Trial Discussion Thread #56 - 14.15.10, Day 45 ~ sentencing~

[soozieqtips]

Having see how traumatised Reeva's family still are, it makes me wonder how they'll feel when OP is given house arrest and a few hours doing community service of his own choosing. How a convicted killer could be an inspiration to disabled children, I don't know. I could kind of see him doing something like that after 15 years in jail, giving something back to the community for free, but not until he's spent some behind bars being held to account for what he's done.

 

[Fuskier]

http://abcnews.go.com/International...ius-homicide-victim-testify/story?id=26208958

Parents of Oscar Pistorius' Homicide Victim Won't Testify Against Him
PRETORIA, South Africa — Oct 15, 2014, 9:03 AM ET
By LIEZL THOM

...The parents of Reeva Steenkamp said today they will remain "neutral" and not testify against Oscar Pistorius in the penalty phase of Pistorius' trial for the culpable homicide of their daughter... In the statement released today, the Steenkamps' lawyers stated, "We have advised the parents to remain neutral in regard to sentence in the sense that they should not be seen to attempt to influence the sentence in any way." After the payments were revealed Tuesday, the lawyers for Steenkamp's parents said they were dropping their civil suit claims against Pistorius and would repay the roughly $10,000 he had given them...

IMO a bereaved person is a vulnerable person. Reeva's parents were 'bereaved' - it looks like pernicious influence using money as an investment for eventual political gain in a politicized legal arena. So depraved, but so common with political influence exploiting the vulnerabilities of others for one's own political-legal gain. My opinion only.

IMO it is further disturbing that a previously unknown 'murky' relationship between Pistorius and the Steencamps came to light during the sentencing phase; it advantages OP as the 'benevolent giver' and creates a 'murky' neediness over the Steencamps as the 'beneficiaries'.

 

[soozieqtips]

http://abcnews.go.com/International...ius-homicide-victim-testify/story?id=26208958

Parents of Oscar Pistorius' Homicide Victim Won't Testify Against Him
PRETORIA, South Africa — Oct 15, 2014, 9:03 AM ET
By LIEZL THOM

...The parents of Reeva Steenkamp said today they will remain "neutral" and not testify against Oscar Pistorius in the penalty phase of Pistorius' trial for the culpable homicide of their daughter... In the statement released today, the Steenkamps' lawyers stated, "We have advised the parents to remain neutral in regard to sentence in the sense that they should not be seen to attempt to influence the sentence in any way." After the payments were revealed Tuesday, the lawyers for Steenkamp's parents said they were dropping their civil suit claims against Pistorius and would repay the roughly $10,000 he had given them...

I don't even know how they could influence the sentence. Does anyone honestly think Masipa would take a blind bit of notice of their feelings?

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Having see how traumatised Reeva's family still are, it makes me wonder how they'll feel when OP is given house arrest and a few hours doing community service of his own choosing. How a convicted killer could be an inspiration to disabled children, I don't know. I could kind of see him doing something like that after 15 years in jail, giving something back to the community for free, but not until he's spent some behind bars being held to account for what he's done.

I think they will experience the same utter devastation as the moment when they found out Reeva was shot dead. IMO

 

[Cherwell]

That was Wollie.

(It's ok, it's hard to tell them apart.)

Aww, I liked Wollie.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Please do share! I am curious to learn your view. I have suspected the same thing, but for the life of me, cannot think why???

IMO, it comes back to Reeva staying overnight at OP's house. I could be way off but I think if Reeva had been his wife, JMasipa would treat this trial differently. I'm not saying the verdict would have been different but her attitude towards the deceased would have been. If she feels Reeva didn't belong in his house, in his bed, then the idea that OP suspected an intruder seems more credible.
She has driven it home imo, that OP should feel absolutely safe in his home, that a shadowy figure in the dark looming over his bed deserves to be shot dead. She doesn't hold the same view that Reeva should have felt safe there, it wasn't her home. She shouldn't be lurking in the shadows, going to the toilet, she just shouldn't be there.

Phew got that out of my system.

 

[mrjitty]

The tampering claim is alleged and untested and we don't know what happened there. We don't know whether it was malevolent or what the motivation was or whether it was accidental or deliberate. We don't know what, if any, the impact was. Was anything relevant to justice deleted that wasn't recovered through other means? That would matter very much to me. In short, if the data was tampered with to thwart justice I would think that was criminal and wrong. If it was tampered with deliberately but only to protect Oscar's privacy or reputation or the privacy and reputation of others in a way that was not relevant to the case I would take a more understanding view of it.

False.

The cell tower data show the phone was removed from the premises and was later surrendered by the defence.

Therefore it is 100% certain that evidence was tampered with. Namely - the removal of the phone from the crime scene.

Once that occurred, no one can be certain as to the original state of the phone.

The very act of removal is tampering with the evidence because via that act the value of the phone as evidence was destroyed.

To say "oh but we can't know if anything was deleted" is absurd

That's the entire reason we don't let the defence remove evidence from the crime scene.

Which ought to be self evident.

 

[ColonelMustard]

It's been referred to on previous threads as "upspeak". I believe the witness Carice Viljoen had a similar inflection. I'm not sure though if Speech Pathology refers to that particular inflection as such. Does any member know? Curious.

Samantha Taylor also spoke that way.

 

[WilliamMunter]

Having trouble copying and pasting the actual image, but here are a couple of links:

See post #3 on this WS thread: WITNESS THREAD: Warrant Officer Barend Van Staden, Crime Scene Photographer

https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/crime_9.jpg

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...reamed-and-ran-into-the-bathroom-9251722.html

Regarding photo 55 I'm still waiting for that expert who will prove that the crime scene was tampered with.

 

[jilly]

IMO he should have been able to say 40 if they were all relevant to this stage of the trial. I defended Milady many many times when others were having doubts and fears but I now think that there is something wrong there as well. What, I don't know, but something. I'm inclining towards the woman assessor having more influence than she should or some issue along those lines. She never reprimanded Roux when he caused all those earlier delays with witnesses not being there and ready to go (probably because they were still frantically searching the internet or doing highly non-scientific tests) and she allowed his mitigation witnesses such as the agent to go on and on but then denies Nel the time to do his job. It's all very disappointing.

:goodpost:

 

[Marfa Lights]

It's been referred to on previous threads as "upspeak". I believe the witness Carice Viljoen had a similar inflection. I'm not sure though if Speech Pathology refers to that particular inflection as such. Does any member know? Curious.

More on "upspeak": http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28708526

 

[WilliamMunter]

False.

The cell tower data show the phone was removed from the premises and was later surrendered by the defence.

Therefore it is 100% certain that evidence was tampered with. Namely - the removal of the phone from the crime scene.

Once that occurred, no one can be certain as to the original state of the phone.

The very act of removal is tampering with the evidence because via that act the value of the phone as evidence was destroyed.

To say "oh but we can't know if anything was deleted" is absurd

That's the entire reason we don't let the defence remove evidence from the crime scene.

Which ought to be self evident.

BBM

Ah but don't forget, Judge Arnold ruled that anything that was deleted was not relevant

“We are not sure of the allegations which are to be made or the source of such allegations, but we are not aware of any deletions having been affected by Oscar or effected on his instructions that could be relevant to this trial or could have impacted on this trial

http://www.sabreakingnews.co.za/201...other-allegedly-tampered-with-athletes-phone/

 

[Cherwell]

IMO, it comes back to Reeva staying overnight at OP's house. I could be way off but I think if Reeva had been his wife, JMasipa would treat this trial differently. I'm not saying the verdict would have been different but her attitude towards the deceased would have been. If she feels Reeva didn't belong in his house, in his bed, then the idea that OP suspected an intruder seems more credible.
She has driven it home imo, that OP should feel absolutely safe in his home, that a shadowy figure in the dark looming over his bed deserves to be shot dead. She doesn't hold the same view that Reeva should have felt safe there, it wasn't her home. She shouldn't be lurking in the shadows, going to the toilet, she just shouldn't be there.

Phew got that out of my system.

She also probably disapproves of Reeva's modelling career. She may take the view that Reeva had wasted her opportunities by failing to pursue a legal career, choosing instead to pose for titillating photos in trashy magazines and flaunting herself on reality TV.

I bet that's what she thinks.

 

[lithgow1]

Regarding photo 55 I'm still waiting for that expert who will prove that the crime scene was tampered with.

I'm still waiting for that too, but the main thing I need to be convinced of is that OP's recount of what happened that night is at all reasonably possibly true. I'm generally quite trusting and gullible but it's going to take a lot more than what I heard in that courtroom to make me believe that version of events.

 

[Aika]

She also probably disapproves of Reeva's modelling career. She may take the view that Reeva had wasted her opportunities by failing to pursue a legal career, choosing instead to pose for titillating photos in trashy magazines and flaunting herself on reality TV.

I bet that's what she thinks.

That’s what I’ve been thinking.

Masipa fought really, really hard during the apartheid to "make it" and several of her old friends said Masipa was "bitter" because she couldn’t study.

She was quite old when she finished her law studies. And here we have Reeva, who had a law degree - but decides to do something else instead.

 

[jilly]

BIB - I forgot about that for a moment. There are so many questionable things they've done that it's hard to keep on top of it all. Did Masipa ever wonder why, when OP was so very distraught after just "accidentally" killing his girlfriend, that he was lucid enough to think of USB sticks in his safe?

No. She doesn't wonder. She doesn't make inferences. She likes to be spoon fed crap from Roux and quit writing when the prosecution witnesses are on the stand.

I'm ready to throw my hands in the air. I'm down to accepting 1 month of incarceration - something.....ANYTHING !!!! to give this arrogant hierarchy something to wipe the smirks off their faces for 5 minutes.

 

[Cloen]

She also probably disapproves of Reeva's modelling career. She may take the view that Reeva had wasted her opportunities by failing to pursue a legal career, choosing instead to pose for titillating photos in trashy magazines and flaunting herself on reality TV.

I bet that's what she thinks.

It's a shame Nel couldn't have pointed out to Masipa that the incompetent unprofessional bias Probation Officer (Cruella) who didn't provide any research to back up her recommendations that OP should receive a non-custodial sentence ......that SHE does pole dancing in her spare time !!
see here , very interesting , click on her profile picture ! https://www.facebook.com/annette.vergeer.7

As for her testimony , yet another bias Defence Witness who again happens to be in Private Practice and who just happens to be someone against putting ANYONE in prison,(so perfect choice by Roux). Hopefully she will be struck off after today for being lazy and shockingly unprepared in giving evidence to a Criminal Court of Law and failed to provide the Court with unbias and accurate information about prison conditions. She was an absolute disgrace, in my opinion ! :snooty::banghead:

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/8eb665...torius-witness-cracks-under-pressure-20141510

AND as a result of this Probation Officer's allegations about SA Prisons this statement was released (so Cruella is in deep *****) :


The Department of Correctional Services has noted with concern inaccurate serious allegations that sought to cast doubt on the state of our correctional centres. The allegations from media reports emanate from the Oscar Pistorius trial that is underway at the North Gauteng high court. The reports seek to create an impression that our centres are fraught with, amongst other things, unhygienic conditions, gang violence and sodomy or rape.

In as much as our department respects the sub judice rule that applies to court proceedings that have not yet been finalised, the image of our correctional centres, our department and the government in general is at stake. We, therefore, deem it appropriate that we register our concern in this regard.

Out of respect for the sub judice rule, we will not comment further on the evidence as reported in the media; save to say that such allegations about the conditions in our centres are inaccurate. We are prepared to make our expert officials available to the court on issues relating to the conditions in our correctional centres as and when required to do so.

 

[Cloen]

No. She doesn't wonder. She doesn't make inferences. She likes to be spoon fed crap from Roux and quit writing when the prosecution witnesses are on the stand.

I'm ready to throw my hands in the air. I'm down to accepting 1 month of incarceration - something.....ANYTHING !!!! to give this arrogant hierarchy something to wipe the smirks off their faces for 5 minutes.

she asked the Corrections Officer (whatisname) yesterday how the 16 hrs community service in effect, would be spread out , and he said 8 hrs twice a MONTH .......
(and he'll do some cleaning in a museum or something ... Or perhaps he'll do some gardening at Masipa's house, or lend her Frank) !

......so this is probably what she will give the lying arrogant tw*t killer

Masipa listened to the Defence witnesses and so Roux's put infront of her the minimum OP could get on a CH Charge, and his witnesses failed to even read the finer detail ie degree of negligence of Oscar's crime, his degree of culpability which determines the sentencing .........the witnesses seemed to have just been told about Tasha's incident for the recommendations they gave, gobsmacking..............The idea that Masipa is under some pressure from a higher power, perhaps political is starting to reek. Sweep it all away !! and fast !

What a laughing stock SA Justice System is.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

More on "upspeak": http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28708526

Thank you Marfa. These international examples of "upspeak" are so minor relative to the awful, hideous, bizarre, seriously-weird "upspeak" of this awful, hideous, bizarre, seriously-weird witness.

This witness sounds like coquettish, not-too-bright, 15-year-old girl who's probably chewing gum and rolling her eyes as she talks.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

It's very worrying indeed that Masipa is so busy. Just think how much damage she can do in three weeks.

If Masipa is in such a hurry, why didn't she tell the parole officer to answer Nel's questions instead of letting her prattle on like a halfwit???????