Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016 #2

[Really?]

BIB - and he wants to be able to work with children? Can you imagine one of them asking if it's true he's a murderer and a criminal! Didn't Scholtz say something like he was "unlikely" to have an outburst around children? Unlikely? What about if a child 'disrespects' him? We've all seen him fly off the hook for the most minor of reasons, so why would anyone think it safe to inflict a (still) angry and remorseless convicted murderer on a bunch of innocent kids? Working with kids should be a privilege, not something to replace a jail sentence for murder.

:silly: .......:laugh: he was and still is a very dangerous man.....and....his looks are ugly. moo

 

[soozieqtips]

(BIB by me).

In the TV paper under "Oscar Pistorius: The Interview" (Friday, ITV@9pm) it says:

"In somewhat questionable taste, former Paralympian Oscar Pistorius speaks to Mark Williams-Thomas about the events of Valentines Day, 2013 - the night he shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.

But should a convicted killer really be given a primetime soapbox ahead of sentencing this month?"

No. A convicted killer should not be allowed air time to tell more lies when he knows he can't be questioned by Nel. I hope Masipa has not forgotten the fake hobbling (fobbling?) or that the interview is just another form of manipulation where this sad broken man (who was so sick he couldn't talk in court) is perfectly unbroken and fit enough to give a TV interview. Let's see if that drugged-up look is visible in the interview... or if that was just for the benefit of the court.

 

[Cherwell]

But should a convicted killer really be given a primetime soapbox ahead of sentencing this month?"[/COLOR]

No! And even though the trial etc took place in another country, the right and decent thing would be to delay screening it.
(Or preferably bin it altogether)

 

[mrjitty]

snippity snipped

That is a great idea!

Can we not simply start one?

 

[Cherwell]

Can we not simply start one?

Just click on "Post New Topic" at the top.
I don't think there's ever been anything preventing anyone from starting a new topic.

 

[cottonweaver]

It's at Sentencing:

"There was, however, a feeling of unease on my part as I listened to one witness after another, placing what I thought was an over-emphasis on the accused’s vulnerability. Yes the accused is vulnerable, but he also has excellent coping skills."

Thanks for this clarification.

William, do you know where I can find the link to the 1st sentencing copy? If it exists even? I can't remember.

I remember these mitigations that she found for the CH. .....

Enormous contrib to society – money n time he gave

first offence , seems remorseful.( 1st offence has still been a mitigator in min sentencing, even though it's not meant to be eg. Flabba case this year. ) Not sure she'll be ok with remorse now
His conduct after- wanted her to live - likely void now
vulnerable – both for sentence and in trial
media impact on his career & reputation
negligence demands more mercy- obviously irrelevant

 

[cottonweaver]

Just click on "Post New Topic" at the top.
I don't think there's ever been anything preventing anyone from starting a new topic.

Where is that please Cherwell?

BTW the Mollets book is only £7/$10 US , until July 6th, special offer, that's a bargain if anyone is curious. Presume that's for the PDF download.

http://truth4reeva.com/2016/05/the-vest/

 

[cottonweaver]

He always said DD. I hate to say it because I'm a great admirer of Greenland, but on this occasion I completely disagree. Remember my list "Oscar is a Danger to Society". I'm not suggesting he'll murder someone again, but he is a danger and who knows what will set him off again. Anger management courses in prison haven't helped him at all, and neither has psychotherapy. It could take as little as another person in a shop saying, "I don't want to shop with a murderer". Who knows. It doesn't take much to set him off and there will be plenty of people waiting to bait him.

Just on BIB...

it's bad but it seems to be a tick box mitigation re those kinds of courses he did inside.
He completed all 3. B. Roux said he did so "excellently"
U.Roux did say these kinds of courses are valid as mitigation factors. Presume that's only reason he did them?


Of course this was before Nurse Manager Mashabane testified though & the evidence of Dr Byee ( spelling?) who conveyed that, even after 4 months inside OP did not see himself as a criminal. Will the prison psych and the prison complaints register balance out his attendance on 3 courses?

 

[cottonweaver]

Cynical people might say the murderer had stayed up for 3 nights before court, then took a load of medication on the day so he could look suitably washed out and tragic for Masipa. Thankfully, we are not cynical here...

AFAIK Estelle(?) mentioned her experience as a witness recently and her lawyers advised her to wear certain types of make- up in order to look worse, more of a victim.
I wouldn't put it past OP to exaggerate.

IMO He was quite switched on and was following everything Roux was saying , even during his walk. Now BRoux is hard to follow IMO, he uses that circumlocutory style ,but OP was following even though he looked "out of it." It just didn't fit .
Because his face gives so much away, he used his hands to shield his facial expressions a lot of the time, not to hide tears. ( You couldn't see any muscle movement around his temples at all, when he was meant to be overcome. )

Whenever I have taken over the counter sleeping tabs to counter a period of not sleeping before a hectic day at work, I have looked like OP did days 1-3 , puffy, tired. I agree it is easy to achieve.
The boil on his head looked real however. IMO that sort of outbreak comes with stress.

 

[Trotterly]

Thanks for the link to the interview.

I am rather disappointed with the interview to be honest. Not necessarily because of his views here, but he gets some of the crucial things terribly wrong! He keeps referring to OP being panic stricken, vulnerable. These are things that could only come out from OP's evidence, and the courts have agreed that he was unreliable, he could not give a coherent account of his actions that night. So this `panic stricken' is never a finding of the court, not after the SCA judgement anyway. And once you get your findings incorrect, any amount of reasoning on those `findings' is just plain waste of time in the context of the case in question.
I also disagree with him where he says, in answer to the first caller, that Justice System is fair to all. No matter how much we try to pretend otherwise, the poor and the wealthy do not get the same deal.

BIB Not only from OP's evidence. Several witnesses heard OP screaming.

 

[akp]

Where is that please Cherwell?

Go to the Oscar Pistorius Forum page
(following this link: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?536-Oscar-Pistorius or by doing a search).
You will now see a "Post new thread" link on the left, as in the following screenshot:

 

[cottonweaver]

Muddying the waters and getting more media attention ?

http://www.ann7.com/pistorius-family-lay-charges/

 

[jilly]

(BIB by me).

In the TV paper under "Oscar Pistorius: The Interview" (Friday, ITV@9pm) it says:

"In somewhat questionable taste, former Paralympian Oscar Pistorius speaks to Mark Williams-Thomas about the events of Valentines Day, 2013 - the night he shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.

But should a convicted killer really be given a primetime soapbox ahead of sentencing this month?"

No. A convicted killer should not be allowed air time to tell more lies when he knows he can't be questioned by Nel. I hope Masipa has not forgotten the fake hobbling (fobbling?) or that the interview is just another form of manipulation where this sad broken man (who was so sick he couldn't talk in court) is perfectly unbroken and fit enough to give a TV interview. Let's see if that drugged-up look is visible in the interview... or if that was just for the benefit of the court.

Can you or someone else, please tell me how Nel brought up this interview in his argument? What did he say about it?

 

[cottonweaver]

Go to the Oscar Pistorius Forum page
(following this link: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?536-Oscar-Pistorius or by doing a search).
You will now see a "Post new thread" link on the left, as in the following screenshot:

View attachment 96989

Thanks akp, I will attempt this tomorrow.
You haven't posted for a while AFAIK.
How are you feeling about the sentencing hearing?

 

[soozieqtips]

Can you or someone else, please tell me how Nel brought up this interview in his argument? What did he say about it?

As I recall, Nel did bring up how the killer was too ill to speak in court, but well enough to do a TV interview. And the response was something like "It's different circumstances." I don't think Nel took it further (someone correct me if I'm wrong) but maybe he thought Masipa would jump all over him if he did (like when OP cried during 'awkward' questioning in the trial) and when he asked why he only cried during difficult questioning, Masipa chastised him for upsetting the poor victim. That said, I was hoping Nel would push it and he didn't.

 

[cottonweaver]

Can you or someone else, please tell me how Nel brought up this interview in his argument? What did he say about it?

He connected it to lots of essential issues which play a part in sentencing, aggravation:

disrespectful to court & to family & to Reeva ( Kim Martin testimony)
willing to explain that night on TV but not testify here. ( not testifying here is "aggravation" in itself)
willing to explain that night on TV but SCA ruled he still hadn't explained why he shot, we have no credible version from OP
indicative of lack of remorse - Scholtz cannot express remorse on his behalf especially as in the hearing Nel argued he had not taken responsibility in prison.(dr Byee)

That's what I remember anyway.
IDThink B Roux even mentioned it/rebutted

EDIT - thanks Soozie - "different circumstances"

 

[soozieqtips]

AFAIK Estelle(?) mentioned her experience as a witness recently and her lawyers advised her to wear certain types of make- up in order to look worse, more of a victim.
I wouldn't put it past OP to exaggerate.

IMO He was quite switched on and was following everything Roux was saying , even during his walk. Now BRoux is hard to follow IMO, he uses that circumlocutory style ,but OP was following even though he looked "out of it." It just didn't fit .
Because his face gives so much away, he used his hands to shield his facial expressions a lot of the time, not to hide tears. ( You couldn't see any muscle movement around his temples at all, when he was meant to be overcome. )

Whenever I have taken over the counter sleeping tabs to counter a period of not sleeping before a hectic day at work, I have looked like OP did days 1-3 , puffy, tired. I agree it is easy to achieve.
The boil on his head looked real however. IMO that sort of outbreak comes with stress.

BIB - So the only genuine thing about the killer is the boil on his head!

That puffy eyed look is very common with lack of sleep and then some medication on top. I'd have been interested to see photos of OP a week before the hearing just to see exactly when he morphed into that zombie we saw in court.

 

[jilly]

He connected it to lots of essential issues which play a part in sentencing, aggravation:

disrespectful to court & to family & to Reeva ( Kim Martin testimony)
willing to explain that night on TV but not testify here. ( not testifying here is "aggravation" in itself)
willing to explain that night on TV but SCA ruled he still hadn't explained why he shot, we have no credible version from OP
indicative of lack of remorse - Scholtz cannot express remorse on his behalf especially as in the hearing Nel argued he had not taken responsibility in prison.(dr Byee)

That's what I remember anyway.
IDThink B Roux even mentioned it/rebutted

EDIT - thanks Soozie - "different circumstances"

Thank you Cottonweaver and Soozie.

I've always thought that Masipa should not watch this interview and the SCA and any other Judge would no doubt agree. Crazy, if she does.
Oscar can't come after the fact and go on TV to expand on the testimony he gave in Court and expect the sentencing Judge to take this into account. You get one kick at the can, when you take the stand during trial. He had a chance to give a "credible version" under oath when he testified.

Was it mandatory in SA that the sentencing had to go back to the trial Judge for re-sentencing? I forget.

 

[cottonweaver]

Was it mandatory in SA that the sentencing had to go back to the trial Judge for re-sentencing? I forget.

snipped

It's normal practice, as s/he is supposed to know the case best (!)
S/he is meant to put her error right and thus return confidence to the judicial system
Thereby self-correcting practice

That's all I remember Jilly.

I 'm still not sure on the point I made last week - that she HAS to watch it as Nel has made it sentencing evidence and OP is meant to be giving a version of that night- which relates to the points made by Nel in the previous post. Her watching it may not be such a bad thing? IDK

Ideally , for me, as Cherwell says, it should be scrapped as contempt of court at the last moment before broadcast and she should treat his involvement in it's production as an aggravation for sent purposes. Everyone's happy.

 

[Val1]

snipped

It's normal practice, as s/he is supposed to know the case best (!)
S/he is meant to put her error right and thus return confidence to the judicial system
Thereby self-correcting practice

That's all I remember Jilly.

I 'm still not sure on the point I made last week - that she HAS to watch it as Nel has made it sentencing evidence and OP is meant to be giving a version of that night- which relates to the points made by Nel in the previous post. Her watching it may not be such a bad thing? IDK

Ideally , for me, as Cherwell says, it should be scrapped as contempt of court at the last moment before broadcast and she should treat his involvement in it's production as an aggravation for sent purposes. Everyone's happy.

BBM - This is my position on it, especially in light of Uncle A's comment below. All I see forthcoming is more damage control and spewing of excuses by someone who openly considers himself a friend of the family after spending almost three years listening to their "versions" of the murder and has previously stated he believes in OP's innocence.

"In a statement earlier this month, Pistorius’ uncle, Arnold Pistorius, said the family had declined many requests for interviews with the former track star out of respect for the legal process. He said he agreed to ITV’s request in an effort to dispel what he described as the many inaccuracies and speculations that had arisen.

“I decided it was necessary to take up one media offer that would provide our family with a voice to address some of the misconceptions that have remained unchallenged,” Arnold Pistorius said."
http://globalnews.ca/news/2762973/s...-not-give-true-version-of-events-in-shooting/