Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, he just twisted Nel's explanation as to why Scholtz was a biased report based on annexures.
 
To blame the Steenkamp's suffering on the State is just beyond the pale.
 
On scholtz and the adverse prison reports I am reminded how Roux's stock in trade is to elide between one piece of evidence and another, inaccurately so that 2+2 -= 405
Just like last time

Now he wants a bloody break as he has obviously found an omission he wants to firm up rather than have his forceful flow impeded by fumbling.
 
Karyn Maughan just posted the kind words Leach had in the judgment for Masipa. Ugh.
 
JudgeJudi said:
"What's the time?" Masipa adjourns for tea.
Click to expand...

Having just made a cup of Yorkshire, my timing was perfect!

Well that has been tortuous, a little worrying, disenegenuous and a very clear example of why good lawyers earn so much money.

Although I don't think it should really bear on the crime = sentence equation, it is true that his life is forever changed, and all for the negative. If Masipa goes the soft sentence route that is some comfort. Anytime he i out in public there will be side looks and whispers but unlike the 'old days' few autograph requests.

Very much looking forward to how Nel approaches the aggravation side though, as much as I admire him, was disappointed overall in the State's case in this section. Yes Barry's testimony was very powerful and the nurse gave a good insight into the privileged prat's behaviour but as I said yesterday, would have liked to see more in the way of prison officials, a State psychologist etc. Anyone feel the same re this?
 
JudgeJudi said:
Barry Bateman
#OscarPistorius Roux: OP accepts that he fired intentionally. We must accept the court judgment. He has moved on and accepts blame

Roux: the accused can never resume his career - he has punished himself more than any court can.

#OscarPistorius Roux: he is paying constantly - he has paid emotionally, physically, financially, socially - he is vilified publicly
Click to expand...

1. So he lied on the stand then?

2. Hearsay - the state of mind of the accused was not in evidence
 
FWIW, paraphrasing of sequence, as we will never see a transcript of this, I s'pose:

roux's "flip side" from ten mins ago. He talked very fast, on purpose, presumably. (Ah well, Masipa has the transcript, no matter!) Mitigation

Op has paid - he lists about 20 ways Op has paid for the crime already.
- his future with his loved one, paid via health, emotionally, shell of a man ( Scholtz & pastor testified so) , he is a broken man, paid re career, re money, re identity, ( lots more examples given)

However OP will commit himself to public service, he will pay back to society , in the past he contributed to society a great deal through sports & disability. ( even includes Iceland woman & disabled son)

The court found that he changed perception on disability. Not just Iceland family- but broader impact than that.

Tried to meet Steenkamps but deemed as inapt then. Fine, but he is DESPERATE to meet them. ( You abs w- er , so that's what the show of trying to go up to their bench was on day 1 break)
BSC management LSE online, he will have to stop if he goes back to prison as no internet access at Kgosi, he has tried that

New aggravation introduced from SCA- there is nothing really new to increase/aggravate the sentence
OK, SCA found DE not CH. eg. No escape from toilet, eg. reconciled himself to shooting

But Masipa, you already found this. Masipa found error in persona. He reads off that passage from Masipa's old judgement - so it's not new aggravation

In sentencing masipa found it bordered DE .
Is it one degree up or below the border? IDK how to calculate this.
Masipa found weapon was lethal and 4 shots , small cubicle, he was gun trained - so you already found that
there is nothing new here comparing SCA to Masipa judgment

Only difference = Masipa found it bordered DE. Yet SCA found it was DE

SCA mentioned warning shot.

Just because PPD not found by SCA does not equal extra aggravation. Let's look at findings- numbers a raft in a list:

Op was frightened
It was dark 3am, window opened
Vuln due to disability - pervasive vulnerability
Oliveirra case? ferrera case? No idea- cannot catch his pronunciation
GAD - and heightened by 3am darkness
Fight not flight- derman
Intruder perception even if no intruder
Perception RS was in bedroom not the bathroom

None of these findings disappear. All the same. there was no evil intent on OP's part


( Pardon my French)
 
Roux said that the trial court acceoted that OP had GAD that night.

Did she?

She most certainly shouldn't have done since three psychiatrists unanimously agreed that he did not.

Or is Roux lying? Again.
 
Question. After the 4 shots. He realized that Reeva wasn't in the bedroom.

So did he go downstairs to see if she was hiding before breaking down the door of a burglar that could have still been alive.

Are we suppose to believe that Reeva wouldn't tell Oscar that she was the one in the bathroom while he was yelling for the bathroom goer to get the F out of his house?

Is Massipa suffering from dementia or what.

And is Nel capable of reminding Masipa of these basic things. Just asking.
 
LemonMousse said:
I completely agree.

Roux is, and always has been, a quite exceptional lawyer. It's down to him that we're still here waiting for Pistorius to be sentenced 2 years after the trial.

Nel is brilliant too....but he is nowhere near as eloquent and most of his zingers get lost in mumble. Very frustrating.

(And I mean no personal disrespect to Nel saying that. He is conducting a major trial in a second language and, unfortunately, Roux is the more fluent).
Click to expand...

He murdered the wrong person

That is effectively Roux's argument.

This was always going to be Roux's closing as it is essentially the same arguments he used in the SCA

Of course the idea that the intent was "only" indirect does not stand up to much analysis

1. He intended to murder someone

2. Intruder not proven. Per Leach "he did not know the identity"

3. No fear.

So it boils down to an execution of the victim either way.

I don't see how it is exculpatory that he murdered the wrong person.
 
LemonMousse said:
Roux said that the trial court acceoted that OP had GAD that night.

Did she?

She most certainly shouldn't have done since three psychiatrists unanimously agreed that he did not.

Or is Roux lying? Again.
Click to expand...

yes she did, it was one of her errors that unfortunately carried over. It was another fly in the ointment on here for many a page last year.

Even scholtz said Day 1 of this trial , that in his first WSKoppies report he only found that OP was close to the GAD diagnosis/cut-off number.
 
DexterMorgan said:
Question. After the 4 shots. He realized that Reeva wasn't in the bedroom.

So did he go downstairs to see if she was hiding before breaking down the door of a burglar that could have still been alive.

Are we suppose to believe that Reeva wouldn't tell Oscar that she was the one in the bathroom while he was yelling for the bathroom goer to get the F out of his house?

Is Massipa suffering from dementia or what.

And is Nel capable of reminding Masipa of these basic things. Just asking.
Click to expand...

Helllllooooooooo........Dexter. Morgan.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Have just binged all 8 seasons with my son.

It's worse though. Pistorius didn't even check that Reeva had left through the bedroom door. No point, he said.....why would she, since the shooting was in the bathroom!
 
JudgeJudi said:
Barry Bateman
#OscarPistorius Roux: OP accepts that he fired intentionally. We must accept the court judgment. He has moved on and accepts blame

Roux: the accused can never resume his career - he has punished himself more than any court can.

#OscarPistorius Roux: he is paying constantly - he has paid emotionally, physically, financially, socially - he is vilified publicly
Click to expand...

BIB

Yep, that is what happens if you murder somebody.
 
FFS


here we go again


During the break, reporters in court say Pistorius has changed his clothes, from a suit to a hoodie and shorts – possibly the defence is going to discuss his prostheses.
Click to expand...

guardian

If he's so concerned about how the world perceives him via the media, he best do this"strip to stumps" on camera then!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 187 more.
Total: 2,461 (members: 188, guests: 2,273)

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
2,273
Total visitors
2,461
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,745
Messages
17,991,905
Members
229,226
Latest member
rayne_solves
Back
Top