- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 38,843
- Reaction score
- 115,412
Cut the snark and insinuations in here. Discuss the case and not other posters.
:tyou:
:tyou:
Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
Do you think it will be for a long time? Based on the case "S v De Oliveira", I presume he will only get 8 years. Which I assume means only a 4 years of prison time (as someone can be parolled at the half-way mark) and with one year already served - this means he will spend a grand total of only an extra 3 years in jail....
Marfa Lights
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2014
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think 3 more years is enough to wipe that smug smile of satisfaction off his face. I would like to see him serve at least 7 years to get the point.
Hopefully 10 years minimum. However given the effort that is being made to keep him from going back to prison to see him going back at all would be a bonus and for the family to have to accept, if they ever will, that they have a convicted murderer in the family. Not only a convicted murderer but as most people accept, but the SCA could not say it, the convicted murderer of Reeva Steenkamp.
BIB, he will never be legally known as the murderer of Reeva, that is not up for discussion, but as many people tend to love to back bite, there will no doubt be a lot of gossip behind Oscar's back.
Even if the CC turns down his petition and he does his time and pays his debt, Oscar will never be allowed back into society because there are so many people filled with vitriol.
BIB, Case closed, if Andrea Johnson said the claim is without merit, there you go, it can't be any other way. She works for the prosecution, of course she is going to say that.
Clearly Roux and company feel this, just like the PT felt the trial judge did them wrong. Cases go on and on, back and forth all the time with verdicts constantly changing. People feel vindicated or shocked depending upon whether the most recent verdict fits their mindset.
Let's see if the CC hears the trial and in the event that they change the verdict back to CH....again, let's see if posters here will say that this time the ConCourt "judges lacked the ability to assess his evidence".
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
I guess expecting people here to sympathise with the murderer is as lost a cause as expecting the people who have openly insulted and criticised Reeva (here, also) to feel less animosity towards her. Have you changed your mind about her? Will you have changed your mind years from now?
Like any reasonable person when he knew Reeva was in the bedroom with him then if it really was the window opening it could only have been another person. I don't think stray animals tend to climb ladders and push open windows to get in. That wouldn't be my first thought anyway.
If it was Frank coming back from the pub having lost his key then (unlike Reeva) he would have immediately realise that he had been mistaken for an intruder once OP started shouting and speak up.
If it was OP's dad popping in with some more ammo for his safe then he'd probably think the same.
I disagree about the choice of window and the amount of noise. Being an upstairs window it would be immediately closer and more scary than a downstairs one. If interpreted as an intruder then this could be seen as more aggressive, someone not caring if they were discovered as they were prepared to use force.
Marfa Lights
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2014
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't know about this... I think any "reasonable" person in such a situation where they think an intruder has just entered their house, would not automatically think they "know" where their loved one is just because that's where they last saw them.
You would want confirmation of their location and recognition from them that they also knew what was happening so you could coordinate your response-- preferably non-verbally with eye contact and gestures to not give away your exact location.
Actually though, my first instinct upon hearing the bathroom window open would be to check to see if they had gotten up to go to the bathroom. If they weren't there in the bedroom, I would follow the noise to the bathroom and from a position of safety, call out 'Reeva, is that you?"
I think that's what any reasonable person would do.
For me, this is where his behavior within the intruder story stops being reasonably possibly true. For others, I know, this was just an act of negligence.
Really? An intruder who doesn’t care if they make a noise that may alert the homeowner who, especially in SA, may then shoot them. Don’t you think that’s a really stupid thing to do?. Even more incompetent than bypassing a downstairs broken window and scaled the outside wall in the hope the bathroom window was unlocked because they needed to go to the toilet.
In truth all we know is a window was found open by the police. When it was opened and by whom we don’t know, it could even have been Pistorius opened it after the murder. We don’t even know if it makes a noise when opening.
All we have is the word of an accepted liar who says it opened at a particular time as it conveniently fits his version of events.
<modsnip>
Marfa Lights
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2014
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
Also, if Oscar were so concerned about protecting Reeva from an intruder, you would think he might toss her the phone and whisper "Quick! run downstairs and call the police. There's an intruder in the bathroom!" Or "Get out of the house now! Go call security! Intruders!
But come to think of it, couldn't he have just pushed a panic button on his alarm??
But come to think of it, couldn't he have just pushed a panic button on his alarm??
I’m sure he would have done all those things if there had really been an intruder.
Unfortunately the situational constraints he had to work with in trying to come up with a version of events to save his arse after he had murdered Reeva left him no opportunity to include what would have happened in reality.
In my opinion highly unlikely as since its inception the ConCourt has never changed a criminal verdict handed down by the SCA and I don’t see it breaking new ground by making case law based on the flimsy pretexts contained in the defence application for leave to appeal.
Even with a 10-year conviction, I believe he will only end up serving an extra 4 years. I believe he would be eligible for parole at 50% (i.e. 5 years) and with one year already served for CH that means only an extra 4 years. Does anyone know if I am right in my assessment ?
I also think that if he is sentenced to more than 8 years he will appeal (based on De Oliveira) and in the end he will have spent more time in litigation than in prison. Which is absurd for a convicted murderer.
He is welcome to appeal his sentence…..as long as it’s from a prison cell and not the comfort of Arnie’s mansion!!
Well said. It is obvious from reading her well researched submission especially regarding extant case law that the defence arguments are without foundation.
The concept of the ConCourt making new case law based on some conveniently published articles by a little known academic is quite frankly pathetic and serves to show the depths to which the defence will go when the funds are made available.
Marfa Lights
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2014
- Messages
- 682
- Reaction score
- 0
I guess because I invested so much time reading all five of his articles, and because the defense has relied on his theory in their ConCourt appeal, Steyn's thesis that an analysis of DE should have a third test for knowledge of unlawfulness is still festering with me.
In a case like Oscar's where the accused seeks to justify a homicide as a legitimate PPD, it would seem to be entirely superfluous.
Bringing a self-defense claim, particularly PPD, automatically triggers an analysis to determine if the accused had reason to believe they were acting lawfully.
If it is determined they could not justify their reasons for thinking they were acting lawfully in self-defense, then they would be found to have acted unlawfully and their PPD claim negated.
There would be no reason to further consider whether the accused thought they were acting lawfully. It would be time to consider culpability in the form of either negligence or Dolus.
Despite the lengthy treatise on the subject, Steyn seems to have neglected to consider this obvious aspect of the legal framework for DE with a self-defense claim.
It took me awhile to sort through it as a layperson, but I would think this would be painfully obvious to a trained legal mind, as many on here have supported.
I'm not too fussed about him remaining at his uncle's place during the appeals. At the end of the day, all of this dragging out is to his own detriment as the issue remains in the media and he is constantly staring down the barrel of an unknown amount of jail time and consequently cannot move on with his life. If it were me, I'd want to put it behind me, do the likely 3 extra years and then move on.
edit: spelling ("fussed")
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,232
- Reaction score
- 131,937
As I've said before, I've yet to find a person who can say not just that they support Steyn's argument but why they do. It seems to be a default position here at least, of not agreeing with the verdict of the SCA - so supporting the appeal to the Con Court regardless of the grounds or merit of the appeal.
This case has now moved on from whether Pistorius' actions constituted PPD in much the same way that it moved on from whether he knowingly murdered Reeva after Masipa's pigs ear of a judgement. Anyone who believes that it was DD of Reeva is reminded of the trial court's finding in that regard tout suite.
The appeal is not based on whether the SCA determined PPD correctly on the whole of the evidence. It is not based on his actions any more. It is based on purported legal errors. It does not make sense therefore to keep the argument alive that his actions were PPD, or that they were DD of Reeva - it makes sense to discuss the merits of the appeal.
You don't have anything to say about its content or the NPA's submission, so your reply does not contribute to the merits of the appeal.
- Status