Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016 #2

[Trotterly]

nope.
The SCA found Masipa had made mistakes- and that covers what Pistorius did , and she didn't take into account Captain Magena's evidence either, and how he'd fired the shots, the trajectory of those shots AT whoever he thought was behind that door - so it was changed to Murder , which he should have been charged with to start with and serving a long prison sentence. Still, he will now get his day , he didn't have the guts to appeal to the Court for a more lenient sentence and to show he had remorse for killing Reeva - ,because he's a liar, and wasn't prepared to be put under cross examination again by the Prosecution Lawyer, Nel, he's a coward basically.

From the SCA judgement: "Thus not only did he not know who was behind the door, he did not know whether that person in fact constituted any threat to him."

So you are not correct. The SCA determined that he did not know it was Reeva behind the door.

 

[Interested Bystander]

My guess is 10 years, minus 1 already served, 4-5 years suspended. Not what I think he deserves but he seems to lead a charmed life. I HOPE I AM WRONG.

Like many of us, I think he knew exactly who he was shooting at. I still cannot believe Masipa threw out all earwitness testimony. One female heard screaming and he was toast! He was lucky that Roux managed to befuddle Masipa so completely OR DID HE? I do wonder at times whether in fact Masipa and assessors rewrote the story in order to give him CH.

 

[cottonweaver]

My guess is 10 years, minus 1 already served, 4-5 years suspended. Not what I think he deserves but he seems to lead a charmed life. I HOPE I AM WRONG.

Like many of us, I think he knew exactly who he was shooting at. I still cannot believe Masipa threw out all earwitness testimony. One female heard screaming and he was toast! He was lucky that Roux managed to befuddle Masipa so completely OR DID HE? I do wonder at times whether in fact Masipa and assessors rewrote the story in order to give him CH.

You must be a mind reader. I was wondering where you had got to about half an hour ago.

BIB Lovely to see you back but you have brought me bad tidings there with that bit IB!!!! can they do that with these min sentences? Do you mean 5 yrs on house arrest basically?

 

[Interested Bystander]

You must be a mind reader. I was wondering where you had got to about half an hour ago.

BIB Lovely to see you back but you have brought me bad tidings there with that bit IB!!!! can they do that with these min sentences? Do you mean 5 yrs on house arrest basically?

Hi Cotton, Sorry I wasn't clear. 4-5 years in prison, then 4-5 years served at the mansion. Hardly a sentence for what he did. I honestly do not know how the law in SA stands on suspended sentences. Maybe one of our legal eagles can confirm whether or not this would be possible.

I have popped in out all the while but am 'time short' at the moment.

 

[Hazy]

Hi Cotton, Sorry I wasn't clear. 4-5 years in prison, then 4-5 years served at the mansion. Hardly a sentence for what he did. I honestly do not know how the law in SA stands on suspended sentences. Maybe one of our legal eagles can confirm whether or not under this would be possible.

I have popped in out all the while but am 'time short' at the moment.

The one thing that I would point out here is that Masipa said that a suspended sentence was not suitable for CH as it was very serious. Nor was a non custodial sentence. So to get round all that she may simply show him more mercy this time round?

Last time she took into account his 'personal circumstances' , the media etc so will probably do so again.

 

[soozieqtips]

cotton, the thing is she might well set store by "rehab of the offender as a key goal of punishment, not 'breaking him' she says" - but according to him, he's already broken, and he must have 'broke' while he was living in the lap of luxury at the manse! His condition has apparently worsened, so does that mean living at Uncle A's has been bad for his health? I mean, according to Schulz, OP is in such bad shape he should be hospitalised! But the family haven't noticed. Strange, that. So for the sake of the murderer's health, Masipa could show some mercy and give him a very long stint in prison where he'll be looked after properly, and if he needs to be hospitalised, hopefully the staff will notice and act accordingly, unlike the murderer's family. She should also acknowledge that his concerns about going back to prison are perfectly normal, and that most people don't want to go to prison. He's not unique in that regard.

EDIT - oops, forgot to say what I think re: sentencing. I think she'll give him a minimum of 10 years, with maybe 2 of them spent at the manse. So, 8 whole years in prison, which is way too short and doesn't take into account of the life he took or the horror he subjected Reeva and her family to.

 

[Interested Bystander]

The one thing that I would point out here is that Masipa said that a suspended sentence was not suitable for CH as it was very serious. Nor was a non custodial sentence. So to get round all that she may simply show him more mercy this time round?

Last time she took into account his 'personal circumstances' , the media etc so will probably do so again.

This is how I saw the sentence being handled:-

'I don't think he will get the 15 years,' Ulrich Roux, who is unaffiliated with the case but has followed it closely, told AFP.
'His personal circumstances and the disability will be taken into account. One possibility is that part of the sentence may be suspended.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ring-Reeva-Steenkamp-claim-legal-sources.html

 

[Embley]

Of course, everyone has their own reasons for believing whether or not OP might have known Reeva was in the toilet, or whether he simply thought it was an intruder.

I have personally found no other explanation that satisfies ME, other than he knew, 100%, it was Reeva in that toilet. This, as I've said, is what I believe. Others may see it differently of course. Some of the key reasons I have, that swayed me, are as follows:

A) all the testimony from strangers that stated they heard arguing and also screaming from a woman.....before the time of the killing. The neighbor seeing the lights on in the bathroom and movement in front of the window of a person...before the killing.

B) when OP gets the gun - he would have warned her. Simple...he would have warned her + he would have made sure she was awake. Time had passed from asking him in the middle of the night after being awoken, "can't you sleep baba?" ....after that OP got up, brought in 2 fans, closed doors, closed curtains, was dealing with annoying stereo light, and all while on his stumps. Since no talking or help offered by Reeva - very likely she rolled over + went back to sleep. So he would have made sure she was awakened + warned her of what "he thought he heard" (although he simply hears a window opening, nothing more yet - he says he is certain he knows it's an intruder). He is inches from her, he would have warned his loved one, and made sure she was awake.

C) I don't think the "ugly green key" in the bathroom door was something left there day to day. I believe it was kept out of sight in one of the drawers. As no need for a single man to have a key attached to an ugly plastic green fob hanging from the master bathroom door of his modern, expensive, sleek bachelor pad home. Just silly to think that for a second. He is not going to need it or use it. It's his bathroom. And only other person using that bathroom...ever, are going to be female guests/girlfriends. And OP will not anticipate them ever needing/wanting it. So in the drawer it goes. Which means...OP got it out AFTER he shot Reeva, to open the door. (I also think if the key was left in the door on a regular basis, it would definitely NOT have that green plastic fob hanging from it. It would be just the key, left in the door for someone if needed. The plastic green fob is attached so a "spare key" doesn't get lost, like when it's thrown in a drawer. IF HOWEVER, THE KEY WAS IN THE DOOR, I believe it was because Reeva reached in the drawer and grabbed it, to lock herself in, safe from OP, or so she thought.)

D) I believe he was mad & scaring Reeva. And had the gun in his hand while doing so. Why was he mad? I don't know, could be a number of reasons which we will never know. I believe Reeva, scared...ran to the bathroom. And eventually said she was going to call the police. OP lost it at this point and fired into the toilet to stop her from doing this. He was not about to let his celebrity status, his career, his idolization/hero status by So. Africa be jeopardized by this night...Reeva exposing his crazy gun welding actions. He couldn't allow that. Oscar being Oscar...the narcissist he was....wasn't too worried about escaping punishment. He knew he would ALWAYS be believed with whatever story/crap he came up with. He had always been protected before. But NOT if Reeva was there to tell her 1/2 of the story, that might be a problem. It could potentially ruin/damage his career. A lot.
(Of course this is ALL speculation on my part)

E) the moving of Reeva...he even said in his ITV interview, he knew right away she was dead. So why move her downstairs? Because it was so important to alter the scene. And because he wanted to get Reeva out of there, hopefully someone else take her to the hospital, giving him more time to clean things up, come up with answers, and to hide/alter anything that might conflict with this intruder story....maybe fetch the pants thrown out the window, unpack her bags, etc.

He is lying about everything IMO. His "story" doesn't hold water.

I 100% agree with you, and I too think he has lied about everything!

The biggest hole in his story for me is that he thought Reeva was in bed when he went to confront the intruder. He said he retrieved his pistol from under the bed, but how would he have not seen that she wasn't there at that point? I think I remember him saying the light was off, but most people's bedrooms aren't so dark that you wouldn't be able to see that someone was in the bed when you are next to it! Besides, wouldn't you check BEFORE getting out of bed?

And if this were me or my husband, we would ensure we knew where the other was before we would ever go firing off a pistol in our home!

So if he really did retrieve the pistol from under the bed, then he 100% knew Reeva wasn't in bed and there was a good chance SHE was the "intruder" he heard and was in the bathroom!

There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting he was abusive, and I think he's the kind of guy that isn't used to people leaving HIM.

Lastly, why was his goal to kill the intruder (if there was one)? You don't shoot off four shots and expect to only injure someone.

 

[Cloen]

So I'll expect Masipa to give him a 3 to 5 year sentence with the maximum he'll be in prison: from 1 year to 2 years. If he gets any more than that, that will be grand.

The problem with that sentence is that if you take into account he's had a year already for Culpable Homicide , the rest on house arrest with conditions attached, is that with a start of 15years for Murder in SA , this white rich famous man will not be serving the normal sentence time in prison compared to other criminals who've committed Murder. I can imagine that 3 years max in prison (from what you're saying) is unheard of for Murder in SA, and there could be an uproar which they won't want to happen given the Courts gave him a Judge who wasn't even able to interpret the Law correctly first time round. Would they really want this Case as a whole to set any kind of precedent for gun crime resulting in Murder ? I don't think so.

Taking all factors into account, I think Nel pushing for Judge Masipa giving him a 15 year sentence is unrealistic (which he probably knew), and Roux wanting Pistorius to just have suspended sentence , house arrest is also very unrealistic (which he probably knew too). I dont think the Judge will meet either half way, i think she will take years off starting at 15 years sentence for Murder working down and have justifiable reasons for reducing the sentence. He will have to serve at least 6 years prison time i think and rest will be 3 or 4 years suspended sentence with conditions attached.

 

[jilly]

Unfortunately, she has to show him leniency , and a lot of his sentence may be suspended.
It's wrong, but this is SA and they've made a pigs ear of this entire case so far, so i've a feeling they may to the end.
For the Steenkamp's sake, i hope i am wrong.

So how does this sentence work when the pros says they'll appeal for anything less than 8 yrs? Could that be the starting point for Masipa to then start deducting?

 

[Viper]

So how does this sentence work when the pros says they'll appeal for anything less than 8 yrs? Could that be the starting point for Masipa to then start deducting?

Everyone here (and online in other places, SA attorneys included) is just guessing! Geez, Masipa could just as easily throw 25 years at him to regain her respect.

How many more days Really??? :smile:

 

[Belgarion]

The problem with that sentence is that if you take into account he's had a year already for Culpable Homicide , the rest on house arrest with conditions attached, is that with a start of 15years for Murder in SA , this white rich famous man will not be serving the normal sentence time in prison compared to other criminals who've committed Murder. I can imagine that 3 years max in prison (from what you're saying) is unheard of for Murder in SA, and there could be an uproar which they won't want to happen given the Courts gave him a Judge who wasn't even able to interpret the Law correctly first time round. Would they really want this Case as a whole to set any kind of precedent for gun crime resulting in Murder ? I don't think so.

Taking all factors into account, I think Nel pushing for Judge Masipa giving him a 15 year sentence is unrealistic (which he probably knew), and Roux wanting Pistorius to just have suspended sentence , house arrest is also very unrealistic (which he probably knew too). I dont think the Judge will meet either half way, i think she will take years off starting at 15 years sentence for Murder working down and have justifiable reasons for reducing the sentence. He will have to serve at least 6 years prison time i think and rest will be 3 or 4 years suspended sentence with conditions attached.

You may well be right but personally I don’t think Masipa would dare go that low. I would suggest just 6 years in prison would be in Nel’s ‘shockingly inappropriate’ territory and could well send him knocking on the door of the SCA (and if that door is opened by Justice Leach then the outcome would not be hard to imagine)

Would Masipa risk another lashing by the SCA? She might but somehow I doubt it.

The problem she has is each and every mitigating factor she brings forward must carry a reason why she thinks it substantial AND compelling plus bearing in mind she will have little leeway on leniency before the prosecution considers such criteria are not being met and again could give a reason to beat a path to the SCA.

Personally I see no mitigating factors other than ‘time served’ on the other hand there are several aggravating factors such as the devastating impact that Pistorius’ actions have had on the Steenkamp family, his failure to take the court into his confidence instead preferring to talk to the media and most importantly the number of shots fired which given his knowledge of the ammunition used was tantamount to a deliberate execution.

 

[cottonweaver]

Well this is all good and interesting - just catching up, haven't read them all yet but at least we're getting prepared for Wednesday...
..... and no-one can say we are not on topic.

This is going to be one of the most scrutinised judgements for a while so let's hope she has got it right and second that she got a second opinion from a trusted colleague.

 

[Cherwell]

BIB - yes, he's been exceptionally lucky at being able to evade further imprisonment while he mounts appeal after desperate appeal and rakes Reeva's family through the coals over and over. Hopefully, his luck has run out now and on Wednesday he'll be back behind bars (where murderers belong) and will no longer be able to use prime time TV to whine about how his murdering Reeva has affected him and his life. He's young. He has a very long life ahead of him, of which only a small proportion will be spent in prison. Time for him to zip it and do the time.

It's not luck. It's money, influence, possibly threats, and a complete absence of moral decency that has achieved his results.

 

[mrjitty]

Suspended sentence for murder would seem bizarre where I come from - usually that is only for less serious offences

Maybe Saffers has different precedent?

 

[Cloen]

Suspended sentence for murder would seem bizarre where I come from - usually that is only for less serious offences

Maybe Saffers has different precedent?

I think some of his sentence will be suspended. He won't serve the entire time in prison given a sentence say of 10 years. He can't be given Correctional Supervision from what i've read because he's had the maximum allowed of 5 years for Culpable Homicide, even though this is resentencing for different conviction of Murder , it is taken into account what he was given before for CH, like time served (a pathetic year only). I don't think his entire sentence will be suspended, he'll have to do some prison time.

One thing i think we could all agree on is that the effect on the Familiy, ie Barry Steenkamp hit many a nerve and you couldn't have helped be moved by his testimony on how losing his daughter in such a brutal way will affect the rest of his life. If Judge Masipa takes this impact testimony into account, which i'm sure she will, anything less than Pistorius having seen to be 'paying for what he did' which was Barry's wish, would be a complete injustice and cause worldwide criticism of the SA Justice system and Pistorius being seen more of the victim in all this than Reeva.

 

[cottonweaver]

cotton, the thing is she might well set store by "rehab of the offender as a key goal of punishment, not 'breaking him' she says" - but according to him, he's already broken, and he must have 'broke' while he was living in the lap of luxury at the manse! His condition has apparently worsened, so does that mean living at Uncle A's has been bad for his health? I mean, according to Schulz, OP is in such bad shape he should be hospitalised! But the family haven't noticed. Strange, that. So for the sake of the murderer's health, Masipa could show some mercy and give him a very long stint in prison where he'll be looked after properly, and if he needs to be hospitalised, hopefully the staff will notice and act accordingly, unlike the murderer's family. She should also acknowledge that his concerns about going back to prison are perfectly normal, and that most people don't want to go to prison. He's not unique in that regard.

EDIT - oops, forgot to say what I think re: sentencing. I think she'll give him a minimum of 10 years, with maybe 2 of them spent at the manse. So, 8 whole years in prison, which is way too short and doesn't take into account of the life he took or the horror he subjected Reeva and her family to.

I am awaiting Scholtz being disregarded, well I think Nel did a good job of taking his evidence apart - the unused drugs, the lack of comms with other treating clinicians so I am hoping a judge with any nous would see the need for hospitalisation as a ploy. So I have fingers crossed on that one, none of it seemed credible to me. IDK what is wrong with Scholtz to want to even testify, is he that broke ...... other than banging on about the amateurish nature of his previous report for the last 2 years. LOL ( Hey. at least now`i realise why that report was so poor , I can put the face to the name etc. )

Anyway , after writing my post, I saw that URoux article says
"His personal circumstances and the disability will be taken into account. One possibility is that part of the sentence may be suspended."
Now the former doesn't surprise me , the latter does. I really hope it isn't 50% back home.


10 with 8 inside is nothing , for a man of what 30 yrs of age?
( However, It's a strange world where the relative youth of an offender is a benefit to them in sentencing.)

Whatever happened to just some good old -fashioned retribution?

They're so liberal. I thought the UK was soft, but in comparison to them....
I don't believe for one minute this is all based on overcrowding - it's to do with apartheid and the history of oppression there so they have gone the other way.


Anyway not long til all the speculation is over.

 

[Cloen]

So how does this sentence work when the pros says they'll appeal for anything less than 8 yrs? Could that be the starting point for Masipa to then start deducting?

The Defence can Appeal , they tried before - but this time i think Roux will know the SCA are unlikely to be accept it , again, that is IF Masipa sentences taking into account all the recommendations given by the SCA !

Roux's flakey suggestion that Pistorious has paid for what he's done and isn't mentally able to do prison time again and his disability means prison can't accommodate him was all shown to be lies. Prison gave him open cell , shared only with one other inmate, he had access to a gym and the medication he barked about getting for anxiety he didn't even take, and it was shown during cross by Nel that Pistorius had lied many times to his Psychologist.

His psychologist incidentally recommended hospitalisation for Pistorius anyway, pulling back a bit of credibility that he lost during his performance in Court where he was ridiculously bias (another expert for the Defence close to retirement i should point out)

 

[cottonweaver]

Everyone here (and online in other places, SA attorneys included) is just guessing! Geez, Masipa could just as easily throw 25 years at him to regain her respect.

How many more days Really??? :smile:

BIB True. I suppose the diff is some of these peeps have 20+ yrs in crim defence so we could say they are "informed" opinion. Well certainly, more informed than me.
It's a big decision, I reckon she will have got some help with this one.

 

[Cloen]

Re ITV INTERVIEW...
I could not handle OP's hysterical crying. It seemed so fake. So forced.

It's 3 years after her death and he is in planned interview - and yet he is crying this hysterically. Uncontrollable. Snot running down his nose. .....I'm not buying it.

Then we have Reeva's father....he is truly suffering. You can feel his pain. As tortured as he is, talking about the loss of his beloved daughter in front of the world, he does not get hysterical. He is not crying out of control, turning red, snot dripping everywhere. But it is clear to every living sole, how tortured and tormented he is, over the loss of his daughter.

OP's "acting" is way over the top, and very unbelievable IMO.

I am sick of hearing his wimpering squeaky forced high pitch crying-talking voice ( he does the high pitched tone again in the ITV Interview to stick to story that he is capable of screaming like a woman) .
He makes me feel very uncomfortable just hearing him talk about that night again, he has vacant cold eyes and even still manages to stumble over his words,hesitate and repeat even though he's supposed to be recounting truth of what happened that night.

As Mrs Steenkamp said - there are massive gaps that still need answers , his story doesn't make sense, he hasn't told the truth.