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

[Cherwell]

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.

You've lost me. Why then would they have decided not to pursue a civil action?

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Nel reiterated his statements from earlier this week that this was a “shockingly inappropriate” sentence considering the nature of the crime. He said that legal precedent suggested that if the courts aren't guided by society's wishes, society could take justice into its own hands.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/nel-asks-for-10-years-jail-for-oscar-1.1766784#.VEFUEqD8wzt

Even if OP wins correctional supervision, what will he have actually “won”? Not much more than a hollow, symbolic victory.

If nothing else, he now fully understands the gravity of what’s about to go down - the specter of prison ...or “freedom” among his outraged countrymen, the whole of South Africa his prison.

No matter where he ends up, he will be a man on the run (pun intended), forever looking over his shoulder.

Poor Oz - his anxiety, depression and PTSD have only just begun.

 

[Sherbert]

You've lost me. Why then would they have decided not to pursue a civil action?

I think there are a number of reasons:

1. The pressure is too great, so they want everything to be over on the date of sentence.

2. They are now able to make ends meet, due to the book, interviews, etc.

3. OP is broke - hence the offer of $33,000 representing the proceeds of sale of his car

4. They've realised that they're not comfortable accepting money from OP.

 

[4MrsB]

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?

To me, during the sentencing phase, he seems rather calm - almost as if bored. Usually head down (as if fiddling with his phone during court). I get the impression he feels confident he will be getting a non-custodial sentence. House arrest with freedom to "train" (aka...run around and leave Uncle Arnold's mansion whenever he pleases, as long as "he says" it's for training or training relate errand, etc). Will likely feel he will eventually be able to have lawyers (down the road when "the heat" and focus on case calms down) argue allowing him to leave country to "train" or work at Uncle Arnold's busniness in Mozambique, etc. For the sake of "not punishing him twice" poor victim & because he'll convince court he needs to make a living to pay off all this huge debt from fighting this in court, lost his house, blah, blah blah. Of course, this is just a feeling I have by watching him in court.

 

[Cherwell]

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!

I'd have pulled him over :cooler:

 

[Cherwell]

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

It's just part of the "poor victim Oscar" schtick. Roux (et al) will get his money, it doesn't have to come out of Oscar's piggybank.

 

[Sherbert]

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

Maybe, he means that Uncle Arnold is having to step in and fund the legal fees because OP has run out of funds?

Also, I believe that Roux has made so much money out of the case that it would look bad on him if he ditched OP at the eleventh hour, now that funds are running out.

 

[Duchy]

Close up video of tallon impact on Twitter #OscarPitorius 18 mins ago. Sorry don't know how to put it on here.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Harmony, I didn't see until just now that the tea you served us in the very first post of this thread is actually pouring as I look.

Very cool.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Sue Meanie @sueveneer 23m23 minutes ago
Nelson Mandela did 27 years in jail and he hadn't killed anyone #OscarPistorius

 

[Gbtaketwo]

It's just part of the "poor victim Oscar" schtick. Roux (et al) will get his money, it doesn't have to come out of Oscar's piggybank.

Yes that is kind of what I think will be the case which I why I don't like how it has been brought up . It kind of seems unethical/dishonest to me or maybe it is ok to defend a client anyway you can if it garners sympathy with a judge regardless of whether it is strictly true or not ?

 

[mrjitty]

I agree, completely irresponsible. You would know, however, that this trial is based on the interpretation of circumstantial and objective evidence.

OP proffered an evolving version (which in itself is suspect, since there should only be one version if it's the truth).

Nel clearly stated that the gunshots came at around 03:17. Vermeulen testified that the sequence of bat strikes and gunshots could not be scientifically proven. He also stated that the panel had to have been broken out of the door after the gunshots. He explains that the bat must have been used in his opinion to prise out the panel. In his HoA Nel points out that witnesses hear a woman screaming before the 03:17 gunshots (second sounds on Stipps' evidence).

IMO what Nel doesn't do is join up the dots for Masipa but he is certainly not making up evidence nor being irresponsible, and nor am I. I am interpreting the evidence and the testimony given in court. I was hoping you would have applied your reasoning to exploring the possibilities too so that we could have had a constructive debate challenging that interpretation, particularly when considered alongside other evidence.

Having stepped away from the case for a week or so I tend to think we have all headed down the rabbit hole with Masipa

This was exemplified in last nights debate where lots of effort gets expended on matters which don't have much to do with guilt or innocence.

In the end, the bullet hole business proves precisely nothing.

The case is simple at its heart and Nel as an experienced prosecutor stuck close to the matters he must prove.

The key point is that with a correct interpretation of the law, the defence must show a lawful justification for the shooting.

Second the defence must show an evidential basis for mistake.

OP's testimony spectacularly failed on two points.

First no lawful justification was shown. This should have lead inexorably to a conviction for murder, except the judge screwed the law up.

Second, there was no reliable evidence of a mistake.

OP failed to show how Reeva got in the toilet without him knowing.

In fact his entire story was manufactured and deceptive.

And that is the key to the whole case.

There is in fact no reliable evidence that any mistake was made.

So in the ordinary course, a conviction for direct murder should have followed.

Nel took the shortest and safest route to the conviction, and on any rational basis, he did in fact make out the case beyond reasonable doubt.

This is simply because the evidential onus was on the defence to make out self defence and mistake.

To now criticise Nel over timeline, or for not engaging in speculation with witnesses, is improper in my view.

The problem is not timeline, but the way in which the judge simply ignores the evidential onus, and the weight of circumstantial evidence.

To put it country simple - the failure to make out self defence should have been instantly fatal to the defence.

But somehow it wasn't.

Masipa's rabbit hole is that somehow, even though OPs' version was pure nonsense, the prosecution must nevertheless definitively prove beyond reasonable doubt he knew Reeva was in there.

But how is such proof ever possible?

Somehow Masipa resists making obvious and natural inferences of the type courts usually make.

And bizarrely Masipa concludes that OPs version was reasonably possible - even though it clearly was a lie!

I don't see what hope Nel has against such poor quality analysis.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Maybe, he means that Uncle Arnold is having to step in and fund the legal fees because OP has run out of funds?

Also, I believe that Roux has made so much money out of the case that it would look bad on him if he ditched OP at the eleventh hour, now that funds are running out.

Yes that is my thoughts. I would be very shocked if Uncle Arnold or another close relative wasn't helping out with the costs.

 

[geevee]

Maybe, he means that Uncle Arnold is having to step in and fund the legal fees because OP has run out of funds?

Also, I believe that Roux has made so much money out of the case that it would look bad on him if he ditched OP at the eleventh hour, now that funds are running out.

Maybe Oscar has refused to pay any more since the verdict and not having come away with an aquittal for all he'd spent so far. lol

I find it ironic that the man 'breaking' OP financially has the nerve to stand up before the judge and say his client is out of funds when it's he who is taking all of those funds. Uncle will make it up to Roux though.

 

[ColonelMustard]

He is to clever for that. He can see it a mile off that any time at all will be a bonus. Going for 10 and getting 5 will be a big win at this stage. I think everyone around the world will accept 5, perhaps begrudgingly

I won't.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

To me, during the sentencing phase, he seems rather calm - almost as if bored. Usually head down (as if fiddling with his phone during court). I get the impression he feels confident he will be getting a non-custodial sentence. House arrest with freedom to "train" (aka...run around and leave Uncle Arnold's mansion whenever he pleases, as long as "he says" it's for training or training relate errand, etc). Will likely feel he will eventually be able to have lawyers (down the road when "the heat" and focus on case calms down) argue allowing him to leave country to "train" or work at Uncle Arnold's busniness in Mozambique, etc. For the sake of "not punishing him twice" poor victim & because he'll convince court he needs to make a living to pay off all this huge debt from fighting this in court, lost his house, blah, blah blah. Of course, this is just a feeling I have by watching him in court.

The "we don't want to punish him twice " comment by the judge shocked me to the core and from that point despite all the evidence to the contrary I figured on a lenient outcome for OP whilst still very much hoping to be wrong .

 

[sleuth-d-]

JM is going to lean HEAVILY on Vermeer, I think. Why? Because she's also a social worker.

SW's I know have a particularly holistic, caring approach to everything.

i would be surprised if masipa did. i don't think roux even mentioned vermeer in his closing argument.

 

[sleuth-d-]

no, not at all imo.

Nel is doing wonderfully, he has brought up everything we thought would never see the light of day. JM is really listening now, Nel is making sense, maybe, more than ever before. JM needs it spelled out, no blank spaces as was the case during the trial.

yep. it is very simple. very clear. just how masipa likes it.
can't help thinking that if nel had concentrated his case just on the corridor and the bathroom, and the four shots... then a murder conviction would have been a real possibility.
i think they got greedy with trying to build the op-reeva argument/motive [botha to blame?], and the simple facts around the shooting got buried in 'opening out' the case. plus it 'allowed in' all of roux's smoke and mirrors.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Eyewitness News ‏@ewnupdates
#EWNCartoon - Oscar Plays the Victim - http://bit.ly/1sA69lH by Dr Jack & Curtis of @africartoons #OscarPistorius

 

[jilly]

I assume if OP is given a custodial sentence on Tuesday and the inevitable Defence appeal application is made, it will then be up to Masipa whether to extend bail or not?

However, I remain to be convinced that OP will be locked up - Masipa will have already decided the sentence before today's arguments and, if she runs true to form, OP will get 3 years house arrest with 8 hours/week community service (and a fine for the firearms offence). So then the State will appeal and OP will be out on bail until the appeal is heard.

I would hope that if this is the case, she'd at least give 5 years of house arrest.