Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 7.6.2016

[aftermath]

The dichotomy is mind boggling!
Thank you for sharing...
#LongerThanOscarsSentence

#NoJusticeForReeva
:rose:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A man gets high then races his car in the street during the day, killing four children and leaving two with permanent brain damage vs man with significant disability hears a noise metres away in his own house in the early hours, mistakenly assumes it is an intruder, investigates the noise and shoots, unintentionally killing his girfriend instead.

One gets 25years reduced to 8 years CH (according to at least one report) and is due for parole this year having served half his sentence. The other has CH upgraded to DE, and will serve three years plus the one already served, before becoming eligible for parole.

Where is the outrage for Jubjubs low time-served? Four children dead. Two brain damaged.

 

[aftermath]

The Defence didn't object to the Trial being televised- , they could have , but they didn't
Infact Roux ended up using it as a factor when he talked about the Media Coverage and that the trial was televised in Sentencing Arguments, thinking he could have it both ways, how hypocritical. Just another clutching at straws reason to gain sympathy for Pistorius, along with the very timely ITV Interview of Pistorius blubbering being aired before Judge Masipa gave Sentencing on 6 July, which attracted much criticism.

BIB Yes they did!

 

[Cloen]

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/ex...chobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1468160023

Aimee talks to ENCA

supporting her brother's 'story' that he'd made a 'mistake' , all very predicatable really.
THE FACTS? What about the neighbours hearing Reeva screaming in fear of her life, blood curdling screams , like a home invasion was taking place.
Tragic for BOTH families ? She knows what happened , she has to take this line , it affects her life too that he Murdered Reeva because of his violent temper.

 

[Cloen]

BIB Yes they did!

If they had of it wouldn't have been televised,

 

[Cloen]

A man gets high then races his car in the street during the day, killing four children and leaving two with permanent brain damage vs man with significant disability hears a noise metres away in his own house in the early hours, mistakenly assumes it is an intruder, investigates the noise and shoots, unintentionally killing his girfriend instead.

One gets 25years reduced to 8 years CH (according to at least one report) and is due for parole this year having served half his sentence. The other has CH upgraded to DE, and will serve three years plus the one already served, before becoming eligible for parole.

Where is the outrage for Jubjubs low time-served? Four children dead. Two brain damaged.

I'm sure there is outrage, but this is about Famous worldwide Pistorius , and the Case is more familiar -
The neighbours heard Reevas screams , a woman screaming in fear for her life, they weren't lying and it wasn't Pistorius . So much compelling circumstantial evidence Masipa chose to ignore,the whole Case was criticised worldwide for what Masipa totally chose to ignore in this Trial
Intruder ? in the safest Estate in South Africa ? It didn't happen the way Pistorius said , and i think probably only 1% believe the man.

 

[JudgeJudi]

BIB - I doubt most of here are not sickened by it. Fake fake fake. Stealing Reeva's bag from the crime scene kind of disqualifies her from gushing about her qualities when she barely knew her. Had they met more than once?

I've only ever heard of Aimee meeting Reeva once, when they were lying down in the garden one afternoon. She's so full of it.

"I know the truth. I have intimate knowledge of the people involved, of their insecurities, of the facts and, and that’s all I need".

How can she know the truth. Arnold said this too. Neither of them were there that night.

The people - She obviously can't have intimate knowledge of Reeva, and what would she know of her insecurities? Obviously she thought she knew her brother. Then again, maybe she does know and is as adept at lying as he is.
The facts - what a joke.

They just can't help themselves. With every media appearance it makes things so much worse and they still don't get it.

 

[Cloen]

BIB - those blood tests of OP's that magically disappeared, I wonder had those not disappeared and had proved he'd taken something and was mentally compromised at the time of the murder, if he'd also have been judged not to have been able to predict he'd kill Reeva. If so, I bet he's kicking himself now for making sure the evidence went bye bye. Mind you, was the alcohol reading taken something like 8 hours after the murder, enough time to ensure that at least 8 units had metabolised?

Yes, the first blood test went walkies, and he was finally bloodtested about 8 hours after his arrest.

 

[aftermath]

If they had of it wouldn't have been televised,

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-be-broadcast-on-live-television-9152702.html

http://m.smh.com.au/world/oscar-pis...o-live-broadcast-of-trial-20140218-hvcz7.html

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/feb/25/oscar-pistorius-trial-broadcast-live-tv-south-africa

First three articles after a Google search

 

[aftermath]

I'm sure there is outrage, but this is about Famous worldwide Pistorius , and the Case is more familiar -
The neighbours heard Reevas screams , a woman screaming in fear for her life, they weren't lying and it wasn't Pistorius . So much compelling circumstantial evidence Masipa chose to ignore,the whole Case was criticised worldwide for what Masipa totally chose to ignore in this Trial
Intruder ? in the safest Estate in South Africa ? It didn't happen the way Pistorius said , and i think probably only 1% believe the man.

Jubjub is pretty famous in SA
Did the neighbours identify reeva as the source of the screams? No. Did the phone data support the claim thar Reeva screamed before being shot? No.
They weren't lying. But they may well have been mistaken.
Yes. Intruders. Even in the safest Estate. It had happened in the past....

 

[soozieqtips]

supporting her brother's 'story' that he'd made a 'mistake' , all very predicatable really.
THE FACTS? What about the neighbours hearing Reeva screaming in fear of her life, blood curdling screams , like a home invasion was taking place.
Tragic for BOTH families ? She knows what happened , she has to take this line , it affects her life too that he Murdered Reeva because of his violent temper.

Not to mention Dr Stipp saying he had heard female and male voices at the same time. Not possible if the murderer's version / versions were to be believed. Masipa threw out just about all credible witness evidence (anyone who heard what was going on) in order to support the tale of a murderer that she had admitted was an evasive and dishonest witness. He was the one with the biggest motive to lie (like most murderers) and yet the ear witnesses had absolutely no reason to lie and their evidence was dumped by the roadside.

 

[Cherwell]

Not to mention Dr Stipp saying he had heard female and male voices at the same time. Not possible if the murderer's version / versions were to be believed. Masipa threw out just about all credible witness evidence (anyone who heard what was going on) in order to support the tale of a murderer that she had admitted was an evasive and dishonest witness. He was the one with the biggest motive to lie (like most murderers) and yet the ear witnesses had absolutely no reason to lie and their evidence was dumped by the roadside.

Although Masipa DID choose to believe Dr Stipp when he said he thought Pistorius was genuinely distraught.
She selected those cherries so carefully, didn't she.

 

[cottonweaver]

I've only ever heard of Aimee meeting Reeva once, when they were lying down in the garden one afternoon. She's so full of it.

"I know the truth. I have intimate knowledge of the people involved, of their insecurities, of the facts and, and that’s all I need".

How can she know the truth. Arnold said this too. Neither of them were there that night.

The people - She obviously can't have intimate knowledge of Reeva, and what would she know of her insecurities? Obviously she thought she knew her brother. Then again, maybe she does know and is as adept at lying as he is.
The facts - what a joke.

They just can't help themselves. With every media appearance it makes things so much worse and they still don't get it.

I have a vague recollection Reeva went to some Pistorian elderly relative's birthday or get-together - but it may even be the same event?
If it's not , it can only be twice.

I haven't watched the whole interview yet - just that part about Reeva.
Full of it ? It's sickeningly cynical
- OP appropriated her voice now after he murdered her. ( She wouldn' t want me to rot in a prison)
- He featured Reeva's supposed silence in the causation of his own crime ( If only Reeva had spoken up , wtte) ,
- Masipa exploits Barry's opinions to help justify mitigation,
- OP uses eg. "Aimee had to leave country , to London" as the press intrusion was too great
- OP exploits the family by the raising of the the compensation £ when they were in penury, .......

.....now we have this little actress doing a 2nd Pisto TV special and saying she she was intimate with the victim and appreciative of her unique traits.

:maddening:

 

[Niner]

So Nel has 14 days to appeal this sentence, correct? So that would make it July 20th, or is just business days counted??

TIA! :wave:

#NoJusticeForReeva

 

[Hazy]

Good point. I think we could now start a rolling list of objections/potential grounds of appeal:

1. No substantial or compelling circumstances to justify deviating from 15.
2. Masipa was incorrect to find remorse, given P's dishonesty, (Seegers).
3. Masipa incorrectly prioritised rehabilitation over retribution and deterrence, (Swart).
4. Even on his own case, P was remorseful only for murdering the wrong person.
5. No explanation given as to how Masipa got to 6 years.
6. Did P lie to Prof Scholtz to get a lighter sentence? (Aggravating).
7. How can it be correct to reduce sentence in order to fulfil duty to correct public opinion? Where is the authority for this duty?
8. Departed from 15, due to personal preference unlikely to be shared by many, (Malgas).
9. Sentence does not reflect that the crime was close to dolus directus.
10. Inappropriate reference to loss of peace of mind, loss of career, 'fallen hero' etc.

Any others to be added?

I feel the apology in court was forced on them, too impersonal. He had been told they weren't ready. What part of that did he not understand?

 

[cottonweaver]

I feel the apology in court was forced on them, too impersonal. He had been told they weren't ready. What part of that did he not understand?

Definitely.
Plus the repeated attempts to apologise face -to face, so we are told by Roux.

You don't need to be law-smart to know that the very effect of being seen to be trying to apologise will be another box ticked, it's standard operating.
It means naught to Masipa that in statements to the media post trial 2014, the Steenkamps made it repeatedly clear they were not ready to meet with OP.
So it's easy, every 6 months Webers can send a letter requesting a meet-up , knowing full well it will be denied.

This sort of move, how can it evidence real remorse for mitigation purposes.
Baffling.

 

[cottonweaver]

So Nel has 14 days to appeal this sentence, correct? So that would make it July 20th, or is just business days counted??

TIA! :wave:

#NoJusticeForReeva

IDK Niner, sorry.
I have a recollection we have tried to work this out before, after the first trial, during an Appeal window. I vaguely recollect it was business days that counted.

So Wednesday 6th - bombshell.
IDK Nel's current case load but I expect him not to be personally working the appeal angles the next day - sure he needed some stiff drinks and a break.
Before the weekend, having people like Andrea maybe and James Grant and other members of that team work through the transcript.
Phone calls and meeting with head of NPA. A flood of negative articles about the 6 years, read and digested - public's interest.

Drafts of appeal started. Maybe as late as after this weekend.
Calls to SCA, Justice Minister etc. Lots of networking and positions taken.

Rough drafts of an appeal sent to SCA to see if they might be willing to hear it in principle later . ???

 

[Tortoise]

Definitely.
Plus the repeated attempts to apologise face -to face, so we are told by Roux.

You don't need to be law-smart to know that the very effect of being seen to be trying to apologise will be another box ticked, it's standard operating.
It means naught to Masipa that in statements to the media post trial 2014, the Steenkamps made it repeatedly clear they were not ready to meet with OP.
So it's easy, every 6 months Webers can send a letter requesting a meet-up , knowing full well it will be denied.

This sort of move, how can it evidence real remorse for mitigation purposes.
Baffling.

I don't recall Masipa even touching on his declaration in jail that he was not a criminal and had not committed a crime. How does she get to remorse?

 

[cottonweaver]

all the delays last time - basic timeline

21 October 2014 sentence given for CH
24 Oct 2014 prosecution spokesman Nathi Mncube said they were considering Appealing and had approached James Grant
27 October 2014, Nathi Mncube confirmed that prosecutors would lodge an appeal
10 December 2014, Judge Masipa hearing, gave leave to appeal conviction but not sentence
14 Nov 12014 Defences response to sentence appeal signed off.
On 9 February 2015, prosecutors filed notice to appeal
13 Aug 2015 The date of the signed final draft ( Heads of A) by the State.
On 14 September 2015, the defence filed papers in rebuttal to above,
3 November 2015 SCA heard it and overturned the verdict of the trial court on 3 December 2015
11 January 2016, Pistorius applied for leave to appeal to South Africa’s constitutional court
On 3 March 2016 the Constitutional Court denied the application

 

[Hazy]

Definitely.
Plus the repeated attempts to apologise face -to face, so we are told by Roux.

You don't need to be law-smart to know that the very effect of being seen to be trying to apologise will be another box ticked, it's standard operating.
It means naught to Masipa that in statements to the media post trial 2014, the Steenkamps made it repeatedly clear they were not ready to meet with OP.
So it's easy, every 6 months Webers can send a letter requesting a meet-up , knowing full well it will be denied.

This sort of move, how can it evidence real remorse for mitigation purposes.
Baffling.

Exactly Cotton. It was done to buy remorse.

There is no onus on the victims accept this.

 

[soozieqtips]

Exactly Cotton. It was done to buy remorse.

There is no onus on the victims accept this.

It seems Masipa didn't care a jot that the Steenkamps weren't ready to meet the maniac who murdered their daughter, only that the murderer had put in a request. She wasn't shy about putting the needs of a murderer above the victim he murdered. She decided that a) the Steenkamps were 'healing' and had forgiven him, and that, b) that just because the murderer had asked to see them meant he was remorseful. I can't believe she's that naive. And if she is, then she should never have been given the important job of overseeing such a high-profile murder trial. Her ineptness has caused further delays and more angst for the Steenkamps, but hey, so long as she thinks the criticism was never about her, only the 'outcome', I guess she can continue living in that lovely place they call denial. She might even bump into the murderer while she's there.