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

[Estelle]

Pistorius' siblings recall tragedy (CNN interview)

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/10/20/intv-curnow-pistorius-siblings.cnn.html

I thought Robyn Curnow had an Australian accent so I just checked and she was born here.

 

[jay-jay]

What I believe to the bottom of my toes is that we really, really can't know. And really, really shouldn't assume. Vermulen could not link the bat or anything else to the damage. And again, Nel didn't even ask (I don't think). In my mind those things are both significant and truly should inform whether the damaged panel is factored in to our thinking.

But like I said, you can argue away or ignore all sorts of things with regard to this, or indeed any other crime .. at the end of the day, you have to take the thing as a whole, and as such, things like a bashed in metal plate on the front of the bath is actually significant because it's unlikely to have ended up like that from just normal day to day activities. It's about weighing up the likelihood of things .. if this was a jury case, then these are exactly the sorts of things a jury would actually be taking into account as part of their decision as to whether a person is guilty or not .. they take absolutely everything into account, not just things like DNA evidence or suchlike. If we were to judge a case in the way that you, or Masipa, are trying to do .. by insisting there is no evidence for this, no evidence for that .. then no-one would ever get convicted unless they had a video of the person actually committing the crime, and even then it would probably be argued away that it was mucked about with to make it appear that person had committed the crime .. that's how ridiculous it gets when people want to insist on arguing absolutely everything away. At the end of the day, you have to be realistic.

 

[JuneBug67]

I've noticed how many experts in the media have been reluctant to predict sentence. Probably partly because the judgement surprised them and they either feel they can't predict Masipa or don't want to be wrong again. I have very little sense of where this will go tomorrow. I said a few days ago that I think a custodial sentence may be in Oscar's own best interests, and Masipa has a history of handing down proportional and even strict sentences. However so much of the law is supposed to be objective and precedent based that I wonder about the fact that the independent person the defense called thought a house arrest sentence was appropriate and I wonder about that report guideline that suggests disabled prisoners should be given community based sentences where possible. Those two things may have significant objective weight. Overall I thought Roux's arguments about the difference between what some segments of society want and the interests of society were superior to Nel's point about 'giving society what we want' and drawing no distinctions between society and the living victims of Oscar's crime.

I don't know what to expect really. I think the only thing that would truly shock me is if she gives him a long custodial sentence approaching ten years or more.

 

[JuneBug67]

But like I said, you can argue away or ignore all sorts of things with regard to this, or indeed any other crime .. at the end of the day, you have to take the thing as a whole, and as such, things like a bashed in metal plate on the front of the bath is actually significant because it's unlikely to have ended up like that from just normal day to day activities. It's about weighing up the likelihood of things .. if this was a jury case, then these are exactly the sorts of things a jury would actually be taking into account as part of their decision as to whether a person is guilty or not .. they take absolutely everything into account, not just things like DNA evidence or suchlike. If we were to judge a case in the way that you, or Masipa, are trying to do .. by insisting there is no evidence for this, no evidence for that .. then no-one would ever get convicted unless they had a video of the person actually committing the crime, and even then it would probably be argued away that it was mucked about with to make it appear that person had committed the crime .. that's how ridiculous it gets when people want to insist on arguing absolutely everything away. At the end of the day, you have to be realistic.

But it's not arguing it away to say that no evidence was presented to explain it at all. It's pointing out that we were given no evidence to weigh on the issue at all. In fact the opposite is true: it's arguing it in. It's including it in our thinking that requires arguments, as you've made.

 

[jay-jay]

But it's not arguing it away to say that no evidence was presented to explain it at all. It's pointing out that we were given no evidence to weigh on the issue at all. In fact the opposite is true: it's arguing it in. It's including it in our thinking that requires arguments, as you've made.

I give up :waitasec:

 

[WilliamMunter]

I've noticed how many experts in the media have been reluctant to predict sentence. Probably partly because the judgement surprised them and they either feel they can't predict Masipa or don't want to be wrong again. I have very little sense of where this will go tomorrow. I said a few days ago that I think a custodial sentence may be in Oscar's own best interests, and Masipa has a history of handing down proportional and even strict sentences. However so much of the law is supposed to be objective and precedent based that I wonder about the fact that the independent person the state called thought a house arrest sentence was appropriate and I wonder about that report guideline that suggests disabled prisoners should be given community based sentences where possible. Those two things may have significant objective weight. Overall I thought Roux's arguments about the difference between what some segments of society want and the interests of society were superior to Nel's point about 'giving society what we want' and drawing no distinctions between society and the living victims of Oscar's crime.

I don't know what to expect really. I think the only thing that would truly shock me is if she gives him a long custodial sentence approaching ten years or more.

I missed this witness. Please enlighten me.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Based on your logic it's just about as reasonable to say the two sets of sounds were 1) Bat strikes 2) Unknown. Not that reasonable in my view. But anyway. As you know, the determination of which came first did not depend on sound, so your logical leap on the certainty that can or can't flow from that is irrelevant. I only addressed the screaming that was testified to occuring during and slightly after the second sounds. It's not an assumption that Reeva was shot through a closed door in the toilet. It's not an assumption that the state's case is that Reeva was shot at around 3:17 and that it was her screaming at that time. What is a wild assumption is that prying out a panel necessarily made no sound(!). This is exactly what I mean. There is virtually nothing you said here that is relevant and not at least slightly non-sensical.

Bottom line is that the state's testimony is that the door was broken through with a bat strike and that the wedged bat was levered to split apart the panels and break the door. Many, many people haves substituted their own judgement for that with no basis in reason. I'm still waiting for somebody, anybody to explain why their judgement should be accepted over the state's own witness, the defence witnesses and, yes, Pistorius' unchanged story on this aspect of events.

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.

 

[soozieqtips]

I missed this witness. Please enlighten me.

I know you're not asking me, but I'll hazard a guess it was Annette Vorster, who was paid by the defence for her report, so not strictly independent at all, and the other person suggesting house arrest was Maringa, who hadn't even read the judgment, and based his opinion on the Tasha's incident

 

[WilliamMunter]

I know you're not asking me, but I'll hazard a guess it was Annette Vorster, who was paid by the defence for her report, so not strictly independent at all, and the other person suggesting house arrest was Maringa, who hadn't even read the judgment, and based his opinion on the Tasha's incident

She was a defence witness. Junebug was stating it was a state witness who testified.

 

[OZe]

In reference to Mr. Fossil's previous post:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-10-Day-46-sentencing&p=11097412#post11097412

With regard to the critical information the door yielded it IS making up evidence when you imply that there is some equally plausible alternative explanation, even though Nel didn't offer a single substantive hint of it in court. He asks only about the unprovable timing of the one mark, and in that concedes the unanimous conclusions of all the experts on both sides regarding the significance of the other one. I think Vermulen agreed or agreed with qualification at least three times that the door was damaged after the shots, that it was intact when the shots were fired.

The testimony was that it was the hard strike that penetrated the door allowing the bat to be used as a wedge and lever that ultimately broke open the door. How could it be reasonable to think that somehow, despite no evidence supporting it, that Oscar later quietly surreptitiously pulled at the door with his hands, or invisibly kicked it or whatever excuses are offered to avoid this evidence devastating to the state. No reasonable or fair person would do so. The evidence is clear and reasonable assumptions must be made:

1) one set of sounds was bat strikes, one set was gun shots.
2) the strike that testimony indicated was key in breaking open the door was almost certainly loud and part of one of the sound sets
3) there was no stray bang after the second sounds the state calls gun shots that could account for the strike attributed to breaking open the door
4) the angle on both bat strike impressions was the same, suggesting Pistorius was at the same height (ie legs on or off) for both. As per testimony and common sense it seems much more reasonable to think Pistorius was on his legs in order to swing a bat with sufficient force to break open a door. It also makes more sense with the timeline after the second sounds that he already had is prostheses on at this point.
5) Again, the two distinct sets of sounds supports the idea that all the bat strikes came together. Though the the two bat marks were at the same angle they were not made from the same standing position. This perhaps correlates with Michelle Burger's recollection of a pause between the first bang and the ones that followed. He hit it, it wasn't productive or the section hit shocked his hands as he testified, and he moved to tackle it from a different stance.
6) Michelle Burger also recalled hearing the terrified screaming throughout the second sounds and, most importantly, lasting for a few moments after the last bang. Is this not much more likely to have been Oscar screaming as he was hammering the door and then for a few moments after the hit that 'worked' as he was wedging the bat to break open the door? And stopping when he was through and able to proceed? Or is it more likely that Reeva screamed through her devastating head wound and for a few moments after it?
7) The sound guy testified that it was unlikely that sounds from a closed toilet with a closed window would have been intelligible from the distances in involved. Again, more likely that people almost 200 m away heard Oscar screaming from the bathroom with the open window rather than Reeva screaming through a devastating head wound from a room with a closed door and a closed window.

It's devastating evidence. And I will repeat that you have to avoid, dodge, and invent to escape it. Even Gerrie Nel didn't really try, thus Roux's point about his utter failure to address the key issue of the first sounds.

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.

 

[lithgow1]

David Dadic
‏@DavidDadic
But I can say what I (repeat I) think SHOULD happen. 1) OP should get jail time (possibly a portion suspended).2) State should (must) Appeal.

In another tweet he said were it up to him he'd be looking at about eight years, so four before he'd be eligible for parole. Hope DD's turns out to roughly match JM's, at least.

 

[Lyra500]

Why on earth would the state call a witness to recommend house arrest when they have been clear that they feel that Pistorius deserves a custodial sentence for justice to be done?

I find that highly unlikely - I would love to see a link too.

 

[JuneBug67]

She was a defence witness. Junebug was stating it was a state witness who testified.

Sorry..had corrected that in my original post. I meant the guy that testified. The defense requested his report but the state had to approve him as he is affiliated with one of the official bodies...corrections or something.

Editing to add...yes...Maringa. Thanks to the poster up thread. I don't think he was basing his judgment on the Tasha's incident. I suspect that was at least at times a language issue. Anyway, we will find out soon if it had any weight.

 

[Cherwell]

I would hope for at least 7 yrs with a suspended sentence. The mere fact that life as Oscar knew it, would be over for that period. Reporting to a probation officer and having someone dictate to him what he can and can't do; he's not going to adjust well to that. Totally beneath that entire family answer to anyone. It must have been really tough for them all to sit in that courtroom.

You might have a point about a 2 yr suspended sentence tho. It was Oscar's plan to go in the next Olympics in Brazil in 2016. In order to do that he has to train, so I can see Masipa giving him this amount of sentence so that he can get his life back together. I don't know if he would have any sponsors tho.

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.

 

[WilliamMunter]

Sorry..had corrected that in my original post. I meant the guy that testified. The defense requested his report but the state had to approve him as he is affiliated with one of the official bodies...corrections or something.

Editing to add...yes...Maringa. Thanks to the poster up thread. I don't think he was basing his judgment on the Tasha's incident. I suspect that was a language issue. Anyway, we will find out soon if it had any weight.

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

 

[jilly]

I thought Robyn Curnow had an Australian accent so I just checked and she was born here.

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!

 

[soozieqtips]

She was a defence witness. Junebug was stating it was a state witness who testified.

Oops. My mistake for speed reading

 

[Estelle]

Let’s look at Oscar’s (rejected) (blood money) “gift” / “trust” to the Steenkamps.

R375 000 = $34,042 = £21,044

That’s right, folks, this is how much Reeva Steenkamp’s life is worth in PistoriusLand.

Pocket change for upper-crusters.

The filthy-rich Pistorius clan has deep financial interests in 120+ national and international corporations.

What does this insultingly paltry sum indicate?

We’re going to buy the Steenkamps’ silence, cut off any threat of a massively expensive civil suit (which we would no doubt lose) and we’re going to do it as CHEAPLY as possible.

I have a strong feeling that Uncle Arnie made Oscar eat the financial repercussions of this “tragic incident”, hence the selling off of all his assets. (Despite the prayerful, lovey-dovey united family front in public, can you imagine the hellacious, screaming family FIGHTS this murder has caused behind closed doors?) Uncle Arnie wasn’t about to be financially inconvenienced by Oscar’s f##kup or at the very least, keep it to a bare minimum. Uncle Arnie had no intention of putting any of the family money into the Steenkamp “trust” - Oscar was forced to offer only what funds he could personally cough up (SEE BELOW).

At any rate, the token amount was pure show, nothing more than baiting and taking advantage of already destitute victims in a calculated legal strategy.

So, what did Oscar and Co. lose? Mere pocket change.

To put the tiny amount of $34,042 (R375 000) into context - the median annual household income in the US is $51,939.

If the family had been smart, they would have made their “unconditional” “gift” seriously impressive, one that stung their bank account for at least a few seconds ... would have been more believable.

I have no time to do this now but one of you might like to do it.

How much was OP worth at the time of the shooting?

How much did he have to pay in unpaid taxes?

How much did he sell his crime scene house for?

What did he sell his race horse for?

What were his other two properties worth?

What were his cars worth? How many did he have?

What about his watches?

What about all his guns?

Anything else? Add it up and subtract what he paid Roux and what is left?

I think on this thread someone posted how much Roux has been paid (compared to what Nel earns).

OP has probably had few expenses living at Uncle Arnie's house.

I think if this verdict is appealed and a murder verdict given, Nel might encourage the Steenkamps to mount a civil suit then.

 

[soozieqtips]

Sorry..had corrected that in my original post. I meant the guy that testified. The defense requested his report but the state had to approve him as he is affiliated with one of the official bodies...corrections or something.

Editing to add...yes...Maringa. Thanks to the poster up thread. I don't think he was basing his judgment on the Tasha's incident. I suspect that was at least at times a language issue. Anyway, we will find out soon if it had any weight.

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.

 

[K.T]

I'm trying to write quickly on my phone but here a few quick points about the Pistorius siblings latest interviews. Three!

Will review again and if we have time before sentencing, discuss in greater detail.

1. Obvious attempt at reputational management and public relations. Control the narrative, control the court of public opinion.

2. The family and their press agent chosen three press agencies to peddle their side of the story. This means they want the headlines and the coverage spread. Maximum 'sympathetic' coverage, photogenic *sad* faces of Oscar Pistorius' proxy.

3. I have a PR friend that, with the defence team, played the public perception of an embezzler/corruption case (and other charges) reworking profile of the accused into a modern day altruistic Robin Hood. Reputational management with high profile long wallet criminal clients is here to stay and it's a moral vacuum and growth industry.

4. This is the family who reportedly paid tens of thousands to fly in UK PR maven Stuart Higgins to work on Pistorius image, probably while the victim's body was cooling in the morgue.

5. Not only Oscar but the whole wealthy clan knows the 'Pistorius' name is on the line. They need to save as much of their image in the public gaze and also their cliquey social circles, expect more of these soft focus interviews and press manipulation.

to be cont. (have to run)