Oscar Pistorius Trial part 9

[JillJ72]

Starting a new thread as part 8 is nearly full, here - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2080468-Oscar-Pistorius-Trial-Part-8

There's rumblings on Twitter, that the sentence has to be a minimum of 5 years, due to use of a gun to commit CH: twitter.com/CriminalLawZA/status/511417047608471552

IPity I agree the narrative in that article is overblown and wordy but it fitted what I felt at the time. Also Reeva's family are the ones that matter to me, not some trigger happy apology for a man who took a daughter's life in the most brutal and awful way. What dignity they have shown I agree. I hope they get their chance to look at him in the eye and get some answers.

I am just glad that Judge Masipa pointed out his failings as a witness, and there were many - she more or less called him a liar.

I'm still expecting a lengthy CH decision
I've tried to get my head around all the SA law and tbh I flip flop between thinking that there may have been a debatable mistake in law or whether Masipa was doing the best with what she had to work with in SA law
I thought her reasoning around the need to have intent to possess ammunition was nonsense.

The bar of 'reasonably, possibly true' isn't very high which might be the real problem.
OP simply had to posit a story that might be reasonably, possibly true. Seems wrong with a dead body in a locked room to account for ..just my opinion

I agree that she found OP to be a liar and a v poor witness and she found the circumstances 'peculiar' for this reason I think she will sentence him for a considerable period ....or maybe it is just my wishful thinking

Ronald I agree that the findings around the ammunition charge seemed absurd.

I'm also hoping that the sentence will seem commensurate with what happened ie the taking of someone's life.

Ronald, I totally agree.

I also agree, Ronald.

I am hoping that she felt comfortable with not finding him guilty of murder because she knew she would sentence him very harshly for the CH. Someone somewhere suggested that maybe he'd find it harder to appeal CH than murder, so she went for that. Dunno.

In any event, he deserves to do serious, heavy prison time. Apparently, if the sentence is suitably harsh, the State won't appeal. If he gets a suspended sentence or a fine (walks, in other words) they simply have to.

After watching that documentary on BBC3, I feel even more that there has been a travesty of justice here.

I fail to understand how firing four shots into a tiny enclosed space is not murder. Regardless of who you thought was in there.

Apparently, if he gets a lengthy sentence with CH and the Defence appeals, they run the risk of it then becoming a murder sentence or something. I'm not wording this right but I read something somewhere which led me to believe it would be a huge risk for the defence team to appeal against a custodial sentence with the CH charge.

I would seriously hope defence don't think to appeal because he deserves to be punished for negligent behaviour, for taking Reeva's life notwithstanding the circumstances (because he couldn't verify who he was shooting at, ie didn't have visual contact). That needs a sentence to a) provide some justice, b) I feel he may need that for himself to move forward (I may be wrong) and c) to send a clear message to SA that firing because you thought but couldn't see is not on.

Roussette there was an article that suggested appealing would be a risk but I've also read articles that said the defence probably would appeal if there was a lengthy sentence. If the decision lies with OP, taking into account his attitude to risk, then I think he may appeal.

Just had a chance to watch the BBC programme on iplayer. I'm only 15 mins in, and it's made me cry. Her father is just a broken man.

I watched it tonight too Sabrinnnnnnnna. It was quite moving. The dignity and bravery of the Steenkamps is just remarkable. June Steenkamp says she forgives him. I find that difficult to understand but I admire her.
Also, the programme reminded me of how much of OP's story didn't stack up.

No, his story really doesn't stack up at all.

Why the hell didn't he know she wasn't there/ check she wasn't there in the bed? In the words of Nel: he killed her, he shot and killed her.

I have watched it too. The Steenkamps are beyond courageous. I think they feel cheated by the verdict - maybe there was no option but it must be hard to bear.

I found the paintings Reeva did when she was 15 very disturbing.

The programme really highlighted for me what a beautiful, delightful, caring, loving person Reeva was. It's so unfair that her life was snatched from her in such a sordid, cowardly manner.

I agree Mary and her parents have to cope with their life without their only child, no hope of grandchildren, weddings and looking forward. So so so sad.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but two journalists have written a book about the case already!

Barry Bateman and someone else (whose name I can't remember). One of their 'scoops' (I use the word lightly) is that OP called his ex for 9 minutes before he went home on the night of the murder. The newspapers were implying she should have been questioned about the content of the conversation and OP's mood but other commentators were saying it would have made no difference since the judge discounted all the texts/What's App messages as being irrelevant to the case.

Hi Book, yes I read that and also that the phone was removed from the crime scene (word is it was OP's brother) for 2 weeks and all its call history, wotsapp and text record was completely wiped. Wonder how it's come to light now... presume it's from the phone company.

I think they found out during the trial because one article said the journalists shared the information with the police or the prosecutors but they decided it wasn't relevant.
I doubt the call to his ex was significant but it's just another of those little niggles that I wish had been addressed eg why did they remove that phone from the scene? why did they scrub everything?

If it was wiped by his brother, it just smacks of covering things up I think. Maybe it was innocent, but it always leaves an element of doubt...

It is odd that they didn't consider how their actions could be perceived eg Aimee removing Reeva's bag; Carl taking, wiping and keeping OP's phone for two weeks. I know people act oddly when stressed but it's unfortunate that they acted in ways that could look incriminating, and it's disappointing that the scene was so insecure they were able to act that way.

Well, it's either desperation or the fact they would do absolutely anything to protect their brother whatever he had done. I suppose that is what families do, but to the outsider it doesn't look good.

Barry Bateman & Mandy Weiner have been writing the book for ages; since before the trial. I have it pre-ordered but no UK release till 19th of this month.

Pistorius family have denied any knowledge of deletions (apparently done on a PC called Titanium Hulk which is also a nickname Carl uses).

Report by Eye Witness News where Barry Bateman & Mandy Weiner employed
ewn.co.za/2014/10/02/Pistorius-the-Hulk-and-Babyshoes-What-the-court-didnt-hear

I didn't think they had denied the deletions but had denied they had deleted anything pertinent to the trial.