FabSwingers.com forum: Oscar pistorius trial.

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Pistorius was found guilty of murdering Ms Steenkamp after a court overturned an earlier manslaughter verdict.

The sentencing hearing expected to conclude by Friday, it will decide if he will face a jail term of 15 years.

Do you think he will get 15 years on friday?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

I don't know, but I do worry about all these moves on the part of states all over the world to remove double jeopardy and to keep prosecuting people until they get the verdict and sentence that politicians want.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Pistorius was found guilty of murdering Ms Steenkamp after a court overturned an earlier manslaughter verdict.

The sentencing hearing expected to conclude by Friday, it will decide if he will face a jail term of 15 years.

Do you think he will get 15 years on friday?"

If Gerrie Nel continues destabilising the testimony of the defence character witnesses, Oscar may well face a lengthy sentence...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Apparently there will be one more character witness statement tomorrow.....which has been suggested contains a very emotional recount ...

I'll be watching...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I hope he doesn't get off, lightly his acting skills are bad enough to be on eastenders

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"I don't know, but I do worry about all these moves on the part of states all over the world to remove double jeopardy and to keep prosecuting people until they get the verdict and sentence that politicians want. "

He's been convicted of manslaughter and now charged with murder - either or anyway you look at it, he killed someone. It's not just politicians that want that verdict of guilty of murder.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"He's been convicted of manslaughter and now charged with murder - either or anyway you look at it, he killed someone. It's not just politicians that want that verdict of guilty of murder. "

I seem to remember at the original trial the murder charge was dismissed for lack of evidence. Personally I think he is guilty as sin, but there is a big between suspicion and proof.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know there has been no new evidence produced, nor have there been any upheld challenges to legal rulings by the judge in the first trial. Therefore this is nothing more than the prosecutor (state) getting a second trial on the grounds that the state did not get the verdict it wanted at the first trial.

I will not even go into the ramifications for justice of the prosecutor entering the second trial with full knowledge of, and time to prepare to destroy, the defence case.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He admitted to shooting her...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"He admitted to shooting her...

No one is disputing that.

There are 2 issues:

1) An issue of intent. Did he kill her deliberately or did he believe he was shooting a home invader?

And to my mind much more importantly:

2) Being as no new evidence has been produced this becomes an issue of double jeopardy and he can not have received a fair trial.

Just to be clear, in this country the prosecution must hand all information it discovers in the investigation of a crime to the defence regardless of whether the prosecution thinks it relevant or intends to use it or not. However the prosecution have no right to any such prior knowledge of anything the defence may find or produce. In fact any attempt to gain such knowledge is a criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice and if it involves crown servants (police, CPS or members of the judiciary) it is also misconduct in a public office. Both serious crimes that each carry a maximum of life in prison.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"He admitted to shooting her...

Went to bed with her....woke up and she wasn't there.....someone in the bathroom....must be a burglar...*KER-BLAM!* *KER-BLAM* *KER-BLAM!* *KER-BLAM!*

She was denied life - he should get life. In prison.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"He admitted to shooting her...

No one is disputing that.

There are 2 issues:

1) An issue of intent. Did he kill her deliberately or did he believe he was shooting a home invader?

And to my mind much more importantly:

2) Being as no new evidence has been produced this becomes an issue of double jeopardy and he can not have received a fair trial.

But he didn't do it in this country....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He admitted to shooting her...

No one is disputing that.

There are 2 issues:

1) An issue of intent. Did he kill her deliberately or did he believe he was shooting a home invader?

And to my mind much more importantly:

2) Being as no new evidence has been produced this becomes an issue of double jeopardy and he can not have received a fair trial.

My understanding is that it was established by his own admonition that he shot with the intent to kill ......

I could be wrong.... but that is what was stated and agreed in the court during yesterdays character witness testimony .....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"But he didn't do it in this country...."

I cited English Law to show because our common law system is the one most commonly used around the world (and in the RSA) because it best delivers unbiased justice.

The fact that you ignore the obvious dangers to the justice system because you dislike a courts verdict is the very reason that we need to be very worried when those with power do the same. The double jeopardy rule was developed over centuries to protect us from legal tyranny if it is removed for one then it can be removed for all.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"My understanding is that it was established by his own admonition that he shot with the intent to kill ......

I could be wrong.... but that is what was stated and agreed in the court during yesterdays character witness testimony .....

"
Correct, but he claimed he believed he was shooting a home invader not his girlfriend. The prosecution were unable to prove that false in the first trial therefore the original verdict of not guilty of murder guilty of manslaughter.

My problem with this whole case is 2 years on from that verdict he is being retried for the same crime with no new evidence on the grounds that now that the prosecution know the case for the defence they can win second time round.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"But he didn't do it in this country....

I cited English Law to show because our common law system is the one most commonly used around the world (and in the RSA) because it best delivers unbiased justice.

Don't personalise this towards me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My understanding is he has readily admitted to discharging the shots with the intention of killing whoever was beyond the door...

He has admitted to not knowing who was on the other side of the door or making any attempt to establish who was on the other side of the door before discharging his weapon with the intention to kill whoever was on the other side of the door ...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

Errrm

He is not being re- tried for murder; this is a sentencing hearing

1.The original court ( Judge Masipa) chose to convict him of manslaughter.

2. Prosecution took that decision to the appeal court ( it was an appeal, not a re-trial, thus not a double jeopardy)

3. Appeal court reexamined the case, decided that judge Masipa was wrong ( on several points of law and interpretation of the evidence) and that the conviction should have been murder.

4. They duly changed the conviction to Murder.

5. They ordered the original court to sentence him, based on murder . Which is what they are doing now.

He could get 15 years, probably given his supposed mental state, get 12; take 2 off for time already served , with parole probably serve 7-8.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uby0000Woman
over a year ago

hertfordshire

IF oscar really thought it was an intruder surely he would have made sure Reeva was safe beforehand

i do think he will get a long sentance this time cos he knew he would kill whoever was behind the door

such a waste of life

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"He admitted to shooting her...

"
Why don't the court agree there if he admits it? Or is oscar using reverse psychology?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

"He admitted to shooting her...

Why don't the court agree there if he admits it? Or is oscar using reverse psychology? "

The court does agree; the appeal court understood it; this is one of the issues that the appeal court brought up in their judgement; that Judge Masipa overlooked this point ( amongst others)

The only "disagreement" is that the defence is trying their best to weaken that statement . Which is their job to try to produce mitigation to reduce sentence.

The verdict (Murder) is not in question; that has been already decided: the evidence on both sides is to influence the judge as to what sentence to give.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He admitted to shooting her...

Why don't the court agree there if he admits it? Or is oscar using reverse psychology? "

The court has agreed Shag ,,,,,,, this hearing is simply to determine his sentence .....

I'm of the opinion he is still acting out a role in order to influence that outcome...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Errrm

He is not being re- tried for murder; this is a sentencing hearing

1.The original court ( Judge Masipa) chose to convict him of manslaughter."

And found him not guilty of murder.

"2. Prosecution took that decision to the appeal court ( it was an appeal, not a re-trial, thus not a double jeopardy) "

An appeal court should not have the power to reverse verdicts, only to set aside those that are unsafe or alter sentences. Trial courts are the place for guilt or innocence to be determined.

"3. Appeal court reexamined the case, decided that judge Masipa was wrong ( on several points of law and interpretation of the evidence) and that the conviction should have been murder.

4. They duly changed the conviction to Murder."

See above! Makes my point about people need to be worried when prosecutors can say 'I don't like the result so I want another go' quite eloquently.

5. They ordered the original court to sentence him, based on murder . Which is what they are doing now."

And as I have said the prosecutor knowing the defence witnesses evidence in advance is destroying it second time round. Hence the reason we need the double jeopardy rule.

"He could get 15 years, probably given his supposed mental state, get 12; take 2 off for time already served , with parole probably serve 7-8.

I have no sympathy for the man, I believe he is a bad tempered sociopath who deliberately killed a woman because of she upset him in some way.

However as in the USA you are legally entitled to kill home invaders and that is how he justified his actions. If his original acquittal was because of incorrect rulings by the judge the verdict should be set aside and the prosecutors should then consider if after all the publicity a fair retrial is possible.

What is happening is very dangerous for justice.

Just my opinion, which has nothing to do with guilt or innocence but with the administration of free and fair justice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"He admitted to shooting her...

Why don't the court agree there if he admits it? Or is oscar using reverse psychology?

The court does agree; the appeal court understood it; this is one of the issues that the appeal court brought up in their judgement; that Judge Masipa overlooked this point ( amongst others)

The only "disagreement" is that the defence is trying their best to weaken that statement . Which is their job to try to produce mitigation to reduce sentence.

The verdict (Murder) is not in question; that has been already decided: the evidence on both sides is to influence the judge as to what sentence to give."
I see yes, so by disagreeing with the judges verdict there they are delaying the process and are hoping for a shorter sentence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"He admitted to shooting her...

Why don't the court agree there if he admits it? Or is oscar using reverse psychology?

The court has agreed Shag ,,,,,,, this hearing is simply to determine his sentence .....

I'm of the opinion he is still acting out a role in order to influence that outcome...

"
Ah yes, so to see how long he gets. If he gets 15 years then he would be in his 50's, long time that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Don't personalise this towards me. "

Sorry, I was not making it personal, when I said you I should have said the opinion you are voicing. Which I acknowledge is a very popular one. But popularity does not automatically mean correct.

It has taken a 1000 years to develop the rules by which our legal system works, which for all its faults is pretty fair. To weaken it for the sake of popularity (a process I see all over the world) is very dangerous for all of us.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I still think house arrest for life with me would be adequate - no guns allowed. He'd need to keep up his fitness, otherwise it'd be criminal.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He admitted to shooting her...

Why don't the court agree there if he admits it? Or is oscar using reverse psychology?

The court has agreed Shag ,,,,,,, this hearing is simply to determine his sentence .....

I'm of the opinion he is still acting out a role in order to influence that outcome...

Ah yes, so to see how long he gets. If he gets 15 years then he would be in his 50's, long time that."

Yep Shag....

The defence are basically trying to present a case for granting Oscar leniency and the prosecution are trying to counter that by calling for him to receive a severe sentence....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

"Errrm

He is not being re- tried for murder; this is a sentencing hearing

1.The original court ( Judge Masipa) chose to convict him of manslaughter.

And found him not guilty of murder.

2. Prosecution took that decision to the appeal court ( it was an appeal, not a re-trial, thus not a double jeopardy)

An appeal court should not have the power to reverse verdicts, only to set aside those that are unsafe or alter sentences. Trial courts are the place for guilt or innocence to be determined.

3. Appeal court reexamined the case, decided that judge Masipa was wrong ( on several points of law and interpretation of the evidence) and that the conviction should have been murder.

4. They duly changed the conviction to Murder.

See above! Makes my point about people need to be worried when prosecutors can say 'I don't like the result so I want another go' quite eloquently.

5. They ordered the original court to sentence him, based on murder . Which is what they are doing now.

And as I have said the prosecutor knowing the defence witnesses evidence in advance is destroying it second time round. Hence the reason we need the double jeopardy rule.

He could get 15 years, probably given his supposed mental state, get 12; take 2 off for time already served , with parole probably serve 7-8.

I have no sympathy for the man, I believe he is a bad tempered sociopath who deliberately killed a woman because of she upset him in some way.

What is happening is very dangerous for justice.

Just my opinion, which has nothing to do with guilt or innocence but with the administration of free and fair justice."

This is South African Law, not British.

Nevertheless; it's an appeal case; the evidence was presented to the original court; and it was then judged incorrectly, by the Judge; the appeal court found that due to the evidence presented; a conviction of murder was the only possible conviction;

If there had been doubt, they would have chosen to call a retrial.

Their finding was that it was an error, not a difference of judgement.

Thus changing the conviction was the clear course, and was not a retrial;

Thus not a double jeopardy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

Oh, and the spiral was not a new trial, with new evidence; the original evidence was presented to the appeal court judges; no additional evidence on the actual offence was to be produced; submissions by prosecution and defence were strictly limited to pointing out to the appeal court, the inconsistencies in the original judgement. Short academic legal discussion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

" spiral " = " appeal"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield

As others have said, the conviction has been changed to murder, that's that. This part of the trial is just to determine the sentence.

I've just seen on C4 the very emotional testimony given by Reevas father. It was truly heartfelt and I think that will have a big influence on a long sentence being handed down .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

"Don't personalise this towards me.

Sorry, I was not making it personal, when I said you I should have said the opinion you are voicing. Which I acknowledge is a very popular one. But popularity does not automatically mean correct.

Fair enough

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

"Don't personalise this towards me.

Sorry, I was not making it personal, when I said you I should have said the opinion you are voicing. Which I acknowledge is a very popular one. But popularity does not automatically mean correct.

You are missing the point in a very big way;

This is the South African legal system; it's different to the UK system; for a start, they don't have a jury system ( for historical, and present reasons, which are complicated to explain - )

They are not weakening it for sake of popularity; they are following their well established routes; and indeed using a very strong safeguard, which is to refer the decision of a single judge to a panel of experienced judges.

In this case, it was found that an error had been made, which was corrected,

It could have been the other way round; in a hypothetical case, the appeal court could have reversed a wrong decision by a judge and imposed a lesser conviction; it has happened before in SA.

A fault in the system was that Judge Masipa was appointed; she is an experienced judge; but only in civil rights and family courts; she has minimal experience in criminal courts, and virtually none in murder cases.

So the referral to an appeal was a safeguard of the law, and a reinforcement of true law practice, not a relaxation for " popular pressure".

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago

Paisley

No I don't think he'll serve any more jail time. He's been diagnosed with severe depression (the poor soul)!

He deserves to serve time like everyone else but he'll get special treatment.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uby0000Woman
over a year ago

hertfordshire

"He admitted to shooting her...

Why don't the court agree there if he admits it? Or is oscar using reverse psychology? "

watching oscar on the news today he seems to be a broken man

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He admitted to shooting her...

Why don't the court agree there if he admits it? Or is oscar using reverse psychology?

watching oscar on the news today he seems to be a broken man"

Yes. Just like Reeva was broken..smashed by bullets on the bathroom floor..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

"He admitted to shooting her...

Why don't the court agree there if he admits it? Or is oscar using reverse psychology?

watching oscar on the news today he seems to be a broken man"

and full of regret......

That he is not going to the olympics, and won't be able to make the money that he thought he would.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think he killed her..... Deliberately

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Errrm

He is not being re- tried for murder; this is a sentencing hearing

1.The original court ( Judge Masipa) chose to convict him of manslaughter.

And found him not guilty of murder.

2. Prosecution took that decision to the appeal court ( it was an appeal, not a re-trial, thus not a double jeopardy)

An appeal court should not have the power to reverse verdicts, only to set aside those that are unsafe or alter sentences. Trial courts are the place for guilt or innocence to be determined.

3. Appeal court reexamined the case, decided that judge Masipa was wrong ( on several points of law and interpretation of the evidence) and that the conviction should have been murder.

4. They duly changed the conviction to Murder.

See above! Makes my point about people need to be worried when prosecutors can say 'I don't like the result so I want another go' quite eloquently.

5. They ordered the original court to sentence him, based on murder . Which is what they are doing now.

And as I have said the prosecutor knowing the defence witnesses evidence in advance is destroying it second time round. Hence the reason we need the double jeopardy rule.

He could get 15 years, probably given his supposed mental state, get 12; take 2 off for time already served , with parole probably serve 7-8.

I have no sympathy for the man, I believe he is a bad tempered sociopath who deliberately killed a woman because of she upset him in some way.

What is happening is very dangerous for justice.

Just my opinion, which has nothing to do with guilt or innocence but with the administration of free and fair justice."

Someone once said; "You don't get justice in court. You get law".

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *old200Man
over a year ago

Congleton

I worked with a south African fella in Iraq, we shared digs with each other. one day i walked into the bathroom while he was sat on the bog.When i told him what i thought, his answer was.

"you don't shut the crapper door when people have got guns!"

Think of that as you will .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uby0000Woman
over a year ago

hertfordshire

id like to know if reeva was in her nightclothes and if she had her phone with her in the toilet anyone know?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"He admitted to shooting her...

Why don't the court agree there if he admits it? Or is oscar using reversegf psychology? Y

watching oscar on the news today he seems to uj be a broken man"
Yes he did there. I think cos as he realised what he have done and how long time he will get

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I shall reserve my judgement until I see what he gets sentenced to on Friday. I suppose it could go either way, the South African justice system wants to prove it's not lenient on well known people so gives him the full sentence, or they sympathise with him, and give him a shorter sentence.

The people saying it was double jeapody, it wasn't, the manslaughter conviction was appealed on technical grounds to the appeal court who found that verdict wrong, and upped the conviction to murder. Had they felt this was an unsafe conviction that could alternatively ordered a retrial instead but they didn't.

Pistorious will likely appeal any sentence he gets on Friday using the South African legal system.

Don't forget we are talking about a different system, without juries, where the judge finds the defendant guilty or not not. Some may find this system flawed compared to the British system for example, but it is the legal system in South Africa and as such should be respected.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I heard on radio earlier that oscar had to remove his plastic leg to see how vulnerable he is. I wonder why?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

He got sentenced today and he got 6 years. I think that is not enough. What do you think?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *artytwoCouple
over a year ago

Wolverhampton

If it had been USA he would probably be on 'death row' by now.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He's got off v lightly!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *verysmileMan
over a year ago

Canterbury

He was given a sentence which effectively cannot be dropped any lower on appeal. In respect of trying to get any reduction of sentence, it is probable that the South African Court of Appeal will rule that he hasn't a leg to stand on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *izzy RascallMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

He's had his original sentance more than doubled in court this morning.

What an interesting and strange turn of events.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I sincerely hope so after watching the trial avidly I couldn’t believe he got off so lightly

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If it had been USA he would probably be on 'death row' by now."

You don't get the death sentence for unpremeditated murder.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm glad it was doubled. He deserves it as the original sentence was too short. X

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I just wish the international community would pay the same attention to the fact that South Africa is the murder and sexual voilence against women capital of the world. Crimes like this and much worse happen every few hours in South Africa and never even hit the local papers.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *artytwoCouple
over a year ago

Wolverhampton

"If it had been USA he would probably be on 'death row' by now.

You don't get the death sentence for unpremeditated murder."

What makes you think it was unpremeditated?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I just wish the international community would pay the same attention to the fact that South Africa is the murder and sexual voilence against women capital of the world. Crimes like this and much worse happen every few hours in South Africa and never even hit the local papers."

So what can the international community do about this fact?!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread