Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~

[Deleted member 102539]

http://or-politics.com/uncategorized/oscar-pistorius-begins-community-service/159619/

The state has appealed Pistorius’s culpable homicide conviction in the Supreme Court of Appeal which is expected to make a ruling within a few weeks.
If it finds him guilty of murder in the first degree, his sentence can actually be increased to life, which equates to 25 years in jail in this country, according to legal expert Advocate Gabriel Shumba.

 

[mrjitty]

I only quoted parts of the article due to the copyright rule. I should have included the last sentence of the preceding paragraph which reads "However, the State charged him with premeditated murder when the trial began last March". The article then goes on to say "the vast majority of the legal fraternity agree that the State failed to make a compelling case".

From all the articles I read after the State closed its case, that did in fact appear to be their opinion - the State hadn't proved premeditated murder. Of course not all of us would agree with that opinion.

Ah that makes sense.

I did read somewhere that the decision to argue for premeditated might have been largely tactical

In theory, if OP decided in those final 10 minutes of screaming and conflict, that he was going to kill Reeva, then technically it could qualify. However in the ordinary course, such a killing would usually be viewed as a typical domestic heat of the moment type murder.

However because the state was very interested in the minutes and hours leading up to the murder, seeking premeditation was argued to force the defence to disclose key details of the defence.

I have never confirmed this theory however.

 

[mrjitty]

http://or-politics.com/uncategorized/oscar-pistorius-begins-community-service/159619/

The state has appealed Pistorius’s culpable homicide conviction in the Supreme Court of Appeal which is expected to make a ruling within a few weeks.
If it finds him guilty of murder in the first degree, his sentence can actually be increased to life, which equates to 25 years in jail in this country, according to legal expert Advocate Gabriel Shumba.

Although technically correct - given Masipa's finding about the intruder - he will get the lowest minimum sentence, or perhaps even "exceptional circumstances" will be found

IMO he is looking at 6 more years in prison at the most (based on a 15yr sentence) - or perhaps less

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n22/jacqueline-rose/bantu-in-the-bathroom

Bantu in the Bathroom
Jacqueline Rose on the trial of Oscar Pistorius

Oscar is compared to an abused woman
But the fact that this was a case where a man had killed his girlfriend didn’t stop the defence from arguing – incredibly – that when Pistorius shot through that door he himself could best be understood, because of his disability, by being compared with an abused woman, who, after years of pressure, finally snaps and kills her abuser. When, as one would expect, the analogy was challenged by Masipa – ‘How does [the situation of an abused woman] apply to the accused in this case?’ – Roux, as I see it, only makes matters worse:

I am not talking about abuse here. You know I cannot run away. I cannot run away. I do not have a flight response … His experience with that disability, over time you get an exaggerated fight response … That is the ‘slow burn’ effect. Not abuse … That constant reminder … I am not the same … He can pretend … he can pretend that he is fine … because of the anxiety … it is in that sense that I say the abuse is different, but it is the same. Without legs, abuse, abuse, abuse. So ultimately when that woman picks up that firearm … we can use the common word, I have had enough, I am not shooting you because you have just assaulted me, not because of one punch with a fist in my face. I would never have shot you because of one punch with a fist in my face, but if you have done it sixty, seventy times, that effect of that over time it filled the cup to the brim that is … in that sense, My Lady.

So Pistorius doesn’t just sound like a woman, he is a woman.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Oscar's Freudian slip of the tongue
....... - one moment in the proceedings where we badly needed Freud. Here is another. Interrogated by Nel as to why he thought Steenkamp didn’t cry out, Pistorius replied: ‘I presume that she would think that the danger was coming closer to her. So why will she shout out?’ Another veiled confession – though the moment appears to have received no commentary – in which Pistorius, trying to wriggle out of one corner (why did she not cry out?), lands himself in another by correctly, if unintentionally, identifying himself as the approaching danger against which Steenkamp was protecting herself (‘the danger was coming closer&#8217. And another: cross-examined by Nel on why he was screaming after firing the shots, Pistorius said, ‘I wanted to ask Reeva why she was phoning the police.’ Amazingly, this choice of wording – ‘why she was phoning the police’ – wasn’t picked up by the prosecution or anyone else.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Much more for reading.

 

[L2L]

Although technically correct - given Masipa's finding about the intruder - he will get the lowest minimum sentence, or perhaps even "exceptional circumstances" will be found

IMO he is looking at 6 more years in prison at the most (based on a 15yr sentence) - or perhaps less

Mr Jitty, would you explain why OP would only get 6 more years based on a 15yr sentence? I was thinking 15 more less one already served, making 14 more... which I like the sound of! Thank You.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/N...-yengeni-or-shaik-release-minister-20151117-2

Money had nothing to do with Oscar, Yengeni or Shaik release - minister

EFF leader Julius Malema questioned how the minister intended addressing weaknesses in the prisoner parole system.

“[Weaknesses] that allows persons with money and connections, such as certain persons [President Jacob Zuma's former financial adviser Schabir Shaik, former ANC chief whip Tony Yengeni and Paralympian Oscar Pistorius], to get out of jail without serving their full sentences, while persons who are not well-known spend almost the entirety of their sentences behind bars,” Malema asked.


Shaik was released on medical parole in 2009 after serving two years and four months in jail of his 15-year sentence for corruption and fraud.

Yengeni was set free in 2007 having served just more than four months of his four-year sentence for fraud.

Pistorius was last year sentenced to five years in jail for shooting dead girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day in 2013.

He was released into correctional supervision after serving out one-sixth, or 10 months, of his sentence.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Although technically correct - given Masipa's finding about the intruder - he will get the lowest minimum sentence, or perhaps even "exceptional circumstances" will be found

IMO he is looking at 6 more years in prison at the most (based on a 15yr sentence) - or perhaps less

bbm
Exceptional circumstances =
amongst other things ie grueling conflict, caused by the victim - serious affronts by the victim

Unfortunately for him, NOT applicable, because never ever there was something like a row or conflict or affront, but only deep looove.

 

[mrjitty]

Mr Jitty, would you explain why OP would only get 6 more years based on a 15yr sentence? I was thinking 15 more less one already served, making 14 more... which I like the sound of! Thank You.

6 years in jail.

So min 15 years = parole in 7.5

Minus one (approx) served = eligible for parol in 6.5 years

I actually think his sentence might be less than 15 - on account of the "mistake"

So you know its 10 or 8 he could be out in 4 or 3

 

[soozieqtips]

6 years in jail.

So min 15 years = parole in 7.5

Minus one (approx) served = eligible for parol in 6.5 years

I actually think his sentence might be less than 15 - on account of the "mistake"

So you know its 10 or 8 he could be out in 4 or 3

BIB - Does that depend on whether Masipa will definitely be in charge of the new sentencing if there is one? Having already said she didn't want to punish OP twice, maybe she isn't neutral enough to be trusted. She already went with the sentence that made him eligible for parole after just 10 months.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

https://www.the-newshub.com/international/oscar-pistorius-the-south-african-justice-system-on-trial
Oscar Pistorius: The South African Justice System on Trial.

Therefore Nel appealed the only case in his entire career with statements and inferences that are both contradictory and misleading.
-.-.-.-
In many ways the State placed Oscar in an unattainable position. The entire focus of their case was in relation to Reeva.
-.-.-.-
The State also contest that finding and in their attempt to do so string together their mosaic of circumstantial evidence.
-.-.-.-
What remains utterly sad however is that it has been robbed of its human element.
-.-.-.-
What I struggle to understand is the total lack of compassion in favour of a bombastic and seemingly callous actions of a prosecuting agency, who although state they accept he didn't know it was Reeva, somehow want him convicted as if he did.
-.-.-.-
‘Oscar never acted disabled before but is now using his disability, shamelessly using it as a handicap in Court’
is a display of utter prejudice and discriminatory practice and is systematic of a practice that demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of disability, but a discriminatory bias and prejudicial practice.
-.-.-.-
Lois Pistorius ‏@loispistorius 15. Nov.
Oscar Pistorius: The South African Justice System on Trial. https://www.the-newshub.com/international/oscar-pistorius-the-south-african-justice-system-on-trial … via @TheNewsHub undefined

:facepalm: :gaah: :tears:

 

[Ochre Blue]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n22/jacqueline-rose/bantu-in-the-bathroom

Bantu in the Bathroom
Jacqueline Rose on the trial of Oscar Pistorius

Oscar is compared to an abused woman
But the fact that this was a case where a man had killed his girlfriend didn’t stop the defence from arguing – incredibly – that when Pistorius shot through that door he himself could best be understood, because of his disability, by being compared with an abused woman, who, after years of pressure, finally snaps and kills her abuser. When, as one would expect, the analogy was challenged by Masipa – ‘How does [the situation of an abused woman] apply to the accused in this case?’ – Roux, as I see it, only makes matters worse:

I am not talking about abuse here. You know I cannot run away. I cannot run away. I do not have a flight response … His experience with that disability, over time you get an exaggerated fight response … That is the ‘slow burn’ effect. Not abuse … That constant reminder … I am not the same … He can pretend … he can pretend that he is fine … because of the anxiety … it is in that sense that I say the abuse is different, but it is the same. Without legs, abuse, abuse, abuse. So ultimately when that woman picks up that firearm … we can use the common word, I have had enough, I am not shooting you because you have just assaulted me, not because of one punch with a fist in my face. I would never have shot you because of one punch with a fist in my face, but if you have done it sixty, seventy times, that effect of that over time it filled the cup to the brim that is … in that sense, My Lady.

So Pistorius doesn’t just sound like a woman, he is a woman.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Oscar's Freudian slip of the tongue
....... - one moment in the proceedings where we badly needed Freud. Here is another. Interrogated by Nel as to why he thought Steenkamp didn’t cry out, Pistorius replied: ‘I presume that she would think that the danger was coming closer to her. So why will she shout out?’ Another veiled confession – though the moment appears to have received no commentary – in which Pistorius, trying to wriggle out of one corner (why did she not cry out?), lands himself in another by correctly, if unintentionally, identifying himself as the approaching danger against which Steenkamp was protecting herself (‘the danger was coming closer’). And another: cross-examined by Nel on why he was screaming after firing the shots, Pistorius said, ‘I wanted to ask Reeva why she was phoning the police.’ Amazingly, this choice of wording – ‘why she was phoning the police’ – wasn’t picked up by the prosecution or anyone else.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Much more for reading.

Thank you very much for sharing this article From Germany.
I just read it in full and highly recommend other Tapatalk OP members do the same.
The analysis is brilliant and very in-depth!
The joys of Tapatalk and members giving all of us access to such articles, which we would otherwise not know of.
Thank you to Tapatalk and OP thread members.
It's particularly valued as we await the decision of the Supreme Court.... And it's in sharp contrast to some other articles that are getting increasingly hysterical whilst we await.

 

[Ochre Blue]

https://www.the-newshub.com/international/oscar-pistorius-the-south-african-justice-system-on-trial
Oscar Pistorius: The South African Justice System on Trial.

Therefore Nel appealed the only case in his entire career with statements and inferences that are both contradictory and misleading.
-.-.-.-
In many ways the State placed Oscar in an unattainable position. The entire focus of their case was in relation to Reeva.
-.-.-.-
The State also contest that finding and in their attempt to do so string together their mosaic of circumstantial evidence.
-.-.-.-
What remains utterly sad however is that it has been robbed of its human element.
-.-.-.-
What I struggle to understand is the total lack of compassion in favour of a bombastic and seemingly callous actions of a prosecuting agency, who although state they accept he didn't know it was Reeva, somehow want him convicted as if he did.
-.-.-.-
‘Oscar never acted disabled before but is now using his disability, shamelessly using it as a handicap in Court’
is a display of utter prejudice and discriminatory practice and is systematic of a practice that demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of disability, but a discriminatory bias and prejudicial practice.
-.-.-.-
Lois Pistorius ‏@loispistorius 15. Nov.
Oscar Pistorius: The South African Justice System on Trial. https://www.the-newshub.com/international/oscar-pistorius-the-south-african-justice-system-on-trial … via @TheNewsHub undefined

:facepalm: :gaah: :tears:

Totally & utterly concur with your "face palm: gaah: tears' etc conclusion, From Germany.
Thank you for sharing it, so that we know what's out there.
These are the hysterical, (but not 'funny' hysterical), articles to which I referred earlier.
And the contrast with the Jacqueline Rose article from London Review of Books, could not be sharper!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The Supreme Court of Appeal reserved judgement until a later, unspecified date, although it is expected to come before the court recesses on December 1.
http://youthindependent.com/oscar-pistorius-fate-hangs-in-the-balance/
-.-.-.-.-
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/
Court Term Dates for 2015 in the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa

The court terms are prescribed in Rule 2(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Appeal, and are as follows:

(a) 15 February to 31 March
(b) 1 May to 31 May
(c) 15 August to 30 September
(d) 1 November to 30 November
Rule 2(3) makes provision as follows: “Commencement of term: If the day fixed for the commencement of a term is not a court day, the term shall commence on the next succeeding court day and, if the day fixed for the end of the term is not a court day, the term shall end on the business day preceding.”

..... maximum 10 days? :fence:

P.S. Maybe one grants him a nice birthday in freedom yet (22.)? artyguy:

 

[aftermath]

Totally & utterly concur with your "face palm: gaah: tears' etc conclusion, From Germany.
Thank you for sharing it, so that we know what's out there.
These are the hysterical, (but not 'funny' hysterical), articles to which I referred earlier.
And the contrast with the Jacqueline Rose article from London Review of Books, could not be sharper!

I don't see what makes that article hysterical though. Yes, it shows an obvious bias, but that is to be expected in an opinion piece.

 

[mrjitty]

BIB - Does that depend on whether Masipa will definitely be in charge of the new sentencing if there is one? Having already said she didn't want to punish OP twice, maybe she isn't neutral enough to be trusted. She already went with the sentence that made him eligible for parole after just 10 months.

It's really hard to say.

The exceptional circumstances required to avoid twigging the statutory minimum are not defined.

I presume they might include situations where are extenuating circumstances

e.g you were very drunk and your business partner was blackmailing you

or you were in a fight

or you were scared about a burglar

 

[GR_Turner]

It's really hard to say.

The exceptional circumstances required to avoid twigging the statutory minimum are not defined.

I presume they might include situations where are extenuating circumstances

e.g you were very drunk and your business partner was blackmailing you

or you were in a fight

or you were scared about a burglar

I don't know if I'm just being slow, but I thought if they conclude that he shot because he was scared of an intruder then that means it'd be CH not murder, and not a mitigating factor for the crime of murder.

 

[Giles]

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan 7h7 hours ago
Appeal Court registrar tells me #OscarPistorius ruling expected next week or the week after. We will get a day's notice. @eNCA

 

[Noisy Fan]

Really? None of the circumstantial evidence gave you pause for thought? Dismissed all of it??
What do you think should be the consequences for making such a "mistake"?

Let me turn the question back to you but I ask you to consider this before you answer.

Let's assume that it is you that made this tragic mistake and in a zeal to protect your partner you accidentally killed him/her.

How long should you go to prison?

Remember also, any fights or arguments you ever had along with any bad things you have ever done will be used as circumstantial evidence against you.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Let me turn the question back to you but I ask you to consider this before you answer.

Let's assume that it is you that made this tragic mistake and in a zeal to protect your partner you accidentally killed him/her.

How long should you go to prison?

Remember also, any fights or arguments you ever had along with any bad things you have ever done will be used as circumstantial evidence against you.

What tragic mistake!

Sorry to butt in here but but you seem not to be asking the right questions. Let's face it, 97 per cent of us who watched the trial and were polled thought OP murdered RS. Nothing to do with any intruder. Nothing to do with an accident or mistake. His past does matter because he was a loose cannon and frequently in trouble because of his unrestrained temper. It therefore is impossible to take his lies and excuses seriously.

To ask somebody how they would feel about a non-existent situation is not going to get the answer you seek. I doubt there is anything you could premise that would change this view with the vast majority. Discussing whether there was an intruder is IMO a theory few of us will entertain. We are in this situation now because OP lied (which was fairly obvious to most including the judge) and Nel is choosing this path because Masipa concocted a defence for OP which has forced the DT's hand in order to get OP a sentence which will be appropriate for his heinous crime.

Maybe we should ask you if you believed, like most of us, he murdered her whilst in a rage and did so with intention (4 shots with killer bullets into a small enclosed space) how you would feel about the wrong outcome of a faulty trial due to the judge excluding the evidence of 5 ear witnesses? Would you be finding it easy to let him off lightly, or would you be wanting him to serve a reasonable time in jail as a punishment for his dreadful crime?

Unfortunately I am unsure the appeal will go in Nel's favour because he was so hamstrung by the law in what he could present in argument. The likelihood, IMO, is that OP will get away with murder but I so hope I am wrong.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Thanks for the interception, Interested Bystander-- you expressed my thoughts perfectly, only more succinctly than I ever could have managed.

But nonetheless, I will try to honestly answer Noisy Fan's question, because accidents do happen (just not in Oscar's case, IMO) and one always thinks of some variation on the phrase "there but for the grace of God go I."

If I accidentally shot and killed a loved one, I believe I would be so deeply traumatized and guilt-ridden that I would throw myself on the mercy of the court and just hope for a cell with at least a small window where I could serve out my sentence in penitence. It's hard to imagine life would be worth living. But I know people do recover from such experiences and move forward. It's horrible to even consider being in that situation. I would imagine it would be hard to emerge from such a traumatic experience for at least 3 years, but who knows? But I think that an appropriate sentence for the kind of negligence exhibited in Oscar's "version" would be 3 to 5 years of a custodial sentence and with several years of community service after that.

Note: I am pretty sure I would not feel like going out to clubs and hitting on other members of the opposite sex anytime too soon after the "accident."