Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 7.6.2016

[Interested Bystander]

Does anyone get the impression that Masipa might have been "thumbing her nose" at the judiciary for criticising her original verdict? She is due for retirement this year, I think, and probably would not care what anyone thinks about her judgement.

 

[akp]

I think ALL cases handled by Masipa should be reviewed. This was a high profile case, watched by the whole world. God knows what she would have done in cases where no one was paying any attention. That would also tell the authorities whether it is her incompetence, or something else. Incompetence would not be case specific, it should be evident in other cases as well. If not, well, draw your own conclusions.

 

[LaLaw2000]

A long term of imprisonment will not serve justice in this matter.[/QUOTE\\\]

BBM:

I am beyond upset over this so-called 'punishment' for OP! This was not a 'MATTER"; it was MURDER!

Long term imprisonment should be exactly what he got rather than this sentence that is more a 'time-out ' than anything!

I am typing almost blindly because of complications from eye surgery, so forgive any mistakes. Not directed at you, JudgeJudi - just commenting on your statement made by Masipa.

Bring OP over here and just see what sentence he would have gotten for such a brutal, senseless murder!

*Thanks for the updates while court was in session everyone! Much appreciated!

 

[Marfa Lights]

I see that there's a Pistorian elsewhere claiming that there's "not a shred of evidence" that OP knew it was Reeva.

Not a shred? Four witnesses hearing female screams is evidence. Fact. If a Pistorian doesn't find it compelling, fine. But it's absurd, not to mention downright dishonest, to claim there's "not a shred of evidence".

I wonder if such a person's objectivity is obliterated by their need to support their own arguments (no matter how flawed). Thinking away evidence is a million miles away from being "objective".

As in Masipa saying that this morning....

 

[lithgow1]

This from well known lawyer William Booth concerned me more than a little. Not only does he state that the Prosecution are not going to appeal (how does he know this) but also he infers that OP could have his sentence converted to correctional supervision.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/N...ss-than-6-years-in-prison-top-lawyer-20160706

“Booth said that if a person's parole release date was less than five years into the future, the department could request that they be taken to court for the sentence to be turned into correctional supervision”

He was talking about the defence IB. If you read on to the end of that article, he says that he expects an appeal from the State. So unconcern yourself, about that aspect at least! The correctional supervision is a worry though.

 

[cottonweaver]

Does anyone get the impression that Masipa might have been "thumbing her nose" at the judiciary for criticising her original verdict? She is due for retirement this year, I think, and probably would not care what anyone thinks about her judgement.

Firstly I think she is really very dim, she has no aptitude for this.

I think it's also ego, as I said this morning. Don't think this is just misplaced sympathy.
She genuinely thinks she knows better, she thinks she is some kind of maverick and the "public" are literally plebs who need saving from themselves.

Irony is, penny still hasn't dropped, that 2014 F.Up and furore was caused by her.
As i said earlier, now due to the impatience of the plebs to see some justice, she uses that hostile public opinion as a mitigation.


Once it get's uploaded it will be easier to take a considered view.

I had to go walk the dog and lay under a tall oak in a forest clearing. A tonic - restores some perspective.

Caught up and going to read some of all your links, cheers.

Anyway Ms. Masego might also find she gets a "shout-out" when she pops into the grocers now!

 

[Colin de France]

The correctional supervision is a worry though.

......that's probation isn't it ? ..

 

[lithgow1]

......that's probation isn't it ? ..

I assume so. Parole rather than house arrest or something like that.

 

[Hope4More]

Bravo, Judge Masipa, for integrity and a clear-eyed view, despite the enormous pressure to yield to the public's demand for blood.

 

[mirage1]

Bravo, Judge Masipa, for integrity and a clear-eyed view, despite the enormous pressure to yield to the public's demand for blood.

lolz...

 

[Viper]

Bravo, Judge Masipa, for integrity and a clear-eyed view, despite the enormous pressure to yield to the public's demand for blood.

Wait, I could have sworn that I read somewhere that Pistorius was taken to prison today and that the State has 14 days to decide on an appeal. That didnt happen?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Debora Patta
@ Debora Patta

#Pistorius Legal experts say OP can be paroled for good behaviour after serving a third of the sentence - that is two years

 

[Madeleine74]

Masipa's motives will be debated for probably longer than OP ever has to spend behind bars and never really known. Unless the SC is petitioned and re-sentences him, OP will be out in less than 3 years and that's that.

Bottomline: she has a soft spot for OP for whatever reason and decided she wasn't going to sentence him more than a fraction of what the guidelines specify he should get. This wrong will either be righted by the SC ... or it won't.

 

[cottonweaver]

lolz...

I just knew I would get the opportunity for some of those obscure emojis. Apols mirage, if I tag it on to your post, it relates back to an earlier post I made

:flashback:
:bang:
:nevermind:
:desert:

ddsmiley:

 

[Viper]

Debora Patta
@ Debora Patta

#Pistorius Legal experts say OP can be paroled for good behaviour after serving a third of the sentence - that is two years

Legal experts disagree on this, some say after only 1 year, others insist only after 3 years; but all agree that it is a legal issue with requirements that must be approved and granted, it is not a given.

 

[LemonMousse]

As in Masipa saying that this morning....

Did she say that?

What a remarkably stupid woman. A judge who doesn't know what the word "evidence" means!

I am not a tin foil hat wearer - but I am genuinely starting to wonder whether any money has changed hands somewhere along the line. I know others have made the same point ever since the initial verdict but I've resisted it because it seems unlikely. But something stinks to high heaven about all this.

"Not a shred of evidence....." WHAAAAAAT?

 

[LemonMousse]

Whether they'll bother or not, I have no idea....but I think there's scope for an appeal.

If identity of the victim is irrelevant to guilt, then it is impossible for it to be used as mitigation against sentence.

Otherwise:

"That you didn't think it was Reeva, is irrelevant, Mr Pistorius. Verdict...murder"

"Oh, you didn't think it was Reeva? Lesser sentence then".

Makes. No. Sense.

 

[Madeleine74]

Just like the first time she sentenced him, she too decided how much (or rather, little) jail time she was willing to give him and worked backwards from there to try and explain/justify it. It makes no sense of course because it's backwards and she is trying to wrangle a legal argument into a pre-determined sentence.

You'll never make sense of it, because the sentence is not really based on anything but Masipa's own agenda, whatever that is. She doesn't want OP to spend more than 2 years behind bars and her sentence is constructed so that he'll be able to be paroled in 2 years. That's her logic.

 

[patCee]

It's as though she felt the need to rebut the SCA's findings in order to have the last word. Stupid and stubborn and unprofessional. But IF the State appeal it's actually the best outcome. The SCA will sentence appropriately.

BB I feel strongly that this is her position - like, OK I made a minor mistake last time, but I still think I'm right so I'll just give him an extra year.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Did she say that?

What a remarkably stupid woman. A judge who doesn't know what the word "evidence" means!

I am not a tin foil hat wearer - but I am genuinely starting to wonder whether any money has changed hands somewhere along the line. I know others have made the same point ever since the initial verdict but I've resisted it because it seems unlikely. But something stinks to high heaven about all this.

"Not a shred of evidence....." WHAAAAAAT?

Here's what she said:

http://www.thejournal.ie/oscar-pistorius-murder-sentence-2861817-Jul2016/

The former athlete has claimed that he mistook Reeva for a burglar and, feeling vulnerable, fired the deadly weapon, sending four bullets through the bathroom door.
Masipa spoke about the public’s perception that this was not the case and that there was a belief that Pistorius and Reeva argued on the night before she died.
“There is not a shred of evidence that supports such a perception,” she said, dismissing any right of the court to speculate and stating that there is no indication that this case is based on gender violence or that the relationship was an abusive one.
However, she did comment that murder is “always a serious crime” and his belief that the person behind the door was an intruder does not make it less serious.