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

Apparently the Pistorius family said they “were not aware of any deletions that could be relevant to this trial, or have impacted on this trial”. I read that to mean that they admitted there were deletions. The direct quote seems to be from the Pistorius family and was reported in the Independent.

Does anyone know what happens after sentencing - if OP is given a prison term would he be taken there immediately? Also wondering how much time the prosecution are likely to take before announcing if they will appeal.

Don't take this as gospel but I read where he will remain free during the appeal process. The article was based on if the defense appealed so it may be different if the prosecution appeals.

It makes you wonder if he will ever spend any time at SA pleasure.....

I thought it might be something like that. The process always seems to have another stage 'pending'.

I have read so many articles regarding how the Judge got it wrong. I have been kinda confused how the judge and 2 accessors who sat through the entire trial could unanimously come to the wrong decision. I found a couple interesting articles regarding the Judge's decision and attempting to explain how she came to her decision and that she did get it right. They both do a good job explaining the law in a way that makes it easier to wrap your head around. I found them very interesting and thought I would share them.

I realize this guys picture makes one wonder if he knows what he is talking about but he makes pretty good sense.

www.news24.com/MyNews24/Oscar-why-Judge-Masipa-was-correct-20140914

thelawthinker.com/judge-masipa-got-it-right-oscar-pistorius-and-the-intention

Thanks upnorth . They were interesting.

Does anyone know how long the process of deciding sentence is likely to take? I'm reading very contradictory reports.

I've just read on BBC that could last several days.

So Maringa, a Social Worker in the Department of Correctional Services has come forward for the defence to recommend that OP should not go to prison but 'would be a good candidate for house arrest' for 3 years. This will involve 'two eight-hour days twice a month of domestic work, such as cleaning' at a nearby museum or a hospital.

Luckily Gerrie Nel has called that 'shockingly inappropriate'.

i dont think he will serve a prison sentence,in the rare case he does it will be very short and comfortable IMHO

I agree the suggestion is shockingly inappropriate. I also feel the psychologist's portrayal of him during sessions should be accepted but not overwhelm the sentencing decision. We can see he is upset, we can see he is remorseful (or, if you like, he looks remorseful). But there is that sense of self pity, and tbh wouldn't there be when you had it all and you acted so negligently, so damningly, so finally.

I was always on the fence about his story, but I have never been on the fence about him being sentenced. It would be wrong if there wasn't redress for his actions.

I don't understand Maringa's status. Is he appointed by the court to report and adopted by the defence as their witness because that report suits their case? Or is he paid by the defence with the prosecution also having a similar expert with, presumably, a tougher stance?

As a punishment even for 'just' manslaughter, 16 hours a month for three years cleaning a museum is an enormous insult to Reeva.

I've just caught up with the BBC summary of today. I'm shocked at the possibility OP could just be placed under house arrest. I realise the defence have probably opted for the most favourable scenario possible but tbh I'm absolutely sickened that anyone could think that was an appropriate response to killing someone.

Just watched a bit of it and tbh I couldn't get past his grief therapist. Much as I've been on the fence, what a massive insult to have to listen to your child's killer's therapist talk about 'holding him' as he wept.

Yes.... "Poor Oscar"...... Erm, overriding that mahoosively is poor poor Reeva.

At the moment, Nel is questioning closely some of OP's charity work. He is establishing that he actually got paid for a lot of it. If the Defence is going to bring this up as a reason for him not to go to prison, the state prosecution has every right to question it IMHO. I also feel it's not something that should be brought up, doing some work for charity should be a private matter, not something used in the defence of a murder charge.

As a punishment even for 'just' manslaughter, 16 hours a month for three years cleaning a museum is an enormous insult to Reeva.

It would at least mean that he has to do something (and take a direct hit in terms of his sporting career because he would have a hope of going to Rio), when Bees Roux (rugby player in SA) escaped a murder conviction by taking a plea bargain he got a suspended sentence and had to pay damages - that case was more clear cut that this one ever was.

Is it normal in SA to have a sentencing process like this? It all seems so longwinded. Surely it would be better if the arguments for / against were submitted when the prosecution / defence logged their statements for the Judge to then determine her verdict... and then to be able to immediately follow that with sentencing.

Painful process.

I kinda feel like this whole cross examining the witness thing is a waste of time. Both sides are trying for complete opposite things and Mr Nel attacking the witnesses like he is going to catch them in some "caught you in a lie" moment is just ridiculous. They are never going to agree and treating the witness like they are on trial for a crime is getting really old. It seems like they should both present their witnesses, let them give their testimony and let the judge make her decision. I don't think anything that has come out from Mr. Nel's cross examination is going to sway the Judge's decision on way or the other.

Yes, this is normal in SA. It's based on our system, which has been expedited since, but it's still possible that we'd have this type of ongoing trial.

I think it's very interesting that the Steenkamps asked Oscar for money, as Reeva was the main provider, and that he has been paying it since. They are now planning to pay it all back, as they are on better financial footing.

Nel looks terrible for trying to imply that they had never wanted the money, and branding it "blood money", if the families lawyer is right.

He also looks pretty bad for going on about a civil case, when it appears that the Steenkamps no longer intend on pursuing that.

It'll be a tough day tomorrow with the prosecution witnesses, one of whom works for a SA prison and will testify that they are not as dangerous as their reputation suggests.

I don't know if I think he'll see the inside of one, though. He'd be on his stumps, that is a massive psychological punishment, and the social worker is probably correct in that it would leave him broken. Based on his circumstances, house arrest seems the most fitting option that they have, but there would be public outcry about that.

I don't envy the judge this week.

This just about sums up today. I heard an interesting interview with the south african general public. Apparently 2 in 3 thinks he should go to prison (not that that fact will make any difference to the judgement.)

I wonder if it's a more complex situation for the State in this case - a famous disabled person; famous probably being the crux, as in eyes of the world on SA, and complicated further by their disability and medical needs. If any prison "interference" is metered out (with him, with his prosthetics) then the State could come in for criticism, human rights, etc, but then the whole system needs reform, not just for one man who happens to be famous, disabled and financially advantaged.

Hopefully this process is true to itself, despite being played out across global social media.

Tbh people have to respect the judge's opinion - again. She is following the law, like it or not. I don't envy her.

I believe it is normal for submissions to be made in open court before sentencing, normal as well for the convicted person to be able to address the court. I suspect the multiple day, highly protracted nature of the proceeding in this case have a fair amount to do with the high profile nature of the case (the cynic in me suspects a hint of playing to the cameras as well...but I could be wrong).

I can't decide whether it's better to have a rebuttal of psych/probation/etc reports as part of the court record or have them submitted and reviewed without question. The process must be excruciating for all concerned, but it at least it's more open to scrutiny...so swings and round-a-bouts really. What I don't like is the cameras in the court room, it doesn't seem right that every reaction from all three sets of 'persons of interest' (OP, his family and Ms Steenkamp's family) has been played out for all to see.