Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal

[LemonMousse]

Maybe because by remaining in prison he is clogging up jail space and costing the State money when an appeal has even the potential to acquit him (as Nair suggested the court might at the bail hearing) or reduce his sentence to suspended.

Sorry....but he is NOT "clogging up jail space". He is serving a prison sentence for killing a woman.

The chances of him being acquitted are somewhere between slim and non existent.

 

[foxbluff]

Ok, only because there is a lull in Pistorius news and I had a spare 10 mins.

And yes I have been known to read the occasional Cosmo.

It's Rihanna on the cover, June 2008

View attachment 62915

http://www.atclinic.co.za/publications

Perhaps OP saved that issue due to him appearing in the SA area version of Cosmo as sexiest man alive. Or, it could be that his Russian-born, runway-model girlfriend appears in that issue. hmm...

 

[Cherwell]

Maybe because by remaining in prison he is clogging up jail space and costing the State money when an appeal has even the potential to acquit him (as Nair suggested the court might at the bail hearing) or reduce his sentence to suspended.

My question was addressed to Pandax, who has already replied, but thank you for giving your own reasons why you would let him out.

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks for all the good posts. Still patiently following along.

I am pleased there is an well-written appeal from the prosecution, uncertain about it's success. Reading other appellate decisions by SA courts does not lead one to much confidence in the law, unfortunately. There are systemic issues which have led to some fairly perverse findings that I believe show cultural and political indifference and structural problems.

One of the many problems (slightly off topic to Pistorius trial) is that re-offence or multiplex offences have at times led a downgrade of murder to culpable homicide. Therefore, in Humphries v. State, the fact that Humphres had illegally and recklessly jumped the train bumper and ignored warning lights multiple times and succeeded in killing 10 children only on his last instance of dangerous driving, led the appeals court to decide he could not have "reconciled" himself to murder/dolus. http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/DEREBUS/2013/130.html

Or the fact that Jub Jub decided to race his car under the influence of illegal drugs was a major factor in the appeals court finding him not responsible for murder. The precedent set by these Supreme Court decisions is the illogic that if one has previous "got away" with crimes (eg. ingestion of illegal substances or previous multiple driving offences) than they may not than be held responsible for further fatal offences.

In general sentences in South Africa are frightening light and many will often only receive a suspended sentences at best. 14 people were killed between Humphries and Jub Jub yet neither received more than ten years in sentence.

Defence attorney Manny Witz described a successful defence case where his client merely received a suspended sentence for knife-slaying his wife - the husband was supposedly too intoxicated to understand his killing actions (automatism) even though he could still lock his fatally injured wife in the house and drive away from the scene.

Still, am hopeful that there is enough legal will, intelligent and passionate advocates and a population push that this appeal may at least draw attention on the many problems of the SA judiciary.

Personally I think Jub Jub and Humphries are correctly decided so here is the counter view - although more from a common law position as I am not that familiar with specific SA case law

Many countries expand the definition of murder to includes scenarios where you intentionally inflict harm on a person and you foresee the possibility of death, and even wider to where you commit an unlawful act and are reckless about likely death.

Then on the manslaughter side are the cases where you are doing something which might be shockingly reckless or negligent, but you did not actually intend to cause bodily harm to the victim.

Jub Jub and Humphries fall in that bucket - but are admittedly difficult where you are engaged in some unlawful act and must have known death was a possibility

Take the case of where I decide to speed on a major highway. I know I could have a fatal accident.

But personally I think it is strange to say if I do have a fatal accident that I am guilty of murder - as I did not actually believe I would have an accident.

But the real point is - normally there is no need to shoe horn such cases into murder convictions

In NZ, manslaughter carries max life sentence same as murder.

So you could easily be sentenced to a higher manslaughter sentence for killing 10 kids in your bus, compared to where in a drunken fight at the pub you land a heavy blow and thus murder the other guy.

I also tend to think a murder conviction is much more fitting when you are intentionally firing a lethal weapon at someone, compared to traffic "accidents".

A very interesting case is Makgatho where firing a gun in a crowded place - but not at anyone directly - was held to be murder.

I do agree some sentences seem ridiculous, and especially escaping conviction by being drunk seems bizarre.

In the criminal law I learned you could not plead that as a defence to Mens Rea?

 

[4MrsB]

I think OP probably already had his cell phone in Court that day. I read somewhere that before he was led away that he handed his wristwatch to one of his relatives. So, perhaps he was handing his phone to his uncle rather than the other way round.

After looking at photo a second time, I think you're absolutely right. :gthanks:

http://www.northjersey.com/polopoly...erivatives/box_650/102114-pistorius-dngla.jpg

 

[Val1]

He may have been trying to "sex her up" (a wild phrase - ha!) but she wanted no part of it. Or maybe he wasn't even trying because he knew she wouldn't. That is, if June is correct and or Reeva was going to end it.

BBM I think the pics of the bed pretty much shows us that, since OP claims to have actually slept for 4-5 hours on the left side of the bed and that is the only side that looks even remotely disturbed.
Thanks again to lisasalinger's link, http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/pictures-from-behind-the-doorone-tragic-night/

 

[G.bng]

Is this the cousin called Graham binge? Just wondering.

Really Cherwell! Your imagination in overdrive again.

In a few months been promoted (or in this case methinks downgraded) from "mole" to "cousin" and that's with me hardly posting because of a very painful attack of Pompholyx (Dyshidrotic Eczema) affecting my fingers, especially the tips, which made it too painful to type as well as too much effort more especially since it seemed my posts were not bienvenido anyway... perchance something to do with me not going with the throng most of the time! ; - )

 

[ColonelMustard]

I don't understand your point 3.

3. PERHAPS, to "put it to" the state for appealing (her verdict).

Another sleuthed upthread said it better than I'll be able to but, she might be upset that her verdict is being challenged. If that's the case, granting him bail while the PT is trying to increase his sentence may, in her mind be "poetic justice". I also wonder it would make things messier for the PT, exactly how, I don't know.

Maybe I mean she could be passive-aggressive about the whole thing.

If she is actually retiring, she's got nothing to lose!

 

[east2west]

After looking at photo a second time, I think you're absolutely right. :gthanks:

http://www.northjersey.com/polopoly...erivatives/box_650/102114-pistorius-dngla.jpg

Notice that a few of the spectators are looking towards the hands versus the human face interaction; however OP is clearly using facial cues to convey something intentional. Both social cues are occurring simultaneously.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Val1]

Maybe because by remaining in prison he is occupying jail space and costing the State money when an appeal has even the potential to acquit him (as Nair suggested the court might at the bail hearing) or reduce his sentence to suspended.

Otoh, the longer he spends there now the more it will help to reduce any time requirement(time "served") from any appeal decisions. So should it take a year for the appeals to be decided and on the off chance they uphold the judge's conviction and sentence, he will already be walking free on probation without having to go back and finish out the requirement. So unless you think he might actually get the 15yrs and have to serve a full 6th? of it as per the law, then I suppose he might think being "free" until then is better because hey, even crossing the street can be fatal so why pay for something before he has to on the offchance he never will.

Now if I were OP, I'd rather just get it over with so I could start trying to put it all behind me as I move to Mozambique or wherever and continue life with my future plans/gf/offshore funds/etc., especially now that it sounds like he's all settled in.

 

[Val1]

Notice that a few of the spectators are looking towards the hands versus the human face interaction; however OP is clearly using facial cues to convey something intentional. Both social cues are occurring simultaneously.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Noted indeed, I'm betting dear Uncle is glad OP only has a phone in his hand.

 

[east2west]

Is Mozambique an equivalent to Costa Rica here on the other side of the Atlantic?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Val1]

Is Mozambique an equivalent to Costa Rica here on the other side of the Atlantic?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

I believe so, it not only is a different country on the continent of Africa, but from reports here it does not have an extradition treaty with SA which led a few of us to believe he might try to make a break for there if things were looking particularily bad for his sentencing, plus his dear Uncle has holdings there where it seems the whole family likes to go for holidays, the last of which OP took in December last year where he was able to spend time with his new "interest" whose parents think he's a fine chap...

 

[ColonelMustard]

Really Cherwell! Your imagination in overdrive again.

In a few months been promoted (or in this case methinks downgraded) from "mole" to "cousin" and that's with me hardly posting because of a very painful attack of Pompholyx (Dyshidrotic Eczema) affecting my fingers, especially the tips, which made it too painful to type as well as too much effort more especially since it seemed my posts were not bienvenido anyway... perchance something to do with me not going with the throng most of the time! ; - )

Well, you're back now, so stick around!!! :happydance:

ps. I'm SO sorry to hear about the eczema. I understand that it can be VERY painful. Rather than type, how about using a voice-to-text program and saving your finger tips?

 

[pandax81]

I don't think would apply as the CH conviction is not being appealed.

In theory I guess Masipa's sentence could be reduced on appeal but it seems unlikely unless the defence actually cross appeal.

Maybe read the section again properly.

 

[soozieqtips]

I don't think would apply as the CH conviction is not being appealed.

In theory I guess Masipa's sentence could be reduced on appeal but it seems unlikely unless the defence actually cross appeal.

BIB - it absolutely is being appealed!

 

[mrjitty]

BIB - it absolutely is being appealed!

OK - maybe bad choice of words from me.

At this point in time OP is guilty of at least CH

The state seeks conviction on a more serious charge which supercedes that.

But that conviction for CH is not challenged (so far) by the defence and so at least that will stand as a minimum no matter what happens on appeal.

Therefore, the way I interpret the section, bail would not be available unless OP appeals against conviction.

It would be absurd if having been found guilty of CH, and with no appeal against conviction from the defence, and with the state seeking a more serious conviction and extended sentence, the accused was allowed out on bail.

Unless he appeals - as a minimum he must serve Masipa's sentence no matter the outcome.

Therefore there is no reason to treat him as "unconvicted" as neither side is disputing that sentence as the minimum.

Indeed it would be very strange if the very judge who sentenced him to prison, could then release him because he isn't appealing his conviction or sentence?

Pandax obviously holds a different view.

ETA: And of course I understand that view and he may well be right

 

[MsMarple]

I was looking back at some of Oscar's old tweets and the contrast between his life then and now is striking. I had never heard of Oscar Pistorius until his trial (which I discovered here on WS) and hadn't known just how popular and idolized he was. Once.

Reading about his international travel, television appearances, product advertizing and well-wishing comments from strangers illustrates that he really has gone “from hero to zero.” This was a man who had everything and who, IMO, threw it all away in the blink of an eye – though perhaps in the pulling of a trigger would be more accurate.

A couple of tweets caught my eye. The first is his answer to the question of who watches his dogs when he travels:

https://twitter.com/OscarPistorius/status/279094519234953216

Which is interesting, considering that Stander testified it was he who did that job except for the time Reeva watched the dogs. Frank, where were you that night?

The second tweet is sad to me in that Oscar inspired a fan with his words – a sentiment that he vehemently denied on the stand:

https://twitter.com/OscarPistorius/status/250608933553721346

 

[Lux et Veritas]

From this point forward, OP will never be “free” - whether he serves 10 months or 15 years.

“Hero” Oscar’s offense was so grievous, the entire ‘mosaic’ surrounding his life so permanently tainted, that in the public eye, the scales will likely never be balanced, his debt never fully repaid.

Not only did OP steal Reeva’s life and that of her family and friends, he wounded and stole South Africa’s greatest pride, hopes, dreams - the beloved national hero that was Bladerunner.

After prison, it’s highly likely that wherever he goes, whatever he does, he’ll be dogged with permanent bodyguards. Now a notorious persona, to do otherwise would all but invite the inevitable public controversy, conflict, verbal and/or physical altercations ... and given his aggressive, narcissistic personality, anger and alcohol issues ... perhaps much worse, even deadly scenarios. (However, knowing OP, I suspect he’ll aggressively shun any bodyguards in his usual displays of bravado, like he did on several days the last week of sentencing, when he strode conspicuously alone into the courthouse.)

By his own hand, he’s now a marked man for life. OP will pay for his brutal crime on multiple levels till the day he dies. Once he gains his “freedom”, the whole of South Africa may be a worse, more dangerous “prison” than even Kgosi Mampuru Prison - OP’s safety once aggressively guaranteed and enforced by Commissioner Zach Modise long gone.

There is no black abyss deeper than the one into which fallen heroes descend.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Is this the cousin called Graham binge? Just wondering.

What a truly fascinating observation. I think I'll go back in time if you know what I mean.