Trial Discussion Thread #55 - 14.14.10, Day 44 ~ sentencing~

[Estelle]

BIB - it's not as much as that. It's just under £350.

It was $545! not pounds!

 

[soozieqtips]

It was $545! not pounds!

6000 rand is just under £350. Lemon had a £ by the 545 instead of the $ sign. That's where the confusion was :smile:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...hannel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=oyg9VK7fMueq8wfZgIHwCA

 

[04009margaret]

EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 39 mins 39 minutes ago
#OscarTrial Steenkamp's advocate Dup de Bruyn has just given an impromptu media statement here in court

EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 41 mins 41 minutes ago
#OscarTrial De Bruyn: After Reeva was killed, the parents were in financial difficulty. I communicated this to OP's lawyers

EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 41 mins 41 minutes ago
#OscarTrial De Bruyn: An offer was made to pay R6000 a month which was accepted. We will pay it back as soon as can afford to do so.

EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 42 mins 42 minutes ago
#OscarTrial De Bruyn: There will be no civil case against Oscar Pistorius from the Steenkamps.

EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 40 mins 40 minutes ago
#OscarTrial Dup de Bruyn deep in conversation with Barry Roux and the rest of the defence legal team.

 

[K.T]

6000 rand is just under £350. Lemon had a £ by the 545 instead of £ sign. That's where the confusion was :smile:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...hannel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=oyg9VK7fMueq8wfZgIHwCA

I see it as classic defence strategy. Often used in partner abuse and sexual assault trials.

Get a victim (if alive) or the victim's family to accept any gifts or money from the perpetrator. They can then portray them in court, and hopefully in media, as gold-digger opportunists that the accused tried to help altruistically and with 'remorse'.

It's deflection. It's blame re-redirection and it's horribly cynically effective. And it is a ploy that often works as people want to victimblame or chose to see the 'famous' or 'respectable' defendant as the 'real' victim.

 

[LemonMousse]

My mistake. I mistook $ for £.

 

[Sherbert]

Key points so far

With Pistorius’s agent Peet van Zyl having testified yesterday about the athlete’s philanthropic activities, state prosecutor Gerrie Nel attempted to use his cross-examination to suggest that Pistorius’s charity was motivated as much by self-promotion as by altruism.

Social worker Annette Vergeer took the stand as the defence’s final witness. Like Joel Maringa yesterday, she had prepared a report recommending that Pistorius undergo three years house arrest with community service.

In justifying this finding, Vergeer pointed to Pistorius’s remorse, his youth, his unlikeliness to re-offend, and his disability as reasons why the athlete was a better candidate for a non-custodial sentence.

Vergeer sketched a bleak picture of South African prisons, describing them as overcrowded, unsanitary, rife with drugs and crime, and unlikely to be able to fulfil Pistorius’s medical needs.
Vergeer said that she was aware that a sentence of house arrest would – wrongly, in her view – be perceived as too lenient, but that one should remember that the purpose of sentencing was “not to satisfy public opinion, but to serve public interest”.

BBM I'm sure Masipa will have lapped up that trite little maxim of lenient probation-speak:

Excerpt from Anderson v S (CA&R75/2012) [2013] ZAECGHC 69 (19 June 2013)

It appears to me from the above remarks that the learned Magistrate was correct in taking into consideration the interests of the society in his sentencing. It is trite law that those considerations should be taken into account by the Court in its assessment of the seriousness of the crime...I am mindful of the general note of caution expressed by Harms JA in S v Mhlakaza:-

“The object of sentencing is not to satisfy public opinion but to serve the public interest.......... . A sentencing policy that caters predominantly or exclusively for public opinion is inherently flawed. It remains the Court’s duty to impose fearlessly an appropriate and fair sentence even if the sentence does not satisfy the public. ...........public opinion may have some relevance to the enquiry, but in itself, it is no substitute for the duty vested in the Court, the Court cannot allow itself to be diverted from its duty to act as an independent arbiter by making choices on the basis that they will find favour with the public.”

Reverting to this case I do not find anything in his judgment showing the learned Magistrate to have over-emphasised or over-stated the element of the societal views. He seems to me to have taken the views of the society as one of the factors in his sentencing.

Public or private indignation can be no more than one factor in the equation which adds up to a proper sentence.

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAECGHC/2013/69.html

 

[LemonMousse]

It's also worth remembering that when the Steenkamps initially accepted the money they may well have believed that it could have been a tragic accident.

They have always been very fair when talking about him - far more than I would be, in their position.

I would have been inclined to believe that this was a decent gesture on the part of OP - if he hadn't made sure the court heard about it just when it's being decided whether he should go to prison or not.

Horrible, horrible little man.

 

[soozieqtips]

I see it as classic defence strategy. Often used in partner abuse and sexual assault trials.

Get a victim (if alive) or a victim's family to accept any gifts or money from the perpetrator and then portray them if not in court and hopefully in media as gold-digger opportunists that you tried to help altruistically.

It's deflection. It's blame re-redirection and it's horribly effective. And it is a cynical ploy that often works people often victim blame or chose to see the 'famous' or 'respectable' defendant as the 'real' victim.

I could understand it being perceived as opportunistic if Reeva's parents were accepting monthly payments if they didn't need it. But as they were probably getting the same amount they used to get from Reeva, I can't see why anyone would view that negatively. Barry Steenkamp really doesn't need financial stress on top of the physical stress he's already suffered with the stroke. And OP's DT are quite happy to drop in at every opportunity how much this has financially cost OP, and how he would be able to rebuild his career (and make more money) if he doesn't go to jail. However, I'm glad for their own sakes that they're now in a position to pay him back.

 

[Hatfield]

It's also worth remembering that when the Steenkamps initially accepted the money they may well have believed that it could have been a tragic accident.

They have always been very fair when talking about him - far more than I would be, in their position.

I would have been inclined to believe that this was a decent gesture on the part of OP - if he hadn't made sure the court heard about it just when it's being decided whether he should go to prison or not.

Horrible, horrible little man.

Its very obvious to me that OP uses his family's wealth as a weapon to go through his life.

Remember the fight in the VIP lounge. It was alleged that OP brought up his families wealth and contacts to threaten the guy in the bar. OP claimed his families contacts would crush them one way or another.

At least that is what I read was alleged he said during the argument/fight before the guy pushed him to the floor.

Its one thing to be wealthy and modest about it. Its quite another to be arrogant, stuck-up, and flaunt your wealth wherever you go. Its obvious OP is the latter.

 

[soozieqtips]

It's also worth remembering that when the Steenkamps initially accepted the money they may well have believed that it could have been a tragic accident.

They have always been very fair when talking about him - far more than I would be, in their position.

I would have been inclined to believe that this was a decent gesture on the part of OP - if he hadn't made sure the court heard about it just when it's being decided whether he should go to prison or not.

Horrible, horrible little man.

I agree they probably thought it was an accident at the beginning. It wouldn't be your first thought to assume your daughter had been murdered by her partner. And June Steenkamp has always said she could forgive OP at some point if she just got to hear the real truth. Even Barry has been more than humble in the words he's chosen to describe how he feels about what happened. Sadly, they didn't get to hear the truth, and now OP has stabbed them in the back by making public what he said he wanted kept secret. He really is a nasty piece of work.

 

[turaj]

Defence strategy. It's continually been about confusing the court with details, herrings and moral subterfuge. Masipa buys it all, lacks intelligence or competence. Media and some public will blame vicim's family for not being "perfect" victims, re-directing attention away from the entitled, manipulative Pistorous. He and his team will do anything to make him seem better, especially by making Nel, prosecution, prosecution witnesses and or the victim/victim's family and supporter's look worse.

Just watched (or should I say skimmed through) first half of today. T o my way of thinking this week is pure rubbish....now that we know where this judge is coming from listening to all of this is torture. While Nel makes excellent points I now see it so much differently...I know the judge does not care at all about his points (he seems to know it too) but he continues. I feel like I am watching a game of charades or something like that and we all know the outcome. Uncle Arnold sits so confidently...he already knows exactly what will happen...this courtroom reeks of corruption but it is so far behind the scenes one could never hope to uncover it.

 

[Estelle]

£350. That's not very much, is it? Don't know what the cost of living is like in SA, but that wouldn't pay many bills for me.

About 85 pounds per week!

I think that someone has advised June to write the book rather than take this money or to pay it back.

 

[Nali87]

Hold on. The parents accepted money from OP in march of 2014 until recently? So during the trial as well? And they (via their attorney) contacted OP for cash? That's very very strange.

 

[Estelle]

EWN Reporter @ewnreporter · 33m 33 minutes ago
#OscarTrial Batchelor, Schultz, Yahav, Mortimer, Sam Taylor have all gone out through a side entrance here to go meet with prosecuting team

Sam Taylor apparently wore a black dress today which had a picture of Reeva on her back.

Who are Schultz, Yahav and Mortimer?

Their names are mentioned here:

http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2014/07/15/an-open-letter-to-oscar-pistorius/

Pic of Mikey Schultz:

http://www.gettyimages.com.au/detai...ng-of-oscar-pistorius-in-news-photo/457197164

Looks like they are rallying around to support Nel to get a jail sentence.

Just adding this:

A number of colourful and controversial characters from South Africa's criminal underworld have joined the public benches since the lengthy sentencing hearing got under way.

Mikey Shultz, a self-confessed killer, and Guil Yahav, a former bouncer who also faced murder charges, sat on the side of the court which has traditionally been occupied by Miss Steenkamp's friends and relatives.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rm-killing-reeva-steenkamp.html#ixzz3G8CngwMB

 

[Madeleine74]

To my way of thinking this week is pure rubbish....now that we know where this judge is coming from listening to all of this is torture.

Agreed

This is why I refuse to watch or follow closely the hearings. What's the point in getting my blood pressure up? The judge is going to decide and she's going to base it on whatever she wants in the end. The guilt phase proved that, so why would the sentencing phase be any different?

I fully expect him to not get any prison time. If he does I'll be shocked.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

So basically the defense was saying that since the prisons are in such bad shape that OP should not be sent to one. Good Grief.

I suppose we should:
- just let all prisoners out then since prisons are so bad. Let them all run free.
- stop having courts altogether since nobody should be sent to prisons in such bad shape
- no need for judges or attorneys anymore since courts can be abolished.
- go ahead and end the trial now since we cant send OP to such bad prisons. Marsipa can just go home now and never have to come to court again for anyone else.

Yep, that's it in a nutshell.

We have definitely stepped into the Twilight Zone. Two quotes by Rod Serling that seem appropriate for this trial.


'There is nothing in the dark that isn't there when the lights are on.' ROD SERLING

Unless of course you're Oscar Pistorius, he made darkness a state of mind.


It is said that science fiction and fantasy are two different things. Science fiction is the improbable made possible, and fantasy is the impossible made probable. ROD SERLING

I've had a gut full of all the improbables [sic], the impossibles, I'm expecting a :ufo: to turn up any minute.

 

[turaj]

Agreed

This is why I refuse to watch or follow closely the hearings. What's the point in getting my blood pressure up? The judge is going to decide and she's going to base it on whatever she wants in the end. The guilt phase proved that, so why would the sentencing phase be any different?

I fully expect him to not get any prison time. If he does I'll be shocked.

Yes I guess it is the same as doing exactly the same thing a second time and expecting a different result...simply futile.

 

[Estelle]

Defence strategy. It's continually been about confusing the court with details, herrings and moral subterfuge. Masipa buys it all, lacks intelligence or competence. Media and some public will blame vicim's family for not being "perfect" victims, re-directing attention away from the entitled, manipulative Pistorous. He and his team will do anything to make him seem better, especially by making Nel, prosecution, prosecution witnesses and or the victim/victim's family and supporter's look worse.

...and disadvantaging Nel by giving him expert witness reports on the day so he cannot prepare.

 

[K.T]

Sam Taylor apparently wore a black dress today which had a picture of Reeva on her back.

Who are Schultz, Yahav and Mortimer?

Looks like they rallying around to support Nel to get a jail sentence.

Jared Mortimer and Pistorius had the recent nightclub incident where Mortimer accused him of starting an tequila-drunken argument, poking him and arrogantly bragging Pistorius family had SANDF (South African Defence Force) connections, meaning he has powerful protection.
Afterward Pistorius posted on twitter those hilarious tweets on love, god and inspirational redemption memes.

 

[K.T]

More of Schultz and Yahav here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-bid-avoid-jail-term-killing-reeva-steenkamp