Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016 #2

[mrjitty]

.... plus he didn't have deep pockets Colin,


Mr Jitty - yes, I get the impression it's just his opinion but "blue sky thinking", not related to the actual sentencing acts.

He's big into penal reform so he is promoting his general views on social justice . I can't imagine any posters think it will happen. I have no idea why Roux even suggested wholly house arrest, poker game gambit.

Yes - seemed weird as due to the mandatory minimum i don't think Masipa can order that,

See again in NZ if counsel said that, I am sure the Judge would jump in with "are you serious Mr Roux?"

 

[Cherwell]

I didn't know, however, that Nel said he'd be ok with 8 yrs.

It was Andrea Johnson who was quoted as saying that the State would appeal if the sentence was less than 8 years.
However, I have since read that she was quoted out of context, but I haven't seen anything more detailed.

 

[akp]

here's the link to JGreenland's radio interview where he is asked - what sentence would he give, if he could.


702 ‏@Radio702 10h10 hours ago
[LISTEN] @GushwellBrooks talking to retired High court judge, Chris GreenLand, about the OP case


https://twitter.com/Radio702?lang=en-gb

around 21mins into prog.

Just "blue sky thinking" from JG. Naturally he realises that this sentence isn't going to happen

15 yrs house arrest - chance of rehab, not brutalised, not an expense to taxpayer
15 ys Cmm service -Reeva specific activities ,

why ? JG says 3 objectives satisfied - needs of accused, and offence, society ( Triad of Zinn )

Hate to say , he also gets a few things wrong around the case details too. But still interesting. Still, enjoy listening to his ideas.

eg. Why has this case dragged on so long ( Something OP's supporters continually cite as torture for OP etc) . JG simply states the obvious - it's because of the Defence's/clients resources. )

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.

 

[mrjitty]

Strange interview from Greenland

His summary of the Court findings is wrong on numerous points

One can simply use Leach's summary, which is binding.

 

[mrjitty]

Molletts have a new blog up.

Great example of how Masipa is a complete clown with not the first idea of evidence handling.

http://truth4reeva.com/2016/06/defence-trickery/

 

[JudgeJudi]

Was the Nike gear a wind up because they dropped him? If so, it was a very calculated action and not something you'd expect a 'broken man' to be concerned about. But then, not long after the 'broken man' was 'saddened' at discovering he'd killed Reeva, he phoned a friend and thought about locksmiths. So what do I know!

Whenever I've seen him, if he's not in a suit he's wearing Nike. He's flipping the bird at them. "Broken", my eye.

 

[mrjitty]

My comment over there seeing as Molletts don't comment much

I agree with you on all points.

Masipa's handling of evidential points and procedure is alarmingly poor for a High Court Judge - I suspect this is because she has no background in litigation.

The bottom line is the initial photos are uncontested proof of how the Crime Scene presented.

The cord was photographed in a particular state (along with the curtains and fans)

The defence has not produced any evidence that it was otherwise save the bare assertion of the accused.

The idea that the defence can then simply assert that the extension cord was not in the house is not only ridiculous, but also irrelevant as the State is under no requirement to safeguard or account for it.

Notice that Masipa actually then sidesteps all of this by failing to rule on any of it!

This also drew some adverse criticism from the SCA

The Judge cannot simply throw all the crime scene photos out the window as if they don't exist.

She must rule that they are unreliable

But this was her habit.

Simply to not comment on inconvenient evidence.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I can understand his sentiments about the community service in Reeva's name, but on the whole I think someone needs to see if he has a fever. Brutalised? He has his own secure wing, gym and TV for goodness sake.

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.

 

[JudgeJudi]

lol A mansion is not a prison..........so one system for the disabled and another for everyone else and onward, it goes.
This disabled hot-headed, cruel man ended Reeva's life which prevented her from doing more good and now Oscar's supposed to do good in her name? I don't think so.

I can't even talk about the rehabilitation aspect, at this point. Unreal.

Um, how do you rehabilitate a person who has no remorse?

Here's a few reminders of what remorseless Pistorius looked like on 8 December 2015 when he was granted bail following the SCA judgment. Killer smiles ... not even a hint of a "broken" man.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/625042/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-Reeva-Steenkamp-bail

 

[Interested Bystander]

Um, how do you rehabilitate a person who has no remorse?

Here's a few reminders of what remorseless Pistorius looked like on 8 December 2015 when he was granted bail following the SCA judgment. Killer smiles ... not even a hint of a "broken" man.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/625042/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-Reeva-Steenkamp-bail

All the more strange because Greenland has stated this morning that he still thinks it was DD. So what "script" is he reading from?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Masipa said last time around, that she was not totally convinced about his vulnerability , as he had "excellent coping skills" didn't she so the walk by OP was there for that purpose.

But as Lithgow said upthread, if she remembers/reviews her findings of fact in Trial 1, she can see all the actions he had to niftily & speedily perform on his stumps.

I don't have her judgment in front of me, I know she did say he was vuln to some extent.

If it's an issue of disability. Is his disability to potentially mitigate against the shooting or the against his future tolerance of prison. ( Can't be the latter as Kgosi period proved that it was suitable for him as a disabled offender.) So we are back to where we were, a disabled man with a super powerful loaded gun is not actually vulnerable etc etc, he was nifty, confrontational, disregarded other means of SOS - and that's just on his BS version. )

I couldn't find anything about his coping skills but the following are all Masipa's comments regarding his disability:

"It is also understandable, that a person with a disability such as that of the accused would certainly feel vulnerable, when faced with danger.

Counsel for the defence once more tried to persuade this court that the accused’s disability, among other things rendered him vulnerable hence his reaction that morning when he armed himself with a firearm and that therefore he could not be found guilty of negligence.

I hasten to add however that the accused is not unique in this respect. Women, children, the elderly and all those with limited mobility would fall under the same category, but would it be reasonable if without further ado, they armed themselves with a firearm when threatened with danger. I do not think so, as every case would depend on its own merits.

As stated earlier, vulnerability is not unique as millions of people in this country can easily fit into that category. In my view regardless of what category of people we are dealing with, the answer to whether a particular act is reasonable or unreasonable, has to depend on the particular case of each case.

On the facts of this case I am not persuaded that a reasonable person with the accused’s disabilities in the same circumstances, would have fired four shots into that small toilet cubicle".

No wonder we were floored when the verdict was announced.

Despite all the above, we then had the sickening display playing his disability up for all it was worth.

 

[cottonweaver]

Molletts have a new blog up.

Great example of how Masipa is a complete clown with not the first idea of evidence handling.

http://truth4reeva.com/2016/06/defence-trickery/

Personally, I think it's time we had a new thread on here, just on the Mollet's book.
Nobody got to discuss it here due to the thread being closed and even if people haven't bought the book , as they are releasing such comprehensive articles it is a great resource but I don't think their blog, nor others, allows for real time discussion as opposed to waiting for comments to be moderated etc.

I don't know what others think about that idea - what do you all think? Forensic aspects etc.

(A specific Mollets-only thread is less likely to be derailed perhaps too, into off topic or circular arguments about what the SCA didn't rule on etc.....plus it keeps forensic evidence in the same place instead of being difficult to access, being spread over so many threads.)

PS In relation to the extension cord it was always clear to me that the family/OP had always had it and that it was a spurious late request. The shocking thing, as you say, is that M was not clear on that ruse.

 

[cottonweaver]

JJ , IDK where I have got that phrase "coping skills" from then. Maybe it is the judgment?
I can't find my copy of her sentencing report - maybe it wasn't transcribed. You'll remember better

 

[JudgeJudi]

Jilly. Do you remember the fake demonstration with the bed that they did in court while him not being on his stumps.

That was the fakest demonstration ever. But Masipa brought into it.

Now Nel had the chance to ask Masipa to show us a semi Demostration while on his stumps at the Time.

And Nel didn't.

Nel even said that he would be okay with 8 years and not 18 years.

So. Nel is okay. But. Idk.

I may have missed something but I never heard Nel say anything about 8 years. Andrea Johnson said to the media that the NPA would appeal a sentence of 8 years. I thought Nel said he wanted the full 15 in prison, and that deductions had to come off a higher sentence in order to get 15.

 

[WilliamMunter]

JJ , IDK where I have got that phrase "coping skills" from then. Maybe it is the judgment?
I can't find my copy of her sentencing report - maybe it wasn't transcribed. You'll remember better

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."

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

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.

 

[Tortoise]

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.

A person who lies about what they've done and denies doing anything wrong is not going to be helped by therapy of any description.

 

[soozieqtips]

Um, how do you rehabilitate a person who has no remorse?

Here's a few reminders of what remorseless Pistorius looked like on 8 December 2015 when he was granted bail following the SCA judgment. Killer smiles ... not even a hint of a "broken" man.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/625042/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-Reeva-Steenkamp-bail

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...

 

[soozieqtips]

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."

BIB - I wonder if she'll even remember she said it.

 

[soozieqtips]

Personally, I think it's time we had a new thread on here, just on the Mollet's book.

snippity snipped

That is a great idea!