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

[JuneBug67]

Ah yes, the witness who testified that Pistorius never intended to shoot at the door. I suspect his testimony will be ignored.

I had the vague impression that he was perhaps confused by what Nel meant by 'intended'. That he was confusing intending to shoot with a finding of premeditated murder. He didn't seem to be a native English speaker.

 

[soozieqtips]

Are you serious? you hope for a suspended sentence? I can't see how a suspended sentence would affect his life much. They would probably get any conditions cancelled, just like they did with the bail conditions.

Unless he kills or seriously harms somebody else, of course, in which case something would have to be done about him.

He won't be going to any Olympics. He'd already peaked.

House arrest should only be applicable for non-violent crimes. The idea that an angry and convicted killer like OP should be able to while away his hours at a fancy house, popping out among the public when he feels like it, is just laughable. Do we know if Uncle Arnold has had all the guns removed from his house? Just because OP isn't allowed to own one, doesn't mean he can't live in a house that has them, does it??

 

[lithgow1]

I refuse to watch that interview with Robin. From the very beginning she was a sympathizer for Pistorius. Many of us felt it was so she could score a big interview afterwards. Bingo!

Yeah I'm not going to watch that one either. For a while there my only news channel was CNN so I had the double-whammy of her interviewing Kelly Phelps after each court session. No matter what had happened they spun it for the defence and their focus was always on Pistorius and his family. Phelps may have been proven right but I still think she is wrong if you get what I mean.

 

[JuneBug67]

BIB - he seemed to think OP shot once at the floor. OP did that at Tasha's. Maybe with all the shooting OP partakes in, Maringa got confused.

Lol...

 

[OZe]

I was so upset & angry listening to these two, I honestly had to stop the video before it ended.

I have usually regarded Carl & Aimee as just supportive siblings, thinking the best of their brother, giving him the benefit of the doubt, hoping & praying there was truth to his story. I also think they have been blinded by the lifestyle they have lived in since their Mom's passing. Uncle Arnold's privileged & powerful world. So I have given the two of them a great deal of leeway. (Although the removed phone & purse was beyond that of "sibling support" and I'm shocked to this day that there have not been legal actions taken over that.)

However, listening to the two of them during this interview with Karyn M I was appalled. How could they be asked, "what's been the most difficult part of this whole situation?" . . ....and they answer "the negative media"???? Are they joking? That's their honest answer? That's what comes to mind 1st?

OMG....how about first thing out of your mouth something like....
"Of course the most traumatic part of all this has been the loss of Reeva. The reality that her life has been lost due to this tragic accident. That our brother has to live with the responsibility for that loss & the terrible never ending grief that will live within him forever. Regardless of it being an accident, the loss of Reeva can't be corrected and knowing the Steenkamp's and Oscar have to live with this pain and anguish the rest of their lives is a heartbreaking trauma we can never fix. That Reeva's life was cut so short is the hardest reality of all."

At least start with Reeva first. Not jump right into the media. Oh, how painful that the public/media thinks your brother is an a$$ & murderer for killing his girlfriend in his home, while neighbors testified to hearing arguing and more neighbors testified to Reeva screaming and lights on, etc etc. How dare the media pick on the "Golden Boy" of S.A. after the pedestal they've previously put him on. How dare they turn on him for killing a young, bright, beautiful woman. To be whining about the media & poor Oscar's "losses" is so self absorbed. This family just does not get it. Sickening. Can't listen to anything they have to say anymore.

My thoughts, exactly!

After three minutes I had to switch it off and take a bath in disinfectant. If ever there was a tale of two families, one inhabiting the side of the spectrum marked human kindness and the other off in the far reaches of self indulgence, this would be it.

When it comes to wrecking balls, Oscar makes Miley Cyrus look like a toddler with a wooden mallet. He's managed to kill a seemingly beautiful human being (not referring to her looks), completely destroy one family, drag his own through the dirt (although it seems they don't need much pulling), and cast a dark shadow over a fledgling country that's desperate for all the bright hope it can get. Stack that up against his sporting triumphs and it's obvious he doesn't belong anywhere near a winner's podium.

JMO

 

[JuneBug67]

Though one might struggle to find a more insignificant motivation, refuting these arguments would be one more good reason to hope for an appeal from Nel.

He had a while trial to refute much of it. He didn't do so successfully.

 

[soozieqtips]

It's interesting to see how the P siblings were happy to court the media to get the message across that OP is a “kind person with a good heart”, “generous, thoughtful, and loving" uke:

But when the media were saying 'mean' things about him, they considered it wicked, negative and unfair.

 

[WilliamMunter]

I had the vague impression that he was perhaps confused by what Nel meant by 'intended'. That he was confusing intending to shoot with a finding of premeditated murder. He didn't seem to be a native English speaker.

He may be a state employee but his testimony was never approved by the state. In fact his testimony was so shockingly misinformed that Roux never even redirected/recrossed him from what I remember. They couldn't get him off the stand fast enough.

It was entirely his choice to testify in English. No excuse.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Oscar Pistorius went on a two-hour rampage at the London Paralympics
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...t-on-a-two-hour-rampage-at-London-Paralympics

Neither OP’s volatile history nor his murder trial give me any reason to believe that this account of his private reaction to his 2012 Paralymic loss to Oliveira is anything other than TRUE. In fact, in light of what we now know of his core character, his entitled, privileged personality and courtroom histrionics, such a violent temper tantrum fits perfectly.

Just like personal accounts and incidents about Oscar are just now starting to come out, it's not surprising this story has just now been put forth.

How popular do you think this story would have been had it been published at the time this incident happened?

Of course, such less-than-stellar incidents by celebrities are routinely suppressed by those in charge and savvy PR spin doctors for multiple reasons ... mainly the bank accounts and reputations of all concerned.

It would have been horribly negative publicity for the Paralymics and Olympics ... even more disastrous, sponsorship-killing PR for the Oscar Brand ... but any media/journalist who dared publish it would have likely been crucified for unfairly “bashing” or “misinterpreting” OP’s actions by a world in the full throes of Heroic Oscar Worship.

The last thing the faithful want to hear is the truth.

A murder trial and conviction tend to put prior personal history into sharp context and even sharper scrutiny.

Suddenly, putting all the pieces together, it starts to form a ... mosaic.

 

[lithgow1]

What I think that orgy of interviews given by OP's siblings most shows is just how out of touch they must be with public opinion and perceptions. I don't really understand their timing unless it is to try and saturate the media with themselves so there is less concentration on tomorrow's events (and they would know they would grab all the headlines) but what I really don't get is the tone they took, the way they were blaming the media and coming across as so centred on how it has affected them despite paying some lip service to Reeva Steenkamp and her loved ones. The whole thing just felt 'off' to me and I really think they're kidding themselves if they think it will somehow rehabilitate Pistorius' image or their own. If anything, it will provoke the type of 'uggh' attitude it largely did here. Are they that clueless or is their PR person that tone deaf to how they are largely perceived these days? I think the actual interviews at this time were ill advised and not likely to make them at all sympathetic despite the hand holding and sad wistful faces. Whatever their motive/s, if the reaction to Karyn Maughyn, Barry Bateman etc on twitter is any indicator, it hasn't worked.

 

[JuneBug67]

talking of substituting own judgement for that with no basis in reason... i am still waiting for somebody, anybody to explain why shooting four times at a closed door, knowing someone is inside [and that someone hasn't offered a word of threat] is not murder. even the judge produced a poor reasoning imo.

I thnk that was a judicial judgment call that could have fallen either way. In other words, should she have wanted to justify a finding of murder she probably could have in the law. The explanation that was clearest to me was by a legal expert who thought she was correct in law. He said that her finding that he intended to shoot was not the same thing as finding that he intended to kill - clear, provable intention being the key. Once can shoot in a panic intending to scare or injure as well for example, or not forming any coherent intention at all. But because the reasonable person should have anticipated the clear risk of death in the circumstances, he is guilty of CH. So no proof that he intended to kill, but an expectation that he should have known that he almost certainly would.

 

[JuneBug67]

He may be a state employee but his testimony was never approved by the state. In fact his testimony was so shockingly misinformed that Roux never even redirected/recrossed him from what I remember. They couldn't get him off the stand fast enough.

It was entirely his choice to testify in English. No excuse.

It was stated in court that the state or some other body had to either select or approve him or something along those lines. Presumably prior to producing his report, but there is still an air of assumed impartiality there.

 

[JudgeJudi]

"The natives are getting restless" from Juror13

Lisa's latest blog. It's a big blog with a big interview. I haven't read or watched it yet but it's sure to be great.

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/

 

[lithgow1]

I thnk that was a judicial judgment call that could have fallen either way. In other words, should she have wanted to justify a finding of murder she probably could have in the law. The explanation that was clearest to me was by a legal expert who thought she was correct in law. He said that her finding that he intended to shoot was not the same thing as finding that he intended to kill - clear, provable intention being the key. Once can shoot in a panic intending to scare or injure as well for example, or not forming any coherent intention at all. But because the reasonable person should have anticipated the clear risk of death in the circumstances, he is guilty of CH. So no proof that he intended to kill, but an expectation that he should have known that he almost certainly would.

Re BIB - So how do you gell that with him making the concious decision to not fire a warning shot as it might ricochet and injure him? His answer to that question was almost indignant - 'but I might have hurt myself!'. And remember, this isn't someone who is unused to handling a firearm so if his intention wasn't to kill then what the hell was it? It just doesn't make sense to me. I see where you are coming from - I think I read the same article or a similar one - but it takes some legal gymnastics to get to that rationale IMO. From my reading of reactions to the verdict, for every legal commentator supporting it there have been two with deep misgivings so it's by no means widely accepted as a good judgement in this particular case.

 

[soozieqtips]

Okay. Time for bed. Hope to see as many of you as possible in 8 hours time for the sentencing!!

Night night everyone.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Goodnight to everyone. I am VERY unlikely to catch sentence live, so won't log in until after I am able to watch online. It has been my privilege to share these months with you all :grouphug:

 

[jilly]

What I think that orgy of interviews given by OP's siblings most shows is just how out of touch they must be with public opinion and perceptions. I don't really understand their timing unless it is to try and saturate the media with themselves so there is less concentration on tomorrow's events (and they would know they would grab all the headlines) but what I really don't get is the tone they took, the way they were blaming the media and coming across as so centred on how it has affected them despite paying some lip service to Reeva Steenkamp and her loved ones. The whole thing just felt 'off' to me and I really think they're kidding themselves if they think it will somehow rehabilitate Pistorius' image or their own. If anything, it will provoke the type of 'uggh' attitude it largely did here. Are they that clueless or is their PR person that tone deaf to how they are largely perceived these days? I think the actual interviews at this time were ill advised and not likely to make them at all sympathetic despite the hand holding and sad wistful faces. Whatever their motive/s, if the reaction to Karyn Maughyn, Barry Bateman etc on twitter is any indicator, it hasn't worked.

Of course, we're all the 'little people'. They're so out of touch and this is all about their image. Yup. Got the uggggggh reaction from me and I only saw a few words of one interview. I won't give up my time to listen to their phoney baloney.

We all watched and saw how none of them shed a tear during Kim Martin's testimony and then this sister says she loved Reeva? gmab.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I thnk that was a judicial judgment call that could have fallen either way. In other words, should she have wanted to justify a finding of murder she probably could have in the law. The explanation that was clearest to me was by a legal expert who thought she was correct in law. He said that her finding that he intended to shoot was not the same thing as finding that he intended to kill - clear, provable intention being the key. Once can shoot in a panic intending to scare or injure as well for example, or not forming any coherent intention at all. But because the reasonable person should have anticipated the clear risk of death in the circumstances, he is guilty of CH. So no proof that he intended to kill, but an expectation that he should have known that he almost certainly would.

first shot... maybe at this point arguable the intention was to shoot, but not kill. [panic/startle/scare/injure etc]
more difficult to argue away the intention to kill didn't then emerge... after shot one... or after shot two... or after shot three?

into that space, do you think four shots is not an intention to kill? how many more would it take for clear, provable intention, 6? 8? 10?

it also interests me that if there was no intention to kill, what was the thinking/intention around ceasing to shoot?

 

[WilliamMunter]

first shot... maybe at this point arguable the intention was to shoot, but not kill. [panic/startle/scare/injure etc]
more difficult to argue away the intention to kill didn't then emerge... after shot one... or after shot two... or after shot three?

into that space, do you think four shots is not an intention to kill? how many more would it take for clear, provable intention, 6? 8? 10?

it also interests me that if there was no intention to kill, what was the thinking/intention around ceasing to shoot?

As a mental exercise I have often tried to predict what the judge's verdict would have been if instead of using a hand gun, Pistorius had used a bazooka, fired into the toilet and blown the side of the building off. Still culpable homicide?

 

[Estelle]

Oscar Pistorius: The D-Day this way comes

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...torius-the-d-day-this-way-comes/#.VEWimFcgueu