Post sentencing discussion

[jilly]

Same here..maybe non-subscribers are only allowed one time to access articles on their website.

That's not fair!:crazy:

 

[jilly]

That is too funny !! :floorlaugh:

I agree! lol

 

[AW2B]

That's not fair!:crazy:

Hey! I was JUST able to access the entire article..I think it's against the forum rules to post an entire article. Maybe we are allowed to read one article per day..:thinking:

 

[AW2B]

Nathi Mncube, spokesman for the prosecuting authority, said the prosecution was preparing the legal documents and will file them, formally starting the appeal process, by Tuesday Nov. 4..

----------------------------

First, the Supreme Court has to approve the move to appeal, a decision based on whether it is likely that a different judge would have reached a different verdict from Judge Masipa.
If the move to appeal is rejected, the prosecution may appeal that rejection. Ms. Phelps said that the decision to accept or reject a move to appeal is normally made within 21 days of the formal appeal launch.
If the appeal is accepted, then a single Supreme Court judge will hear the appeal case.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/sout...eal-pistorius-verdict-and-sentence-1414417054

 

[Sherbert]

But it's hard to see why he could have changed his mind, given that he stated:

“The law is quite clear. If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it. If you kill a person it must be in such severe circumstances that there’s virtually no other way open to protect your life.”

I mean, that's where his defence falls down for me, even if one accepts that he thought there was a burglar. He went out of his way to confront danger, when he could have left the bedroom with Reeva, locking the door behind them.

Yes, unless he originally meant that OP would not be acquitted altogether because he went out of his way to confront danger.

Apart from De Oliveira, every case cited results in a verdict of CH. And, had De Oliveira given evidence, I suspect that he also may have escaped a murder conviction.

Judging by those cases, in order to convict of murder, everything seems to turn on whether the Court accepts that it is reasonably possibly true that the killer honestly believed that his life was in danger.

 

[soozieqtips]

Yes, unless he originally meant that OP would not be acquitted altogether because he went out of his way to confront danger.

Apart from De Oliveira, every case cited results in a verdict of CH. And, had De Oliveira given evidence, I suspect that he also may have escaped a murder conviction.

Judging by those cases, in order to convict of murder, everything seems to turn on whether the Court accepts that it is reasonably possibly true that the killer honestly believed that his life was in danger.

BIB - even knowing that OP had used a gun before when angry, and knowing that Reeva had made it clear she was wary of OP and his temper - Masipa didn't once accept that it was 'reasonably possibly true' that Reeva honestly believed her life was in danger on the night she was killed.

 

[jilly]

Hey! I was JUST able to access the entire article..I think it's against the forum rules to post an entire article. Maybe we are allowed to read one article per day..:thinking:

Right.
Strange. I just tried it again and nothing. I've only read it once and that was yesterday....I think.

 

[ColonelMustard]

I'm from the deep south as in Louisiana. "I do declare" does not mean "thank you." Most often it meant surprise at what was being said, or even a mild form of expressing a distaste of something. Of course it doesn't matter and the saying is extremely very rarely said anymore.

I came back to this thread to ask if it is really true there will be an appeal in this case. I still don't know the answer!

Thanks!

I guess it depends where in the south one is from.

I'm a southern belle who was variously raised in Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, and Tennessee.:cheers:

 

[AW2B]

Right.
Strange. I just tried it again and nothing. I've only read it once and that was yesterday....I think.

I just quoted the parts that relate to the appeal process..

 

[ColonelMustard]

Here's the black eye. But I'm sure I remember seeing more photos, showing him with people at the event.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-mystery-blade-runners-1727475

View attachment 62370

"Ask and ye shall receive."

Cherwell, this is AMAZING.

There's nothing around here that somebody can't get their hands on.

Heck, if someone said, "Where's the Treasure of the Sierra Madre?", within a day or so somebody here would find it and we'd all be rich!!

 

[Fuskier]

Especially as OP was not strictly a first-time offender. He just happened to have weaseled his way out of being punished for the other crimes. Reeva's killing was the first time he was held to account, but it most certainly was not his first offence.

'First time offender before The Law'. Agree soozieqtips: the first time he was held to account before The SA Law. :goodpost:

 

[Estelle]

Oh my goodness! Dancing with a black eye and a gun? Lol! What a complete and utter tool...

With what we are finding out about OP, I can't understand why a lovely girl such as Reeva would date him twice let alone for 10 weeks. She met him on Nov 4 and this event would have occurred either the next week or the week after. I wonder if they had any dates in that time? Maybe OP avoided her while he had the black eye and was sorting out his problems with Quentin Van der Burgh and Sam Taylor. But surely people told her about this fight unless he lied to her about how it was caused and she chose to believe him. They did not seem to start dating regularly until December, 2013 and I read that Reeva followed Sam Taylor on Instagram to keep up to date with what was going on with ST and OP.

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-...ly-believe-prosecutors-appeal-correct/5849378

Oscar Pistorius: Reeva Steenkamp's family believe prosecutors' appeal 'correct' if in society's interest
AFP
The families of Oscar Pistorius and the woman he killed have accepted the decision by South African prosecutors to press for a murder conviction and a harsher sentence for the athlete... The uncle of Reeva Steenkamp, Michael Steenkamp, said:
"If it's in the interest of society ... then I think they should go forward if they think it's correct,"... "We take note of the state's announcement. The law must take its course," the athlete's uncle, Arnold Pistorius, said in a statement on Tuesday...

 

[Sherbert]

With what we are finding out about OP, I can't understand why a lovely girl such as Reeva would date him twice let alone for 10 weeks. She met him on Nov 4 and this event would have occurred either the next week or the week after. I wonder if they had any dates in that time? Maybe OP avoided her while he had the black eye and was sorting out his problems with Quentin Van der Burgh and Sam Taylor. But surely people told her about this fight unless he lied to her about how it was caused and she chose to believe him. They did not seem to start dating regularly until December, 2013 and I read that Reeva followed Sam Taylor on Instagram to keep up to date with what was going on with ST and OP.

I suspect he appealed to her maternal instincts. She probably thought that, deep down, he was a decent guy - just a bit moody and wild on the outside - perhaps, due to the prosthetics and the loss of his mother.

Also, when someone is so adored by the public, it's quite easy to be influenced into thinking they must be decent or so many would not have been fooled.

I read somewhere that her mother thought she must have been flattered by all the attention and I agree that this obviously must have played its part.

 

[Estelle]

Was this before or after he told Batchelor he'd break his legs, I wonder.

The meeting with Hawks was after OP phoned Batchelor and threatened him.

 

[44ALLAN]

But it's hard to see why he could have changed his mind, given that he stated:

“The law is quite clear. If you can escape the imminent danger without putting your life in danger you have to do it. If you kill a person it must be in such severe circumstances that there’s virtually no other way open to protect your life.”

I mean, that's where his defence falls down for me, even if one accepts that he thought there was a burglar. He went out of his way to confront danger, when he could have left the bedroom with Reeva, locking the door behind them.

Which is exactly what Nel hammered home several times in his XE and which ,it seems,Masipa and the assessors totally ignored...............as well as photo 55 and a woman screaming/heard by at least 4 independent witnesses blah blah lol..................feck me i'll explode if one more person on here tells me Masipa and these assessors are qualified and came to the right decision/verdict....................DID THEY HELL .........NO WAY.

They are incompetent and should be dis barred immediately after this debacle they really should be. IMO

 

[ColonelMustard]

I've had some horrendous dreams about slim blonde models and I'm thinking of suing OP

THAT must be what got you so fired up in post #1002! Ha!

Fundamentally, I agree with you, bro, but some people sincerely don't agree with either of us.

It's always been interesting to me how people can look at exactly the same thing and come to two diametrically opposite conclusions about it - like this face/vase picture/optical illusion thing.

I haven't seen many posts from them in awhile but there's a group (albeit rather smaller) of brave folks who were active in this forum before the verdict, who strongly voiced the minority opinion.

I was always mystified about what they were seeing in every twist and turn of the trial, that I was 100% not seeing.

They may have been asking themselves the same thing about what I wrote.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Transcript of update from NPA spokesperson, Nathi Mncube posted on 27 Oct. Mr Fossil kindly provided the Youtube link on p.39. I think this sort of interview is best transcribed to avoid going back and forth with the video.

Q. What’s the process or the steps that will need to be followed from this point forward?

A. Well, the first step is that we have to prepare our papers, which we are busy with at this point in time. We’ll then have to file those papers with the Registrar of the High Court. The application for leave to appeal will then have to be heard. If it’s granted we’ll then, of course, wait for the matter to be heard at the Supreme Court of Appeal. So that will all depend on whether the application that we’ll be lodging with the court will be successful or not.

Q. What sort of timeframes are we looking at?

A. Well, we don’t really have the timeframe but we have undertaken that we will try to speed up the process and lodge the papers as soon as possible. We think we should be able to do that within the next 6 or 7 days from now on and hopefully the latest should be Monday, the 3rd of November 2014.

Q. Is Judge Masipa’s interpretation of murder on dolus eventualis the bone of contention here?

A. Well, we are not going to disclose our arguments at this point in time. As I’ve said earlier, we have not lodged our papers. It will become evident in our papers what is the bone of contention and which aspect of the law we’re going to argue and why we’re arguing that way, save to say that of course as we all know, that as NPA, you can only appeal on the question of law, and of course that is what we are doing at this point in time. But also, we are not just appealing the conviction. We are also appealing the sentence. So we are going to make sure that when we go before Judge Masipa to argue for the leave to appeal, that we are prepared to – we are well-prepared, and of course, we are able to present a very sound argument in law before her.

Q. What sort of judgment would be suitable for this case in particular? What is the NPA looking forward to?

A. Well, we have to look back to at what we charged him with initially. We had charged Mr Pistorius with premeditated murder, and of course when we were arguing you will recall that our argument on whether he should be convicted or not was that he should be convicted of murder. Of course we did say after he was acquitted on the charge of murder and only convicted on culpable homicide, we did indicate that we respected that decision but that we felt that we held a different view and we thought that the outcome would have been different. We have then had the matter finalised on the 20th of October. We indicated again that we wanted a sentence at least a minimum of 10 years for the culpable homicide and the reason for that was that we felt that Mr Pistorius was grossly negligent in the manner that he committed the offence. So our view was that the only suitable sentence was 10 years, at least a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment. So we got half of that and we did not get a conviction on premeditated murder. We think that, as I said, we do have grounds in law to appeal the conviction and the sentence.

Q. If the Appeals Court rules in the NPA’s favour, will Oscar Pistorius’s jail term automatically be lengthened? What is the process thereafter?

A. Well, we do not want to jump the gun. I think that what we think what we want to do right now is to make sure that we succeed with the leave to appeal, and when that is granted, we’ll then wait for the matter to be heard at the Supreme Court of Appeal. But of course, in the event that we are successful with this move, it means that the sentence will automatically have to change. But as I said, if that doesn’t happen, we’re still gonna go and argue that the sentence that was imposed, in our view is not an appropriate one when one takes into account that he was convicted of culpable homicide but he was grossly negligent, and according to the judge, he actually – his act bordered on dolus eventualis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo_mjQpcii4&feature=youtu.be

Before anyone states that he's wrong saying he was charged with premeditated murder, let me explain ...

The charge document says:

p.1 "The applicant is charged with MURDER.

p.2 The State argues that the applicant is charged with an offence referred to in schedule 6

Murder, when

(a) It was pre-planned or premeditated;"

The charge was murder and p.2 is only describing the type of murder.

The application will be made on or about 3 November. This is not the date of the appeal. Judge Masipa will only be deciding whether to grant leave or not. If she refuses this, the NPA can still make an application for review (I think with the SCA itself) for leave to appeal. Judge Masipa will not be one of the judges hearing the appeal.

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/oscar-pistorius-charging-documents/

Criminal Appeals
The Supreme Court of Appeal is the court of appeal in respect of appeals and questions of law reserved in connection with criminal cases heard by a high court, except in cases where a court granting leave to appeal is satisfied that the appeal does not require the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal. In such cases it directs that the appeal be heard by a full court.

http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/aboutsca.htm

In terms of section 12 of the Supreme Court Act, the quorum of judges for both civil and criminal appeals in the Supreme Court of Appeal is generally five judges, and the judgment of the majority is the judgment of the court.

http://www.northernlaw.co.za/import...tutional_court_judgment/Jurisdiction.LSSA.pdf

 

[JudgeJudi]

1st Sentence BBM - I had seen the first link before which let us know that the black-eye-vid took place around Jan. 24, 2013, but I was never able to find out where the vid shoot took place.

I had never seen the below link (Ty) before. Does anybody know if vid was shot in Cape Town? If so, then the vid was most likely taken while OP and buddies were on their extended road trip to Cape Town... the road trip which imo caused RS to say in that long WhatsApp mgs complaining about OP's behavior towards her on Jan. 26 & 27: "you have picked on me incessantly since you got back from CT."

http://www.mambaonline.com/article.asp?artid=7888
<snipped>The South African videos will be launched as part of the Cape Town Holocaust Centre&#8217;s In Whom Can I Still Trust? exhibition, which looks at homophobia in Nazi Germany and the gay rights movement in South Africa, on February 20 at 7:00 pm. <snipped>

I just love the last paragraph in the article linked above, "According to an earlier press release, Pistorius was quoted as saying in his video: &#8220;Just remember that you&#8217;re special. You don&#8217;t have to worry. You don&#8217;t have to change. Take a deep breath and remember it will get better.&#8221;

He's got time to meditate in his present surroundings. I suggest he sits on the floor and chants this continuously.

 

[JudgeJudi]

@JudgeJudi - do you know if Masipa has ANY input to the process ? Does she have to explain why she came to her conclusion ?

Sorry, I don't. All I know is that she makes the decision. I'd imagine she'd have to explain it in document form because if it was denied, the applicant would need it in order to ?petition a higher court for leave.