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

[fox1lady]

Did anyone watch the link where the reporter was pretty much teasing Pisstorius's dad about being locked up for 5 years and how did he feel about it? I thought it was really terrible what she was doing as she definitely was trying to get any reaction from him. After a while of saying nothing, he said to her in no uncertain terms "just leave me alone"! It was clear that he was upset but she said "are you upset Mr Pistorius, are you heartbroken?"

Watch from about 1.15.30 it'll be the ANC Women's League, followed by Henke Pistorius and then the Steenkamps. I love it when they leave the cameras rolling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVL2zZCyKo

 

[Fuskier]

A few thoughts.

<respectfully snipped>

I do wonder if Masipa deliberately made sure he went inside for a little while in order to protect him from "society taking the law into its own hands".

I wonder similarly.

 

[vansleuths]

BBM:
I hope it is Masipa's last case. She needs to retire now and let there be Judges with no bias. I was not impressed with her at all, nor her female advocate.

I was just curious why you weren't impressed with the female advocate. Other then the one or two questions that she asked OP, she didn't say anything at all.

In terms of Masipa, I can understand everyone's frustrations, but do remember that she has had a long career and this is just one trial. If people go back to the beginning of this trial, before verdict/sentence was given, you'll see just how positive the comments were about her and how happy people were to have her on the bench.

 

[vansleuths]

Well let's hope so .. I'm of the opinion now that society will have to take the law into their own hands, as the justice system in SA clearly cannot be relied upon.

How would you suggest society take the law into their own hands? Vigilantism, mob justice? The Taliban has these sorts of rules and it doesn't appear to be a very nice place to live in their neck of the woods.

Again, we have processes, let's follow the processes to get a just result or at least the change to ensure the just result happens the next time.

 

[foxbluff]

not sure I do either. Defence won't, for sure. And with the steenkamps saying they are ok with the verdict and wanting desperately to move on, I don't think the state will have the stomach for it either. I presume they have shed loads of cases to prosecute and may not have the time or resources to go through this one again.
I hope I'm wrong though, as that would only be good news for potential murderers who want to 'do an Oscar' after killing their partners.

BBM - I agree !!

BTW, I l-o-v-e your choice of new wallpaper!! When OP was testifying many wondered whether Roux regretted having taken his case. Now, today, I look at your cartoon and think of Roux saying that to OP as he happily heads off to the BANK. I imagine that the cost of hiring him has gone up...

Now just jumping off your post... Some here have mentioned thinking that the families on both sides may have been let in on the sentencing results prior to the Judge declaring the sentence(s). I don't believe that happened. If they didn't show a lot of surprise when the sentence(s) was read, I think that's probably due to these experienced lawyers having pretty much predicted the outcome and shared that with the families.

 

[jay-jay]

I was just curious why you weren't impressed with the female advocate. Other then the one or two questions that she asked OP, she didn't say anything at all.

In terms of Masipa, I can understand everyone's frustrations, but do remember that she has had a long career and this is just one trial. If people go back to the beginning of this trial, before verdict/sentence was given, you'll see just how positive the comments were about her and how happy people were to have her on the bench.

BBM .. that was when we had heard all the accounts of what a harsh judge she was .. but then it started to become obvious, by the questions she was asking in court, that she wasn't really on the ball. I went off her even before the verdict was announced, so it was nothing to do with her dishing out a verdict that I don't believe was the correct one, it was because it started to dawn on me that she was clueless and gullible.

 

[jay-jay]

How would you suggest society take the law into their own hands? Vigilantism, mob justice? The Taliban has these sorts of rules and it doesn't appear to be a very nice place to live in their neck of the woods.

Again, we have processes, let's follow the processes to get a just result or at least the change to ensure the just result happens the next time.

The 'processes' have failed Reeva. The truth won't ever be heard now, and Pistorius has got away with murder.

 

[MsMarple]

I know what you mean. While others on here have said over the last few months that JM was not sympathetic towards RS, I didn't really buy that, but today I thought her comments were just that - unsympathetic, rather cold and dismissive - and a stark contrast with what she said about the blubbering, remorseful OP.

Which made me wonder if she is just a little contemptuous of someone who was bright enough to get a law degree but, instead of making a valuable contribution to society as a result of that, chose a frivolous and mindless career in modelling and reality TV.

Even if so, that should have zero to do with the fate of OP.

ITA! Masipa's dismissal of Reeva's messages and the ugly scenes Oscar made when they were in public as nothing more than being part of a “normal” relationship was very hard to swallow. Today's comment that Reeva was “good in front of a camera” tells me everything I need to know about Masipa's true feelings about Reeva.

Loud and clear.

 

[MsMarple]

And I love the way Masipa left the back door open for Oscar:

The five years imposed on Oscar Pistorius was significant, because a longer sentence would not have given him a chance of house arrest, says a law expert.
...
According to Section 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the sentence is not more than five years, the offender could only serve one-sixth of the jail sentence.
...
The remainder of the time could be converted to house arrest.

This meant Pistorius could spend only 10 months in prison.

“That is why it was carefully chosen,” said Tuson.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/pistorius-sentence-carefully-chosen-expert/

 

[foxbluff]

I uploaded the letter OP sent to Trish and Samantha during that time - you’ll get a clear picture of how messed up he was:

http://cl.ly/Xses

In case you don’t want to download - direct link to PDF:
http://f.cl.ly/items/2c2L0C1c273i2u0L0r0D/AWTH-letter.pdf

Ty for reposting that.

Imho, Oscar used to have the greatest of smiles... those kind that reach the eyes and light up the whole face. I used to try to pinpoint when it was that Oscar stopped really smiling. I couldn't pin it down exactly, but strongly suspect the way he caused himself to lose ST might have been a big part of it. I'm of the opinion that he actually loved (in his own way) her and vice versa. And, I think they both still hurt from it.

 

[soozieqtips]

ITA! Masipa's dismissal of Reeva's messages and the ugly scenes Oscar made when they were in public as nothing more than being part of a “normal” relationship was very hard to swallow. Today's comment that Reeva was “good in front of a camera” tells me everything I need to know about Masipa's true feelings about Reeva.

Loud and clear.

BIB - I was very surprised she said that out loud. After gushing over OP's achievements for God knows how long, and what he'd contributed to society, she said nothing positive about Reeva's contribution to society, or what society had lost now that she was the 'deceased'. She was reduced to nothing more than being good in front of a camera. I thought it was a pretty hostile and tactless thing to say, to be honest.

 

[Fuskier]

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.

IMO this was disrespectful by Judge Masipa towards Reeva, a reductionist view of her which diminished her achievements. I hope this comment will be scrutinized by her peers. My opinion only.

 

[AW2B]

BBM - I've no doubt that you're right about that !!

My gut instinct (and, yes, it's not always right) is that a Court of Appeal will simply uphold the Judge's decisions.

And I have a tiny fear that a Court of Appeal might possibly reduce verdict/sentence...

Bottom line: I think it's best for both sides to accept the Judge's rulings and get on with other cases.

BBM

IMO ..the possibility of the verdict/sentence getting reduced is almost nil!

I personally hope the state will appeal. This is a travesty of justice that needs to be corrrected..

 

[pandax81]

Ok - I understand but I think the original judgement was full of weasel words and an intention to avoid making specific factual findings the judge was called upon to make.

This is now even more specific - and renders the verdict obviously incorrect on its face.

My training is with NZ law - and I believe the Court of Appeal of NZ would find that there was a significant risk the judge had misdirected herself.

Specifically because she fails to explain your second point.

In other words, how was it that OP intended to shoot the person but did not in fact foresee the possibility of death?

While you are legally correct in your second point - the judge actually has to make the factual finding that shows how it did not constitute murder.

She cannot just assume it, or refuse to accept the logical inferences which flow from her own findings.

I think maybe you are mistakenly attaching opinions to me which I do not hold. My points were just what I said they were, nothing more. You might be trying to disagree with someone who agrees with you.

Here's my opinion from a post I once made: "Even on the court's own findings of fact, if the principles of law are applied correctly, then OP is at least guilty of murder by virtue of knowing he was unlawfully firing shots 2, 3 and 4 accepting he may kill."

 

[Fuskier]

I was also SHOCKED when she stated this. I let out an audible gasp.

What is with this judge? She seems so concerned with OP & how he'll handle prison (for apparently less than a year), his "lost" money & income, etc. Then says the statement mention above ....how the Steenkamp's suffered, especially financially (something close to that). They lost their beloved daughter. That was the appropriate "especially" to highlight. I found it insulting. GOOD GRIEF!

I was disturbed by Judge Masipa's comments here. I hope her comments are scrutinized by her peers.

 

[foxbluff]

Does anyone know if the Judge's Sentencing Statement will be published? TIA.

 

[Zuri]

ITA! Masipa's dismissal of Reeva's messages and the ugly scenes Oscar made when they were in public as nothing more than being part of a &#8220;normal&#8221; relationship was very hard to swallow. Today's comment that Reeva was &#8220;good in front of a camera&#8221; tells me everything I need to know about Masipa's true feelings about Reeva.

Loud and clear.

Jumping off your post.

I got the same opinion. It seemed as though JM either forgot Reeva had gone to law school, or thought Reeva was silly for having chosen modeling over law. Regardless of whatever Reeva did in life, she did not deserve to die in the manner she did, at the hands of OP. Reeva deserved to live a long life and live her life as she wanted. JMV

 

[Fuskier]

Pistorius Jailed just aired on BBC World News

Law prof stephan Terblanche ... added that, according to SA law, OP can't profit by writing a memoir about the crime directly or indirectly, although this had never actually been tested in a court of law.

<respectfully snipped>

[UNQUOTE]

FYI

 

[fox1lady]

I was surprised by that too, then I thought perhaps it was just the wording as English isn't her first language... but then when she said something like the Steenkamp's were struggling with losing their daughter, especially financially... I was gobsmacked to say the least!

 

[pandax81]

yes exactly!

How on earth can they be reconciled?

In the end, to arrive at CH, the judge needed to find self defence, based on an unreasonable mistake.

Further on this point - we can go all the way back to this excellent piece of writing by Dadic.

The problem is that Masipa's finding is contrary to the accused own pleading.



It was actually this catastrophe under cross that blew up his entire defence. Because somehow he was pleading self defence whilst not actually pleading it.

Yet somehow the judge found a unique solution where you can intentionally shoot someone, not in self defence, and its not murder.

The court in its judgment did find OP intentionally shot in putative self defence.

It didn't make a finding as to whether his mistaken beliefs were reasonable, but it did make a finding that he took steps in response to his mistaken beliefs which the reasonable man would not have done as he would have foreseen the possibility of unlawfully killing the person behind the door as a consequence.

This properly constitutes culpable homicide, and was not contradicted in the sentencing judgment.

(Please be assured I'm not picking on you mrjitty, I do always reply when I feel something significant is not quite right)