Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 7.6.2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a vague recollection (although I cannot back it up with a newspaper article), that Roux offered Nel CH but Nel turned it down and wanted Premeditated Murder which meant Roux/OP had to come up with a defence to murder. They then tried PPD but OP messed up on the stand. This was not discussed in court and may well be that it was just a rumour. I agree Roux never actually said OP was prepared to plead guilty to CH.

It would have been open to the defence to plead to CH when OP entered his plea

Of course there is no real reason for the defence to do so when they are running a PPD defence
 
It would have been open to the defence to plead to CH when OP entered his plea

Of course there is no real reason for the defence to do so when they are running a PPD defence

Good thing you are here explaining what is possible. I don't ever recall hearing Roux say that OP's defence was PPD. Is this unusual? I would have thought it should be a requirement at the beginning of the trial for the Defence to state what OP's defence was. Did I miss this?
 
Good thing you are here explaining what is possible. I don't ever recall hearing Roux say that OP's defence was PPD. Is this unusual? I would have thought it should be a requirement at the beginning of the trial for the Defence to state what OP's defence was. Did I miss this?

His defence was set out in the original pleadings dox

Given he had to admit to shooting, PPD was realistically the only defence available to him.
 
His defence was set out in the original pleadings dox

Given he had to admit to shooting, PPD was realistically the only defence available to him.

Many thanks. I have tracked down the pleading document and nowhere does it state his defence will be PPD. I appreciate you will have gauged this to be the case but I was under the impression that all defendants were obliged to state their exact defence. Is this not the case? I have read that in the UK it is a requirement.
 
Many thanks. I have tracked down the pleading document and nowhere does it state his defence will be PPD. I appreciate you will have gauged this to be the case but I was under the impression that all defendants were obliged to state their exact defence. Is this not the case? I have read that in the UK it is a requirement.

The defence team never made it clear what their defence was. Nel made a lot of noise about it during OP's cross examination, and, I don't remember clearly any more, but possibly in his HOA also - remember the term 'mutually destructive'? Eventually, in her verdict, Masipa picked up various pieces from these mutually destructive (aka contradictory) versions, to create her own version of OP's defence!
 
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/pistorius-in-prison-single-room-cell-20160707-19?isapp=true
Pistorius in prison single room cell
2016-07-07.
The disgraced paralympian is in a single hospital prison cell in Pretoria’s Kgosi Mampuru prison. “He is in the same facility in the hospital section of the Pretoria prison,” Wolela told AFP.
Picture of OP's cell: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151202224215-oscar-pistorius-jail-cell-1-super-169.jpg

South African Heroes ‏@SA_Heroes 13m13 minutes ago
Correctional Services has confirmed #OscarPistorius will be kept in hospital wing of Kgosi Mampuru Centre

Ah good. Not much room for him to stumble around willy-nilly there, eh? We wouldn't want him to hurt himself.
 
The defence team never made it clear what their defence was. Nel made a lot of noise about it during OP's cross examination, and, I don't remember clearly any more, but possibly in his HOA also - remember the term 'mutually destructive'? Eventually, in her verdict, Masipa picked up various pieces from these mutually destructive (aka contradictory) versions, to create her own version of OP's defence!

Nel said OP’s two defences – putative self-defence and that he fired involuntarily – were not just mutually exclusive but mutually destructive.
 
Nel said OP’s two defences – putative self-defence and that he fired involuntarily – were not just mutually exclusive but mutually destructive.
Didn't he have a third defence? I'm trying to think what it was.
 
Didn't he have a third defence? I'm trying to think what it was.

This may not be the correct term but if not its close: Automatism

Thats why we were subjected to all of that "startle" BS!

:puke:
 
Obviously James Grant feels the same way we do.

James Grant ‏@JamesGrantZA · 8h8 hours ago
On the true significance of the Pistorius sentence - by @RanjeniM.
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...to-exceptionalism-and-privilege/#.V3-1czEko4k

James Grant ‏@JamesGrantZA · 48m48 minutes ago
1) "In case it's not over" means: it may/may not be over; 2) On the true significance...by X, means: on the true significance according to X
 
Many of you know I live in a suburb north of Dallas. There were assassinations of Dallas police officers last night. As I watched one murder that was caught on camera I couldn't help but think of Reeva. An officer attempted to take down an assasin but his bullet bounced off of the assasin's bulletproof vest, the officer took cover behind a pillar but then the murderer was able to ambush the officer from behind, shooting him 4-5 times in just seconds, the officer never saw it coming. IDK but I thought I would share it here; its real so don't watch if you know that would be too much for you. ETA: Ignore the commentary, they didnt know it was a police officer that was murdered when reporting at the time.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=efa_1467954353
 
I too think there were more than two. But do not remember - need to look up again.

Yes, there were 3:

"Mr Nel said the athlete's three lines of defence - that he had fired either by mistake, in a state of panic or in self-defence against a perceived intruder - "could never be reconciled".

These were from the snowball of lies. I only quoted the above to clarify that they were mutually exclusive and destructive as you had a ? next to destructive.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29018522
 
This may not be the correct term but if not its close: Automatism

Thats why we were subjected to all of that "startle" BS!

:puke:

When the 6 year sentence was announced I think a startle reverberated around the globe.
 
After seeing an execution similar to Reeva's its hard not to be angry that Masipa could not see what happened that night, or that anyone could ignore the obvious, giving credence to a fairytale. Those 2nd 3rd and 4th shots were pure evil, murder intentionally. OP is indeed fortunate that he was judged by an incompetent and is not looking at life behind bars. Anyone capable of such an evil act will surely screw up again, karma will be waiting.
 
After seeing an execution similar to Reeva's its hard not to be angry that Masipa could not see what happened that night, or that anyone could ignore the obvious, giving credence to a fairytale. Those 2nd 3rd and 4th shots were pure evil, murder intentionally. OP is indeed fortunate that he was judged by an incompetent and is not looking at life behind bars. Anyone capable of such an evil act will surely screw up again, karma will be waiting.

Once he serves his sentence, home detention, whatever, presumably he'll be allowed to start a new firearm collection. He'll be one angry man once he's out of prison, and even angrier if he can't have his toys for a few more years. Maybe Arnie will get him a bodyguard ... and he really may need one. To know that he's powerless to protect himself will give him a taste of his own medicine and may possibly make him think what it was like for Reeva to be powerless and defenceless. Nah, he'd never think of her except how she ruined his life.
 
Many of you know I live in a suburb north of Dallas. There were assassinations of Dallas police officers last night. As I watched one murder that was caught on camera I couldn't help but think of Reeva. An officer attempted to take down an assasin but his bullet bounced off of the assasin's bulletproof vest, the officer took cover behind a pillar but then the murderer was able to ambush the officer from behind, shooting him 4-5 times in just seconds, the officer never saw it coming. IDK but I thought I would share it here; its real so don't watch if you know that would be too much for you. ETA: Ignore the commentary, they didnt know it was a police officer that was murdered when reporting at the time.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=efa_1467954353

Really terrible
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
2,391
Total visitors
2,454

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,964
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top