Pistorius..prosecution heads for supreme court

51 of 63

Stormy Night

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“To be fair, there's a risk of a possible double standard here- no-one has questioned the motives of either Reeva or her ex, Warren Lahoud, meeting for coffee. And rightly so. Plenty of people have good relationships with an ex.”

I only mentioned Jenna Edkins because not only did she (albeit unwittingly) play a role in the events that night but once again she appears to have become a consistent presence in Oscar's life. The defense claims he "lost" Reeva but it certainly did not take long for BabyShoes to take her place.

But what are friends for?

stressfree_man

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“I think they will agree with Roux in one sense-- his "enough is enough" mantra. Only I think the SCA will feel they have had enough whining and excuses from this murderer.”

I totally agree. Roux as forwarded nothing much new to advance OP's case and to my mind it will be swatted aside in no time by the high Con Court.
I am confident that he will get 12 years in total minus time served.
I failed to consider that the defense had not submitted their argument when I stated that mid November would be shoe'd in for the hearing.
Mid December would be lovely

Jeremy99

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by stressfree_man:
“I totally agree. Roux as forwarded nothing much new to advance OP's case and to my mind it will be swatted aside in no time by the high Con Court.
I am confident that he will get 12 years in total minus time served.
I failed to consider that the defense had not submitted their argument when I stated that mid November would be shoe'd in for the hearing.
Mid December would be lovely ”

Sadly not, mid Feb - mid March will be the earliest now

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“I only mentioned Jenna Edkins because not only did she (albeit unwittingly) play a role in the events that night but once again she appears to have become a consistent presence in Oscar's life. The defense claims he "lost" Reeva but it certainly did not take long for BabyShoes to take her place.

But what are friends for?”

In what way do you think she has taken Reeva's place?

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by stressfree_man:
“He was found guilty of DE of whoever was behind that locked door. He already had a reduction of sentence when DD was not pursued at the high court by the prosecution.

He was found guilty of firing 4 lethal bullets through the door while under no obvious danger to himself and without giving any warning despite demonstrating that he was mindful of what he was doing.
There should be no deduction of sentence because of the above and because he failed to demonstrate that he ensured that Reeva was out of harms way and was not the person he was murdering.

Edit. Add to the above the fact that no evidence has been forwarded to show that he is less of a danger to society than he was when he fired those 4 bullets that blew Reeva's brains out and shattered her body”

Was he found to be a danger to society?
Never being allowed to own a gun again minimises the risk of another overreaction to a perceived intruder somewhat.
Completing all the required courses in prison the first time around meant he was found to be a good candidate for rehabilitation and 'safe' enough to the public to be released under correctional supervision.

Moody Blue

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“In what way do you think she has taken Reeva's place?”

Curley..please. Stop being argumentative for arguments sake!

ETA......unless YOU are Babyshoes

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by Moody Blue:
“Curley..please. Stop being argumentative for arguments sake!”

Sorry!
It's just it's too easy to stoke up disgust and imply that Pistorius is not as 'broken' as his defence claims by bringing in Jenna Edkins, when we know nothing about the nature of her current relationship with Pistorius

Stormy Night

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“In what way do you think she has taken Reeva's place?”

Well, I suppose you could say she is his girlfriend (once again).

benjamini

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Was he found to be a danger to society?
Never being allowed to own a gun again minimises the risk of another overreaction to a perceived intruder somewhat.
Completing all the required courses in prison the first time around meant he was found to be a good candidate for rehabilitation and 'safe' enough to the public to be released under correctional supervision.”

His completion of any courses is just ticking boxes. There is not one shred of evidence that he was any more remorseful or any more aware of the devastation he has caused. He is as arrogant , and self interested as ever. He. Appears to me to still think it's all about him, all about how wonderful he is, all about being unfairly treated blah blah blah. .
I see not a single sign of deep profound remorse, regret and realisation or taking full and total responsibility for HIS actions.

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“Well, I suppose you could say she is his girlfriend (once again).”

In that she is female and a friend? Or do you know something more?

Stormy Night

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Sorry!
It's just it's too easy to stoke up disgust and imply that Pistorius is not as 'broken' as his defence claims by bringing in Jenna Edkins, when we know nothing about the nature of her current relationship with Pistorius”

You obviously just don't read the right papers, Curley

:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/140058...lete-in-court/

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by benjamini:
“His completion of any courses is just ticking boxes. There is not one shred of evidence that he was any more remorseful or any more aware of the devastation he has caused. He is as arrogant , and self interested as ever. He. Appears to me to still think it's all about him, all about how wonderful he is, all about being unfairly treated blah blah blah. .
I see not a single sign of deep profound remorse, regret and realisation or taking full and total responsibility for HIS actions.”

Where is the evidence that he is still arrogant and self-interested? What does showing profound remorse, regret and realisation/ taking full responsibility for his actions, ( in this case recklessly overreacting to a perceived intruder and killing his girlfriend in the process), actually look like?

Stormy Night

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Was he found to be a danger to society?
Never being allowed to own a gun again minimises the risk of another overreaction to a perceived intruder somewhat.
Completing all the required courses in prison the first time around meant he was found to be a good candidate for rehabilitation and 'safe' enough to the public to be released under correctional supervision.”

Well, hell yeah-- he was convicted of Murder Dolus eventualis. That's pretty much a danger to society.

Do you honestly think he will not have access to a gun again? Do you really believe he will never be subject to any more fits of temper or uncontrolled rage?

Stormy Night

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Sorry!
It's just it's too easy to stoke up disgust and imply that Pistorius is not as 'broken' as his defence claims by bringing in Jenna Edkins, when we know nothing about the nature of her current relationship with Pistorius”

It was easy enough to stoke up disgust when he was out on bail the first time and going out to clubs and parties hitting on Reeva look-alikes. Now that was truly disgusting!

I know-- it can't be true! Vicious rumors all!

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“You obviously just don't read the right papers, Curley:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/140058...lete-in-court/”

definitely don't consider the Sun as the right paper! 😂

I just read that article and she is constantly referred to as 'former flame / former lover ' etc, with one very vague and unsupported suggestion: ' The couple are now said to be back together' Who said it? Hardly convincing reporting... A Sun journalist reports that somewhere it had been said by someone that they are back together... She could have read that on here!

benjamini

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Where is the evidence that he is still arrogant and self-interested? What does showing profound remorse, regret and realisation/ taking full responsibility for his actions, ( in this case recklessly overreacting to a perceived intruder and killing his girlfriend in the process), actually look like?”

A damned sight better than anything I have seen from him and his legal team who are his mouthpiece I this mess. Still moaning on about HIS problems , HIS diabilites, how this is impacting on HIM. I realise you appear to have a total blind spot about the guy but surely there must occasionally be a small tiny chink of enlightenment that it's not actually about him! It's about the. Murdered victim , first second and last. It should always bea out the victims , their rights are paramount. They supersede the killers by millions of miles.
But he and his team just whine on and on that its all so unfair. He has learned nothing.

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“Well, hell yeah-- he was convicted of Murder Dolus eventualis. That's pretty much a danger to society.

Do you honestly think he will not have access to a gun again? Do you really believe he will never be subject to any more fits of temper or uncontrolled rage?”

No- i think the context of the case had made it pretty clear that he doesn't pose a danger to society. However, I think the details of the case do suggest that his heightened sense of vulnerability/anxiety etc coupled with being allowed to own a gun for home defence made him -at that time- a potential danger to people in his home. (He should never have been allowed to own a gun) Take the gun away and Reeva's death- by the findings of the courts- would not have happened. Do you really think he would overreact to a perceived intruder in the same way again?

He wasn't found to have been in a fit of temper or uncontrolled rage when he panicked and opened fire on what he believed to be an intruder. I also don't recall evidence about uncontrolled anger etc being tested and proved in court.

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“It was easy enough to stoke up disgust when he was out on bail the first time and going out to clubs and parties hitting on Reeva look-alikes. Now that was truly disgusting!

I know-- it can't be true! Vicious rumors all!”

It could be true, or partly true. Or fabrication.

If at all true, it could be an indication of callous insensitivity and disrespect of Reeva, the Judicial process, his family and friends etc
However it could also be a sign of his PTSD. Eg going out and drinking under such public scrutiny could be described as self-harming behaviour.

There is however a glaring absence of actual people confirming the more extreme behaviours such as flirting with women. Not even one grainy phone snap of him partying etc. It was just a case yet again of, 'restaurant guest said...' or ' it was said that... ' the mysterious voice of anonymity.....

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by benjamini:
“A damned sight better than anything I have seen from him and his legal team who are his mouthpiece I this mess. Still moaning on about HIS problems , HIS diabilites, how this is impacting on HIM. I realise you appear to have a total blind spot about the guy but surely there must occasionally be a small tiny chink of enlightenment that it's not actually about him! It's about the. Murdered victim , first second and last. It should always bea out the victims , their rights are paramount. They supersede the killers by millions of miles.
But he and his team just whine on and on that its all so unfair. He has learned nothing.”

No blind spot at all...
Im what way do you see Reeva's rights as having been sidelined?

Stormy Night

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“It could be true, or partly true. Or fabrication.

If at all true, it could be an indication of callous insensitivity and disrespect of Reeva, the Judicial process, his family and friends etc
However it could also be a sign of his PTSD. Eg going out and drinking under such public scrutiny could be described as self-harming behaviour.

There is however a glaring absence of actual people confirming the more extreme behaviours such as flirting with women. Not even one grainy phone snap of him partying etc. It was just a case yet again of, 'restaurant guest said...' or ' it was said that... ' the mysterious voice of anonymity.....”

IIRC it was exactly this incident for which Roux apologized in court for his client's behavior and Masipa asked him to please control his client in the future. No?

Stormy Night

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“No- i think the context of the case had made it pretty clear that he doesn't pose a danger to society. However, I think the details of the case do suggest that his heightened sense of vulnerability/anxiety etc coupled with being allowed to own a gun for home defence made him -at that time- a potential danger to people in his home. (He should never have been allowed to own a gun) Take the gun away and Reeva's death- by the findings of the courts- would not have happened. Do you really think he would overreact to a perceived intruder in the same way again?

He wasn't found to have been in a fit of temper or uncontrolled rage when he panicked and opened fire on what he believed to be an intruder. I also don't recall evidence about uncontrolled anger etc being tested and proved in court.”

You've got to be kidding-- seriously? The guy murders his girlfriend "by mistake", nearly shoots the son of his trainer in a similar situation, could have killed someone in Tasha's restaurant, drives around at 200 mph, drives a boat into a pier at night presumably under the influence, constantly gets in fights and threatens other people, drinks to excess in public... I could go on but I think you must get my drift.

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by Stormy Night:
“IIRC it was exactly this incident for which Roux apologized in court for his client's behavior and Masipa asked him to please control his client in the future. No?”

Yes - it was for going to a club, drinking and getting involved in a scuffle with friend of Mikey Schultz and Marc Batchelor, Jared Mortimer. Not for hitting on Reeva look-alikes

flashfiction

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Yes - it was for going to a club, drinking and getting involved in a scuffle with friend of Mikey Schultz and Marc Batchelor, Jared Mortimer. Not for hitting on Reeva look-alikes”

I must note, for the benefit of others, that you and your ilk are obsessed with bringing up these two irrelevances on Twitter - Mikey Schultz and Marc Batchelor.

Stormy Night

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by curleys wife:
“Yes - it was for going to a club, drinking and getting involved in a scuffle with friend of Mikey Schultz and Marc Batchelor, Jared Mortimer. Not for hitting on Reeva look-alikes”

Not illegal behavior then, just immoral.

curleys wife

13-10-2016

Originally Posted by flashfiction:
“I must note, for the benefit of others, that you and your ilk are obsessed with bringing up these two irrelevances on Twitter - Mikey Schultz and Marc Batchelor.”

Well- for the benefit of others, of course - i must say that whilst I can't speak for the old ilk, (whoever you might think they are!) I don't bring anything up on twitter, since I don't even have a twitter account.

In the context of the nightclub scuffle, I might be more inclined to take at face value the claims against Pistorius, had they not been made by someone who was friends with two people with a well known grudge against him. Seemed just a bit convenient....

51 of 63