Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

Status
Not open for further replies.
The risk of over-mitigation

On his own version, OP executed someone in amazingly violent fashion who did nothing more than go to their ensuite bathroom and open the window on a perfectly ordinary night.

Was he intoxicated, was there an exceptional catastrophe of prior events, was this a one-off?

No, apparently this is a permanent risk after decades of his brain physically altering due to a slow-burn. He has dangerous ingrained responses that are unavoidable. If he was placed in the same situation tomorrow, apparently there is a strong risk he could do exactly the same again what with his 'fight' behaviours and startles and obsession with protecting himself. The law is even powerless from preventing him safekeeping a friend's gun (it isn't possession remember) thereby having access to a lethal weapon, not to mention knives, bats, swords - if someone's back is turned, he is surely liable to mistake them for an intruder in his fear.

He needs to be securely held for the safety of the public, until his slow-burn has been reversed (must be an equally slow fix for the brain to change back...). This outcome actually makes him more dangerous than a pre-meditated murderer imo.
 
The risk of over-mitigation

On his own version, OP executed someone in amazingly violent fashion who did nothing more than go to their ensuite bathroom and open the window on a perfectly ordinary night.

Was he intoxicated, was there an exceptional catastrophe of prior events, was this a one-off?

No, apparently this is a permanent risk after decades of his brain physically altering due to a slow-burn. He has dangerous ingrained responses that are unavoidable. If he was placed in the same situation tomorrow, apparently there is a strong risk he could do exactly the same again what with his 'fight' behaviours and startles and obsession with protecting himself. The law is powerless from preventing him safekeeping a friend's gun (it isn't possession remember) thereby having access to a lethal weapon.

He needs to be securely held for the safety of the public, until his slow-burn has been reversed (must be an equally slow fix for the brain to change back...)

Good point. I hate to say it but any lingering conspiracy/corruption theory doubts I have are ignited when I think of the ammunition charge.
 
What I found particularly galling was when Masipa was going through Prof Saayman’s testimony and said, after talking about the shot to the head, “In my view this means the deceased would have been unable to shout or scream, at least not in the manner described by those witnesses who were adamant that they had heard a woman scream repeatedly”, but conveniently omitted to refer to Saayman’s testimony that he would have been surprised if she hadn’t screamed after the shot to the hip.

If she threw out the testimony of all the ear witnesses as being unreliable, why does she then choose to include the time that OP was heard to call help from those same ear witnesses.

Why didn’t she mention that it would have been impossible to strike the door in the same quick succession as a gun?

You can see what Saayman and Nel thought about her interpretation of his evidence when they realised where this was heading:
37min05sec http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1_ra2K6Ij4

Only respect for the court saved the life of Saayman's pen's I feel.
 
Here you go folks, straight from the Judge's mouth ... how to kill someone and have a good chance of getting away with murder.

“If the accused, for example, had woken in the middle of the night and in darkness saw a silhouette hovering next to his bed and had, in a panic, grabbed his firearm and shot at that figure only to find that it was the deceased, his conduct would have been understandable and perhaps excusable”.

I still can't believe she said this. How can any sane Judge come out with a comment like that. I'm finding it more than a little troubling that the legal fraternity haven't said a word about it. I bet in private they're saying plenty.
 
New grounds for appeal

...
This is a matter of law, and allows an appeal. The matter of law has led to an erroneous finding of fact, which can and should be reversed to reach a guilty verdict on murder. I'm beginning to think this should be top of the list on any appeal by the state... would be interested in what others think...
Sniped respectfully for space
Thank you, Pandax. This is very well and clearly said. Did you send such a comment to the NPA?
Couldn't we send a message to the NPA signed by those who wish to?
 
I agree, Judi - Masipa erred in accepting Mrs. Van der Merwe's testimony regarding what her husband said - it was the epitome of hearsay, yet, for some reason, Masipa chose to include it to support her verdict.

It well & truly boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Hearsay was accepted, but direct ear witness testimony was rejected.

The more I ponder Masipa's verdict, the more I'm inclined to wonder if perhaps the verdict may have been arrived at by forcing the selected evidence to fit a predetermined verdict.

BBM Premeditated killing - premeditated verdict?
 
PUBLISHED 15 September - 1 hour ago

"If Pistorius were to publish a book, he would risk breaking South Africa's laws which stipulate that no person subject to a criminal conviction may derive profit "directly or indirectly for any published account" relating to the offence in question.

"This means he would be legally barred from making money from a memoir in connection with the death of his girlfriend while serving jail time or community service for the killing of Ms Steenkamp".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...k-about-reeva-steenkamp-shooting-9733062.html

BBM

So, this means he can write it after he does his time?

In any case, I'm thinking the law doesn't pertain to OP. Afterall, he murdered someone, and was found not guilty. Gah.
 
Here you go folks, straight from the Judge's mouth ... how to kill someone and have a good chance of getting away with murder.

“If the accused, for example, had woken in the middle of the night and in darkness saw a silhouette hovering next to his bed and had, in a panic, grabbed his firearm and shot at that figure only to find that it was the deceased, his conduct would have been understandable and perhaps excusable”.

I still can't believe she said this. How can any sane Judge come out with a comment like that. I'm finding it more than a little troubling that the legal fraternity haven't said a word about it. I bet in private they're saying plenty.

Terrifying! In the veiw of the judge anyone sharing a bed or room with another person needs to wake up the other person if they need to get out of bed in the night for any reason, otherwise it's their own fault if they are shot and killed. :banghead:
 
More of what we have been saying here:....

"Much has been made of the extreme emotion Pistorius has shown in court – sobbing, dribbling, retching and vomiting. But you can’t measure remorse by the degree of emotion displayed.

I’m sure he does deeply regret his actions now, but who is he really sorry for – himself or poor Reeva and her family? It looks to me like the completely selfish reaction of a man trying to stay out of prison."



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/katie-piper-oscar-pistorius-must-4256913#ixzz3DO694hCV
 
and lets not forget the appalling re-enactment of the shooting and bat door strikes. All done in an open field, the gun couldn't shoot in succession, so they gave up??!! The recording where the crickets were loudest??!!

J.Masipa didn't visit the crime scene, to walk around the bedroom, out to the balcony, walk along the corridor into the toilet cubicle and shut the
door, get a feel of the enclosed space!! Why not, I ask?!!


On the food contents in Steenkamp's stomach, Masipa said the court could not rely on gastric emptying because it was not "an exact science" and the evidence was inconclusive.

Before starting her judgment Masipa said she would not give an exhaustive "rehash" of evidence.
Why the hell not? Grrrrrrrrr.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Oscar-breathes-a-sigh-of-relief-20140911

you are so right.
BIB We all know there is no exact science (especially feynman and me know it: Mr. R. Feynman went to a black board and wrote about
ten or fifteen zeros after the comma before the relevant number to show how exact we are now)
Ladies, when you boil an egg. We talk about seconds not beeing exact, but if we talk about half ours, we all know the outcome.
Massipa should have explained the outcome - not beeing digested after so many hours - there may be reasons for that e.g. medicamentation. Chemistry is pretty exact!
 
I'm feeling utterly exhausted and I've got a headache from all of this. I'm off to bed. See you all tomorrow. :countsheep:
 
Marius Du Toit, former South African state prosecutor, magistrate and now a criminal defence lawyer has been interviewed on RN Breakfast today and he is of the view that Oscar's disability won't be taken into account during sentencing. What will be evaluated is the degree of negligence exhibited by Oscar in the killing of Reeva. His opinion is that it is severe and that it is very likely that Oscar will be given a custodial sentence. He also said that he should have been found guilty of dolus eventualis.

abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/oscar-pistorius-ruling-comes-under-criticism/5743140
 
Still on my mobile checking for more information, catching up and trying to post between work( opps) as this trial has become a twilight zone of legal-hotmess.

It's just stunningly unbelievable that Judge Masipa believed this: (the amazing summary by DonMack) http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2014/04/...etation-of-oscar-pistorius-defended-timeline/

Masipa choose to undervalue and throw dispersions on all the prosecution witnesses: expert judgements from Mangena; Prof Saayman; the neighbours, like brave Dr Stipps who could have been risking his life to render professional aid in an unknown firearm shooting; Samantha Taylor etc. all to believe evasive, poor witness Pistorius who most would agree was the definition of mendacious.

What really bothers me...

It's confounding and infuriating that Judge Masipa did not at all consider that 'remorse' is the keystone, basic tenet, most well known part of the psychological model of domestic abuse.

1. The Build up
2. The violent incident
3. Reconciliation/Remorse - (remorse is generally for self not victim)
4. Calm/Usual or possible Pursuit

Even if individuals situations are complicated, for a judge to strongly state that the 'remorse' of the accused straight after violence shows lack of intent, or mistaken identity, frustrating goes against decades of research and findings. The cycle of violence model shows that remorse is the most COMMON behaviour of an accused in partner violence.

1. Simple variation of the model http://ceochallengeaustralia.org/domestic-violence/cycle-of-violence/
2. http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200410001&itemid=1279
3. http://domestic-violence.laws.com/cycle-of-abuse
 
BBM

So, this means he can write it after he does his time?

In any case, I'm thinking the law doesn't pertain to OP. Afterall, he murdered someone, and was found not guilty. Gah.

If there is any law that means he cannot write it he will find a way (with uncle's help) to write it via another person etc. For the Pistorius family there is always a way.
 
Can someone tell me what to expect Oct. 13th (unless that too is delayed like everything else in this farce of a trial). We we see a parade of family and mental health people etc. getting up to say OP should not be in prison? And from the Prosecution will her family be able to get up and say what they think? like here in US? Will OP be given yet another chance to beg for mercy? It should be a real show but just wondering what to expect. And how long with the judge take to decide this? Given I believe she knows today what she will do and has given every signal of no prison it should be quick I think. Thanks for any info on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
1,827
Total visitors
1,942

Forum statistics

Threads
590,017
Messages
17,929,039
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top