again as his lawyer gives final argument #sabcnews

Roux says Pistorius did not “gamble with Reeva’s life”.

He was afraid. It was not rational. But was he afraid of his girlfriend or an intruder, Roux asks. He reminds Masipa that she ruled he had not meant to kill Steenkamp.

Roux says people felt sorry for Vleis Visagie, the rugby player who killed his own daughter.

But they did not feel sorry for Pistorius, he goes on.

In both cases, we are dealing with a reduced moral blame-worthiness, he tells the judge.

Pistorius was mistaken but he did believe himself to be in danger. The original trial court accepted he heard a sound at 3am. He thought an intruder had come in through the bathroom window.

Roux is reminding the judge that her original findings broadly accepted the Pistorius version of events. The supreme court left these findings “undisturbed”, he says.

Sentencing is subjective, Roux says. It can deal with Pistorius’ vulnerability.

He was not “driven by evil intent”. He was afraid. He was trying to protect his girlfriend.

We know where we live. We are fearful. A logical thought process would be: an intruder.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...ius-sentencing-live-day-three-reeva-steenkamp
 
Roux refers to the woman in the shop who said, "I don't want to shop with a murderer". She didn't look at the facts.
 
Roux is a liar. Vermuelen (Batman) NEVER said the bat came "irrefutably" after the shots. He SAID that it was impossible to scientifically know when the bat marks were made....except for the one that dissected the bullet hole.

Nel really, really, really needs to contradict some of these points. Roux is making out that it's impossible for OP to be guilty when the facts are looked at....but the facts he is citing are, basically, lies.
 
Others may not agree with me, but given this judge, I think this is BRILLIANT from Roux. He is going to make Masipa feel like everyone wants to superimpose DD onto the SCA's judgment and DE verdict, and he is reaffirming all her original findings. He is making it seem like Masipa has an obligation to consider a reduced blame-worthiness because he was vulnerable and scared and only wanted to protect his girlfriend. "You cannot ignore that" Roux says.
 
Can the Judge or Nel interject Roux as he is off limits as far as I am concerned? This is supposed to be about mitigation and aggravation in a murder sentencing.
 
I can see it now.

OP is asleep ? Or he is on his phone?
Whatever he's doing he seems to be putting on a glum "I am a victim" face
J&BS listening intently

Roux still seems to be on "OP didn't know who was in bathroom, he thought RS was in bedroom" on DD vs DE.
Roux is repeating masipa's facts on intruder. There is no direct intent to kill intruder either. Chest height shots not lower.
Stipp's belief that he was not faking his attempts to save RS also corroborate this and these are the courts findings.
OP wanted to protect both of them.DE sure but it doesnt mean he was not scared, doesnt mean that he didnt think it was an intruder , but it doesnt mean he was not vulnerable.


Roux wants a 2 minute adj to clear his throat!? What's the real reason for the adj? That was a very abrupt adj request from him, almost in mid-flow.

Roux: It should not even be in dispute that there are significant compelling circumstances …

He incorrectly in law fired four shots … but it does not mean that he did not want to protect … it does not mean that he did not think it was an intruder.

You cannot ignore that.

Roux says much of the evidence from the trial – about screams, Steenkamp’s jeans, the fans on the balcony – is irrelevant. It was introduced to try to make the case that Pistorius “acted with direct intent” to kill Steenkamp. That argument was rejected, he says.

There was no direct intent to kill an intruder either, he says. Pistorius did not aim at chest height. The finding from the supreme court was that he ought to have foreseen that he could kill somebody, not that he directly intended to kill.

Roux: He is punished for ever and ever … That is what he is going through because some people refuse to sit back and look at the true facts.

Roux says Pistorius “took all possible steps to save the deceased’s life”.

He notes that the supreme court did not overturn findings that Pistorius had anxiety and was driven by fear.

Critics don’t want to see his vulnerability, he adds:

They want to see Oscar Pistorius running to the bathroom with a gold medal round his neck.
Click to expand...


https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...eeva-steenkamp

Adj briefly - 3 minutes says Roux.
 
Marfa Lights said:
Others may not agree with me, but given this judge, I think this is BRILLIANT from Roux. He is going to make Masipa feel like everyone wants to superimpose DD onto the SCA's judgment and DE verdict, and he is reaffirming all her original findings. He is making it seem like Masipa has an obligation to consider a reduced blame-worthiness because he was vulnerable and scared and only wanted to protect his girlfriend. "You cannot ignore that" Roux says.
Click to expand...

Yep, it is a bit hysterical but it does seem a smart tactic. As per below, David Dadic agrees with you. But remember, Nel is still to come and if she falls too hard for thi, the State can appeal the sentence. But for those of us who believe he deliberately murdered her, it is rather sickening to listen to.

Do you think Roux is going to end by arguing that the diff between CH and DE in this case is so slight that she should just reaffirm her original sentence?

David Dadic ‏@DavidDadic 6m6 minutes ago
I know you don't want to hear this, but this is a very good closing. Very.
 
I'm afraid I don't get this. Masipa is bound by the decision of the SCA. Roux wants to put his own spin on their verdict.
 
Roux says Pistorius “took all possible steps to save the deceased’s life”. I don't think so, he delayed getting medical help for her by calling friends instead of the medical services. The doctor neighbour walked in on all the questionable activity at the house.
 
lithgow1 said:
Yep, it is a bit hysterical but it does seem a smart tactic. As per below, David Dadic agrees with you. But remember, Nel is still to come and if she falls too hard for thi, the State can appeal the sentence. But for those of us who believe he deliberately murdered her, it is rather sickening to listen to.

Do you think Roux is going to end by arguing that the diff between CH and DE in this case is so slight that she should just reaffirm her original sentence?

David Dadic ‏@DavidDadic 6m6 minutes ago
I know you don't want to hear this, but this is a very good closing. Very.
Click to expand...

Wish I had seen it all , no idea how effective roux was

as for BIB heard this previously from many of the commentators FWIW.
 
cottonweaver said:
I can see it now.

OP is asleep ? Or he is on his phone?
Whatever he's doing he seems to be putting on a glum "I am a victim" face
J&BS listening intently

Roux still seems to be on "OP didn't know who was in bathroom, he thought RS was in bedroom" on DD vs DE.
Roux is repeating masipa's facts on intruder. There is no direct intent to kill intruder either. Chest height shots not lower.
Stipp's belief that he was not faking his attempts to save RS also corroborate this and these are the courts findings.
OP wanted to protect both of them.DE sure but it doesnt mean he was not scared, doesnt mean that he didnt think it was an intruder , but it doesnt mean he was not vulnerable.


Roux wants a 2 minute adj to clear his throat!? What's the real reason for the adj?




https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...eeva-steenkamp

Adj briefly - 3 minutes says Roux.
Click to expand...

I am sure he was asleep. His head jolted as it does when one falls asleep sitting up.
 
lithgow1 said:
Yep, it is a bit hysterical but it does seem a smart tactic. As per below, David Dadic agrees with you. But remember, Nel is still to come and if she falls too hard for thi, the State can appeal the sentence. But for those of us who believe he deliberately murdered her, it is rather sickening to listen to.

Do you think Roux is going to end by arguing that the diff between CH and DE in this case is so slight that she should just reaffirm her original sentence?

David Dadic ‏@DavidDadic 6m6 minutes ago
I know you don't want to hear this, but this is a very good closing. Very.
Click to expand...

I believe he already said as much. I think she will seize the opportunity.

I suspect she will give him 6 years reduced to 5 for time served and then he will be sent to a hospital for a year and out again on mansion arrest but this time with no restrictions.

I think we will be looking at an appeal on sentencing by the state and I will still be getting up a 2:30 a.m. for the rest of my life waiting to see him get a proper sentence!
 
Barry Roux’s tactic here, it appears, is to point out all the ways in which the supreme court of appeal – while overturning the culpable homicide verdict in favour of one of murder – did not deviate from Judge Masipa’s original ruling.

The difference, he argues, is on a point of law. The facts as established in Masipa’s ruling still stand: Pistorius did not intend to kill Steenkamp. He was afraid, anxious and vulnerable.

That ruling initially led to a sentence of five years, of which Pistorius has already served the 10-month prison portion.

The leap to a 15-year minimum term would be too much, Roux is implying
Click to expand...


https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...eeva-steenkamp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 197 more.
Total: 2,681 (members: 198, guests: 2,483)

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
2,483
Total visitors
2,681
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,798
Messages
18,034,412
Members
229,780
Latest member
ambermotko
Back
Top