Jump to content

Oscar Pistorius trial


Maroon Sailor

Recommended Posts

What an absolute farce this has been.

 

Is this now final or can OP now appeal the new conviction?

Edited by iantjambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 487
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Maroon Sailor

    89

  • Mikey1874

    38

  • Sten Guns

    27

  • redm

    20

There is only two people who know what happened that night, one of them is dead and the other has now been convicted of their murder.

 

There was a few questions which Pistorius never answered satisfactory at his trial. 

 

If the gun was located at the side of the bed Reeva was in why didn't he notice that she wasn't there when he retrieved the gun?

He claimed to have told her to get out and call the police when he was getting the gun, however he never got an answer, well wouldn't you make sure that she had heard your warning to her?

But the biggest one for me is that he claimed that he was shouting and bawling for the person to get out of his house and also for Reeva to get downstairs and call the police, yet it would seem she didn't hear him despite being only feet away behind a locked toilet door, always seemed strange to me that neighbours heard Pistorius shouting and bawling his head off, but Reeva apparently didn't hear him because if she had surely she would have asked him what he was shouting at and thus Pistorius would then have known that it was Reeva in the toilet.  And of course there was the question of why she had taken her mobile phone into the toilet as well.

There was also the problem of why would a burglar lock themselves into a toilet and thus have no way to escape when there was an open window right there in front of them.

 

Even without the above questions Pistorius fired 4 shots into an enclosed space, surely he knew that there was a high probability that he would hit whoever was in there and possibly kill them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to SSN.

 

He could get the minimum of 12 years.

 

After 6 he could leave on parole.

 

I'm guessing time already served can be deducted from that 6?

 

Seems like he might not get much more jail time. Plus he might win an appeal anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't need to know the identity of the person

 

But it's pretty clear he knew she was in there and he knew exactly what he was doing

appeal judge mentioned that some of the evidence suggesting a row (her jeans on bed suggesting she may have been getting ready to leave house) should have been considered by judge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know I should be considering the trial but how bad is this news coverage? Makes Sportscene look like a professional production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's been granted bail set at just ?500 until sentencing on 18th April

Just under 5 months for sentencing? What a crock. Take your time guys. No rush here. [emoji15]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just under 5 months for sentencing? What a crock. Take your time guys. No rush here. [emoji15]

 

That's if he decides not to appeal, if he does appeal South Africa's highest court only sits in 3 month stints so Pistorius could remain on bail for most of 2016 before he is finally locked up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
JudyJudyJudy

This is great news. It really is.  It would bring back Reeva but at least it will be some help and some form of closure  for her family. May he rot in jail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Going to be serving some serious hard time, in some SA shithole jail now.

 

 

Oh well.

 

But that's the thing he won't be in some SA shithole of a jail as he'll get sent back to his specially equipped cell which was kitted out just for him.

 

However he should still serve some serious time now and will forever more be a convicted murderer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Has he made a mistake with this ITV interview showing next Friday 24 June 9pm.

 

Although it shouldn't affect his sentencing he could seriously piss off the judge if he comes across all different from his trial.

 

Wonder if he thought the sentencing would be done this week rather than at a separate hearing on 6 July.

Edited by Mikey1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had my way I would have taken regular blood tests off OP because I'd swear he's been put on something that makes him cry and weep

 

Allegedly that is

 

We all have an opinion on this but for me he stinks of guilt

Edited by jambo1961
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

How much time has SA spent trying this guy?

 

If the Judge had done her job the first time around and found him guilty, then there wouldn't be any need for this sentencing hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much time has SA spent trying this guy?

fair point

 

Slow going though case was fast tracked to get to start

 

most people in South Africa would still be in jail waiting for a trial date

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Maroon Sailor

Finally, nearly 3 and half years after Reeva was shot and killed by Oscar Pistorius he is being sentenced.

 

However this judge is babbling on a bit, no surprise there then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

Think that judge feels sorry for him

 

I think she is in love with him, more like.

 

6 years, wow just wow, for murder.

 

Saying that he'll spend 3 years inside, and as he's done one already, that's only 2 more years in jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor

I think she is in love with him, more like.

 

6 years, wow just wow, for murder.

 

Saying that he'll spend 3 years inside, and as he's done one already, that's only 2 more years in jail.

I think they should have had another judge for this.

 

She has been nothing other than be in the Pistorious camp from day one, falling for his tears and sob stories when he was on the stand as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

I think they should have had another judge for this.

 

She has been nothing other than be in the Pistorious camp from day one, falling for his tears and sob stories when he was on the stand as well.

 

Totally this.

 

Even today, it was all about Oscar and his problems, very little about the fact that he killed someone, it was all about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all need to separate that you think he knowingly murdered his girlfriend from the fact the courts have ultimately based the sentence on him killing an intruder in his home whilst he was on stumps.

 

Big difference.

 

The sentence, based on the facts known / what can be proven, is understandable.

 

The sentence, based on what you reckon went down, is a shocker. But that's not how the law works.

Edited by Sten Guns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor

You all need to separate that you think he knowingly murdered his girlfriend from the fact the courts have ultimately based the sentence on him killing an intruder in his home whilst he was on stumps.

Big difference.

The sentence, based on the facts known / what can be proven, is understandable.

The sentence, based on what you reckon went down, is a shocker. But that's not how the law works.

He murdered her

 

6 years for murder .......... that sentence is murder

 

Disgraceful really

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He murdered her

 

6 years for murder .......... that sentence is murder

 

Disgraceful really

Not all murders are the same. That's why there's not a set sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chester™

You all need to separate that you think he knowingly murdered his girlfriend from the fact the courts have ultimately based the sentence on him killing an intruder in his home whilst he was on stumps.

 

Big difference.

 

The sentence, based on the facts known / what can be proven, is understandable.

 

The sentence, based on what you reckon went down, is a shocker. But that's not how the law works.

Except thats not the reasons for why the judge deviated from the prescribed sentence. It was the mitigation and 'remorse shown' not what the circumstances of the murder were, that had the judge go for 6 instead of 15 years. Edited by Chester?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except thats not the reasons for why the judge deviated from the prescribed sentence. It was the mitigation and 'remorse shown' not what the circumstances of the murder were, that had the judge go for 6 instead of 15 years.

Eh?

 

Mitigating factors are the circumstances of the murder.

 

He thought it was an intruder.

 

He was on his stumps and vulnerable.

 

He immediately tried to save her.

 

So yes, the sentence is based on the circumstances!

 

Sadly it's not based on what we all think happened, but like I said, thats not how the law works. People are having a really hard time dealing with that.

 

FWIW I think he should have been given far longer, but I understand why he wasn't. Frustrating for sure though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chester™

Eh?

 

Mitigating factors are the circumstances of the murder.

 

He thought it was an intruder.

 

He was on his stumps and vulnerable.

 

He immediately tried to save her.

 

So yes, the sentence is based on the circumstances!

 

Sadly it's not based on what we all think happened, but like I said, thats not how the law works. People are having a really hard time dealing with that.

 

FWIW I think he should have been given far longer, but I understand why he wasn't. Frustrating for sure though.

No. Mitigation was him on his stumps, when in jail, remorse shown and focus on rehabilitation. The judge said that reduced the sentence not the 'aggravating factors' of the crime committed.

 

There was a time Sten, when you'd actually be half decent at this.

Edited by Chester?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor

She also said he was a fallen hero and broken man.

 

Well who's to blame for that ?

 

Reeva ? For getting in the way of his bullets ?

Edited by Maroon Sailor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still can't get over the fact that Masipa called him a "fallen hero". Her language was unbelievably sympathetic. All that "broken man" stuff.... urgh.

I also don't understand how on earth the Judge who messed up the original verdict gets to sentence the corrected verdict.

 

Mitigation is standard but I just don't understand how on earth you get from 15 years to 6 years based on believing he's sorry for what he did. I have no doubt he's sorry, but that's hardly the point. Also, the stuff about him being unlikely to reoffend? Unlikely to shoot any more of his girlfriends through locked toilet doors? Well, that's a relief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Mitigation was him on his stumps and focus on rehabilitation. The judge said that reduced the sentence not the 'aggravating factors' of the crime committed.

 

There was a time Sten, when you'd actually be half decent at this.

You think i'm trolling? **** sake. Get a grip. Actually thought JKB was beyond the days of shouting TROLL the moment someone has a different opinion. :lol:

 

You, like I, no doubt believe he's an agressive scum bag who had a blazing argument with Reeva. She ran to the bathroom to escape him and he's murdered her.

 

The difference is, I'm able to seperate what I think happened from what the courts were able to prove when it comes to weighing up the verdict. You however, cannot.

 

You're not alone though to be fair to you. It's frustrating I know.

 

But ultimately he's been sentenced for killing an intruder. He's feared for his life while feeling vulnerable on his stumps. I totally get the sentence, even though I believe his story to be bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chester™

You think i'm trolling? **** sake. Get a grip. Actually thought JKB was beyond the days of shouting TROLL the moment someone has a different opinion. [emoji38]

 

You, like I, no doubt believe he's an agressive scum bag who had a blazing argument with Reeva. She ran to the bathroom to escape him and he's murdered her.

 

The difference is, I'm able to seperate what I think happened from what the courts were able to prove when it comes to weighing up the verdict. You however, cannot.

 

You're not alone though to be fair to you. It's frustrating I know.

 

But ultimately he's been sentenced for killing an intruder. He's feared for his life while feeling vulnerable on his stumps. I totally get the sentence, even though I believe his story to be bullshit.

I never said you were trolling. Tad defensive there.

 

I'm very able to separate thanks. I've seen numerous mitigations, during sentencing, in my last 10 years working in and around the High Court.

 

What you've failed to do is separate my point from what I may actually think, choosing to go head first in, go defensive and attempt to be patronising.

 

As I said, you used to be half decent at this.

Edited by Chester?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said you were trolling. Tad defensive there.

 

I'm very able to separate thanks. I've seen numerous mitigations, during sentencing, in my last 10 years working in and around the High Court.

 

What you've failed to do is separate my point from what I may actually think, choosing to go head first in, go defensive and attempt to be patronising.

 

As I said, you used to be half decent at this.

Your point is very much based on what you think happened. :lol:

 

Of that there is no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all murders are the same. That's why there's not a set sentence.

 

There is a minimum sentence for this type of murder in SA law and it's 15 years. She went into the case law providing precedent for deviation from this minimum sentence and I didn't hear it all but it seemed to hinge on existence of 'exceptional circumstances' of some sort. I have no idea how she managed to shoehorn any of his mitigation claims into being exceptional, other than maybe the fact he could be considered more vulnerable than the average man when on his stumps. Even then, I have no idea how that would translate to a NINE year reduction in sentence. In short, I just don't get it.

 

Edit: just read that the State hasn't ruled out appealing the sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chester™

Your point is very much based on what you think happened. [emoji38]

 

Of that there is no doubt.

Is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a minimum sentence for this type of murder in SA law and it's 15 years. She went into the case law providing precedent for deviation from this minimum sentence and I didn't hear it all but it seemed to hinge on existence of 'exceptional circumstances' of some sort. I have no idea how she managed to shoehorn any of his mitigation claims into being exceptional, other than maybe the fact he could be considered more vulnerable than the average man when on his stumps. Even then, I have no idea how that would translate to a NINE year reduction in sentence. In short, I just don't get it.

 

Edit: just read that the State hasn't ruled out appealing the sentence.

If a disabled man on stumps believes an intruder is in his home (In South Africa) isn't some sort of exceptional circumstance I'm not sure what is to be honest!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor

 

I think a different judge and you get a different sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

What people need to remember is this.

 

He fired 4 shots into a small locked room no bigger than a cubicle, it is irrespective whether he thought there was an intruder inside that room or not, because he knew someone was inside, but still fired 4 shots into that room.

 

It is irrelevant in my mind that he tried to save her after the shooting, the simple fact is anybody would or should have known that by firing 4 shots (unprovoked I might add) into such a small space would result in at least one of the bullets hitting whoever was inside that room, by firing 4 shots then that is gross recklessness in the extreme and he showed a total disregard for human life.

 

It makes no difference what his actions were after the event, what is important is his actions immediately prior to and the actual act of discharging his gun.

 

What should be remembered is, he could have escaped easily, the bedroom door from across from the bed, he and Reeva could easily have got out of the house, but Pistorius chose to confront the danger, Pistorius chose to fire shots into a that room, Pistorius chose not to make sure that Reeva was there and was getting out of the house, I would have made sure that my loved one or family were getting out, you could have covered them with your gun from the bedroom, but no Pistorius chose to confront the danger on his stumps knowing that he was vulnerable on his stumps, yet he used that very same vulnerability to try and mitigate his actions in court.  He didn't seem to worry about his vulnerability on that fateful night, did he.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, after originally giving the wrong verdict of manslaughter and handing him 5 years, the same judge has (again) given him a sentence for manslaughter for 6 years, even though the re-trial resulted in a MURDER conviction!

 

The women should be removed from office immediately.

 

I fully expect the Prosecution to appeal the sentence and demand AT LEAST the 15 year min term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo-Jimbo

So, after originally giving the wrong verdict of manslaughter and handing him 5 years, the same judge has (again) given him a sentence for manslaughter for 6 years, even though the re-trial resulted in a MURDER conviction!

 

The women should be removed from office immediately.

 

I fully expect the Prosecution to appeal the sentence and demand AT LEAST the 15 year min term.

 

I don't think he'd get the full 15 years, however almost every 'expert' thought he'd get between 8 and 12 years.

 

6 years is a total joke, because as you quite rightly say he originally got 5 years for manslaughter so how on earth can he only get 6 years for murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambothump

What people need to remember is this.

 

He fired 4 shots into a small locked room no bigger than a cubicle, it is irrespective whether he thought there was an intruder inside that room or not, because he knew someone was inside, but still fired 4 shots into that room.

 

It is irrelevant in my mind that he tried to save her after the shooting, the simple fact is anybody would or should have known that by firing 4 shots (unprovoked I might add) into such a small space would result in at least one of the bullets hitting whoever was inside that room, by firing 4 shots then that is gross recklessness in the extreme and he showed a total disregard for human life.

 

It makes no difference what his actions were after the event, what is important is his actions immediately prior to and the actual act of discharging his gun.

 

What should be remembered is, he could have escaped easily, the bedroom door from across from the bed, he and Reeva could easily have got out of the house, but Pistorius chose to confront the danger, Pistorius chose to fire shots into a that room, Pistorius chose not to make sure that Reeva was there and was getting out of the house, I would have made sure that my loved one or family were getting out, you could have covered them with your gun from the bedroom, but no Pistorius chose to confront the danger on his stumps knowing that he was vulnerable on his stumps, yet he used that very same vulnerability to try and mitigate his actions in court.  He didn't seem to worry about his vulnerability on that fateful night, did he.

Nailed it !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy

Scumbag. Hope there is an appeal. And please the poster who said " there are different kinds of murders"....!! try telling them to the victims families who deal with the aftermath. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...