Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016 #2

[Trotterly]

This is likely been discussed in this forum but I have never heard it discussed in the case. Perhaps those more familiar with the case could let me know if and when it was discussed.

Is this all correct?.....

When Oscar heard the noise he said "Reeva call the police." And that's it. If you just said to somebody "call the police" they would reply to you and say "and say what??". So no one would say to somebody to just call the police; they would either expect an answer or follow it up with the reason to call the police. So were expected to believe that he just said call the police and got no answer and expected that she was calling the police even though he didn't tell her what to tell the police. Did the
lawyers ever bring that up and ask OP about that?

His testimony was that it was obvious to "them" that a person was breaking into the house. Why would they need to discuss it.

I suppose much as it would be obvious if a car were coming toward them in the street that they didn't need a conversation other than maybe "Look out!"

 

[cottonweaver]

Just listening to the rest of the Lisa & Nick audio of Day 3

Lisa forcefully makes the point that she felt normal human compassion was exploited by OP's pity parade. Thus made her angry ( around 16mins mark)

Nick has some sardonic insights into Carl P's attitude to the hearing, as he was watching him closely - big show, enjoying spotlight, laughing, tweeting, stage -managing, giving little scoops to Karen Maughan. ( About 20 mins in )
No shame - nothing you didn't already know of course.

https://soundcloud.com/juror13/nick-wraps-day-3-graphic-images-carl-pistorius-fashionista

 

[cottonweaver]

<RSBM>


I&#8217;ve addressed this point a number of times in the past. Reeva was never told why she should ring the police, so the conversation would go something like this:

Hello, is that the police?
No, I don&#8217;t know how you can help me.
My boyfriend has just asked me to ring you.
I don&#8217;t know why, but I do know that I have to do what I&#8217;m told.
Okay then. Bye.

Had forgotten that role play!
Def needs the well worn emoji :floorlaugh:

Now I do wish Nel had said exactly that - that really would have got them :rotfl:

 

[JudgeJudi]

<RSBM>

Hi, shame you will miss it.
We'll put real time updates on here as we always do, as Zweibel doesn't seem to be around. ( I was going to miss it but some plans have been rescheduled so I will now see it. )

I can't find a sentn. transcript as IDT it exists.

Here is the old link to the vid for CH sentn. It's ages since I have watched it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVL2zZCyKo

It could be over in an hour or so. However, it will no doubt take longer if she&#8217;s going to sentence him to less than the minimum of 15 years. In this event she will have to detail her reasons for doing so, which reasons the State can then use if they decide to appeal.


Here's a link to the transcript.

http://www.justice.gov.za/docs/other-docs/pistorius-sentence-CC113-2013-21102014.pdf

 

[Duchy]

A poster has put this on another forum

Tells us what we already know : Oscar Pistorius is not a victim

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/the-o...ously-20160701

That link doesnt work for me :tantrum:

 

[cottonweaver]

That link doesnt work for me :tantrum:

try this Duchy

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/the-oscar-pistorius-debacle-hes-a-victim-seriously-20160701

 

[Duchy]

try this Duchy

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/the-oscar-pistorius-debacle-hes-a-victim-seriously-20160701

That works.....thankyou :loveyou:

 

[JudgeJudi]

I agree. The cases I've read are convicts appealing their sentences from prison. There is a small exception that the judge can give the convict time to get their affairs in order before reporting to prison, but that wouldn't be long in OPs case, he just needs to tell the maid to store his old Nike stuff.

He's literally gone from Riches to rags. No McClarren super car, no house, no Armani wardrobe (that fits anymore), etc...

I believe it's 48 hours.

And no blondes ... and no guns.

 

[Hazy]

Op's testimony was clear in that it was only obvious to him that he thought there was an intruder in the bathroom.

He heard no confirmation from Reeva after doing his 'masterclass in how not to look at your girlfriend who is in bed beside you' act.

He CANNOT say that she knew.

Revva didn't even say anything like be careful OP as a concerned girlfriend would.

Heck, he was mighty surprised she wasn't in bed after hearing 4 gunshots and not knowing if it was him that had been shot or not.

It's all so ..... Staged!

 

[Colin de France]

Op's testimony was clear in that it was only obvious to him that he thought there was an intruder in the bathroom.

He heard no confirmation from Reeva after doing his 'masterclass in how not to look at your girlfriend who is in bed beside you' act.

He CANNOT say that she knew.

Revva didn't even say anything like be careful OP as a concerned girlfriend would.

Heck, he was mighty surprised she wasn't in bed after hearing 4 gunshots and not knowing if it was him that had been shot or not.

It's all so ..... Staged!

....not forgetting he shouted out before shooting....according to him ..

 

[PrimeSuspect]

His testimony was that it was obvious to "them" that a person was breaking into the house. Why would they need to discuss it.

I suppose much as it would be obvious if a car were coming toward them in the street that they didn't need a conversation other than maybe "Look out!"

Could you refresh my memory because I can't remember OP saying Reeva knew what was happening. For that to occur, OP had to admit the lights were on for him and Reeva to exchange knowing looks after hearing a noise in the bathroom, or that Reeva nudged OP after the sound, or OP nudged Reeva.

So basically there is no 'obvious' about 'them'. OP even hinting that Reeva was in on his course of action would be to admit he KNEW she wasn't in the toilet. :waitasec:

 

[Really?]

3.........

 

[Hazy]

....not forgetting he shouted out before shooting....according to him ..

Aye. Yet more staging! Lol

Without confirmation he cannot say that she heard him. It remains an assumption.

Even he thought she might still be in bed after he told her to get down. Hmmmm

 

[Trotterly]

Could you refresh my memory because I can't remember OP saying Reeva knew what was happening. For that to occur, OP had to admit the lights were on for him and Reeva to exchange knowing looks after hearing a noise in the bathroom, or that Reeva nudged OP after the sound, or OP nudged Reeva.

So basically there is no 'obvious' about 'them'. OP even hinting that Reeva was in on his course of action would be to admit he KNEW she wasn't in the toilet. :waitasec:

I don't think he said that Reeva knew what was happening. From his version he assumed that.

His version was that it happened very quickly and he was fixated on the passageway.

 

[Hazy]

Could you refresh my memory because I can't remember OP saying Reeva knew what was happening. For that to occur, OP had to admit the lights were on for him and Reeva to exchange knowing looks after hearing a noise in the bathroom, or that Reeva nudged OP after the sound, or OP nudged Reeva.

So basically there is no 'obvious' about 'them'. OP even hinting that Reeva was in on his course of action would be to admit he KNEW she wasn't in the toilet. :waitasec:

What OP is doing here is stating that he did all the right things. Not his fault she didn't or might not have heard him.

We only have his word that he did these things.

Hence one of many reasons why Nel wanted his testimony thrown out as it was evasive, contradictory and untruthful.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Could you refresh my memory because I can't remember OP saying Reeva knew what was happening. For that to occur, OP had to admit the lights were on for him and Reeva to exchange knowing looks after hearing a noise in the bathroom, or that Reeva nudged OP after the sound, or OP nudged Reeva.

So basically there is no 'obvious' about 'them'. OP even hinting that Reeva was in on his course of action would be to admit he KNEW she wasn't in the toilet. :waitasec:

I've just looked through the transcript and can't see anything that suggests it was "obvious to them" or that he assumed she heard a noise.

 

[soozieqtips]

I've just looked through the transcript and can't see anything that suggests it was "obvious to them" or that he assumed she heard a noise.

You'd think Reeva's total lack of voice meant the killer knew he couldn't assume whether she'd heard something or not. Reeva didn't confirm anything about a noise, or about her instructions to call the police, or about 'getting down low'. He didn't hear a single peep out of her at all. The only thing that should have been obvious at that stage was that Reeva was not responding to the 'noise', or to the 'instructions'.

 

[Cloen]

Once Masipa accepts he believed there was an intruder we have witnesses hearing OP screaming in terror. Hardly consistent with someone driven with anything but self preservation.

Masipa will sentence on this basis.

She will sentence on the basis that he should not have used that kind of excessive force ie. 4 black tallon bullets when he was not under any immediate threat or danger to his life, there were other options he could have and should have taken which he did not .
Captain Magena's testimony has to be taken into account as was the findings of the Supreme Court, which Judge Masipa previously ignored which was shocking. During the trial evidence was led that Pistorius was knowledgeable and trained in firearms and so he knew what those bullets would do to any human being behind that door in such a very small space,,= kill them.

 

[Cloen]

....not forgetting he shouted out before shooting....according to him ..

oh yes, and he screamed continuously for no reason whatsoever , and even when he says he saw her , he suddenly stopped screaming. (ahem)

 

[Cloen]

I think any Appeal by the Defence would be met by the Supreme Court with another rejection
Certainly if Judge Leach has anything to do with it.
Pistorius has had 3 years of rather an easy time of it because mistakes were made the first time round by Judge Masipa , making a laughing stock and attracting criticism from every quarter. He should have been incarcerated for far longer than a year for Murder not Culpable Homicide, so he's been lucky considering, in my opinion.