What makes you think I'm a fan of OP?

Oddly enough I've never thought you were. However it's an inevitable fact that sitting constantly on a fence for long periods causes pricks in the arse and thorns in the side. And an inability to change position for fear of falling into the wrong camp.

On a fence about what?

Oooh Matron!

We could come back to that,but...

Those comments that you refer back to where not what I was referring too. You made a specific statement. In your words "those signing in" would take your comment as true.
Bullshit.

The next time you hear someone breaking in you better remember to ask "who goes there?" before blasting away at them. Instinctive to most people though. Especially with loved ones in the house.

No If you murder someone in the heat of a very rash moment of anger; you go to prison for life. op is fortunate he is only looking at a 14/15 year stretch. Clown.

Plus of course the long history of the mutual and Pistorius admiration society making wrong predictions that always seem to favour Pistorius, such as just before the SCA last year

CW - You're right- I don't think the verdict will change. I think that they -like Masipa- will find that the CH verdict is secure.

P42 I agree with this wise post.

…. And of course not forgetting Masipa whose ‘judgement’ was always defended as being sound

I suppose if one digs a hole deep enough escape is impossible even if there is a desire to admit being wrong in supporting Pistorius and believing the lies he peddled

I can't speak for CW but I have no problem accepting the court findings, High Court or SCA.

It has been found that he murdered Reeva whilst thinking she was an intruder. That being the case I believe 8 years to be a fair sentence.

If that's being in a hole then I'm happy to be there.

I didn't think it would change. I was wrong on that and accepted the SCA decision. I also thought Masipa would give a longer re-sentence than she did last month, so I was wrong about that too, but can accept the reasons for her decision. Especially when you add on time already served.

There is no reason for this to become about being judged on your ability to predict court decisions. Masipa herself said she was torn between CH and DE as a verdict, so whilst I didn't think the SCA would change it, it was hardly a shock or surprise when they did.

That doesn't really address anything in the post you were replying to, which said that :

-He served more than 12 months, so more than 12 months needed to be taken off as a starting point.

-His CS and post-SCA verdict bail conditions were stringent.

-There is no record of drunken nightclub fights while under CS or on post murder verdict bail.

-CS is not without its flaws, but access to it as an option cannot be fair if it is means-tested.

-The point and punishment aspect of CS is different to that of imprisonment.

Had Pistorius been found to have murdered someone in a very rash moment of anger, then he may well feel fortunate to be looking at a sentence around the 15 year guideline. But he hasn't been found to have murdered someone in such a heated moment of temper.

The fact that he was under the impression that it was an intruder has a much greater effect on the sentence than the other factors that have been mentioned during the process. In line with similar incidents in SA.

Exactly.

I like this no nonsense taker Zehir Omar, who repeatedly makes it clear through the interview this was no "accidental" shooting of an intruder. If this is the tone openingly being discussed now in SA, then I'm hopefully for a 15 year term for the murder of Reeva.

I don't think it was a fact, or that he was under the impression. This was something peddled to get him off of a murder rap. Reeva experienced and learned things about Oscar that were not conducive to her walking out alive that night.

Hi everyone, just dropping in briefly as I'm preparing to go away tomorrow morning.

First of all, I was very glad to hear that the case will go before the SCA- like so many others have said already, it was ridiculous that the judge who gave the original flawed sentence got to preside over the previous (lower court) appeal.

Secondly, stressfreeman, I liked your post earlier in this thread where you said "I even pushed the cat away." Your humour certainly lightens up these threads! Do you actually have a cat or was it just a joke? (I love cats!)

Thirdly, I was very disappointed to hear that some individuals within the world of paralympic sport continue to respect Pistorius as an athlete. No matter how well he performed and how much he achieved, I find the idea that a trainer would advise an athlete to Skype OP a bit disturbing. And I find it really hard to imagine how someone could feel comfortable having a Skype conversation with OP knowing that THIS MAN SHOT A DEFENCELESS WOMAN TO DEATH.

I enjoy sport myself, but I just can't understand how some people can mentally push OP's horrifically violent crime aside- as well as the fact that he still, to this day, refuses to admit responsibility- as if it doesn't matter, and as if his athletic achievements are more important than Reeva's life. I just cannot understand it! Of course, I guess there is the possibility that the New Zealand runner and his trainer may believe OP's version of events, in which case I guess they wouldn't see the situation the same way I do. But I still find it tasteless anyway.

By the way, I do understand that even murderers need to be reintegrated into normal life eventually, so I'm not saying that OP should be treated as an outcast for the rest of his life. And if the circumstances had been different (if OP had admitted guilt and showed remorse, and if he had just come out of prison after serving a long sentence for the murder) then I wouldn't have such an issue with this... but the reality is, OP is still denying what he did, behaving as if he, not Reeva, is the victim, and still has yet to serve an appropriate sentence for his crime.

Finally, benjamini, do you remember several threads ago, we talked about how you do work helping other women affected by domestic violence, and I said I wished I could be as strong as you, but I would find doing that kind of work too upsetting? Well, I've found other ways I can help the cause! Last weekend I took part in Walk4 for the Refuge charity and raised £130! And I would like to take part in more events like that in the future. Here is my fundraising page where you can see photos from the event:
https://walk4.everydayhero.com/uk/roja

In a nutshell you have summed up Masipa’s incompetence! She was ‘torn between’ exemplifies that she had not grasped at that point the most basic legal principles that were later pointed out to her by the SCA.

I of course refer to her incorrectly applying the principles of dolus eventualis, including error in objecto, to the facts found to be proved relevant to the conduct of Pistorius and that she failed to apply correctly the legal principles pertaining to circumstantial evidence.

She was required as a High Court judge to do no more than apply doctrines learnt at first year law school. She failed totally in this respect.

During sentencing her lack of clarity, reasoning and judgement brought forth a charge from the NPA of misdirecting herself many times over including the failure to understand you can’t use the fact Pistorius is a first offender as a mitigating factor when the sentence already reflects that fact.

Statutory Sentencing Guidelines for Murder are quite clear - First-time offense is subject to at least fifteen years’ imprisonment, second conviction results in at least twenty years’

This is so basic so why did Masipa think she could ‘have two bits of the cherry? Ignorance perhaps

Now she has awarded costs against an appeal she herself invited!!

She is clearly a disgrace yet there are those who still defend her and her ‘record’

I am sure that if my granny had a penis she'd be my grandpa, but all the appeal courts ever agreed was that the dolus eventualis law due to intent upgraded the original conviction to one of murder regardless. I don't think any of them have ever stated that his testimony must be disbelieved have they?

Why do you think Masipa said he was an unreliable witness?

You aren't. You're just a WUM IMO.

Of course as much as they might like the SCA cannot tell anyone to disbelieve Pistorius’ ‘version’

However I would suggest if it is put on record, as happened, that it is the unamimous decision of 5 Justices of the SCA that there are ‘inherent improbabilities in his version’ that’s as good as saying he’s telling a boat load of porkies

You may not think so but any change in sentence must reflect that it was a factual finding of the High Court.

If he had argued, fought and murdered DE then nearer 15 years would be reasonable.

If the individual circumstances of each crime were not to be considered during sentencing then 15 years would be reasonable.

The South African justice system defends her. They corrected the verdict but haven't condemned her for it, and I think they are all vastly more qualified than you to judge don't you?

Stop kidding yourzelf CW. The time spent on mansion arrest is negligible. 15 years is the starting point, probably reduced to maybe a measly twelve years.

I enjoyed your spacing above. It reads like a certain lying murderer trying to explain hmself to Gerrie Nel in court.

With the greatest of respect you seem not to comprehend my post for some reason.

I am not condemning Masipa, I am merely pointing out the areas where other members of the SA judiciary have reflected on her inadequacies.

Although I would suggest when a Supreme Court has to upgrade a verdict because a High Court judge has misdirected herself several times in the very basics of law this represents more than the mere ‘correction’ you suggest.

Would you not have expect a High Court judge to have understood, what in modern parlance is not exactly' rocket science', the principles of dolus eventualis or the legal principles pertaining to circumstantial evidence in what was a fairly simplistic case?