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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet more examples of how KP (Killer Pistorious) was privileged, “special” and got away with things.

“’Things were pushed under the carpet,’ says South African broadcaster Graeme Joffe, who co-owned a racehorse with Mr. Pistorius. ‘He was the poster boy for South Africa. Nobody wanted to knock down a role model’”.

In 2009 and 2012, when questioned by police over alleged incidents of assault and verbal threats, the police were so infatuated with him that he posed for photos with them and gave them autographs. He was speedily released from questioning. “Cases were opened, and the cases disappeared,” Mr. Joffe said in an interview.

When he was booked on the murder charges, he wasn’t handcuffed as the police took him away and he was allowed to stay in a police-station cell by himself, rather than being consigned to an overcrowded prison.

“At 15, he was allowed to drive his brother’s car illegally around Pretoria. Both he and his brother bought their first cars when they were 17, too young for driver’s licences”.

A few years later when he “fell asleep at the wheel and crashed his car on an expressway, and when he smashed into a submerged pier in a motorboat containing empty liquor bottles”, the police paid little attention.

When he applied for a licence in 2010 for the gun used to kill Reeva, he could have been denied a licence under firearm regulations because he had already spent a night in jail for allegedly assaulting a woman. Nor was the licence revoked after the incident at Tasha’s.

Arguably, the biggest privilege of all was the decision to let him compete in the 400-metre race at the London Olympics even though he had not met the official requirements.

“In a little-noticed interview on the eve of the Olympic Games, South Africa’s Sports Minister admitted that Mr. Pistorius was the beneficiary of special treatment” He said it was a sensitive issue and “It’s not really about the athlete; it is a political decision that has been taken.

Simon Magakwe, a sprinter who posted a greater number of Olympic qualifying times than Mr. Pistorius but was still kept off the South African team, later told reporters that he was hurt and saddened to see his Olympic dream destroyed by the decision to favour the celebrity”.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-unmaking-of-oscar-pistorius/article10585576/?page=all
 
If she agrees and gives OP 10 years. Is that 10 real or out on parole after 3 years?
 
If she agrees and gives OP 10 years. Is that 10 real or out on parole after 3 years?
That is a really good question.
I had not given thought as to how much time he will actually serve probably because I have been horrified thinking he may not serve any time at all .
If it is same as in the UK the judge can specify a minimum term otherwise he would probably only serve half. I am sure some else will know more about the SA system.
 
Family tensions in the mansion maybe?

Carl Pistorius @carlpistorius · 12h 12 hours ago
"Whoever does not have a good father should procure one." - Nietzsche
#theFatherheartofGod

If Carl wants to quote Nietzsche, perhaps he should try this famous quotation:


God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

— Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann
 
Not sure exactly what you find absurd if you have read all previous posts.
I have certainly never been of the opinion that because he has spent a fortune on legal fees he should not go to prison and have never indicated this in any posts .
His legal team however have tried to garner the sympathy of the judge by hinting that because he is now allegedly broke and grief stricken that OP has already been punished enough and should not receive a custodial sentence .
I certainly do not share that opinion and hope for a custodial sentence .

Sorry, Gb, apparently, my post was not clear. I tried to say that the way the defence team is reasoning here seems totally absurd to me.
Besides that, I am convinced that OP is far away from being financially ruined.
 
Thank you, Chéri :)

Like you, I was moved to write by the sense of community on this board. A community centred on a deeply-held passion for justice and humanity for a victim who has had so little voice of her own. It's no wonder Nel has so much support, here. He has not let the world forget who this trial is really about. Despite (or perhaps because of) his ferocious questioning, there is an unmistakable air of human decency about the man; someone driven by a more noble purpose than wealth or fame. When he envelops himself in that long black cape I could swear we're looking at the true Batman.

BBM

1. :happydance:

2. May be this is charism?
 
Thank you OZe and Mr Jitty too for both of the posts above. I am not sure why but I feel so much better after reading them. It's been amazing how much anxiety and frustration this trial has generated for me. And like the author of the article in the Daily Maverick yesterday, I will be glad to be done with Oscar soon.

I'm not done with Oscar. Never, never. Not until the TRUTH comes out. If it comes out in a court of law, it will be in a civil action. If outside a court of law, it will have to be circumspect unless one has very deep pockets or very strong nerve, because if Pistorius dares to sue for libel, the defence would be "fair comment". There is no malice, only a quest for truth.

'Oscar was not found guilty of murder' does not mean 'Oscar did not know that Reeva Steenkamp was behind the toilet door when he fired four shots'. The latter is a matter of fact about the world. The former is a matter of fact about a legal Judgment, and I am not convinced that the truth was anywhere in the vicinity of the Pretoria High Court of Justice when the verdict was read.
 
This portion of the case is all about mitigation of sentence. What points can Roux bring up to show that OP has suffered losses that deserve consideration for mitigation. Unlike Reeva, OP hasn't lost his life, so Roux can only say OP has personally lost his money, homes, friends, reputation, career, etc.

These losses are all the results of his own actions that night, but they are still losses that can be highlighted
BIB - the point I was making was that most of his argument centred on money for a reason. Now if OP had been truly remorseful, and had truly loved Reeva (like he said he did), he would not have been clubbing so soon after her death, and he would not have picked up a new girlfriend just months after. Remember that we were supposed to believe OP was 'broken'. If he had stayed at home (because he was too distressed to go out partying), behaved himself and acted with a little dignity, Roux could have used all that to highlight how genuine his suffering was, but because OP did not behave like that, Roux couldn't use it, and therefore had to centre on the financial aspect of it all, because there was basically nothing else to highlight.
 
I’ve never had a good rant before so I apologize in advance but I just have to do it on two especially telling points.

1) KP (Killer Pistorius) testified that it was him screaming non-stop for 15 minutes before the shooting but after he entered the toilet and saw Reeva on the floor, he stopped screaming. Nel asked him … paraphrasing … “Why? Wouldn’t that be the time you would have screamed?” and KP replied, “Why, what was the point?” If ever, ever an innocent person was going to scream that he’d mistakenly killed the one he loved, this would be the precise moment where you’d start and never stop.

2) When Kim Martin gave her moving testimony, many people in the gallery started crying, including journalists. Sam Taylor cried too, and Reeva had been her rival. Nel’s voice actually broke. What did OP do, nothing, he just looked down.

For a person who can cry:

• when he’s asked to look at a photo of Reeva’s head and crime scene photos that he’s probably seen many times over the course of 18 months
• whenever Nel asked a hard question, and there were many
• when Roux outlined all the things that he’d lost – fame, fortune, career, home and properties, friends and self-respect,

isn’t it absolutely amazing that he couldn’t and didn’t shed one tear when Kim was talking about Reeva, describing how the family missed her, and had suffered and will continue to suffer. Her tears were genuine, unlike his. Many reporters and those in the legal profession said they’d never heard an accused cry or put on a display such as his – crying, wailing, retching over and over and over.

“Whatever the reason is for summoning the tears, crying on the spot is possible".

• think back to the loss of how it feels when you’re going to miss out on something you've worked really hard to achieve
• think of something that could happen in the future
• when you’re confronted with the idea that you’re not how you see yourself
• dig deep into your emotional self and let it all out, concentrating only on you – not your surroundings, not the situation, just on you
• it can cause you to get sleepy
• irritate your eyes. A common method for starting tears is to cause your eyes discomfort
• rub your eyes. Close your eyes and rub your eyelids for about 25 seconds. Open them and stare at something until the tears start rolling. You might not get it the first time but it can work wonders. Rubbing can leave your eyes sore but if done gently, it can help redden the complexion around your eye area, too
• hold your nose very tightly so you can't breathe through it
• yawn repeatedly
• sob by making crying noises while taking deep breaths
• once you’re crying, cover your face with your hands and lower your head
• rest your head on something in front of you in a gesture of hopelessness or attempt to self-compose
• when speaking, constrict your vocal cords. Aim to stutter your words and add in long intakes of breath to add to the effect. Ramble on about the thing that has supposedly caused you to feel upset

http://www.wikihow.com/Cry-On-the-Spot

The above website may have taught him all he knows about turning on the tears. I think we’ve all seen pictures of every point mentioned.

There are many other things that cause me to detest KP but it’s better perhaps to leave it at this.

Great post but please don't call Oscar KP. For one thing, the peanut company might sue, and for another KP belongs to Kevin Pietersen just as OJ belongs to OJ, if you see what I mean. KP may have been a naughty boy on occasion, but he's done nothing to deserve sharing initials with Oscar. The only thing they have in common is a cricket bat (If anything, call Oscar OJ?);)
 
For those who are interested in all the ins and outs of the appeal process, this covers pretty much all you’ll want to know, and it’s easy to read.

“Legal City is South Africa’s premier online legal services portal”.

Scroll down to Grounds for Appeal

And then continue reading ...

Appeals from the Supreme Court.

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=about.us


Sorry for the incorrect link above. It should have been

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=6400430
 
I'm not done with Oscar. Never, never. Not until the TRUTH comes out. If it comes out in a court of law, it will be in a civil action. If outside a court of law, it will have to be circumspect unless one has very deep pockets or very strong nerve, because if Pistorius dares to sue for libel, the defence would be "fair comment". There is no malice, only a quest for truth.

'Oscar was not found guilty of murder' does not mean 'Oscar did not know that Reeva Steenkamp was behind the toilet door when he fired four shots'. The latter is a matter of fact about the world. The former is a matter of fact about a legal Judgment, and I am not convinced that the truth was anywhere in the vicinity of the Pretoria High Court of Justice when the verdict was read.
He'll never tell the truth , but the heavies (who were in Court , Mark B and Jared B ,his ex friends , the Myers and his his ex-girlfriend Sam Taylor along with the Steenkamps) KNOW he's a liar , as did Nel - they know he shot Reeva after a row - and i'm actually quite disgusted the EX Jenna didn't come forward and tell the Court what their conversation was about when OP was on the phone to him when he drove into Silverwoods that night before he met Reeva at his House-she must have a conscience ? even if they were just talking about the price of eggs, it's still an 'unknown' piece of information - and if it was 'nothing' of importance,why then did Oscar and his brother need to wipe that phone clean of data ??

He was found guilty of Culpable Homicide,so the Judge did NOT think that Oscar shot her by accident,the facts were in her Judgement,that he fired shots at the door. Whether this Judge actually gives him a sentence that fits the crime is another matter, as we've already seen from her Judgement - if she doesn't give him time in prison, think it's pretty fair to say Oscar has and is being treated differently to any other Defendant before a Criminal Court in SA !!
 
Great post but please don't call Oscar KP. For one thing, the peanut company might sue, and for another KP belongs to Kevin Pietersen just as OJ belongs to OJ, if you see what I mean. KP may have been a naughty boy on occasion, but he's done nothing to deserve sharing initials with Oscar. The only thing they have in common is a cricket bat (If anything, call Oscar OJ?);)

How about PLOP (Proven Liar Oscar Pistorius)?

Or possibly KOP (Killer Oscar Pistorius)
 
If she agrees and gives OP 10 years. Is that 10 real or out on parole after 3 years?

If she gives him any prison time, say 8 years, he can apply for parole after serving half the sentence, so he could be out in 4.

If she gives him, say 8 years with 4 suspended, that would mean he'd serve 4 years, get out of prison, but if he reoffends during the next 4 years, he'd have to go back to prison and serve out the remainder of his sentence.

Gosh, by the time we're finished with this trial I think I'll put a brass plate out the front of the house and charge visitors to walk in the door.

:floorlaugh:
 
Sorry, Gb, apparently, my post was not clear. I tried to say that the way the defence team is reasoning here seems totally absurd to me.
Besides that, I am convinced that OP is far away from being financially ruined.
Thank you for clarifying :-)
I understand what you are saying now and yes it is absurd but I guess his defence team didn't have much to work with bearing in mind his extreme recklessness and the tragic result which really warrants tougher justice than house arrest IMO.
I dread to think of how many future victims might suffer the same fate if this goes unpunished .
I totally agree with you that it is highly unlikely that OP is truly broke . The dongle which was allowed to be taken from the crime scene held details of off shore banking accounts and the family are highly unlikely to leave him destitute or leave legal fees unpaid .
 
The irony of the scene in court is inescapable. You have Schultz, a man who confessed to killing businessman Brett Kebble and got away with it, prancing like a peacock, in and outside court like a celebrity. Schultz took the life of Kebble, a father, a husband, a brother and son who did not get the punishment that fits the crime. He and he co-conspirators got away by agreeing to a dubious deal with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). Their deal, which included alleged mafia boss Glenn Agliotti, was that they could get away with murder and drug dealing as long as they assisted the NPA in the case against the then-national police commissioner Jackie Selebi.

So happy were some in the NPA that after Schultz escaped jail and justice, they were at the ringside at Emperors, when Schultz made his boxing career debut. They all wore T-shirts with the words “Team Schultz” emblazoned on them. Perhaps we could understand the arrogance displayed by Schultz and co because if you can get away with murder, what could be worse? You can waltz into a courtroom where Nel, with whom you struck a sweetheart deal, is centre stage and cause a scene and nothing will happen to you.

What a country!

http://www.iol.co.za/sundayindependent/the-sad-irony-inside-oscar-court-room-1.1767189#.VEOqEFcgues
 
The irony of the scene in court is inescapable. You have Schultz, a man who confessed to killing businessman Brett Kebble and got away with it, prancing like a peacock, in and outside court like a celebrity. Schultz took the life of Kebble, a father, a husband, a brother and son who did not get the punishment that fits the crime. He and he co-conspirators got away by agreeing to a dubious deal with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). Their deal, which included alleged mafia boss Glenn Agliotti, was that they could get away with murder and drug dealing as long as they assisted the NPA in the case against the then-national police commissioner Jackie Selebi.

So happy were some in the NPA that after Schultz escaped jail and justice, they were at the ringside at Emperors, when Schultz made his boxing career debut. They all wore T-shirts with the words “Team Schultz” emblazoned on them. Perhaps we could understand the arrogance displayed by Schultz and co because if you can get away with murder, what could be worse? You can waltz into a courtroom where Nel, with whom you struck a sweetheart deal, is centre stage and cause a scene and nothing will happen to you.

What a country!

http://www.iol.co.za/sundayindependent/the-sad-irony-inside-oscar-court-room-1.1767189#.VEOqEFcgues

In the world of crime, guilty people can (but rarely) literally get away with murder if they "roll over" and testify for the state against a much bigger fish, in this case Jackie Selebi, the national police commissioner at the time. The deal was brokered by Nel. Immunity from prosecution is not uncommon regarding drug dealers because they're on the lower end of the food chain so to speak and police are always trying to catch the importers or main players. If they're not given immunity, it's even more common for them to be given what is commonly called a "letter of comfort". This letter is provided by a law enforcement agency to enable an accused to get a lesser sentence because they have assisted the police. It would be a huge win for the NPA to convict the national police commissioner.

I haven't seen anyone else post anything on Mark Strydom, the person who it appears actually mouthed the words **** you to Aimee, not Schultz, so here's something to read while things are a little bit quiet.

Published on August 4, 2000

"One of the most notorious thugs in Johannesburg's southern suburbs says he has found God and given up his violent ways - but police and some of his victims aren't convinced.

Strydom has been out on bail on five previous occasions, and each time he was rearrested on counts of intimidation or assault. These cases are still pending.

Strydom's previous charges include fraud, assault, intimidation and pointing a firearm.

"He is a totally changed creature. He has accepted the Lord and is now counselling drug addicts and prostitutes," said Walter-Girout.

"I am so convinced of his change that I am willing to go to jail if he fails. It is just a matter of time before people realise this change," he added.

There's plenty more in this link.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-afr...rd-1.46084?ot=inmsa.ArticlePrintPageLayout.ot

Here's more on Mikey Schultz and the incident in court.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/oscar-pistorius-family-court-dispute-mikey-schultz
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
97
Guests online
1,750
Total visitors
1,847

Forum statistics

Threads
606,798
Messages
18,211,288
Members
233,964
Latest member
tammyb1025
Back
Top