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

[PrimeSuspect]

In case you have been wondering what Judge Masipa's notes looked like. :giggle::giggle:

https://twitter.com/search?q="Judge Masipa"&src=tren&mode=photos

:giggle:

 

[RosieC]

How is it possible for OP to have intentionally shot the person in the toilet without having foreseen the possibility of their death?

This point was certainly not clear in the judgement - that is precisely why an appeal is on the cards

First it was not clear what exactly was held

1. Did he intentionally shoot? HELD YES

2. Did he intend to shoot the person? UNCLEAR WHAT WAS HELD (UNTIL TODAY)

3. If he did intend to shoot the person, how was it that he did not foresee the possibility of death? UNCLEAR WHAT WAS HELD

Instead we just have this weird finding that he did not intend to kill reeva or anyone else for that matter.

Puzzling to say the least.

In any event - it is hard to see how any sentient adult, let alone one with extensive firearms experience, can intentionally shoot someone without foreseeing death.

It's hard for me to comment because basically I get what you're saying, I even agree with you. But I think what Kelly Phelps et al are saying is understandable.

Oscar intentionally but not illegally shot at the person behind the door in putative private defence. He shot low so didn't intend to kill. "If I'd intended to kill I would have aimed higher." Masipa took that at face value.

Of course it's rubbish. First how could Oscar have known the position of the person to know that aiming higher would have killed rather than say aiming at the toilet? Perhaps the intruder went in to use the toilet. Second, it was foreseeable that shooting 4 hollow point rounds anywhere at the target could end in death, unless it was at her toes, and he didn't shoot that low.

The problem I find is, it is JM's reasoning as to matters of fact that is so flawed. If she reaches perverse enough conclusions on the facts of the case, then the verdict has some coherence. She concludes as a matter of fact, Oscar did not intend to kill because he shot low, and in any case the killing was lawful because it was PPD, but it was reckless because he could have taken other measures. Q.E.D.

But the state cannot appeal on reasoning as to the facts, and I am still not 100% clear on whether the law supports any appeal if culpable homicide is a competent verdict. First it will have to appeal against Seekoei by petitioning constitutional court to appeal this verdict, which Prof. Grant is confident can succeed - as I understand it.

Can a Judgment be so biased and unreasoned in favour of the defence that it is overruled in toto?

 

[lithgow1]

Interesting article IMO.

http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-oscar-pistorius-sentencing-20141021-story.html#page=1

This one is more trivial and I don't know who most of these people are but there's a couple of good tweets.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/10/cel...more-react-to-oscar-pistorius-5-year-sentence

 

[OZe]

BIB - Roxanne didn't get it right then, did she? She pronounced as fact that OP would only serve 10 months in jail and then serve the rest of his sentence under house arrest, whereas the truth is that house arrest would only be considered after 10 months. So it does not say "exactly that" on the website. It says specifically that placement will be considered - not guaranteed, like Roxanne tried to make out. If OP is a difficult prisoner and gets into trouble, he most likely won't be released early.

Roxanne's inexperience may have let slip more than she intended.

The consistency of the convict' demeanor, the crestfallen attitude of his family, the absence of perceptible reaction on the PT and DT benches, the deliberately crafted five-year sentence, the quickness to rule out appeal, and the Steenkamp's stated satisfaction with the sentence all suggest to me that there was an agreement reached that the killer needed to go to jail but with a pretty much cast-iron guarantee that if he behaved he'd be out in 10 months.

Roxanne's smug confidence tells me that the parole board's decision has already been made for them.

 

[Estelle]

Advocate Zola Majavu on verdict and sentencing. Listen at the bottom of page for audio:

http://www.702.co.za/articles/526/judge-masipa-s-sentence-was-just-advocate-majavu

Verdict should be appealed for legal certainty as it is "a narrow point of law".

 

[whiterum]

Someone upthread asked what this meant:

"@carlpistorius : Buddy, your self righteousness or money wont save you @realDonaldTrump - time to consider eternity."


If it's a serious question, my feeling is that most, perhaps ALL, of what Carl tweets can best be understood through the lens of his Christian beliefs.

In this case, "Trump you better think twice. Right now, you're only interested in temporal, earthly things while, at your peril, you are ignoring/rejecting your soul. The latter will have greater and long-lasting (eternal) consequences."

Shorthand: Carl tweets: "WE'RE going to heaven. You're going to hell."

As a professed Christian CP should reflect on these words :

'Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? '

I would suggest that before he judges others regarding self righteousness and love of money he should first examine himself and his own household !

 

[zwiebel]

Very strange. OP's friend, Mike Kendrick in England spoke to the press about the sentence. He's not even in SA so you would think it was an independent interview?

But he repeated almost word for word what Roux and other supporters of OP have said about 'lost career, lost everything' etc. It really seems like a script has been sent around, or phone calls made with suggestions about the 'theme' supporters should adopt. Maybe it's just coincidence but it creates a really unfavourable impression to me, of a cool, calculated campaign.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-10-22/pistoriuss-friend-says-custodial-sentence-was-inevitable/

 

[Interested Bystander]

BIB...how ironic, from Wikipedia

Pistorius began studying for a Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com.)[16] in business management with sports science at the University of Pretoria in 2006.[24][25][31] In a June 2008 interview for his University's website, he joked: "I won't graduate soon. With all the training I have had to cut down on my subjects. Hopefully I'll finish by the time I'm 30!"

He has a lot of time on his hands now. Perhaps he might look into distance learning whilst in prison and under house arrest. A lot of UK prisoners study whilst inside and end up with degrees. Some even have been awarded law degrees. It will be a good way to make something good come from his sentence.

 

[zwiebel]

Has this been posted? Prisoner whose leg was lost in an accident has just been released and gave an interview about conditions. He says they are not good where he was. He had to walk up and down 56 stairs several times a day. And ramps have been tiled! and are very slippery. They did have toilet doors though - they made them out of plastic bags, propped up on sticks!

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...inmates-with-disabilities-speak/#.VEdo591XerW

 

[james83]

 

[lithgow1]

Very strange. OP's friend, Mike Kendrick in England spoke to the press about the sentence. He's not even in SA so you would think it was an independent interview?

But he repeated almost word for word what Roux and other supporters of OP have said about 'lost career, lost everything' etc. It really seems like a script has been sent around, or phone calls made with suggestions about the 'theme' supporters should adopt. Maybe it's just coincidence but it creates a really unfavourable impression to me, of a cool, calculated campaign.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-10-22/pistoriuss-friend-says-custodial-sentence-was-inevitable/

I'm sure you are right zwiebel but I really don't think it's going to do much good. As others have mentioned, to most close followers of this trial what he has lost is essentially of little to no consequence and most don't believe him anyway and think he is a murderer. The public at large share the same general attitude of 'he got away with it ... the sentence is a joke'. You only need to read comments sections to know what the sentiment out there is. So for all the attempts of his family and supporters to shape the narrative it's just not going to work IMO. Again, as others have said, he is always going to be known as 'that guy who killed his girlfriend and got away with it' and no amount of PR is going to change that. He'll also drop off the fame radar as he won't be competing again so far as I can see. They do have a point in saying 'he's lost everything'* but the problem is very very few people care.

* except his life of course

PS What did you have for breakfast today?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Flems Photoshop - Thx!

 

[jay-jay]

I don't know if she believed him. In this case she seemed to be all about rehabilitation because of what Oscar was. From the wrist slap she gave, I think she held her nose when she gave this sentence.
She managed to misinterpret the evidence to fit her verdict and uttered almost the minimum for sentence.

BBM .. she did appear to because she believed he was remorseful immediately after the event and that she believed his so-called attempts to resuscitate Reeva, therefore the judge truly believed this was an accident.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

After Masipa's reasoning behind her verdict, I understand the thought process of those who are pleased with today's outcome because they expected no jail time at all, but I'm sorry, that's a cop-out..not justice. When sentencing for CH is 0-15 based on the level of negligence and aggravating factors, how much more negligent can one be? What are the actions of someone who would get 6-15? Five years for pumping a trapped defenseless woman's body with three black talon bullets is incomprehensible to me.

But then it gets worse? Masipa gives him a sentence dressed up as 5 years with no suspension, when in actuality it's under some subsection that allows him the possibility of being paroled after a mere 10 months?!! Disgraceful!

That said, Reeva's parents accepting the sentence is understandable to me. They want closure, they NEED closure...and no one can fault them for that. They had to sit through 7 months of hearing from the PT how their daughter was tragically executed, and from the DT how the man who executed her is a victim himself and should not be held accountable. Reeva deserved far better justice IMO, but true to form, her parents accepted the court's decisions with grace, dignity, and class. They are the type who should be admired and regarded as an inspiration to the citizens of SA, not some self-righteous trigger-happy athlete with deep pockets. MOO

I totally agree . I said the same the other day . I couldn't think of what could have made it a more serious CH unless the door had been open ,but in that instance it would definitely have been murder and not CH.
I would love it if someone with Legal knowledge could explain what could possibly have made this case a more serious type of CH to warrant a longer sentence ?
His alleged remorse after and during court should not warrant a reduced sentence because there is no way of proving how much of it is genuinely directed towards the loss of Reeva's life and how much is more the consequences of it on his life .
I really don't buy his protestations of undying love for Reeva. They just had not had a long enough relationship or spent enough time together. She had been away filming for part of the 3months they were together and then he went on holiday with friends at Christmas.
When you take all this in to account and Reeva's text to him saying how she was scared of him I just don't understand how the judge can have come to the conclusions that she has to then show him mercy on sentencing .
The text Reeva sent to OP is definitely not normal in any relationship I have ever come across during what should be regarded as the honeymoon period of a relationship.
I hope the NPA appeal and try again for a murder conviction .

 

[james83]

BBM .. she did appear to because she believed he was remorseful immediately after the event and that she believed his so-called attempts to resuscitate Reeva, therefore the judge truly believed this was an accident.

I would love to ask Masipa exactly how she would have expected him to behave if he did indeed kill her in a moment of rage.

 

[james83]

Regarding the Tasha's incident and suspended sentence- surely the fact that less than a month later he unlawfully shot someone dead should have meant that the 3 years should have not have been suspended?, for instance if he would have been charged and given the suspended sentence for the Tasha's incident before killing Reeva surely that sentence would have been activated?.

 

[Estelle]

Unsuccessful Attempts to Justify Judge Masipa’s Errors (Revised & Expanded) by Professor James Grant

http://criminallawza.net/

I had not seen this before so maybe others here haven't either.

 

[jay-jay]

I would love to ask Masipa exactly how she would have expected him to behave if he did indeed kill her in a moment of rage.

Exactly .. he's hardly going to stand there at the scene of the crime and admit to it, is he .. there has never been a murderer in the history of time who has done that!

 

[jay-jay]

I totally agree . I said the same the other day . I couldn't think of what could have made it a more serious CH unless the door had been open ,but in that instance it would definitely have been murder and not CH.
I would love it if someone with Legal knowledge could explain what could possibly have made this case a more serious type of CH to warrant a longer sentence ?
His alleged remorse after and during court should not warrant a reduced sentence because there is no way of proving how much of it is genuinely directed towards the loss of Reeva's life and how much is more the consequences of it on his life .
I really don't buy his protestations of undying love for Reeva. They just had not had a long enough relationship or spent enough time together. She had been away filming for part of the 3months they were together and then he went on holiday with friends at Christmas.
When you take all this in to account and Reeva's text to him saying how she was scared of him I just don't understand how the judge can have come to the conclusions that she has to then show him mercy on sentencing .
The text Reeva sent to OP is definitely not normal in any relationship I have ever come across during what should be regarded as the honeymoon period of a relationship.
I hope the NPA appeal and try again for a murder conviction .

What really annoyed me yesterday, with the judge delivering her sentence, was when she was trying to paint a picture of how Pistorius had lost his love, his friend (can't remember the exact words now, but she was trying to suggest it would've been lifelong), and was making it sound as if they were in such a loving relationship and on the verge of making it more permanent, when the evidence does not support that at all, in fact taken as a whole, it suggests the complete opposite, with the final act of that 'wonderful relationship' being Pistorius blasting Reeva to bits in a hail of black talon bullets! That judge must be living on a different planet.

 

[james83]

Exactly .. he's hardly going to stand there at the scene of the crime and admit to it, is he .. there has never been a murderer in the history of time who has done that!

No one has ever shot someone by accident and phoned a friend before an ambulance i know that much.