Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~

[Ochre Blue]

I am now wondering if OP will have to go back to prison straight away if he is found guilty of murder but before his sentencing in January?

I just saw previous post so OP will not go back to jail until January.

Sydney time will be 6.45pm Thursday to hear announcement of Appeal.

Queensland time 5.45pm.

Hopefully on ABC News 24.

 

[JudgeJudi]

As I posted earlier in the evening in response to a question, I've read both that he could or would have to return to prison within 48 hours. I also said that nothing would surprise me in this case.

Here's yet another example of OP being treated differently because he's special. I hope the family come out and complain about this special treatment and why can't he be treated like others!!! Right. He is singing "I'll be home for Christmas".

My blood pressure has been going up tonight ever since the tourist romp around the prison. It's sooo late that I'm turning in.

As it's already Wednesday morning in Oz, only :bed: more for me after I drag myself into bed tonight.

 

[mhiforme]

What a ridiculous, callous statement to make! There is absolutely no comparison!

I think we must all have dreamt OP being out and about, clubbing, getting drunk and into fights, hitting on women, going uninvited to parties...... because he was enduring the pain!??! And lest we forget, this was 6 weeks after he killed her!

He killed their CHILD, there is no way anyone else can feel what they must feel!

You're dead wrong, spend 23 hours a day in solitary and see how it breaks you. Tough gang members break after long periods of time in solitary and while Pistorius brought this upon himself, I'm sure his family still loves him and hates to see him in this predicament.

That's human love and kindness.

 

[mhiforme]

IMO Pistorius still seems to be fortunate in that he was able to celebrate his 29th Birthday with family, then Christmas, only have to do 2 days community service per month and if he is found guilty, he will be sentenced by the sympathetic Masipa in January. I would not mind betting that they let him go to Mozambique too! Or will Uncle Arnold have to cancel that holiday this year rather than have to leave Pistorius at home alone?

If Masipa does not sentence him to at least 15 years for murder (with no mitigation and less time already spent in prison), I will be very disappointed. Imo he should be given 25 years but that will not happen.

What sentence (if OP is found guilty) do you predict OP will be given?

At most 8 due to mitigating circumstances, 1 year time served, means 7 in jail. Out in 3.5 years after serving half his sentence.

 

[mhiforme]

Personally speaking, I find this 3-hour guided tour quite outrageous. This is for the benefit of the public to show that OP didn’t have his own cooking facilities, gym equipment etc.

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan · 2h2 hours ago
First time that correctional services has allowed such a detailed tour of Kgosi Mampuru prison. It'll be 3 hours long

Does anyone seriously believe these journos are here for any reason other than to see OP's cell?

The prisons in SA are horrendous places for most of its inmates. Once again, this is all about OP, and showing that he is special, special enough to take the media on a 3-hour jaunt to dispel rumours.

Why haven’t the media been in that prison before to highlight how the majority are suffering from the shockingly overcrowded conditions, lack of facilities, how severely disabled people can be left to their own devices as to how they get about even if it means dragging themselves along the ground and not given an opportunity to get the much needed medical attention they so desperately need.

Regardless of how the tour happened, at least it did and perhaps it will bring change to their prison system for the good of all inmates. Sometimes it does take a celebrity to highlight faults in the system.

 

[cottonweaver]

At most 8 due to mitigating circumstances, 1 year time served, means 7 in jail. Out in 3.5 years after serving half his sentence.

how do you figure a reduction of more than 50%, of 7years ? Based on which circumstances?

 

[cottonweaver]

You're dead wrong, spend 23 hours a day in solitary and see how it breaks you. Tough gang members break after long periods of time in solitary and while Pistorius brought this upon himself, I'm sure his family still loves him and hates to see him in this predicament.

That's human love and kindness.

but he's not in solitary confinement.
23 hours in his room reading the bible is his choice.

 

[mrjitty]

If only Reeva had been exercising 2nd amendment style thinking - she could have defended herself in the toilet

That's the real lesson here.

 

[mrjitty]

At most 8 due to mitigating circumstances, 1 year time served, means 7 in jail. Out in 3.5 years after serving half his sentence.

This is my guess as well

 

[mrjitty]

how do you figure a reduction of more than 50%, of 7years ? Based on which circumstances?

Parol seems to happen at 50% time served

If its murder - then the min sentence is 15 years but it can be discounted for exceptional circumstances.

My guess is shooting an "intruder" by mistake would count as exceptional

Had he been found guilty of simply gunning Reeva down in the heat of the moment - then it would have been 15 minimum - so out as early as 7.5

 

[cottonweaver]

Parol seems to happen at 50% time served

If its murder - then the min sentence is 15 years but it can be discounted for exceptional circumstances.

My guess is shooting an "intruder" by mistake would count as exceptional

Had he been found guilty of simply gunning Reeva down in the heat of the moment - then it would have been 15 minimum - so out as early as 7.5

BIB yes I know the reduction upon Parole but as for an 8 year sentence handed down, that's a big reduction in the first instance isn't it especially as we have the issues stated by a couple of JA at the SCA - 4 bullets, bona fide belief of fear of danger not properly found.

Nonetheless I never expected he would be back inside for long but I was interested in how the OP got to that figure

 

[mhiforme]

BIB yes I know the reduction upon Parole but as for an 8 year sentence handed down, that's a big reduction in the first instance isn't it especially as we have the issues stated by a couple of JA at the SCA - 4 bullets, bona fide belief of fear of danger not properly found.

Nonetheless I never expected he would be back inside for long but I was interested in how the OP got to that figure

I just feel they are going to go soft on him. Roux will try and mitigate this as best as he can:

1. He was in fear of his life and it was a mistake
2. He has no legs
3. He is a celebrity and everyone in prison is out to get him. He only eats canned food because he is worried that with his celebrity status, people will poison him.
4. He is in solitary confinement and while this is his choice, he does it for his own safety. Roux will say that for a prolonged period of time, this is cruel and unusual punishment.

etc etc

 

[cottonweaver]

I just feel they are going to go soft on him. Roux will try and mitigate this as best as he can:

1. He was in fear of his life and it was a mistake
2. He has no legs
3. He is a celebrity and everyone in prison is out to get him. He only eats canned food because he is worried that with his celebrity status, people will poison him.
4. He is in solitary confinement and while this is his choice, he does it for his own safety. Roux will say that for a prolonged period of time, this is cruel and unusual punishment.

etc etc

Thankyou.

I have read a few examples of current SCA reasoning on "exceptional & compelling" even though they are unlikely to deal with a sentence themselves in this case. If it is true that CS at the prison offered him the option of cooking his own food there, then I can't see how he can claim no.3 and he will need to have already informed CS of any genuine threats which surely would have come out at CSPRB meeting in August? ( no.4 ditto on personal safety issues)

Your no.4 -he can't say that is "cruel and unusual punishment." in and of itself for pretty obvious reasons.

no.2 - Yes but he has prostheses and was in a specially adapted set-up in a hospital ward so I don't see how that one will fly.

no.1 - Remorse and truthfulness (as indicative of the former) has featured heavily in their sentence appeal cases. Masipa found FFinding of remorse as we all know BUT she also noted "poor witness" which was picked up by the SCA.
Fear & mistake . Additionally Leach who has written this, was pretty clear that Masipa had not properly established he was in bona fide fear. Then we have all the inconsistencies on his actual intention regarding his "mistake" plus noted he was a trained gun user.

Anxiety disorder will doubtless play a part unfortunately, even though it was not present at the time of the shooting according to Weskoppies, despite Baartman's comment!

 

[Tortoise]

I just feel they are going to go soft on him. Roux will try and mitigate this as best as he can:

1. He was in fear of his life and it was a mistake
2. He has no legs
3. He is a celebrity and everyone in prison is out to get him. He only eats canned food because he is worried that with his celebrity status, people will poison him.
4. He is in solitary confinement and while this is his choice, he does it for his own safety. Roux will say that for a prolonged period of time, this is cruel and unusual punishment.

etc etc

You may be right that they are going to go soft on him. If he doesn't need to apply for bail before sentencing then they are soft already.

However, I am replying to your point no.1.

My understanding is that this will be ruled out (fear for his life and mistake). I am pretty sure he can only use that argument of fear if he has admitted intent to kill/injure to defend himself - not sure it can be found for him. Which is where Judge Masipa erred. I have a strong sense that PPD is going down the pan because of her mistake in constructing a defence for him. So too the mistake. CH is more the realm of mistake or accident I would have thought. It's hard to see how a murder can happen by mistake, especially since he fired 4 times.

MOO

 

[sleuth-d-]

surely sentencing factors work both ways.
if he is found guilty of murder, the fact that he pleaded not guilty, and went to great lengths to confuse the issue with his testimony should work against him.

 

[Susza]

Oh soozieq, haven't you learned yet that you cannot use the word 'unreliable'! A certain porcine poster will soon be along to remind you of that. You can only say 'very poor' and 'evasive' if you are referring to what Masipa said and of course those things, despite the dictionaries of synonyms, do not mean 'unreliable'. Just untruthful, slippery, dishonest etc. Of course if you want to use words like 'unreliable' and 'shocking' then just quote Justice Leach.

I am heading off from Europe to Australia for a couple of months in the sun so no doubt will be in mid air or wandering round and round some airport unless the decision is handed down tomorrow. So, I will look fwd to catching up with all the posts at the other end. Hopefully there will be snorts and grunts and squeals of indignation, from the OP supporter's side.

Lithgow, you are just so UNRELIABLE! How can you leave us alone in the fog in such a crucial moment???

Well, to be honnest, I'm envious. A couple of months in Australia - a dream! ENJOY!!!

 

[mrjitty]

Thankyou.

I have read a few examples of current SCA reasoning on "exceptional & compelling" even though they are unlikely to deal with a sentence themselves in this case. If it is true that CS at the prison offered him the option of cooking his own food there, then I can't see how he can claim no.3 and he will need to have already informed CS of any genuine threats which surely would have come out at CSPRB meeting in August? ( no.4 ditto on personal safety issues)

Your no.4 -he can't say that is "cruel and unusual punishment." in and of itself for pretty obvious reasons.

no.2 - Yes but he has prostheses and was in a specially adapted set-up in a hospital ward so I don't see how that one will fly.

no.1 - Remorse and truthfulness (as indicative of the former) has featured heavily in their sentence appeal cases. Masipa found FFinding of remorse as we all know BUT she also noted "poor witness" which was picked up by the SCA.
Fear & mistake . Additionally Leach who has written this, was pretty clear that Masipa had not properly established he was in bona fide fear. Then we have all the inconsistencies on his actual intention regarding his "mistake" plus noted he was a trained gun user.

Anxiety disorder will doubtless play a part unfortunately, even though it was not present at the time of the shooting according to Weskoppies, despite Baartman's comment!

I suppose to get a handle on it, you'd have to think what would he have got for a crime of passion murder?

Minimum 15? Maybe 20?

I think with the "intruder" finding - that is going to take it down to ten. I'd guess 7 or 8

Sucks but I feel 15 is unlikely.

He'll be sentenced as if there really was a dangerous "intruder" in the toilet.

So starting point is 15 for blazing away in a totally unjustified and outrageous way - but discounted compared to if he meant to murder Reeva

 

[Susza]

I bet he will certainly give it some thought while celebrating the holidays with family in Mozambique. Of course, that's also where he said he wanted to work with Uncle's charity helping children...

Thinking he's not really the suicide type.

BBM - Is he allowed to leave the country???

 

[Tortoise]

I suppose to get a handle on it, you'd have to think what would he have got for a crime of passion murder?

Minimum 15? Maybe 20?

I think with the "intruder" finding - that is going to take it down to ten. I'd guess 7 or 8

Sucks but I feel 15 is unlikely.

depends what they are going to do with her intruder finding. what are they going to do about the evidence that was ignored?

are they going to leave her findings undisturbed?

 

[sleuth-d-]

for me, the saddest thing about this case is that reeva's screams have not been heard. did masipa really find as fact that all the screams were op's. i still cannot work out how he proved that fact to her?

sad in terms of outcome for reeva. and sad travesty in terms of sa justice.

the fact that the lenient, now retired [i.e. not accountable] judge will be dealing with any change to sentencing [if there is any] just brings in another level of absurdity.