Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yup. That's what they're saying. I'll try and find a link.

In the meantime, they've issued an Arrest Warrant for the bail hearing on Tues but won't enforce it until that day.

This is really frustrating. He's now been convicted of murder. Who else would be treated in this manner?

From the article below, I guess it's because he's still under house arrest. I wonder if there's at least a cop car outside the mansion. The defense has made the application for bail scheduled for next Tuesday.

Also in the article: "....The shamed sprinter was not at the Supreme Court of Appeal to hear the decision but is said to be 'devastated' at the verdict....."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ant-issued-Oscar-Pistorius.html#ixzz3tVLOsHLO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Also, this article refers to Oscar maybe only getting 3 yrs for this murder.:gaah:

But this article also states that OP is now in limbo and "It was thought he would remain under house arrest until he was sentenced in the New Year but he now faces the prospect of spending Christmas Day behind bars."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ant-issued-Oscar-Pistorius.html#ixzz3tVU1DfYP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
In the meantime before any of our legally qualified members comment, I have been looking for some sort of understanding of the warrant and bail laws.

BAIL PENDING APPEAL(BY PISTORIUS TO THE CC IF SAME CONDITIONS AS BELOW ARE RELEVANT).
(I read once that OP could be free for a very long time if he lodges an appeal to the CC on sentence and verdict.)

When an appeal against a conviction or sentence or order of a lower court is noted, this does not automatically suspend the operation of the sentence unless the court releases the convicted person on bail.[120] If the convicted person was out on bail for trial, the court granting bail pending appeal (or review) may extend bail, in the same amount or in any other amount.[121]

If the convicted person was not previously on bail for the trial, the court may release him on bail on condition that he deposits the stated amount.[122] The court may permit the convicted person to furnish a guarantee instead of cash.[123] It shall be a condition of release that the convicted person shall surrender himself at the time and place specified by court, and upon service of notice in the prescribed manner, to commence the sentence, in the event that the convicted person still has to undergo imprisonment after the disposal of the appeal.[124]

The court may add conditions deemed necessary or advisable in interests of justice, as to, for example,

reporting;
places where the convicted person may not go (for example, to any airport); and
other matters relating to the conduct of the convicted person.[125]
Sections 63, 64, 65, 66 and 68 of the CPA apply with the necessary changes.[126] This means that

the court may amend bail conditions subsequently;[127]
proceedings are to be recorded in full;[128]
the appeal lies to the High Court against a refusal of bail, or against the amount or conditions of bail;[129]
the steps to be taken in the event of failure to comply with bail conditions are the same as for the pre-trial accused;[130]
the bail cancellation provisions are the same as for the pre-trial accused.[131]

The provisions of section 60 do not apply to bail pending appeal, although they may still be relevant to the extent that they embody common-law concepts. The fact that the person is now convicted and sentenced to imprisonment changes the position practically: There is no longer a presumption of innocence, on the one hand; on the other hand, the incentive to evade justice is greater.

In principle, bail may be granted even if the case is serious and the convicted person is facing a long period of imprisonment. The key factor is whether or not the convicted person will report for sentence.[132] It is improper to fix an unaffordable amount of bail if there are good prospects of success on appeal.[133]

Even if there is no indication that the convicted person will try to evade justice, bail may be refused on the ground that the prospects of success on appeal are small.[134][135] Some cases, however, have found that bail should not lightly be refused on this ground alone, especially by the lower courts, which do not have experience in assessing the prospects of a successful appeal.[136][137]

Logically, a court may refuse bail pending appeal if it is an appeal against the sentence only. At best for the convicted person, whichever way the appeal goes, he will still end up serving a lengthy period of imprisonment. If a convicted person loses his appeal to the High Court, he may still be released on bail pending an application for leave to appeal or petition to the SCA.[138] Some cases have held that the onuses imposed under section 60(11) of the CPA also apply to bail pending appeal.[139] The correctness of these cases is doubtful.[140]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_procedure_in_South_Africa#Bail_pending_appeal

This is all I can find on this matter, so I need help understanding this and applying it to OP.

I don't know either. :crazy:
 
When I questioned her participation shortly after the trial began, I was dissuaded from looking into it any further too... I don't recall by whom(I'll see if I can find the post).

Man this forum is really confusing to search, it doesn't even show that I had any posts from before six months ago... so far all I've come across that is somewhat relevant is this post that doesn't even have a link, just the date. I hope it's alright to post it verbatim.

"lithgow1
(my note, Mandy comment below from Zwiebel I'm guessing)
10-13-2014, 01:26 AM
@MandyWiener has just spoken to lawyers who say there are serious questions to be asked why assessors still sitting with Judge. Normally, they are excused from sentencing hearing.
(my note, this would be from lithgow1)
Very interesting Zwiebel. I had wondered why they would be there since supposedly they have no input on this aspect of the trial. It all gets curiouser and curiouser, with many unlikely things to believe."
 
Would Lisa Salinger know anything? Who else would have more information about her?

I am really curious.

G'luck, it seems everything about her has been scrubbed other than specific mentions about her athletic career/wins. Even her webpage is gone.
 
Sleepless in Surrey. How come Larena's telephone call reached the press? Makes me think this was set up to reinforce OP's mental state. I think it has already been suggested that we shall hear more comments in a similar vein.
 
G'luck, it seems everything about her has been scrubbed other than specific mentions about her athletic career/wins. Even her webpage is gone.

Val, the only way I found anything was by a search on Google and I then used the cached record to track the subject down. I have the Twitter Account name of the SA female who suggested that JduT was related to the swimmer (who does know OP). I have her Twitter account but it has been closed. The backgrounds of the swimmer and JduT are so different I would be surprised if they even know each other.
 
Sleepless in Surrey. How come Larena's telephone call reached the press? Makes me think this was set up to reinforce OP's mental state. I think it has already been suggested that we shall hear more comments in a similar vein.

What is the legal advantage of OP wanting the media to know that he is depressed besides trying to get public sympathy? I do not think it would help a bail application, would it? Surely they would want to put him back in jail in a psychiatric ward under close supervision in case he commits suicide.

This is what happened after he was convicted of culpable homicide dated 12 September, 2014:

Oscar Pistorius, now a convicted killer, has been allowed free on bail pending his sentencing next month.

Masipa has ruled that Pistorius is not a flight risk nor a suicide risk, when extending his bail. As a convicted criminal, he became part of the system that required him to be taken into custody pending the court’s decision on whether or not his bail should be revoked pending his sentencing. His stay was brief.

Roux asked the court to extend Pistorius’s bail, claiming that Pistorius had been out on bail for the past 18 months while facing a charge of murder without violating his bail conditions. Now, convicted of the less serious crime of culpable homicide, he should still be allowed to go free.

But Nel gave a different view, arguing that Pistorius had recently sold three properties, was currently living with family and was therefore a flight risk.Nel pointed out that Pistorius had also caused trouble while out on bail by being caught up in a nightclub scuffle in July that saw him thrown out of the upmarket establishment in the early hours of the morning. Nel said Pistorius’s family had subsequently issued a press release describing his behaviour as "self-harming." This, Nel said, coupled with Pistorius’s depression and anxiety, made him a suicide risk.Nel said it was his respectful argument that it was not in the interests of justice for Pistorius to be granted bail.

Roux said Pistorius had sold his properties in order to pay his legal costs, and not “to go overseas and start life afresh”. He also said Pistorius was not a suicide risk and the nightclub incident had not been serious.

"I have considered these submissions. This is not a schedule five or six (offence), so the onus is on the State to persuade the court that it is not in the interests of society for the accused to be granted bail," Judge Masipa said."I am not so persuaded. I am of the view that the explanation given by the accused is satisfactory."She said she felt the State would have investigated Pistorius's property sales if they believed he was getting rid of them in order to flee. Had they been surprised to hear that Pistorius no longer owned property, she may have ruled differently."I am in agreement with Defence counsel that if in future there was any incident of concern, the state would be free to apply for bail to be revoked," she said. "I have used my discretion to extend the bail of the accused on the same conditions."

https://www.enca.com/oscar-trial-pistorius-out-bail-until-sentencing-next-month

BUT now OP has been convicted of a Schedule 5 offence! Surely bail should be refused on Tuesday and OP goes straight to jail.
 
I couldn't find what I'd read before about the sentencing being in the Spring, however, I did find JudgeJudi's post #408 yesterday, which refers to sentencing probably being in February.
 
Can't help wondering why he hasn't fled to Mozambique.
 
Val, the only way I found anything was by a search on Google and I then used the cached record to track the subject down. I have the Twitter Account name of the SA female who suggested that JduT was related to the swimmer (who does know OP). I have her Twitter account but it has been closed. The backgrounds of the swimmer and JduT are so different I would be surprised if they even know each other.

Thanks, iirc back when I had been researching this it wasn't so much a direct link to each other, more the common thread between them all. ie. JduT with her law focus and interest in the charities/organizations that would obviously have been the training/support systems behind both NduT and OP. Kind of like having OP's doctor from almost his birth claiming his testimony in OP's defense was strictly professional.

As for whether JduT had put her own name forward, I'm not sure if that's something we could ever find out since Masipa has claimed to have appointed both the assessors. Not that her choices surprised me since she herself had been in social services through the 70/80's and as a result, a distrust of police and likely an unpleasant memory of having spent time in jail herself. These alone raised my eyebrows and then when we found out she suffers from a movement disability too.... seems to me that OP certainly had the odds stacked mostly in his favour, though when JduT fell ill during the trial just as he was about to start his performance he almost lost a good portion of it.

What's that saying about justice...""Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy
 
He's got until Tuesday morning!

Surely they will find some medical excuse as to why he needs to stay unfettered at Uncle A's for the duration of any sentence he may incur with this new finding, an ebola outbreak in the prison or some such thing.:thinking:
 
Can't help wondering why he hasn't fled to Mozambique.

The practicalities of fleeing your country.

"it doesn't seem very likely Pistorius would succeed in going underground — he wouldn't be able to use any emails, or use a credit card, and he'd have to throw away all of his electronic devices, for a start.

And it would require forward planning: he might want to try and gain citizenship for a country that won't seek to extradite him. Unless he can make a suitcase full of dollars last a lifetime, there would be the problem of trying to set up a complex enough financial structure to hide his money away.

Even if he did manage to disappear, just as the world's media is focussed on him, the psychological trauma of a lifetime spent hiding might just be too much to bear, and the stress could exacerbate any borderline personality disorder, or underlying psychological problems, he might have.

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2013/02/pistorius-granted-bail-when-are-rich-flight-risk
 
That is what I am concerned about! I think May was mentioned as one of the possible dates. So six months as a free convicted murderer not even under house arrest??? Then he could appeal to the CC and be left for another six months or more as a free convicted murderer. Let's hope the Magistrate denies bail on Tuesday.

What really got me was this bit:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34583123
"The prison department already has a parole officer assigned to Pistorius and therefore he will not be electronically tagged."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34820598
"No access to firearms
No taking of drugs or alcohol, and can be randomly tested by officials
Continue with psychotherapy sessions
No going out at night
Can work; will not be electronically tagged
His lawyers say track and field training is part of work, but this is still unclear"

This is not justice, that's just living a mostly normal life, well other than him also getting to stay for free as a guest(food/lodging/entertainment) in a mansion!
 
I'm glad for Reeva's family. In their hearts they probably believe it was dolus directus. At least they finally got eventualis.
 
I couldn't find what I'd read before about the sentencing being in the Spring, however, I did find JudgeJudi's post #408 yesterday, which refers to sentencing probably being in February.

This is a really fast-moving, and changing, story. Unfortunately the news has been updated.

"The state hopes to set down a date in the second quarter of next year, to hear sentencing arguments".

The second term of the High Court is 18 April to 26 June.

Sorry, none of us wanted to read this. :stormingmad:

http://ewn.co.za/2015/12/05/Prosecutors-want-Pistorius-in-court-by-Tuesday
 
This is a really fast-moving, and changing, story. Unfortunately the news has been updated.

"The state hopes to set down a date in the second quarter of next year, to hear sentencing arguments".

The second term of the High Court is 18 April to 26 June.

Sorry, none of us wanted to read this. :stormingmad:

http://ewn.co.za/2015/12/05/Prosecutors-want-Pistorius-in-court-by-Tuesday

IMO SA government need to expedite changes to arrest & incarcerate this convicted murderer ASAP! There is no reason why he cannot be incarcerated under the same conditions as previously - while the judiciary and government work out his longer-term sentence. My opinion only.
 
The spinning is beginning in earnest. First we had the Kevin Lerena interview.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Now we have a second person. The following 2 paras. Are just for background.

After OP was sentenced in October 2014, Mike Kendrick (founder of The Mineseeker Foundation and Mineseeker Operations) said, “He should not have been sent to jail”. The “sad and depressed” person he spoke to on the phone was not the same person he remembered working with. “It is obvious he is a different Oscar Pistorius to the person I recognised, who won all those gold medals. A custodial sentence was inevitable but I never thought he meant to murder his Reeva premeditatedly. It was just not him and not the humble person I knew who had stayed at my house”.

He said he was asked to write to the court about the case and suggested community service would be a better sentence for all involved.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...friend-oscar-pistorius-should-not-be-in-jail/

But now OP, the family and Roux have now started their next mission. Following immediately after the Kevin Lerena interview we have this.

Mike Kendrick counts Oscar Pistorius as a friend and after today he’s worried about him.

“Oscar’s worst nightmares will have been realised here. He wasn’t expecting this and neither were his lawyers and facing a long term of imprisonment, particularly in an African jail is not pleasant even for able-bodied ordinary people”.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/jailhouse-blues-for-oscar-1.1955706#.VmPFGeShfo0

He can only have been asked by OP or a member of his family, Anneliese Burgess, or a member of his legal team.

As Mr Kendrick was asked to write to the court previously, it’s not a far reach to expect that he was asked once again to say a few more words. He’s obviously a very big-hearted man having started the Mineseeker Foundation. For him to have been asked to write to the court on the first occasion, and now perhaps again, absolutely disgusts me more than I can say.

I wish I had a bucket so I'll just :scream:
 
This is a really fast-moving, and changing, story. Unfortunately the news has been updated.

"The state hopes to set down a date in the second quarter of next year, to hear sentencing arguments".

The second term of the High Court is 18 April to 26 June.



Sorry, none of us wanted to read this. :stormingmad:

http://ewn.co.za/2015/12/05/Prosecutors-want-Pistorius-in-court-by-Tuesday

And again I want to know why, in the above article, would the state not oppose bail! Can anyone explain this? Why would the state agree to bail under any conditions, stringent or otherwise? Please ..... an answer! It's driving me insane!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
94
Guests online
440
Total visitors
534

Forum statistics

Threads
608,465
Messages
18,239,792
Members
234,378
Latest member
Moebi69
Back
Top