I'll try and find the bit in the Carte Blanche where he talks about suspended sentence, i'll edit this when i've found the bit on the VT. start at 21.49 Manny & Co talk about the sentencing
Masipa will take into account substantial and compelling factors
Element of Mercy will play a part.
Should be a well balanced sentence, to satisfy the accused, the State and the public
2-3 years for the disability (which is the compelling factors)
, and she'll take into account he's already had his freedom taken away and how he underwent imprisonment, so he says a few years off for that
He finishes by saying he think he'll get direct imprisonment and the minimum sentence a portion of that suspendedon condition he's not convicted of similar offence.
Judge Greenland says Masipa's got to sentence him on the basis he executed an intruder. And the problem with leniency, is that Nel is right in saying it bordered on intention to kill (Dolus Directus) and that's Life or 25 years, so then to reduce the sentence to below 15 years becomes problematic, but there are very compelling circumstances.
There may well be an issue with aggravating factors but the minimum sentence for both de and DD is 15 years. Life is 25 years before parole and applies when premeditation is present which wouldn't have applied no matter what in this case.
Age and first offence along with de can be substantial and compelling circumstances. And even if it were close to DD, it wasn't DD and as I said above, 15 years for DD would be an acceptable sentence depending on the circumstances.
I think if he'd been found guilty of deliberately shooting Reeva there would have been a heavy sentence at the least to send out a message. One could argue that violent gun crime should receive a stiff sentence for similar reasons, but that's why the defence had op walking on his stumps, to remind the court that this is not a case of a thug who went out looking for trouble or to commit a crime, but a disabled man who shot at a presumed intruder.
For me it was simple ; He argued with his girlfriend, it escalated, he got more and more aggressive, she fled in fear when he grabbed his gun,she locked herself in the toilet and he shot through the door to kill her. End of, (which was exactly how the initial police on the scene were suggesting had happened when they gave the first press conference outside Silverwoods, which is now not anywhere to be found online^_^ )
but with help of bro phones went missing , potential evidence destroyed, and tricky dicky Lawyer Roux twisting a few things to suit his versions, Roux confusing ,intimidating and tricking witnesses who gave testimony, introducing two sets of sounds completely cocked up what should have been a simple slam dunk Murder Dolus Directus . But Oscar was lucky he had a Judge who left Roux to roll and didn't control the Court and got confused with applying and understanding SA Law correctly.
Poor Oscar, he's won whatever the outcome, he fooled the Court , he's lucky he had hard of hearing Masipa and hotshot Roux . The trial has always been about poor Oscar , the victim , losing everything he worked so hard for, ............that was until Barry Roux gave his testimony. So Oscar had to go one better to squish that best he could - his INTERVIEW was aired on ITV , so Oscar , poor Oscar managed to get the last word, and blubbered away wetting his face in his last ditch attempt to fool us once again.
He's a prize *anker, and I hope when he prays to his god he comes clean, but he's so good at lying , i think he'd even convince him now.
I like that post Jack, its exactly how I feel about the whole debacle!
For me it was simple ; He argued with his girlfriend, it escalated, he got more and more aggressive, she fled in fear when he grabbed his gun,she locked herself in the toilet and he shot through the door to kill her. End of, (which was exactly how the initial police on the scene were suggesting had happened when they gave the first press conference outside Silverwoods, which is now not anywhere to be found online^_^ )
but with help of bro phones went missing , potential evidence destroyed, and tricky dicky Lawyer Roux twisting a few things to suit his versions, Roux confusing ,intimidating and tricking witnesses who gave testimony, introducing two sets of sounds completely cocked up what should have been a simple slam dunk Murder Dolus Directus . But Oscar was lucky he had a Judge who left Roux to roll and didn't control the Court and got confused with applying and understanding SA Law correctly.
Poor Oscar, he's won whatever the outcome, he fooled the Court , he's lucky he had hard of hearing Masipa and hotshot Roux . The trial has always been about poor Oscar , the victim , losing everything he worked so hard for, ............that was until Barry Roux gave his testimony. So Oscar had to go one better to squish that best he could - his INTERVIEW was aired on ITV , so Oscar , poor Oscar managed to get the last word, and blubbered away wetting his face in his last ditch attempt to fool us once again.
He's a prize *anker, and I hope when he prays to his god he comes clean, but he's so good at lying , i think he'd even convince him now.
The policewoman said he had been "arrested and charged with murder" [URL="Oscar Pistorius arrest: police press conference"]Oscar Pistorius arrest: police press conference[/URL] The officer confirmed that there had been "allegations of domestic violence" (answering a reporter's(?) question). I didn't pick up they were suggesting a DA incident.
Hi Flash, It isn't his first offence tho - he can count himself 'lucky' he only has one other offence on his record and not three others.
Very sadly I must say ...... remember when Masipa started this sentence hearing- she asked with a smile "is it his first offence?". Nel said "yes", right at outset of day 1.
The murder of Reeva being offence no. 2 was something argued on DS, but there was never any confirmation until day 1 of this sentence hearing.
When we had the discussion some time back on Oscars story being so ridiculous - wasn't it Mr Jitty who commented on foreshadowing and staging (of the storyline)?
Sorry to take the conversation in a different direction, and just ignore me, but it seems that little details are being added to embellish the story, that he suddenly remembers two years later, but some of it wasn't discussed in court.
The longer time goes on usually the memory fades things, not makes them clearer.......
Was he asked about meals/cooking etc in court? I know the time they ate was a big debate at the time, and being at work during the actual trial I only got to see the odd highlight at night.
(however I was off during the SCA hearing and was able to watch it all...)
Yes, you're right , your point and Jitty's knowledge of this stuff - retrospective scripting- is very apropos.
Reckon he's had some guidance of late don't you? Adding these vibrant memories - the smells of non-existent cooking, the little touching smile at her tooth brushing suggestion.
Ugh.
As you & Leonard Carr said - the truly traumatised have big blanks - not more & more detailed recollection.
Re your BIB He did explain the cooking sequence in the first trial. She was prepping when he got home ( 6pm) and he was upstairs for quite a while until she called him down to eat ( 7pm)
Here's his evidence in chief to Roux:
Yes. --- I arrived home and Reeva was preparing dinner in the kitchen. I chatted to her for a short time. I went upstairs then I was.. I wanted to get out of the clothes I have been in for the day and I went upstairs and got changed and showered. I changed into my pyjamas and then I think around seven o’clock I went downstairs"
and shortly later to Roux, same EIC,
From the time I arrived home, Reeva was preparing dinner. I was talking to her, and on the ipad I was surfing the net. I was looking at cars that I had wanted to get around to during the day. To have a look at and when I went upstairs as I...as I was drawing the bath, I was on my iPad. I lay on my bed and took off my suit. I then sat in the bath for a while, I cannot remember if I was on it then.

And then as I got out of bed, for a short time thereafter I was on it. We went down to dinner, I stopped using it. We were sitting and chatting.
By 8 they had retired upstairs - according to him. There were a two stumbles(?) where he kept saying "I ate" and " I started dinner" which he corrected to "we " but I don't have the link , just a saved copy.
I hope Judge Leach is under the table telling her what to say via ear mic and screams through her ear piece every time she so much as deviates into sympathy mode for him.
There may well be an issue with aggravating factors but the minimum sentence for both de and DD is 15 years. Life is 25 years before parole and applies when premeditation is present which wouldn't have applied no matter what in this case.
Age and first offence along with de can be substantial and compelling circumstances. And even if it were close to DD, it wasn't DD and as I said above, 15 years for DD would be an acceptable sentence depending on the circumstances.
I think if he'd been found guilty of deliberately shooting Reeva there would have been a heavy sentence at the least to send out a message. One could argue that violent gun crime should receive a stiff sentence for similar reasons, but that's why the defence had op walking on his stumps, to remind the court that this is not a case of a thug who went out looking for trouble or to commit a crime, but a disabled man who shot at a presumed intruder.
Judge Greenland said in the Carte Blanche discussion that Murder Dolus Eventualis carries sentence of minimum 15, and Dolus Directus, direct intent 25 years , which was not disputed by the panel, so I will believe them.
We also know that there was little chance the Prosecution were going to be able to prove Premeditated murder , the only witness was dead .The only reason the State started with Premeditated was the only way to FORCE a Bail Affidavit out of Pistorius .
The Supreme Court , 5 Judges led by Judge Leach said and i will quote for you : Pistorius’s evidence and explanations for killing Steenkamp were implausible and that he had never offered an acceptable explanation for firing four times through a closed door.
They said Pistorius’s claim – one of several put forward by the defence – of putative private defence, or self-defence in fear of his life, was not rational. His evidence was so contradictory that it was impossible to know his true reason for firing, but it was clear that the person behind the door did not pose any immediate threat to him. http://mg.co.za/article/2015-12-07-oscar-pistorius-convicted-of-murder-key-questions-answered
This is why Gerrie Nel has been saying Murder Dolus Eventualis bordering Dolus Directus because the Supreme Court agreed there was INTENT.
The Defence got Pistorius to wobble around helplessly on his stumps to gain Mercy in hope the Judge will reduce his prison time. But what we know is that this was just another display to save his sorry ar*e. I've already put a link to the Evidence Room VT which shows just how capable Pitorius really is on his stumps. He's very balanced, moves quickly, very able, and his face shows no strain while he's on his stumps, complete contrast to his performance in Court.
And yes, this is his first Murder conviction ? ^_^ but not the first time he's behaved recklessly with a gun.
that would be a great scene..........
Masipa delivers the sentence 10 years in prison and as Alex Crawford appears to sum up for us, in the background Judge Leach is seen looking very sweaty on his knees crawling out from under Masipa's desk. (that doesn't sound right,:o but i know what i mean:D)
The policewoman said he had been "arrested and charged with murder" [URL="Oscar Pistorius arrest: police press conference"]Oscar Pistorius arrest: police press conference[/URL] The officer confirmed that there had been "allegations of domestic violence" (answering a reporter's(?) question). I didn't pick up they were suggesting a DA incident.
That's what i saw on the day
There was an early Press Conference, then a second in the afternoon
The first one is not online anymore, the second is.
They are very similar , same Policewoman speaking to the press.
Thanks for that. The link doesn't work, but i remember it very well.
I like that post Jack, its exactly how I feel about the whole debacle!
thank you
It's all so frustrating and makes me SO ANGRY that the police mucked a lot of this up from the outset with the crime scene and securing it, which didn't help Prosecution team at all, so very sloppy. It SHOULD HAVE been Murder Dolus Directus and that's that, but it's been such a sad balls up. I agree with benjamini? who said there should be a re-trial. I know it won't happen, and i'm sure they wouldn't want to do it all again.
IF Justice Leach had been the Judge, even if he had those two gormless Assessors doing and asking sweet FA next to him, and he sat and listened to those neighbours saying what they heard that night about Reeva's screams , blood curdling, and in such heartfelt and emotional distress like it was yesterday, we would not be talking about this now. It's such a travesty of Justice.
That's what i saw on the day
There was an early Press Conference, then a second in the afternoon
The first one is not online anymore, the second is.
They are very similar , same Policewoman speaking to the press.
Thanks for that. The link doesn't work, but i remember it very well.
It has always been my opinon that at that stage all the evidence pointed to an open and shut case which is why the police issued that confident statement. However I also think that much of that evidence was ruled out because of police blunders/incompetence . I would love to know what the whole evidence was that ultimately would have been inadmissible .
Well if he's found to be criminally insane he could go to the South African equivalent of Rampton, where he could languish in his room for the rest of his life.
oh he tried that, he tried the General Anxiety Disorder ploy
He passed tests, he's of sound mind, he was fit to stand trial and was in his right mind when firing 4 shots through a door at Reeva Steenkamp.
He will end up languishing in a room, but it'll be locked and he won't have the key.
It has always been my opinon that at that stage all the evidence pointed to an open and shut case which is why the police issued that confident statement. However I also think that much of that evidence was ruled out because of police blunders/incompetence . I would love to know what the whole evidence was that ultimately would have been inadmissible .
I remember hearing that the first blood samples that were taken from Pistorius at the police station, night of his arrest had gone MISSING ^_^.
SA is such a corrupt country, lot of bribery goes on, it's just another thing that reminds me how much 'power' and 'control' over this situation Pistorius had. It's not right, he killed someone, yet he ensured this Trial started very very much on the backfoot , to make prosecuting him for Reeva's Murder and securing a conviction difficult -- because he's dodgey as hell, as are his confidents (family? maybe not all of them)
Long before Pistorius went into Court for this Trial for killing Reeva, many other crimes had been committed in my opinion, ones that has helped Pistorius get far less prison time than he otherwise would have if there hadn't been 'interference' (starting with the the crime scene and phone calls) . Pistorius was never going to tell the truth, i don't think he ever will. The Steenkamps know this too.
That's what i saw on the day
There was an early Press Conference, then a second in the afternoon
The first one is not online anymore, the second is.
They are very similar , same Policewoman speaking to the press.
Thanks for that. The link doesn't work, but i remember it very well.
My post was about Greenland confirming that OP shot at a perceived intruder. Your post did not mention anything about an intruder. The fact that the finding was "intruder" rather than "a person" is germane.
My post was about Greenland confirming that OP shot at a perceived intruder. Your post did not mention anything about an intruder. The fact that the finding was "intruder" rather than "a person" is germane.
You dont think i did ? Well that can't be helped when i do.
- but if you read my recent post #9713 i even quoted what Greenland said , so i don't know what you're so dissatisfied with ? Anyway, here's the post exchange you're saying i didn't answer.
Originally Posted by porky42
It's interesting that like Masipa as soon as a judge deviates form the expected path they they have made a mistake or gone off the rails or worse.
Greenland was right about the courts finding that OP believed he was shooting an intruder and that is going to stick in Nel's throat at the sentencing. IMO of course
no it's not going to 'stick in his throat' ,, if anyone it will stick in Roux's and Pistorius' because the Judge now has to give the appropriate sentence for Murder and take into account the ballistics evidence given in Court by Magena. Pistorius fired 4 shots through a door into a tiny space when he was under no threat whatsoever and was of sound mind and was aware that those bullets were likely to kill the person the other side of the door. (in laymans terms) which shows Intent .
That's why the Supreme Court changed the conviction to Murder, Dolus Eventualis /bordering on Dolus Directus which all the Legal pundits agree..
that's the 2nd one that was originally broadcast
You can hear her say that this is an UPDATE from what had happened earlier in the morning. It's the FIRST ONE where they held a media conference that has disappeared , you won't be able to find it now.
But thanks for this , what a reminder , i remember my jaw dropping when i heard this.
I immediately thought domestic violence .
In the first clip i remember this police woman said that the police had been to the address before because of domestic violence incidence.^_^
I think that was very quickly blocked and legally by the P family.^_^
Note that she says that she's not sure where the report came from but there was report that the girlfriend was mistaken for a burgler - now this is crucial, because they had no source for that 'new info' and i remember thinking , that this was the start of the Pistorus family cover up to protect Oscar from getting a murder charge and support his intruder story' what he was going to be telling the Court ,= lies .
My post was about Greenland confirming that OP shot at a perceived intruder. Your post did not mention anything about an intruder. The fact that the finding was "intruder" rather than "a person" is germane.
Judge Greenland said in the Carte Blanche discussion that Murder Dolus Eventualis carries sentence of minimum 15, and Dolus Directus, direct intent 25 years , which was not disputed by the panel, so I will believe them.
We also know that there was little chance the Prosecution were going to be able to prove Premeditated murder , the only witness was dead .The only reason the State started with Premeditated was the only way to FORCE a Bail Affidavit out of Pistorius .
The Supreme Court , 5 Judges led by Judge Leach said and i will quote for you : Pistorius’s evidence and explanations for killing Steenkamp were implausible and that he had never offered an acceptable explanation for firing four times through a closed door.
They said Pistorius’s claim – one of several put forward by the defence – of putative private defence, or self-defence in fear of his life, was not rational. His evidence was so contradictory that it was impossible to know his true reason for firing, but it was clear that the person behind the door did not pose any immediate threat to him. http://mg.co.za/article/2015-12-07-oscar-pistorius-convicted-of-murder-key-questions-answered
This is why Gerrie Nel has been saying Murder Dolus Eventualis bordering Dolus Directus because the Supreme Court agreed there was INTENT.
The Defence got Pistorius to wobble around helplessly on his stumps to gain Mercy in hope the Judge will reduce his prison time. But what we know is that this was just another display to save his sorry ar*e. I've already put a link to the Evidence Room VT which shows just how capable Pitorius really is on his stumps. He's very balanced, moves quickly, very able, and his face shows no strain while he's on his stumps, complete contrast to his performance in Court.
And yes, this is his first Murder conviction ? ^_^ but not the first time he's behaved recklessly with a gun.
I suggest you do your own research rather than trusting what people say on TV. Look at a few judgements. That's what I'm basing what I said on about de, DD and premeditation. It may be out of date but I don't think so.
It is his first conviction for anything.
Intent simply defines that it was murder, but doesn't refer to the circumstances or whether it was premeditated. The judge can give someone convicted of murder a life sentence as the 15 years is the minimum, but it is only for premeditated murder that life is the minimum sentence.
That's what i saw on the day
There was an early Press Conference, then a second in the afternoon
The first one is not online anymore, the second is.
They are very similar , same Policewoman speaking to the press.
Thanks for that. The link doesn't work, but i remember it very well.
Barry Bateman was the first journalist on the scene so this may be the morning press conference you were looking for.
Re your BIB He did explain the cooking sequence in the first trial. She was prepping when he got home ( 6pm) and he was upstairs for quite a while until she called him down to eat ( 7pm)
EiC p.103 I went upstairs then I was..
I wanted to get out of the clothes I have been in for the day and I went upstairs and got changed and showered.
I changed into my pyjamas and then I think around seven o’clock I went downstairs and …
To have a look at and when I went upstairs as I...
[He says he went upstairs 3 times and downstairs once, but then …
EiC p.104 We went down to dinner, …
I started dinner… we started dinner shortly after seven, M'Lady.
XX
p.311
I then went into the house. I chatted with Reeva. I then went upstairs. I came downstairs. We had dinner.
p.447
When I ate, we ate together and we ate just after seven and we ate for about 20 minutes, half an hour, so I am sure dinner would have been finished long before eight o’clock in the evening.
[He starts off by saying “I ate”, quickly corrects himself and then says “we ate” 3 times in the one sentence. Hmmm. It's just so obvious]
EiC p.103 I went upstairs then I was..
I wanted to get out of the clothes I have been in for the day and I went upstairs and got changed and showered.
I changed into my pyjamas and then I think around seven o’clock I went downstairs and …
To have a look at and when I went upstairs as I...
[He says he went upstairs 3 times and downstairs once, but then …
EiC p.104 We went down to dinner, …
I started dinner… we started dinner shortly after seven, M'Lady.
XX
p.311
I then went into the house. I chatted with Reeva. I then went upstairs. I came downstairs. We had dinner.
p.447
When I ate, we ate together and we ate just after seven and we ate for about 20 minutes, half an hour, so I am sure dinner would have been finished long before eight o’clock in the evening.
[He starts off by saying “I ate”, quickly corrects himself and then says “we ate” 3 times in the one sentence. Hmmm. It's just so obvious]
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Thanks for this Nikki, and to Flash for his reply to my question yesterday also.
Yes very interesting, if you are telling the truth you don't change I/we, as you are telling the truth as you remember it.
EiC p.103 I went upstairs then I was..
I wanted to get out of the clothes I have been in for the day and I went upstairs and got changed and showered.
I changed into my pyjamas and then I think around seven o’clock I went downstairs and …
To have a look at and when I went upstairs as I...
[He says he went upstairs 3 times and downstairs once, but then …
EiC p.104 We went down to dinner, …
I started dinner… we started dinner shortly after seven, M'Lady.
XX
p.311
I then went into the house. I chatted with Reeva. I then went upstairs. I came downstairs. We had dinner.
p.447
When I ate, we ate together and we ate just after seven and we ate for about 20 minutes, half an hour, so I am sure dinner would have been finished long before eight o’clock in the evening.
[He starts off by saying “I ate”, quickly corrects himself and then says “we ate” 3 times in the one sentence. Hmmm. It's just so obvious]
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
And did he "shower" or did he take a bath as he stated elsewhere? (Sorry I can't seem to find a quick link, but recall he clearly described going upstairs and laying on his bed to remove his suit before taking a bath in other testimony or statements.)
Most of us don't use those terms interchangeably-- we might use the term "bathe" for taking either a shower or a bath, but rarely would someone say "take a bath" when they mean take a shower. Might be different in SA though, but I doubt it.
Yes, you're right , your point and Jitty's knowledge of this stuff - retrospective scripting- is very apropos.
Reckon he's had some guidance of late don't you? Adding these vibrant memories - the smells of non-existent cooking, the little touching smile at her tooth brushing suggestion.
Ugh.
As you & Leonard Carr said - the truly traumatised have big blanks - not more & more detailed recollection.
Re your BIB He did explain the cooking sequence in the first trial. She was prepping when he got home ( 6pm) and he was upstairs for quite a while until she called him down to eat ( 7pm)
Here's his evidence in chief to Roux:
and shortly later to Roux, same EIC,
By 8 they had retired upstairs - according to him. There were a two stumbles(?) where he kept saying "I ate" and " I started dinner" which he corrected to "we " but I don't have the link , just a saved copy.
Comments
Three years plus after shooting Reeva, OP is still gallivanting around in Arnie's mansion.
He gets prime airtime to work on the public's perception of him before he has been sentenced.
Masipa, whose judgement has already been proved faulty, gets to do the final honours.
All of it is madness. On so many levels. You couldn't make it up.
There may well be an issue with aggravating factors but the minimum sentence for both de and DD is 15 years. Life is 25 years before parole and applies when premeditation is present which wouldn't have applied no matter what in this case.
Age and first offence along with de can be substantial and compelling circumstances. And even if it were close to DD, it wasn't DD and as I said above, 15 years for DD would be an acceptable sentence depending on the circumstances.
I think if he'd been found guilty of deliberately shooting Reeva there would have been a heavy sentence at the least to send out a message. One could argue that violent gun crime should receive a stiff sentence for similar reasons, but that's why the defence had op walking on his stumps, to remind the court that this is not a case of a thug who went out looking for trouble or to commit a crime, but a disabled man who shot at a presumed intruder.
I like that post Jack, its exactly how I feel about the whole debacle!
The policewoman said he had been "arrested and charged with murder" [URL="Oscar Pistorius arrest: police press conference"]Oscar Pistorius arrest: police press conference[/URL] The officer confirmed that there had been "allegations of domestic violence" (answering a reporter's(?) question). I didn't pick up they were suggesting a DA incident.
Very sadly I must say ...... remember when Masipa started this sentence hearing- she asked with a smile "is it his first offence?". Nel said "yes", right at outset of day 1.
The murder of Reeva being offence no. 2 was something argued on DS, but there was never any confirmation until day 1 of this sentence hearing.
Baffling I know, but we're not SA lawyers
Yes, you're right , your point and Jitty's knowledge of this stuff - retrospective scripting- is very apropos.
Reckon he's had some guidance of late don't you? Adding these vibrant memories - the smells of non-existent cooking, the little touching smile at her tooth brushing suggestion.
Ugh.
As you & Leonard Carr said - the truly traumatised have big blanks - not more & more detailed recollection.
Re your BIB He did explain the cooking sequence in the first trial. She was prepping when he got home ( 6pm) and he was upstairs for quite a while until she called him down to eat ( 7pm)
Here's his evidence in chief to Roux: and shortly later to Roux, same EIC, By 8 they had retired upstairs - according to him. There were a two stumbles(?) where he kept saying "I ate" and " I started dinner" which he corrected to "we " but I don't have the link , just a saved copy.
Ha
We also know that there was little chance the Prosecution were going to be able to prove Premeditated murder , the only witness was dead .The only reason the State started with Premeditated was the only way to FORCE a Bail Affidavit out of Pistorius .
The Supreme Court , 5 Judges led by Judge Leach said and i will quote for you : Pistorius’s evidence and explanations for killing Steenkamp were implausible and that he had never offered an acceptable explanation for firing four times through a closed door.
They said Pistorius’s claim – one of several put forward by the defence – of putative private defence, or self-defence in fear of his life, was not rational. His evidence was so contradictory that it was impossible to know his true reason for firing, but it was clear that the person behind the door did not pose any immediate threat to him.
http://mg.co.za/article/2015-12-07-oscar-pistorius-convicted-of-murder-key-questions-answered
This is why Gerrie Nel has been saying Murder Dolus Eventualis bordering Dolus Directus because the Supreme Court agreed there was INTENT.
The Defence got Pistorius to wobble around helplessly on his stumps to gain Mercy in hope the Judge will reduce his prison time. But what we know is that this was just another display to save his sorry ar*e. I've already put a link to the Evidence Room VT which shows just how capable Pitorius really is on his stumps. He's very balanced, moves quickly, very able, and his face shows no strain while he's on his stumps, complete contrast to his performance in Court.
And yes, this is his first Murder conviction ? ^_^ but not the first time he's behaved recklessly with a gun.
Masipa delivers the sentence 10 years in prison and as Alex Crawford appears to sum up for us, in the background Judge Leach is seen looking very sweaty on his knees crawling out from under Masipa's desk.
That's what i saw on the day
There was an early Press Conference, then a second in the afternoon
The first one is not online anymore, the second is.
They are very similar , same Policewoman speaking to the press.
Thanks for that. The link doesn't work, but i remember it very well.
thank you
It's all so frustrating and makes me SO ANGRY that the police mucked a lot of this up from the outset with the crime scene and securing it, which didn't help Prosecution team at all, so very sloppy. It SHOULD HAVE been Murder Dolus Directus and that's that, but it's been such a sad balls up. I agree with benjamini? who said there should be a re-trial. I know it won't happen, and i'm sure they wouldn't want to do it all again.
IF Justice Leach had been the Judge, even if he had those two gormless Assessors doing and asking sweet FA next to him, and he sat and listened to those neighbours saying what they heard that night about Reeva's screams , blood curdling, and in such heartfelt and emotional distress like it was yesterday, we would not be talking about this now. It's such a travesty of Justice.
It has always been my opinon that at that stage all the evidence pointed to an open and shut case which is why the police issued that confident statement. However I also think that much of that evidence was ruled out because of police blunders/incompetence . I would love to know what the whole evidence was that ultimately would have been inadmissible .
oh he tried that, he tried the General Anxiety Disorder ploy
He passed tests, he's of sound mind, he was fit to stand trial and was in his right mind when firing 4 shots through a door at Reeva Steenkamp.
He will end up languishing in a room, but it'll be locked and he won't have the key.
SA is such a corrupt country, lot of bribery goes on, it's just another thing that reminds me how much 'power' and 'control' over this situation Pistorius had. It's not right, he killed someone, yet he ensured this Trial started very very much on the backfoot , to make prosecuting him for Reeva's Murder and securing a conviction difficult -- because he's dodgey as hell, as are his confidents (family? maybe not all of them)
Long before Pistorius went into Court for this Trial for killing Reeva, many other crimes had been committed in my opinion, ones that has helped Pistorius get far less prison time than he otherwise would have if there hadn't been 'interference' (starting with the the crime scene and phone calls) . Pistorius was never going to tell the truth, i don't think he ever will. The Steenkamps know this too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1auR6p8dphA Sorry about that, DS seems to be playing up for me and still having delays in posts.
I don't think you did.
My post was about Greenland confirming that OP shot at a perceived intruder. Your post did not mention anything about an intruder. The fact that the finding was "intruder" rather than "a person" is germane.
- but if you read my recent post #9713 i even quoted what Greenland said , so i don't know what you're so dissatisfied with ? Anyway, here's the post exchange you're saying i didn't answer.
Originally Posted by porky42
It's interesting that like Masipa as soon as a judge deviates form the expected path they they have made a mistake or gone off the rails or worse.
Greenland was right about the courts finding that OP believed he was shooting an intruder and that is going to stick in Nel's throat at the sentencing. IMO of course
my reply
that's the 2nd one that was originally broadcast
You can hear her say that this is an UPDATE from what had happened earlier in the morning. It's the FIRST ONE where they held a media conference that has disappeared , you won't be able to find it now.
But thanks for this , what a reminder , i remember my jaw dropping when i heard this.
I immediately thought domestic violence .
In the first clip i remember this police woman said that the police had been to the address before because of domestic violence incidence.^_^
I think that was very quickly blocked and legally by the P family.^_^
Note that she says that she's not sure where the report came from but there was report that the girlfriend was mistaken for a burgler - now this is crucial, because they had no source for that 'new info' and i remember thinking , that this was the start of the Pistorus family cover up to protect Oscar from getting a murder charge and support his intruder story' what he was going to be telling the Court ,= lies .
An intruder is a person, no?
I suggest you do your own research rather than trusting what people say on TV. Look at a few judgements. That's what I'm basing what I said on about de, DD and premeditation. It may be out of date but I don't think so.
It is his first conviction for anything.
Intent simply defines that it was murder, but doesn't refer to the circumstances or whether it was premeditated. The judge can give someone convicted of murder a life sentence as the 15 years is the minimum, but it is only for premeditated murder that life is the minimum sentence.
Barry Bateman was the first journalist on the scene so this may be the morning press conference you were looking for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z93v0iElPGM
EiC p.103
I went upstairs then I was..
I wanted to get out of the clothes I have been in for the day and I went upstairs and got changed and showered.
I changed into my pyjamas and then I think around seven o’clock I went downstairs and …
To have a look at and when I went upstairs as I...
[He says he went upstairs 3 times and downstairs once, but then …
EiC p.104
We went down to dinner, …
I started dinner… we started dinner shortly after seven, M'Lady.
XX
p.311
I then went into the house. I chatted with Reeva. I then went upstairs. I came downstairs. We had dinner.
p.447
When I ate, we ate together and we ate just after seven and we ate for about 20 minutes, half an hour, so I am sure dinner would have been finished long before eight o’clock in the evening.
[He starts off by saying “I ate”, quickly corrects himself and then says “we ate” 3 times in the one sentence. Hmmm. It's just so obvious]
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Thanks for this Nikki, and to Flash for his reply to my question yesterday also.
Yes very interesting, if you are telling the truth you don't change I/we, as you are telling the truth as you remember it.
And did he "shower" or did he take a bath as he stated elsewhere? (Sorry I can't seem to find a quick link, but recall he clearly described going upstairs and laying on his bed to remove his suit before taking a bath in other testimony or statements.)
Most of us don't use those terms interchangeably-- we might use the term "bathe" for taking either a shower or a bath, but rarely would someone say "take a bath" when they mean take a shower. Might be different in SA though, but I doubt it.
Did he have a bath or did he have a shower?