Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[JudgeJudi]

Good old Daily Mail. "OP has bread and butter for dinner". Now that I don't believe!!

Here's what prison meals are supposed to be like:

At seven o’ clock cell doors open and warders do the first roll-call for the day. By that time prisoners are supposed to have washed, dressed themselves and cleaned their cells.

There is no smell of bacon and eggs as inmates are marched to breakfast. They are greeted with a spread of porridge and coffee or juice.

The next meal will be served at 11 o’ clock. Lunch consists of a form of meat or protein, a starch and a vegetable.

At 3 o’clock inmates have their last meal of the day. The menu for supper varies – mostly it consists of six slices of bread and a beverage of some sort. Inmates are escorted back to their cells to finish their meals there.

The last roll call for the day is done and inmates are then locked up. For the remainder of the day and night inmates are left to their own devices.

http://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Man/Your-life/A-day-in-prison-20120721


As an elite athlete, Pistorius has been used to a strict exercise and diet regime. But in Kgosi Mampuru II Management Area, he would be allowed just one hour of exercise a day, and have very basic rations.

http://www.southafricalatestnews.co...scar-pistorius-serves-a-5-year-jail-term.html

Of course none of this means that he'll get these meagre rations. There's always special rules for special people.

 

[jilly]

I think that was the date the State wanted but the Defence wanted a date in December.

Yes. So the Defense won again.

 

[4MrsB]

I read something about this a long time ago but this is a very interesting article (published 14 September 2014).
OP has made numerous visits to Joburg’s Jewel City where merchants trade in diamonds and gold. He’s been spotted regularly over the past few months according to four independent sources. The security staff who guard the entrance like prison wardens say they see him regularly.

By the time of going to press, “Anneliese Burgess, spokesperson for the Pistorius family, had not responded to questions about whether Oscar was doing business in the diamond and gold industry”.

A source said, “You may not have a criminal record or be facing trial. Oscar would therefore not have been able to get a diamond trader’s licence in the past year”.

The very fact of Anneliese not immediately saying something, anything, says a lot to me. I very much doubt he would have risked taking them overseas. I think he’d be converting cash into diamonds and giving them to Arnold to hold as an investment for his future.

Published 17 September 2014
“De Beers warns of rise in diamond price as stones become even rarer.
Mining firm says dearth of major new mines means production cannot keep up with ever-rising demand from US, China and India. The De Beers diamond mine in Kimberley, South Africa. The company says its mines are becoming depleted.”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/sep/17/de-beers-rise-diamond-price-stones-rarer

Are you reading this Barry, Kenny or Roxanne? Don’t fret, money is still around. All you have to do is look.

Very interesting. OP making so many visits to the "Jewel City" during the same period he's awaiting a verdict and then sentencing....curious.

The article mentions relatives of OP's (mom's side of the family) that own a diamond mining co that is associated with Jewel City. I believe the relatives were named Kruger (although, something happened very big, several years back and their stocks/"Namakwa Diamonds" dropped approx 60% overnight. Not sure what that was all about. Anyway, the CEO at the time, a Nico Kruger stepped down.) Not sure if the other Kruger family members (Tom, Heno & Nico, all brothers) still involved with this company. However, a Dieter Kruger (and wife Annie) have been mentioned as regulars at the trial and Dieter is one of the OP "bodyguards" to/from court that helps protect OP from general public, media, protestors, etc.

The timing of these visits (by the man with no funds) to a diamond trading/purchasing "city" with tight security, pre approved appointments necessary, etc is what is so interesting. I am quite sure the OP camp (if pressed) would claim OP is merely selling diamonds to help pay for counsel. Except...likely no record of diamonds being claimed before, and would that alert his lawyers (who are owed) that he now has more liquid funds in which to pay them? So maybe that wouldn't be the best response.

As I said, curious. No idea what he's doing, but he did think it important enough in the midst of a murder trial to attend to this on numerous visits.

 

[G.bng]

Oh no, I just discovered this comment.

Judge Chris N Greenland says:
September 23, 2014 at 8:41 am

I started writing a book on this trial titled “The Oscar Pistorius Trial of the Century. Through the eyes of a Judge.”.
I intended to time its publication with the date of sentencing.
I have decided to dump the project.
This is because I cannot avoid the book now being a very bad indictment on the system and the Court.
It will serve only to bring our system, the Court and the country into further disrepute.
I just don’t have the stomach for such bad karma in my life any more.

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/restitutio/

I want to stamp my feet and have a proper tantrum. I'd be down at the nearest bookstore in the blink of an eye.

ullhair: :tantrum:

BIB From the agitated movements of the thingamajigs in your post obviously not yours, but IMO a very wise decision. One he could IMO have taken earlier since I have always wondered how he could be so critical of Masipa's actions and judgement considering the code of ethics judges sign up to when accepting office and which follows them even into retirement. So although it's possible Greenland CJ only just remembered his ethical code it's equally possible he heard some serious judicial tutting throgh the judicial grapevine!

In his respect especially important of the judicial code, the guidance relevant to not doing or saying anything that could bring the judicial system or judiciary into disrepute as well as not opining on individual cases. This last a really big no no since a judge's core principle must be that of impartiality and it is via appeal courts decisions are challenged, argued, analysed, and where found necessary changed after a view of all the evidence and not via personal opinions of acting or retired judges who not only owe respect to a system they presently or in the past upheld but who are not party to the evidence of a case they are not presiding. And there are plenty of legal experts, and not so legal "experts", to question a judgement without acting or ex judges joining in.

A few excerpts from the UK "Guide to Judicial Conduct" shows what I presume will be similar in SA not least since their procedural system is in great part based on ours:

8.1.1 Judges should exercise their freedom to comment in the media, with ‘the greatest circumspection’. Lord Bingham has commented that ‘a habit of reticence makes for good judges’. A judge should refrain from answering public criticism of a judgment or decision, whether from the bench or otherwise. Judges should not air disagreements over judicial decisions in the press. In his speech in the House of Lords on 21 May 2003, Lord Woolf CJ referred to “the very important convention that judges do not discuss individual cases”.

8.11.3 In short, the guidance states that whilst, blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited, judicial office-holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary. They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general. This guidance also applies to blogs which purport to be anonymous. Failure to adhere to the guidance could ultimately result in disciplinary action.

9.2 Even in retirement a former judge may still be regarded by the general public as a representative of the judiciary and any activity that might tarnish the reputation of the judiciary should be avoided.

And please JJ. No need to prove anything to me as I RESPECT YOUR OPINION and agree Greenland's book could have been very interesting even if I personally have not found his explanations very clear cut, useful or even correct, but having read arguments for and against judicial independence, impartiality and neutrality and the difficulties arising from any part of the judiciary taking sides, I go with the conclusions of the majority of the world's legal erudite, i.e., that not even retired judges should be opining publicly about individual cases since it can only serve to at best raise distrust in the system or at worst to undermine it when it is, "hoy por hoy", the only system we have. And from what I see the honourable Greenland JC now agrees with this too.
: ● )

 

[G.bng]

All right, calm down ..

I'll say it again .. I do NOT agree with you that 'everyone' is capable of killing someone in a fit of rage and it's not 'naive' of me to think that .. most people are able to control themselves, no matter how angry they feel inside. Your words were that you could feel sympathetic towards someone who owned up to that, those were your words .. and I'm saying that such people do not deserve any sympathy whatsoever, they should just learn to control their actions, and then that way less women would end up getting killed.

I did say I agreed with the rest of your post though, so I'm not really sure why you are arguing those other points about the courts recognising if someone admits what they've done or if they lie through their teeth. I was purely addressing the bit I had marked in bold in your original post.

And what about less men since they form around 80% of all homicide victims in the world !?
: ● )

 

[Sherbert]

BIB From the agitated movements of the thingamajigs in your post obviously not yours, but IMO a very wise decision. One he could IMO have taken earlier since I have always wondered how he could be so critical of Masipa's actions and judgement considering the code of ethics judges sign up to when accepting office and which follows them even into retirement. So although it's possible Greenland CJ only just remembered his ethical code it's equally possible he heard some serious judicial tutting throgh the judicial grapevine!

In his respect especially important of the judicial code, the guidance relevant to not doing or saying anything that could bring the judicial system or judiciary into disrepute as well as not opining on individual cases. This last a really big no no since a judge's core principle must be that of impartiality and it is via appeal courts decisions are challenged, argued, analysed, and where found necessary changed after a view of all the evidence and not via personal opinions of acting or retired judges who not only owe respect to a system they presently or in the past upheld but who are not party to the evidence of a case they are not presiding. And there are plenty of legal experts, and not so legal "experts", to question a judgement without acting or ex judges joining in.

A few excerpts from the UK "Guide to Judicial Conduct" shows what I presume will be similar in SA not least since their procedural system is in great part based on ours:



And please JJ. No need to prove anything to me as I RESPECT YOUR OPINION and agree Greenland's book could have been very interesting even if I personally have not found his explanations very clear cut, useful or even correct, but having read arguments for and against judicial independence, impartiality and neutrality and the difficulties arising from any part of the judiciary taking sides, I go with the conclusions of the majority of the world's legal erudite, i.e., that not even retired judges should be opining publicly about individual cases since it can only serve to at best raise distrust in the system or at worst to undermine it when it is, "hoy por hoy", the only system we have. And from what I see the honourable Greenland JC now agrees with this too.
: ● )

On the other hand, it could be argued that his comments have served to increase public confidence in the judiciary, given that the poor quality of Masipa's Judgement, combined with her seeming lack of impartiality, did so much to reduce it.

 

[soozieqtips]

Yes we can and I certainly wouldn't .. I wouldn't ever kill another person, no matter how angry I was. Neither would about 50-60 million other people who live in the UK, who never commit murder throughout their whole lives.

I'm really astonished by what I am reading here with regard to this line of discussion, quite honestly.

BIB - It's a tiny minority who murder, tiny. Most of us have an 'off' switch that kicks in when things are getting too volatile. That's why over 50 million of us aren't murderers!

 

[Sherbert]

Yes we can and I certainly wouldn't .. I wouldn't ever kill another person, no matter how angry I was. Neither would about 50-60 million other people who live in the UK, who never commit murder throughout their whole lives.

I'm really astonished by what I am reading here with regard to this line of discussion, quite honestly.

I have to agree that, even if OP had come clean about the events of that night, I would find it very difficult indeed to feel any real sympathy for him.

Even if he said, "I shot her because I loved her and I found out that she was cheating on me", I would feel nothing but contempt for his violent reaction.

Nonetheless, I also accept that his failure to confess has highlighted his lack of remorse and compounded Reeva's parents misery, which is, perhaps, the thrust of Lemon Mousse's original post.

 

[foxbluff]

Nathi Mncube ‏@mncube_nathi · 2h2 hours ago

The application for leave to appeal Oscar Pistorious judgement and sentence will be heard on 9/12/2014 at North Gauteng High court

 

[foxbluff]

I don't agree. Are you confusing it with what someone might have to do if they were acting in self-defense? Because, if not, then you are wrong to say that 'all humans' are capable of just flying off the handle and killing someone, just like that.

That's not what I said, jay.

This is the portion of Lemon's post which was BBM and responded to:
And I do indeed believe most human beings are capable of doing terrible things, in the right circumstances.

Foxbluff's Reply to Lemon which you're Replying to:
BBM - I'm willing to take that a step further. Imho it's not just "most" humans, it's "all" humans.

 

[Giles]

Nathi Mncube ‏@mncube_nathi · 2h2 hours ago

The application for leave to appeal Oscar Pistorious judgement and sentence will be heard on 9/12/2014 at North Gauteng High court

9th December Foxbluff.

 

[foxbluff]

<Respectfully snipped for focus>
A fellow inmate had an argument with prison wardens which resulted in him smashing a television set. “Later, he put a plug into a basin and left the tap running – flooding the entire section. Pistorius then had to be moved because it was feared he might slip and hurt himself. It was so badly flooded that inmates were almost swimming, and this was seen as too dangerous”.

I enjoyed reading your entire post... so nice to have so much interesting news in a single post, particularly while we're once more having to play the waiting game. <sigh>

BBM - $64,000. Question: While I accept that the flood waters were most likely not as high as described, aren't there guards on duty at all times??? If so, appears to me that flooding should have been noticed by guard on duty before it reached the stage of having to remove inmates from their cells!

 

[jay-jay]

That's not what I said, jay.

This is the portion of Lemon's post which was BBM and responded to:
And I do indeed believe most human beings are capable of doing terrible things, in the right circumstances.

Foxbluff's Reply to Lemon which you're Replying to:
BBM - I'm willing to take that a step further. Imho it's not just "most" humans, it's "all" humans.

.. so what sort 'terrible thing' were you referring to then? The original post I replied to was talking about Pistorius and killing someone in the red mist of rage. If you are talking about something else, then you should've expanded on what you meant (and I don't see why you would've meant something else because anything else is irrelevant to the discussion). I'm opting out of this line of discussion because, frankly, it's getting ridiculous.

 

[foxbluff]

I wish there had been transcripts of the earwitnesses and copies of their statements online. If there had been some published would have saved me a lot of work doing my own so I could fully analyse the timeline because the Sky transcripts are hopeless, at best mistaken at worst downright incorrect, so not reliable for analysing. But if you find any sure there are many who would appreciate you posting the links.

BBM - You can't know how much I hunger for transcripts... particularly since I don't get to view/hear the testimony via vids.

I salivate each time I've seen you refer to having made your own transcripts.

I know this is asking a lot, but any chance you would be able/willing to share one of them with us??

 

[G.bng]

It's the Daily Mail ... I know, I know but

Prison bosses may not release OP early because he has no ankles to attach his electronic tag to.

He may not get early release from jail because the electronic tagging device cannot be fitted securely to his prosthetic leg, it emerged today.

The revelation came as SA prosecutors said their request to appeal his manslaughter conviction and 5 year prison sentence would be heard on December 9.

OP had hoped he would qualify for home detention curfew with a tag after serving just ten months of his sentence.

Prison bosses have told him he can't take part in their tagging scheme because the device cannot be properly monitored if it is fixed to a prosthetic leg.

The tags cannot by law be fixed to an offender's wrists as they are too easily removed.

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

Thanks for link. In the UK it would be challenged under the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act which now been brought under the 2010 Equality Act so methinks in SA it would be challengeable under the constitution and I was going to say that in any case just because he couldn't be tagged didn't mean they would not have to find some other way as law is law the same for all.

And then I cursory read the article and once again the daily mail (think I'll cut the u/c in disrespect same as another poster said they were doing the other day!) tricks it's readers with a purposefully misleading headline since half way down it notes:

He has been told that, even without release on a tagging system, he may be able to apply for parole after 10 months.

I wonder why I have a niggling feeling that I'm being conned and that an honest report would have been:

"Prison bosses have told him he can't take part in their tagging scheme because the device cannot be properly monitored if it is fixed to a prosthetic leg [BUT] he has been told that, even without release on a tagging system, he may be able to apply for parole after 10 months."

So one teeny weeny "BUT" and the picture drastically changes since iirc parole would be more advantageous to OP as it consists of less control than correctional supervision while with its headline the daily mail infers exactly the opposite, i.e. that OP would have to remain in jail the full 5 years.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Sources say that Pistorius is apparently frustrated by the fact that everyone around him is so negative.

“Other inmates and wardens feel sorry for him or ashamed of his fall from grace and keep burdening him with their feelings,” the source said.

“He is so tired of everybody wanting something from him and just wants to think positively and believe in God that his ordeal will soon be over.”

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-pistorius-gets-private-bath/

Aww, poor little Oz is frustrated by negative people.
I’d say murder is the ultimate negativity.

What has he still got that everybody “wants”? :lol:
Still the delusions of grandeur.

“His ordeal”? Still all about poor persecuted ME! ME! ME!

Reeva was off-the-charts positive, she believed in God.
Look what that got her at the hands of the “positive”, “godly” Pistorius.
He became her ordeal.

OP wants God to save him.
Who saved Reeva?

What, exactly, did he expect in prison?
A frat club that welcomed him with open arms as their new leader?
At Kgosi Mampuru Prison he’s just another common killer.

I think Oscar should STFU and be grateful he can feel frustrated, burdened and tired.
The woman he murdered can’t feel a damn thing.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

The killing of Reeva Steenkamp made it clear that no woman can presume to be safe in her own home

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-to-them-is-a-global-phenomenon-9730294.html

 

[G.bng]

On the other hand, it could be argued that his comments have served to increase public confidence in the judiciary, given that the poor quality of Masipa's Judgement, combined with her seeming lack of impartiality, did so much to reduce it.

Dang... I only went and missed it! Just popped downstairs for a bite or two and Bob's my uncle the appeal has already been heard !
;&#8226

Seriously though, and no offence intended just a joke, but when the appeal has been heard and Masipa's judgement picked to pieces, changed to Murder and any impartiality exposed for the world to see leaving her reputation in tatters and her name synonym of ignominy for generations to come of the SA judiciary, only at that point could I consider the argument of whether Greenland CJ's comments served to increase public confidence or detract from it since to date her judgement has not been found wrong whether in law, facts, or anything which is precisely the reason for the appeal. And btw, did you read some of the State's submissions? I commented a couple of weeks back I hoped Grant would be formulating them... he hasn't!

 

[G.bng]

BIB - It's a tiny minority who murder, tiny. Most of us have an 'off' switch that kicks in when things are getting too volatile. That's why over 50 million of us aren't murderers!

I reckon that tiny minority, would quickly change to an equally tiny majority if there was a nuclear cataclysm, food, water, medicines and energy were scarce. Can't recall who but someone important once said something to the effect that man was the same as any other animal but with a thin cover of civilisation on top. Ever read the novel, 'Lord of the Flies'?

 

[44ALLAN]

Dang... I only went and missed it! Just popped downstairs for a bite or two and Bob's my uncle the appeal has already been heard !
;&#8226

Seriously though, and no offence intended just a joke, but when the appeal has been heard and Masipa's judgement picked to pieces, changed to Murder and any impartiality exposed for the world to see leaving her reputation in tatters and her name synonym of ignominy for generations to come of the SA judiciary, only at that point could I consider the argument of whether Greenland CJ's comments served to increase public confidence or detract from it since to date her judgement has not been found wrong whether in law, facts, or anything which is precisely the reason for the appeal. And btw, did you read some of the State's submissions? I commented a couple of weeks back I hoped Grant would be formulating them... he hasn't!

So let me get this clear (because I'm a total novice at all this but the one thing I do have is an opinion................my dad always used to say................everyone has an opinion and their entitled to it.

Do you believe Masipa's judgement was correct or are you saying until it is/maybe over ruled then it stands as given.
Where do you stand with the evidence you have heard?
Do you believe the ear witnesses?
Do you believe he knew it was Reeva in the toilet and executed her?

I do and just wondered about your thoughts/opinions?