Pistorius..prosecution heads for supreme court

13567219

Comments

  • curleys wifecurleys wife Posts: 3,986
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jeremy99 wrote: »
    I’m sure Gerrie Nel must be shaking in his shoes at their now increasing desperate outpourings.

    In truth he may even feel a little sorry for those poor deluded mainly females fawning over a convicted murderer.

    One has to wonder if it was their daughter that Pistorius had riddled with bullets if their feelings for him would be the same as they are exhibiting no
    w


    BIB. -Almost certainly not, IMO.

    So thank goodness we don't have Justice systems that places on grieving families the burden of having to decide verdicts and sentences.
  • LieteLiete Posts: 1,885
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jeremy99 wrote: »
    A comment from one of Pistorius’ deluded supporters….

    ‘We think it could actually backfire against the state now. The Supreme Court of Appeal judges won’t do anything with the sentence to make it longer, they could actually make it shorter and Oscar could be out sooner. We feel relaxed about it".

    Who are these people!!!!

    Was this person called Masipa by any chance?
  • Jeremy99Jeremy99 Posts: 5,476
    Forum Member
    Frillynix wrote: »
    The daft bat stated out loud that he was an unreliable witness - she then went on to rely on the bits he said that would get him off!

    And HE openly said he would "try" to tell the truth - you couldn't make this stuff up!

    Indeed, having virtually condemned him as a liar, she then goes on to ‘believed’ the intruder bit, which was the one thing about which he had the most reason to lie!!
  • DeepnetDeepnet Posts: 1,289
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
  • Jeremy99Jeremy99 Posts: 5,476
    Forum Member
    Latest from Carl Pistorius on how to achieve in four steps….

    Plan purposefully
    Prepare prayerfully
    Proceed positively
    Pursue persistently

    It would seem Gerrie Nel took his advice and it seems to be working :D
  • Jeremy99Jeremy99 Posts: 5,476
    Forum Member
    Don’t you just love these myopic Pistorians, for example the following

    Dear Oscar

    God is the guardian of your character.

    Jesus understands the misery that has been caused by slanderous reports because he was wounded by them.

    There is no worse weapon than a deceitful tongue. Lying tongues cannot be still. What can be worse that to be a victim of malicious slander.

    How it must hurt to be hated by those who once loved and adored you! How fickle human nature is.

    There is nothing you can do but pray. The only answer to their malice is to pray. True bravery is to leave your slanderers unanswered and carry your case to the Lord, the Righteous Judge.

    Praying as always, Colleen


    Now Colleen, I’m sorry to break this to you but there is a far worse weapon than a deceitful tongue, it’s called a 9mm Parabellum load with expanding ammunition and there is actually something a great deal worse than to be a victim of malicious slander - it’s to be a victim of four expanding bullets fired from that gun by your dear Pistorius, a convicted murderer.

    Also, does it never occur to you that the God to whom you pray could have prevented all this anguish you are suffering by simply preventing Pistorius murdering Reeva in the first place. Not a tall order for a supreme being I would have thought!!

    Oh and finally, you might well advise Pistorius to ‘carry his case to the Lord, the Righteous Judge’ but be mindful that Gerrie Nel is carrying his case to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Want to bet who will win?
  • Moody BlueMoody Blue Posts: 5,680
    Forum Member
    I'll take a deceitful tongue before a loaded gun any day!
  • Stormy NightStormy Night Posts: 756
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    porky42 wrote: »
    IYO
    Is the SCA going to make it clear that OP knew it was Reeva behind the door?

    Is the SCA going to make it clear that he was not mistaken about thinking it was an intruder?

    He was convicted of DE-- not DD so your questions are disingenuous.

    The SCA made it clear Oscar did not care who was behind that door-- whoever it was Oscar intended to murder them with four rounds and he succeeded.

    The SCA also made it clear it was not a mistake that Oscar killed the person behind the door-- he acted with the knowledge and foresight he could likely kill someone and under the circumstances, he had no legal justification for doing so.
  • Ian _ LIan _ L Posts: 1,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jeremy99 wrote: »
    Don’t you just love these myopic Pistorians, for example the following

    Dear Oscar

    God is the guardian of your character.

    Jesus understands the misery that has been caused by slanderous reports because he was wounded by them.

    There is no worse weapon than a deceitful tongue. Lying tongues cannot be still. What can be worse that to be a victim of malicious slander.

    How it must hurt to be hated by those who once loved and adored you! How fickle human nature is.

    There is nothing you can do but pray. The only answer to their malice is to pray. True bravery is to leave your slanderers unanswered and carry your case to the Lord, the Righteous Judge.

    Praying as always, Colleen


    Now Colleen, I’m sorry to break this to you but there is a far worse weapon than a deceitful tongue, it’s called a 9mm Parabellum load with expanding ammunition and there is actually something a great deal worse than to be a victim of malicious slander - it’s to be a victim of four expanding bullets fired from that gun by your dear Pistorius, a convicted murderer.

    Also, does it never occur to you that the God to whom you pray could have prevented all this anguish you are suffering by simply preventing Pistorius murdering Reeva in the first place. Not a tall order for a supreme being I would have thought!!

    Oh and finally, you might well advise Pistorius to ‘carry his case to the Lord, the Righteous Judge’ but be mindful that Gerrie Nel is carrying his case to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Want to bet who will win?

    I can just imagine op turning up at the pearly gates when his time comes;
    St.Peter looks at his notes "Just got these scrolls from the Big Man...It says here, you lied on the good book and after that had the audacity to pretend to hold prayer meetings with the family for the media in court....What's that? ..Oh you tried to tell the Truth? No way in wee man, bye"
    op will be used to metal gates slamming in his face by then, but when one door closes another one opens...
  • Jeremy99Jeremy99 Posts: 5,476
    Forum Member
    Oh dear here we go again with another female Pistorian called Dee who posts....

    '.....the state have chosen to ignore the evidence in the case in preference for an egotistical desire to win at all costs'

    No, my dear, you really must try to keep up. It was Masipa who ignored the evidence, the SCA said so. Suggest you really ought to get your facts right

    Also I notice you say….

    ‘.........That a person should be punished for a crime the court found no evidence of’

    Really? are you suggesting the SCA convicted Pistorius of murder without there being any evidence? Now that’s a pretty serious accusation against 5 senior justices. I might suggest you untwist your knickers and again check your facts before making such accusations.

    Actually, you seem very uncertain of facts in general to the extent I wonder if you are ignoring them deliberately.

    I am guessing but I think your full name must be ….Dee Ceitful
  • curleys wifecurleys wife Posts: 3,986
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There is lots of fuss being made about the apparent shortness of the six year sentence. Where does the time already served get factored in?
  • FizzbinFizzbin Posts: 36,827
    Forum Member
    Jeremy99 wrote: »
    I am guessing but I think your full name must be ….Dee Ceitful

    Dee Luded
  • LaVieEnRoseLaVieEnRose Posts: 12,836
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There is lots of fuss being made about the apparent shortness of the six year sentence. Where does the time already served get factored in?

    The time served (so far a year and a bit, IIRC) will presumably be knocked off the 15 years or so he will get when he is properly sentenced. :cool:

    Hope that helps. :)
  • curleys wifecurleys wife Posts: 3,986
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The time served (so far a year and a bit, IIRC) will presumably be knocked off the 15 years or so he will get when he is properly sentenced. :cool:

    Hope that helps. :)

    What about at the moment though? It's not like Masipa said six years minus the time already served. Shouldn't it automatically be added to the six years when discussing his current sentence? Even if people find a total sentence of almost eight years too low, it is at least more honest to recognise time already served as part of a sentence prior to the verdict change, in addition to the one he is now serving, and that eight years is a more realistic summary of his overall sentence (so far).
  • LaVieEnRoseLaVieEnRose Posts: 12,836
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What about at the moment though? It's not like Masipa said six years minus the time already served. Shouldn't it automatically be added to the six years when discussing his current sentence? Even if people find a total sentence of almost eight years too low, it is at least more honest to recognise time already served as part of a sentence prior to the verdict change, in addition to the one he is now serving, and that eight years is a more realistic summary of his overall sentence (so far).

    :D
    Jeremy said that's what you'd say.
    :D:D
  • curleys wifecurleys wife Posts: 3,986
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    :D
    Jeremy said that's what you'd say.
    :D:D

    Did he? I must have missed that post...


    ...Did he have an answer?
  • LaVieEnRoseLaVieEnRose Posts: 12,836
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Did he? I must have missed that post...

    Yes, you're missing a lot. ;-)
  • curleys wifecurleys wife Posts: 3,986
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, you're missing a lot of posts ;-)

    No doubt. But not on here.



    I think it's pretty clear that the overall sentence is nearer to eight years, given time already served.
  • Ian _ LIan _ L Posts: 1,262
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What about at the moment though? It's not like Masipa said six years minus the time already served. Shouldn't it automatically be added to the six years when discussing his current sentence? Even if people find a total sentence of almost eight years too low, it is at least more honest to recognise time already served as part of a sentence prior to the verdict change, in addition to the one he is now serving, and that eight years is a more realistic summary of his overall sentence (so far).

    Time served? Just under 12 months inside. 14 years is your starting point.
  • curleys wifecurleys wife Posts: 3,986
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ian _ L wrote: »
    Time served? Just under 12 months inside. 14 years is your starting point.

    Just shy of 12 months inside... And how long under correctional supervision? That was still his sentence being served...
    Some might also argue that the stringent bail conditions (electronic tag etc) might also be considered against the final sentence
    then factor in the significant and compelling factors...
  • FrillynixFrillynix Posts: 6,497
    Forum Member
    Just shy of 12 months inside... And how long under correctional supervision? That was still his sentence being served...
    Some might also argue that the stringent bail conditions (electronic tag etc) might also be considered against the final sentence
    then factor in the significant and compelling factors...

    Yep compelling factors such as he fired four shots into a small cubicle where noone could hide and had no escape and knowing the bullets were zombie stoppers.

    That's a starter, I'm sure other posters can add their favourites.
  • curleys wifecurleys wife Posts: 3,986
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Frillynix wrote: »
    Yep compelling factors such as he fired four shots into a small cubicle where noone could hide and had no escape and knowing the bullets were zombie stoppers.

    That's a starter, I'm sure other posters can add their favourites.

    The number of shots is certainly an aggravating factor, but there are plenty of significant and compelling factors
  • Jeremy99Jeremy99 Posts: 5,476
    Forum Member
    Now she's gone.....http://imgur.com/a/H8ukk
  • Jeremy99Jeremy99 Posts: 5,476
    Forum Member
    Just seen this on a supporter’s site. Apparently it is a message from God to Pistorius

    I’ve heard your prayers, I’ve seen your tears, I haven’t forgotten about you. Trust my timing. My timing is perfect.

    They seem to have missed out the last sentence not to upset him, it was …….So see you in 15 years!!
  • stressfree_manstressfree_man Posts: 2,201
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jeremy99 wrote: »
    Whilst I think it is now a foregone conclusion that Pistorius will be facing a significant increase in his sentence there are others for whom the latest news will also bring no cheer.

    I would imagine that Barry Roux must be more than a tad worried. Of course he did not have to work hard convincing Masipa to turn down the appeal request as after all by her actions she has revealed herself as an ‘honorary member’ of the Pistorius fan club, but the SCA will be a very different matter.

    Can you imagine him having to face the likes of Justice Leach winging on about how ‘it’s just not fair’ and ‘enough is enough’ as his client has suffered enough at the hands of Gerrie Nel who has been very very nasty to Mr Pistorius. I can well imagine the response of the SCA, as no doubt can Barry Roux.

    As for Masipa she must be wondering what the SCA will have to say about her applying her former social worker standards and attempting to rewrite what constitutes mitigating and aggravating circumstances in order to knock 9 years off a recommended sentence for Pistorius. There will be no faux praise for her this time around from the SCA.

    There may be a tectonic shift by the OP machine from praising Mrs Overall for her reasoning to blaming her for prolonging poor OP's agony's and tortures.

    I have visions of Justice Leach welcoming Roux to court with a cat on his lap saying "so Mr Roux we meet again" "I've been expecting you".
Sign In or Register to comment.