Trial Discussion Thread #58 - 14.17.10, Day 47 ~ sentencing~

[Cherwell]

Unfortunately, Nel's whole point about the timing of the Pistorius offer appears to be erroneous. It was the Steenkamps' lawyers who approached the Pistorius camp without the Steenkamps' knowledge to see if a settlement could be reached. A figure was proposed and this was then put to the Steenkamps, who rejected it.

I think that's outrageous if they went behind the Steenkamps' backs. Are you sure that's the case?

 

[Giles]

I was surprised that neither lawyer addressed the Tashas incident at all.

Tuesday will be interesting. I hope the court cameras stay on long enough for us to see him being carted off to jail.

 

[Mr Fossil]

“He’s not only broke, but he’s broken. There is nothing left of this man,” Roux said. He said that Pistorius “hasn’t even the money to pay for legal expenses. He has nothing left.”
http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/prosecutor-wants-10-years-in-prison-for-pistorius/

Seriously? Nothing left?
FGS Reeva was floating out in the morning tide because he murdered her.

It was OP's choice to hire a top flight legal team, expert witnesses, video re-enactment etc. He made an all or nothing gamble that a clever advocate would win his case for him in spite of his lack of truthfulness, changing versions etc. He lost - he was found guilty of CH, but in another sense he won: without Roux et al he may well have been found guilty as charged.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I think that's outrageous if they went behind the Steenkamps' backs. Are you sure that's the case?

Yes, check out 4.3

4.3 It was for this reason that we approached Mr Pistorius' legal advisers with a request as to whether the matter could not be settled. At that stage the parents were not aware of our approaches and discussions between the legal teams were confidential.

http://www.algoafm.co.za/article.aspx?id=10904

 

[Cherwell]

Yes, check out 4.3

http://www.algoafm.co.za/article.aspx?id=10904

I think that's disgraceful. Are they acting for the Steenkamps free of charge? If so, I suppose it would be in their own interests "to avoid a lengthy civil case". [/cynical]

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

My Lady looks drugged up, chin in hand.

Probably hung over from her birthday celebrations.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I disagree. I think Arnold has been keeping up a front, but underneath he must be raging at the amount of money - and what is probably worse to him, time - that this whole business has cost him. And that OP, during this crucial period, could not restrain himself from displaying aggression while out in public. I'm not convinced that Arnold has a bottomless well of tolerance where OP is concerned.

Behind the door - there maybe trouble, I slightly could imagine. Not only uncle, aunty, but also the cousins (perhaps partly Arnie's and L.'s sons?) have spent their time over months, for sitting in the benches or guarding the VIP OP. Why not guarding him the last 3 days, I wonder? A new tactic?

 

[mrjitty]

My understanding is that the State cannot appeal on facts, but it can appeal on sentence. The State rarely appeals a conviction but if there was an error or misinterpretation of the law it can appeal and the sentence changed accordingly.

In general the democracies using variants of the adversarial common law system tightly control appeals on factual matters. So appeals are allowed on points of law and sentence from both sides.

This is because factual appeals would tend to lead to a simple rehash of the case which is not good use of resources.

Now with that said - at least in jurisdictions like NZ and England, limited factual matters can sometimes be heard on appeal

I don't know about SA but an obvious example is some new and important fact.

Also the accused can appeal if he can point to some factor which makes the conviction unsafe. E.g. the Court relied on a factor that it should not have done or made a finding that was not possible to make.

I am not sure any of this helps but at least in NZ i think the prosecution might be able to argue that the finding that Reeva did not scream is one that cannot be supported by the facts.

In simple terms there is no evidence upon which the judge can reasonably reach that conclusion.

In fact, the evidence strongly suggests the exact opposite.

This often comes up with forensics.

You can't appeal a factual finding you don't like - but you can appeal a factual finding that was not available on the evidence.

This actually recently happened in an NZ murder case.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29570948

Pistorius sentence: Jail or Olympic training?

His future is about to be untangled - and there is a bewildering range of possibilities that must surely now be dancing before his eyes.

Will he vanish into South Africa's prison system for years, or should he be thinking seriously about training for the Brazil Olympics?

 

[Cherwell]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29570948

Pistorius sentence: Jail or Olympic training?

His future is about to be untangled - and there is a bewildering range of possibilities that must surely now be dancing before his eyes.

Will he vanish into South Africa's prison system for years, or should he be thinking seriously about training for the Brazil Olympics?

Written by Pistorian Andrew Harding. :notgood:

Lastly, imagine how quick and different this trial could have been if the prosecution had not remorselessly pushed its pre-meditated murder theory, and stuck instead to one of the lesser murder charges.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel spent weeks trying to prove Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp's relationship was on the rocks only to see Judge Masipa reject that evidence with a contemptuous wave of her hand (the prosecutors of Shrien Dewani - the UK businessman on trial in Cape Town for murdering his wife - might well take note).

Might the grandstanding Mr Nel have secured a murder conviction if he had not over-reached?

I'm not impressed. :shakehead:

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Carl Pistorius @carlpistorius · 16. Okt.

RT “@popelap1: The mark of the man. Despite everything, stops to help another. @OscarPistorius”

 

[screecher]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29570948

Pistorius sentence: Jail or Olympic training?

His future is about to be untangled - and there is a bewildering range of possibilities that must surely now be dancing before his eyes.

Will he vanish into South Africa's prison system for years, or should he be thinking seriously about training for the Brazil Olympics?

he's too 'broken' (roll eyes) to compete, and IMO, he never will be fast enough to make it worth his effort. Anyway I look at it...he's a killing loser.

 

[mrjitty]

Written by Pistorian Andrew Harding. :notgood:



I'm not impressed. :shakehead:

Agreed.

Ignorance of legal procedure.

 

[soozieqtips]

View attachment 61487Carl Pistorius @carlpistorius · 16. Okt.

RT “@popelap1: The mark of the man. Despite everything, stops to help another. @OscarPistorius”

I don't know many people who wouldn't have helped someone who had fallen over. If that's all CP can come up, it's not much. I don't suppose OP would have wanted the cameras to film him walking by without helping!

 

[Sherbert]

I think that's disgraceful. Are they acting for the Steenkamps free of charge? If so, I suppose it would be in their own interests "to avoid a lengthy civil case". [/cynical]

Not necessarily disgraceful - it depends on the context. If lawyers were instructed by the Steenkamps to pursue a civil claim, (which appears to be the case), the value of that claim would inevitably come up for discussion between the legal representatives, including the value of the loss of Reeva's financial support. As there is talk of them paying money back, it seems that, initially, at least, the Steenkamps must have agreed to accept monthly interim payments on account of damages.

However, it is likely that, as the criminal proceedings came to a head, with all its attendant stresses, the Steenkamps made it increasingly clear to their lawyer that they wanted the civil matter resolved as soon as possible and that this information would have been conveyed to the Defence, given that lines of communication were already open and that interim payments were being made. I imagine that the settlement discussions took place in this context and that the Steenkamps were requested to provide further instructions when the offer was made.

The verdict of culpable homicide explains the timing of the negotiations because this verdict made it inevitable that a civil action would succeed.

 

[WilliamMunter]

Written by Pistorian Andrew Harding. :notgood:

I'm not impressed. :shakehead:

He and Alex Crawford of Sky are vying for the Pistorius interviews.

 

[jilly]

Me neither but I think this stage is a bit different. We discuss the assessor and her influence here but Masipa has to wear the legal and public reaction to her sentence all by herself. The assessor might say 'oh don't send him to prison' but it is Masipa who will suffer the backlash that a weak sentence will provoke and we can be pretty confident it will loud and sustained. Also, it will be her judgement that is put under the microscope if the state decides to appeal a lenient sentence. So personally I'm not too concerned about her influence now.

Well said, Lithgow. I was waiting until reading all the posts before commenting on this. I agree with your entire post and especially the bolded. She's the captain here and will solely go down with the ship if her sentence is overturned. The assessors will bare no responsibility. No Judge wants this and I would guess especially Masipa at this stage of her career.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Bros tweeting each other I guess.

View attachment 61454

if they were - during the pt argument - it just highlights the lack of respect, the arrogance, not knowing how to read the gravitas of a situation. does the judge really believe this boy and his broken man/remorse story...

 

[Mamadoos]

Anyone know what likely form Tuesday will take? Will we all be kept in suspenders with lots of yadayadayada from Milady followed by the pronouncement of the sentence or does she just dive in? If JP gets jail time and does not lodge an appeal will he be carted off there and then? If he gets jail time and does lodge an appeal will he be free in the meantime?

I saw on Sky News that if op given jail time, he will be lead directly down to the holding cells. Defence will obviously appeal and apply for bail & that is where he will wait until the decision. Can't believe that he could be out on bail again if sentenced to jail.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Have been thinking about Roux's comments today about OP being broke and not having sufficient funds to pay all his legal bills. I kind of find this interesting because this means we that we are expected to believe that he would continue to work pro bono when relatives of OP are so wealthy ?
Surely Roux would expect his bills to be settled by such a wealthy family ? If so then has he misled the court ?
Just wondered what everyone else thinks about this as I am not sure what to believe here but it doesn't seem to ring true unless it is that when A defendant runs out of money counsel has to continue with defence ?
TIA
MOO