Trial Discussion Thread #59 - 14.21.10, Day 48 ~ sentencing~

[Aika]

[COMING] #OscarSentencing breakdown from: NPA's Nathi Mncube, Media Law Specialist @Dariomilo & Sports Science Institute's Dr. Ross Tucker.

On right now on 702

 

[Aika]

Summary of NPA on 702: We will study the law. It’s not a question of sentiment. We have to be guided by the law.

We respect the views (of Reeva’s family that justice was done). But we focus on the error in law. It’s a question of law. If there are issues that need to be clarified it needs to be done. At this point we are busy studying the law. If there was en error in law - dangerous for future cases.

 

[Paul_1900]

I wonder if Barry and June still want to meet with him, and for Barry to talk to him 'man to man' and look him in the eye? I very much doubt OP will want to .. but, it will be interesting to see what happens on that front, and if they leave it long enough to do, prison may have 'broken' him enough to end up confessing. I doubt he ever will though .. but I just wonder if he will be strong enough to hide his guilt if sat down opposite Barry and June, after several months inside?

Was wondering too. I have a feeling that Barry still might want to sit with him, possibly only to get confirmation for what they already know now - that it was anything else, but never an accident. Somehow I wish they would have the courage to confront him, not sure though if it would do them good.

Don't think he will ever confess. Firstly he would have to admit to himself - and whatever really happened that night - he is not able to face the truth.

JMO

btw . . . I hated the overly extensive use of downsizing wordings like "accident / incident / worst one is "event". Can see the strategy, and of course every accused s/b allowed fair trial, but DT lost a lot of my respect through this.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I am surprised he's allowed a cell phone while incarcerated.......thought cell phones were considered verboten

The Waterkloof 4 had them, and a TV, a video camera, alcohol, and had parties. They're white and privileged too. They're all forbidden but ... I guess money buys privilege wherever you are. Prison officers probably earn very little.

 

[JudgeJudi]

'Oscar will embrace this opportunity to pay back to society....'

Yeah right!

Well I'd love to know how he intends to do this. Maybe donate a few pairs of used Nike shoes like he's done in the past.

 

[Aika]

Dr Ross Tucker on OP’s future career:

He is surprised how quickly the Paralympic Committee (IPC) came out with their statement on OP (not allowed to compete for 5 years). Very unusual.

What about the IOC? - We don’t know yet, will they follow the IPC?

Chances of coming back: not impossible, he will be 32 years. It can happen, but it wouldn’t be the norm. The bigger issue is mental. Will he get invited? He might be seen as off-putting.

 

[JudgeJudi]

So according to Arnold, the State should have ignored REEVA'S SCREAMS and all the evidence against the killer?

No, the State did the right thing in prosecuting him. There was every chance that, with a different judge, the outcome would have been different.

The whole family are beyond belief and beyond redemption IMO. Remember when Lois P said to Nel, "You ought to be ashamed of yourself". OMG, the man is doing his job. I'd love to have shouted that at Roux with all his sneaky, underhand, disingenuous carryings on.

 

[G.bng]

BIB

Did Tuson get this wrong, or the reporter? 1/6th of the sentence converted to house arrest would mean that he would be in prison for 4 years 2 months. I thought Roxanne of the DT said he would be in prison 10 months and house arrest for the rest (ie 4years 2 months), ie 5/6ths of the sentence.

Doubt Tuson got it wrong more like it was misquoted by the reporter. Roxanne of the DT said it right, i.e. after 1/6th sentence, in this case 10 months, rest can be converted to house arrest, which is exactly what it says on the SA government's own website "Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards" being the first rule under the heading "Minimum periods to be served before placement is considered" :

In respect of offender’s who can be considered for placement under Correctional Supervision or referred back to the court a quo for possible conversion of sentence into Correctional Supervision the following periods must be served:

• Section 276 1(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]6 [/SUB][SUB]of sentence must be served prior to placement under Correctional Supervision by the Commissioner. Sentence may not exceed 5 years.
[/SUB]​

• Section 276(1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Normal term of imprisonment which may be referred to the court a quo upon completion of [SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]4[/SUB]of sentence for possible conversion of sentence in terms of section 276A (3). The portion of sentence left to be served may not exceed 5 years.
​

• Section 287(4) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Option of a fine as alternative to imprisonment where the sentence does not exceed 5 years: As soon as possible after admission subject to certain conditions.
​

• Section 287 (4) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Option of a fine as alternative to imprisonment where the sentence exceeds 5 years imprisonment. Upon completion of [SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]4 [/SUB]of sentence case may be referred to court a quo for possible conversion.​

 

[Cherwell]

Special treatment has started already. #Pistorius driven out of court in his own police van, instead of waiting for the day's cases at 4pm

https://twitter.com/jeromestarkey/status/524550146160603137

Quite right too. Why should ordinary decent criminals have to share van space with this ?

 

[JudgeJudi]

A: The family accepts the verdict...Oscar will have opportunity to rehabilitate...I hope the media will give him the chance....I hope Oscar will start his own healing as he walks the path of recovery...


Refuses to answer any questions.

I hope when he's released the media just follow him around at a discreet distance and give him the chance to exhibit his normal bad behaviour, catch it on video, show it to Nel and get him sent back to prison to service out the rest of his 5 year sentence.

 

[soozieqtips]

I wonder if OP will be too angry to attend anger-management classes :smile:

I certainly hope they're mandatory. He shouldn't be allowed to fester and become more and more bitter about his 'wrongful' imprisonment and the mean old media.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I don't know ... puking, howling, wailing Oz may not last even 10 months in prison. LOL

He's nothing more than a coward with a huge sense of entitlement, used to the good life, giving orders and getting exactly what he demands.

They'll break him.

His family and a couple friends may put up with his sh#t, but SA will not.

Another reporter said on TV that Uncle Arnold would be checking to see that OP's being well looked after and would go back to court if he wasn't. Naturally.

 

[JudgeJudi]

The Guardian missed out Uncle A going on about mosaics. I def heard that. Who was it who brought mosaics up at trial, Roux or Nel?

The Guardian article is abridged. There were a number of things omitted and the mosaic was definitely mentioned. Arnold referred to the mosaic in a scathing tone.

 

[AlexUK]

The whole family are beyond belief and beyond redemption IMO. Remember when Lois P said to Nel, "You ought to be ashamed of yourself". OMG, the man is doing his job. I'd love to have shouted that at Roux with all his sneaky, underhand, disingenuous carryings on.

I'd love to know how much Roux has made from this case :thinking:

 

[jay-jay]

I'm also wondering how the ear witnesses must be feeling today .. after all, they know what they heard that night. They must feel sick to their stomachs (although they probably had the first round of feeling like that when the verdict was delivered).

 

[patCee]

My feelings are that bias played a big part in this trial, from the missing evidence, to the dismissal of the PT witnesses evidence, all of which allowed a reliance on the timeline. When left with circumstantial evidence it's much easier to fit this into any bias held by the decision makers.

This is SA and I believe that JM found it to be irreconcilable, the idea of a privileged white man in his prime, a celebrity sportsman from a wealthy, educated family having to cope with a prison environment. He just would not fit in would he? How can such a man rot in prison with the other riffraff? For JM it had to have been a mistake, a one off, and would never happen again.

JM ignored the question of whether he is a dangerous man despite the other offences he committed with a gun. The not guilty of firing through the sunroof despite 2 witnesses saying he did. I believe he did fire, as it would have been typical of his character. That and the firing a gun at the restaurant could each have resulted in someone being injured, or even killed. Then there are the altercations with other people, the tantrums and the boat incident. All of these in my opinion makes him dangerous, a loose canon.

 

[Cherwell]

My feelings are that bias played a big part in this trial, from the missing evidence, to the dismissal of the PT witnesses evidence, all of which allowed a reliance on the timeline. When left with circumstantial evidence it's much easier to fit this into any bias held by the decision makers.

This is SA and I believe that JM found it to be irreconcilable, the idea of a privileged white man in his prime, a celebrity sportsman from a wealthy, educated family having to cope with a prison environment. He just would not fit in would he? How can such a man rot in prison with the other riffraff? For JM it had to have been a mistake, a one off, and would never happen again.

JM ignored the question of whether he is a dangerous man despite the other offences he committed with a gun. The not guilty of firing through the sunroof despite 2 witnesses saying he did. I believe he did fire, as it would have been typical of his character. That and the firing a gun at the restaurant could each have resulted in someone being injured, or even killed. Then there are the altercations with other people, the tantrums and the boat incident. All of these in my opinion makes him dangerous, a loose canon.

She also clearly thought Reeva was not worthy of any respect as all she could find to say was that "she was good in front of a camera". I thought that was very telling.

 

[patCee]

Arnold says the worst part was how the truth became irrelevant to the state. He says prosecutors tried to make the premeditated murder puzzle fit.

http://ewn.co.za/Features/oscarpistorius/live-blog

 

[zwiebel]

Le Parisien has a photo gallery from today. it's quite good.

http://www.leparisien.fr/diaporama/...m_medium=twitter#xtref=http://t.co/pGryt0L52N

 

[soozieqtips]

She also clearly thought Reeva was not worthy of any respect as all she could find to say was that "she was good in front of a camera". I thought that was very telling.

BIB - really demeaning to mention that while neglecting to mention her law degree. "Good in front of a camera" is a real putdown. That wasn't what made up the entire person, yet the way Masipa described her, she was just eye candy and not much else.