Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[cottonweaver]

You claim it as a fact that "OP chose to be in the media spotlight"

Where is the evidence for this?
He may be newsworthy but this does not mean he instigated this.

"... he chose to earn a living by being in the limelight... and he thoroughly enjoyed it..."
Again unsubstantiated opinion. Guesswork based on media stories and gossip no doubt. Where is the evidence?.

RSBM

You cannot be serious Trotterly

P's sponsorship deals were where the money was made, estimated back then as $2 mill p.a.I won't patronise you to explain in detail how being a brand sponsor,merchandising and maintaining the right public image through the media, across a range of platforms is crucial and how it plays out/pays out for an Olympic sportsman nearing retirement/past his peak. Nor to detail how promoted (as opposed to anonymous) charity appearances and activities connect with that.

But here's a few examples as reminders

Evidence of choice & instigation- biography/autobiog, interviews given to international media about life story etc,hosting journalists at his home over the weekend, accounts given by his own athletic team at Olympics about his concern with getting the best publicity and getting the best interviews, utilisation of social media e.g.. Twitter which used his personal life and P.A. to promote commercial connections e.g.. MNet, Daytona, Oakley, Nike. ( I could go on and on and on)

Evidence of his concern re brand damage from adverse publicity= sponsorship jeopardy - boating accident; Tasha's comments/lies; "Domestic violence" settlement and non-disclosure deal; utilisation of social media e.g.. Twitter, website; top British PR agent immediately post arrest for damage limitation; texts to RS regarding apt behaviour at media events e.g. chewing gum; manager/agent Van Zyl's own trial testimony* and his previous press releases. ( Yes and there's more out there than this quick list)


Actually, I must be crazy to even bother listing these- it's all out there, but its very tedious to link to it all as there is so much evidence. If you've been following the trial (assume you have) and read widely you would have no choice but to just accept it as a given by now. For you to suggest otherwise has to be disingenuous- can't imagine you could have been living under a rock.

Anyway please tell me something new, something I don't know, surprise me?! ( I'm serious, we all enjoy a debate from an opposing view-point but this is beginning to feel like intentional time-wasting because you can't possibly not know that brand publicity was his life blood at this stage in his career.)


*Van Zyl trial testimony:
"Based on the profile that Mr Pistorius's image carried in the business world, a lot of opportunities came our way where corporate companies wanted to be associated with Mr Pistorius due to the synergy between their values and his values, and they would want to build marketing and advertising campaigns based on that.

"The financial implications were going to be substantial. I can easily say five, six times more than what it was before the London Olympic Games."
Mr Pistorius, I can also confirm, is a very astute businessman and he was very aware of the role that he had to play within his brand and the financial implications that he stood to gain in the years to come."

 

[Trotterly]

LOL... you keep making my point for me !

Reply in bold

So no actual evidence then. Nice try.

 

[Trotterly]

RSBM

You cannot be serious Trotterly

P's sponsorship deals were where the money was made, estimated back then as $2 mill p.a.I won't patronise you to explain in detail how being a brand sponsor,merchandising and maintaining the right public image through the media, across a range of platforms is crucial and how it plays out/pays out for an Olympic sportsman nearing retirement/past his peak. Nor to detail how promoted (as opposed to anonymous) charity appearances and activities connect with that.

But here's a few examples as reminders

Evidence of choice & instigation- biography/autobiog, interviews given to international media about life story etc,hosting journalists at his home over the weekend, accounts given by his own athletic team at Olympics about his concern with getting the best publicity and getting the best interviews, utilisation of social media e.g.. Twitter which used his personal life and P.A. to promote commercial connections e.g.. MNet, Daytona, Oakley, Nike. ( I could go on and on and on)

Evidence of his concern re brand damage from adverse publicity= sponsorship jeopardy - boating accident; Tasha's comments/lies; "Domestic violence" settlement and non-disclosure deal; utilisation of social media e.g.. Twitter, website; top British PR agent immediately post arrest for damage limitation; texts to RS regarding apt behaviour at media events e.g. chewing gum; manager/agent Van Zyl's own trial testimony* and his previous press releases. ( Yes and there's more out there than this quick list)


Actually, I must be crazy to even bother listing these- it's all out there, but its very tedious to link to it all as there is so much evidence. If you've been following the trial (assume you have) and read widely you would have no choice but to just accept it as a given by now. For you to suggest otherwise has to be disingenuous- can't imagine you could have been living under a rock.

Anyway please tell me something new, something I don't know, surprise me?! ( I'm serious, we all enjoy a debate from an opposing view-point but this is beginning to feel like intentional time-wasting because you can't possibly not know that brand publicity was his life blood at this stage in his career.)


*Van Zyl trial testimony:
"Based on the profile that Mr Pistorius's image carried in the business world, a lot of opportunities came our way where corporate companies wanted to be associated with Mr Pistorius due to the synergy between their values and his values, and they would want to build marketing and advertising campaigns based on that.

"The financial implications were going to be substantial. I can easily say five, six times more than what it was before the London Olympic Games."
Mr Pistorius, I can also confirm, is a very astute businessman and he was very aware of the role that he had to play within his brand and the financial implications that he stood to gain in the years to come."

But where is the evidence that he chose the spotlight in the first place rather than having the attention thrust upon him?

Once he had no choice he can hardly be blamed for making money in the same way as other top sports people.

 

[AJ_DS]

So no actual evidence then. Nice try.

You can rest easy on the whole "being in the employ of the Pistorius clan" issue as I sincerely doubt they would ever pay for this caliber of PR.

 

[AJ_DS]

But where is the evidence that he chose the spotlight in the first place rather than having the attention thrust upon him?

Once he had no choice he can hardly be blamed for making money in the same way as other top sports people.

BiB... :hilarious:

Not only do you believe OP was the victim in Reeva's death, now you believe OP was the victim of his own fame and fortune !!

Is there anything in OP's life for which you believe he can be held responsible and accountable ?

... guess not !!

 

[Trotterly]

You can rest easy on the whole "being in the employ of the Pistorius clan" issue as I sincerely doubt they would ever pay for this caliber of PR.

Just more insults then, no evidence.

 

[cottonweaver]

Agreed....... a victim, although, curiously, a pragmatic victim. Err?

I might as well log on to a Pistorian Facebook page - plenty of that on there.

 

[cottonweaver]

But where is the evidence that he chose the spotlight in the first place rather than having the attention thrust upon him?

Once he had no choice he can hardly be blamed for making money in the same way as other top sports people.

Tell it to van Zyl. He would laugh.

If something is thrust upon you , it means that you do not want it and have resisted it (with some force), as it is against your will/desires. ( No evidence of that, everything underlines he was complicit, active participant, nay central to it happening as i outlined earlier - you find me some evidence to contradict that instead)

You can't have it both ways Trotterly. ie. now say - ah well he now accepts & wants to utilise it but in some kind of passive manner- it doesn't work like that. Do you get the impact of having a sponsor at this level and the detailed contracts that have to be negotiated with them, that impinge on your daily life, what you say, do, wear.....? He always had choices. He chose to make these methods his financial living/future- nowt wrong with that. But no, not an unwilling participant. It was business!

As AJ said - he "chose this", you don't agree but seemingly can't provide anything real to counter.

 

[cottonweaver]

I wish I could give you a definitive answer as to why it's 5 judges not 3, but to date all I've been able to find is ...

"The Court generally sits in panels of three or five judges, depending on the nature of the appeal. The composition of the panels differs for each case. The senior judge on each panel presides in that case. There may be more than one judgment in a case if there is a difference of opinion. The decision of the majority is the decision of the Court."

http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/aboutsca.htm

However, I can tell you that SA judges have needed clarification of dolus eventualis for some time and there's been a lot of debate about it for some 30 years. This appeal is based on Masipa's misinterpretation of the law, i.e. dolus eventualis. As there are so many murders in SA, and this was an important trial, this is a golden opportunity for 5 judges to settle its meaning once and for all.

I'll keep looking tomorrow in the hope of providing a better answer to your question.

Thankyou JJ -don't go to any trouble - that BIB makes rational sense. Was wondering whether it was simply re. international publicity/potential embarassment but yes it is consensus that some of the legal complexities were difficult even for the top SA academic law specialists (Grant etc) so that could be their main priority.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Thanks for those updates. We all knew this was coming but it doesn't make it any less disappointing does it.
Awful to hear that house arrest actually gives him so many options to leave the house! He will be *advertiser censored*-a-hoop today regardless of the upcoming Appeal.
I hope he is hounded by the press every time he walks out of the door and the ANC Womens' League sets up an encampment opposite.

Judge Judi - do you know why it's 5 judges not 3? ( I can't remember a lot of details prior to his holiday camp sojourn.)

BTW is anybody else noticing WS pages are taking an age to load? ( Maybe it's just issues my end)

I wish I could give you a definitive answer as to why it's 5 judges not 3, but to date all I've been able to find is ...

"The Court generally sits in panels of three or five judges, depending on the nature of the appeal. The composition of the panels differs for each case. The senior judge on each panel presides in that case. There may be more than one judgment in a case if there is a difference of opinion. The decision of the majority is the decision of the Court."

http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/aboutsca.htm

However, I can tell you that SA judges have needed clarification of dolus eventualis for some time and there's been a lot of debate about it for some 30 years. This appeal is based on Masipa's misinterpretation of the law, i.e. dolus eventualis. As there are so many murders in SA, and this was an important trial, this is a golden opportunity for 5 judges to settle its meaning once and for all.

After typing the above, I've just found the answer:

“In terms of section 12 of the Supreme Court Act, the quorum of judges for both civil and criminal appeals in the Supreme Court of Appeal is generally five judges, and the judgment of the majority is the judgment of the court”.

(page 9)

http://www.northernlaw.co.za/import...tutional_court_judgment/jurisdiction.lssa.pdf

 

[AJ_DS]

Just more insults then, no evidence.

There's just no pleasing you...

You take offence at BOTH suggestions that you could be AND that you could not be in the employ of the Pistorius clan.

At least you are entirely consistent in your inconsistencies.

Perhaps we do not mean the same thing when we say "evidence" ?

Can you provide evidence for your own statements : "OP had no choice but to make money" or "OP had attention thrust upon him" ?

... Is there evidence OP did not choose to be a Paralympic athlete ?

... Is there evidence OP did not choose to be disabled ?

 

[AJ_DS]

Tell it to van Zyl. He would laugh.

If something is thrust upon you , it means that you do not want it and have resisted it (with some force), as it is against your will/desires. ( No evidence of that, everything underlines he was complicit, active participant, nay central to it happening as i outlined earlier - you find me some evidence to contradict that instead)

You can't have it both ways Trotterly. ie. now say - ah well he now accepts & wants to utilise it but in some kind of passive manner- it doesn't work like that. Do you get the impact of having a sponsor at this level and the detailed contracts that have to be negotiated with them, that impinge on your daily life, what you say, do, wear.....? He always had choices. He chose to make these methods his financial living/future- nowt wrong with that. But no, not an unwilling participant. It was business!

As AJ said - he "chose this", you don't agree but seemingly can't provide anything real to counter.

I believe you may have found it in BiB

Trotterly said OP can't be blamed for having been famous and having made money from said fame.

Naturally, no one has ever said or even suggested OP should be blamed for his success.

What was actually said was that fame is a 2-sided coin : if you choose to be a pubic figure, you have to accept the good and the bad that comes from it... that's only fair.

OP does not do fair... he believes he transcends fair... he is entitled to be above fair

Just as OP wants his cake and eat it too, Trotterly believes OP should be allowed to reap the benefits of fame when it suits him, yet should be allowed to step away from fame when it does not suit him.

Hence, the "OP can't be blamed" and the "there is no evidence OP chose fame" and the "fame was thrust on OP"... because otherwise, one could not begin to make the argument that the media should leave OP alone.

It's all based on OP infatuation : OP can do no wrong...

...therefore one must twist everything, even to the point of it becoming nonsensical.

We saw this phenomena at Trial : OP is himself OP infatuated ... nothing is his fault, he cannot blamed for anything, everybody is against him, it's all a massive elaborate conspiracy, etc...

... and we see the same OP infatuation here with some posters which invariably results in a defensive/protective stance argued with increasingly flawed, albeit comical, reasoning.

 

[Trotterly]

There's just no pleasing you...

You take offence at BOTH suggestions that you could be AND that you could not be in the employ of the Pistorius clan.

At least you are entirely consistent in your inconsistencies.

Perhaps we do not mean the same thing when we say "evidence" ?

Can you provide evidence for your own statements : "OP had no choice but to make money" or "OP had attention thrust upon him" ?

... Is there evidence OP did not choose to be a Paralympic athlete ?

... Is there evidence OP did not choose to be disabled ?

I did not say that he "had no choice but to make money" or that "had attention thrust upon him". These were suggested as equally likely possibilities to your claims which you still have yet to give evidence for.

I don't know how his relationship with the media started and neither do you. So in the meantime you are using it as another stick to beat him with.

 

[AJ_DS]

I did not say that he "had no choice but to make money" or that "had attention thrust upon him". These were suggested as equally likely possibilities to your claims which you still have yet to give evidence for.

I don't know how his relationship with the media started and neither do you. So in the meantime you are using it as another stick to beat him with.

Again you are making my case for me... notice the defensive/protective stance and the flawed reasoning.

It's almost as if, in your mind, my arguments were physically wounding you personally... fascinating !

You said and I quote :

But where is the evidence that he chose the spotlight in the first place rather than having the attention thrust upon him?

Once he had no choice he can hardly be blamed for making money in the same way as other top sports people.

This clearly indicates that however fame happened, OP had NO CHOICE and CANNOT BE BLAMED for making money... and to make sure he cannot be singled out and blamed for not being blame-worthy, you mention that all other sports people do as OP did... LOL

I suspect that in your mind, when it comes to OP, there will never exist any evidence capable of proving anything but OP's righteousness.

How sad to witness such love and admiration, knowing full well it will never be reciprocated...

... unless you are OP's number 1 love : OP himself

 

[Trotterly]

Again you are making my case for me... notice the defensive/protective stance and the flawed reasoning.

It's almost as if, in your mind, my arguments were physically wounding you personally... fascinating !

You said and I quote :



This clearly indicates that however fame happened, OP had NO CHOICE and CANNOT BE BLAMED for making money... and to make sure he cannot be singled out and blamed for not being blame-worthy, you mention that all other sports people do as OP did... LOL

I suspect that in your mind, when it comes to OP, there will never exist any evidence capable of proving anything but OP's righteousness.

How sad to witness such love and admiration, knowing full well it will never be reciprocated...

... unless you are OP's number 1 love : OP himself

I'm only interested in seeing a fair trial and appeal when (or if) it comes.

Bluff and bluster aside how's that evidence coming along?

 

[Pisto_lius]

We knew about the possibility OP would be released on probation after 10 months. But I agree - incarceration of 10 months for taking a life is simply not enough !

Given the special treatment this convicted killer has received all the way through:

1. The state was seeking for no bail should be granted.....

..... magistrate Desmond Nair has ruled that OP's case is a schedule six offence - that makes it extremely unlikely bail will be granted.....

..... BUT magistrate Desmond Nair granted bail.... and prosecutors had failed first time…..


2. Only three weeks later OP's defence filed appeal against bail conditions….

….. prosecutors had opposed the relaxing of Pistorius's bail restrictions…..

….. BUT judge Bert Bam granted all the relaxed bail conditions OP's defence had asked for….. and prosecutors had failed second time…..


3. Months later the NPA claimed they had a strong murder case against OP and were seeking for a conviction of

a) Firing a pistol through the sunroof of a moving car - which carried a maximum five-year sentence.....

..... BUT judge Masipa decided: NOT guilty !..... and prosecutors had failed third time.....

b) The illegal possession of ammunition - which carried a maximum 15 year sentence.....

..... BUT judge Masipa decided: NOT guilty !..... and prosecutors had failed fourth time.....

c) Recklessly firing a gun in public at Tasha's Bistro - which could also carry up to five years.....

..... Judge Masipa decided: Guilty ! .... only a small victory for prosecutors because she sentenced OP to only three years in prison - wholly suspended…..

d) Premeditated murder for killing Reeva Steenkamp - which carried a sentence of 25 years in prison.....

..... BUT judge Masipa decided: Guilty of culpable homicide - which carried a maximum sentence of 15 years but no minimum sentence…..

..... and sentenced OP to only 5 years in prison what called for him to serve only 10 months before he can be placed under house arrest..... and prosecutors had failed fifth time.....

Last but not least prosecutors were seeking for

e) OP's bail should NOT be continued…..

..... BUT judge Masipa decided: OP can continue to stay out on bail until the mitigation hearing….. and prosecutors had failed sixth time.....


..... IMO the fact that prosecutors were given permission to appeal ONLY the culpable homicide conviction is nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory.

And it shows that no one in SA honestly is willing to held OP - their "hero" - accountable for his illicit and culpable actions and to impose the penalty he deserves for all of his actions.

As the result of all the points listed above, I'm afraid to say that I'm very pessimistic regarding the outcome of the appeal which is set three months after OP was released on parole.

In light of the foregoing and the fact prosecutors failed so often, I would say: Only a fool would expect the state prosecutors will win this appeal and these (new) 5 judges will come to the decision that OP will be put straight back into prison.

It'll be a cold day in hell when THIS happens !


.
.

 

[Trotterly]

We knew about the possibility OP would be released on probation after 10 months. But I agree - incarceration of 10 months for taking a life is simply not enough !

Given the special treatment this convicted killer has received all the way through:

1. The state was seeking for no bail should be granted.....

..... magistrate Desmond Nair has ruled that OP's case is a schedule six offence - that makes it extremely unlikely bail will be granted.....

..... BUT magistrate Desmond Nair granted bail.... and prosecutors had failed first time…..


2. Only three weeks later OP's defence filed appeal against bail conditions….

….. prosecutors had opposed the relaxing of Pistorius's bail restrictions…..

….. BUT judge Bert Bam granted all the relaxed bail conditions OP's defence had asked for….. and prosecutors had failed second time…..


3. Months later the NPA claimed they had a strong murder case against OP and were seeking for a conviction of

a) Firing a pistol through the sunroof of a moving car - which carried a maximum five-year sentence.....

..... BUT judge Masipa decided: NOT guilty !..... and prosecutors had failed third time.....

b) The illegal possession of ammunition - which carried a maximum 15 year sentence.....

..... BUT judge Masipa decided: NOT guilty !..... and prosecutors had failed fourth time.....

c) Recklessly firing a gun in public at Tasha's Bistro - which could also carry up to five years.....

..... Judge Masipa decided: Guilty ! .... only a small victory for prosecutors because she sentenced OP to only three years in prison - wholly suspended…..

d) Premeditated murder for killing Reeva Steenkamp - which carried a sentence of 25 years in prison.....

..... BUT judge Masipa decided: Guilty of culpable homicide - which carried a maximum sentence of 15 years but no minimum sentence…..

..... and sentenced OP to only 5 years in prison what called for him to serve only 10 months before he can be placed under house arrest..... and prosecutors had failed fifth time.....

Last but not least prosecutors were seeking for

e) OP's bail should NOT be continued…..

..... BUT judge Masipa decided: OP can continue to stay out on bail until the mitigation hearing….. and prosecutors had failed sixth time.....


..... IMO the fact that prosecutors were given permission to appeal ONLY the culpable homicide conviction is nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory.

And it shows that no one in SA honestly is willing to held OP - their "hero" - accountable for his illicit and culpable actions and to impose the penalty he deserves for all of his actions.

As the result of all the points listed above, I'm afraid to say that I'm very pessimistic regarding the outcome of the appeal which is set three months after OP was released on parole.

In light of the foregoing and the fact prosecutors failed so often, I would say: Only a fool would expect the state prosecutors will win this appeal and these (new) 5 judges will come to the decision that OP will be put straight back into prison.

It'll be a cold day in hell when THIS happens !


.
.

Very colourful post!

The Appeal will result in no significant change to OP's situation.

I will then not be surprised at the torrent of abuse heaped upon he SA judicial system at the inability to find someone guilty of murder on questionable evidence.

First Masipa and two assessors were incompetent/bribed/senile/inexperienced/etc

Then a handful of other judges will be ............ (insert insult here)

A pity really because this trial was an opportunity to enlighten and educate the public about the legal process. Alas some are too blind to see past their own anger and bias.

 

[lithgow1]

But where is the evidence that he chose the spotlight in the first place rather than having the attention thrust upon him?

Once he had no choice he can hardly be blamed for making money in the same way as other top sports people.

He was about to do some interview (cover story no less) with a Hello-type celebrity magazine about his and RS`s relationship until his blasting her to death put paid to that. Or would you argue that that publicity was thrust upon him too? From reading here for the first time in a long time, it seems to me that you ask for evidence and then when people provide you with it you choose to dismiss it.

 

[cottonweaver]

Nice try again but you're still dodging my original question which was where is your evidence that "OP chose to be in the media spotlight"?

I have followed the case closely and have not seen anything to say that he chose the spotlight.

You chose to make this a fact not I.

I gave you tons of evidence earlier. Why not start with those and then if you find them all lacking, tell me why and then other posters could supply more as my list was not exhaustive. Anything else is just repetition/wasting everyone's time.

 

[Trotterly]

I gave you tons of evidence earlier. Why not start with those and then if you find them all lacking, tell me why and then other posters could supply more as my list was not exhaustive. Anything else is just repetition/wasting everyone's time.

I wanted to know where was the evidence that OP decided to enter the media spotlight rather (as I mentioned before) than it being visited upon him.