Oscar Pistorius

KZNSeagull · Oct 21, 2014

Defence will not appeal (no surprise there).
State are considering it and have 14 days to do so.
OP family to make statement at 12 our time
Lawyer for Steenkamp family says that they always wanted justice to be served and they feel it has been in this case.

Confusion surrounds the 10 month thing. NPA are saying he has to serve 1/3rd of sentence before parole, most others say 1/6th! So I guess it will be at least 10 months (not 8 as stated earlier, apologies).

According to a lawyer on the tv, he would have got a minimum of 5 years if he had just shot her in the toe! May make the state look at minimum sentences for culpable homicide. All rather stupid that he gets 3 years for discharging a firearm in a public place but only 5 for killing someone.

fat old seagull · Oct 21, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
The way sentences tend to run concurrently always annoys me - why ?? Two crimes should mean two lots of porridge. If you committed a crime, were sentenced to prison and then committed another crime after release and were sentenced to prison you have to serve both sentences. So why when criminals are tried on multiple crimes at the same time do they nearly always get to serve the sentences concurrently ?

Whilst I do understand what you say, I guess the judge arrives at a figure which he/she think a fit term of incarceration. So if it's five years that's the way they set it out. I would guess that if there were no concurrent terms he'd have got two and a half for both. Whatever, 5 years max is a feckin disgrace, I think he'll need to go into hiding on his release.
IMO the judge has been unbelievably naive. I've tried looking at it objectively and considered how my wife could go into the bathroom, I could hear a noise and consider it was anything other than her. And if I did think that I would surely put my hand across the bed to see if she was there or not...who wouldn't?

severnside gull · Oct 21, 2014

I do wonder if they have a "proceeds of crime" Law in South Africa as poor broke Oscar stands to earn a prince's ransom for selling his life story while the Steenkamp's who relied on their daughter's income are left with nothing.

KZNSeagull · Oct 21, 2014

severnside gull said:
I do wonder if they have a "proceeds of crime" Law in South Africa as poor broke Oscar stands to earn a prince's ransom for selling his life story while the Steenkamp's who relied on their daughter's income are left with nothing.

He is rumoured to be writing a book, or at least contributing to one. Mrs Steemkamp has written one already and it will be published next month.

KZNSeagull · Oct 21, 2014

fat old seagull said:
Whilst I do understand what you say, I guess the judge arrives at a figure which he/she think a fit term of incarceration. So if it's five years that's the way they set it out. I would guess that if there were no concurrent terms he'd have got two and a half for both. Whatever, 5 years max is a feckin disgrace, I think he'll need to go into hiding on his release.
IMO the judge has been unbelievably naive. I've tried looking at it objectively and considered how my wife could go into the bathroom, I could hear a noise and consider it was anything other than her. And if I did think that I would surely put my hand across the bed to see if she was there or not...who wouldn't?

It has been revealed that toilet was in the process of flushing when Reeva bled into the bowl (it is a toilet that flushes when a button is pressed on the top of the cistern). This was not used in evidence in court by either side as it did not help either of them. I would argue that if that was the noise he heard which made him shoot, it helps the state more - why would an intruder flush the loo? The reason the state did not use it is that they pursued the "she ran to the toilet in fear of her life" line and her flushing the loo does not fit in with that.

Whilst on the subject of evidence not coming up in court, another unanswered question surrounds the iPhone that got sent to Apple - this was hardly mentioned in court. It turns out that phone was in the possession of his brother for 12 days (it was synchronised to his pc) after the event and his brother deleted loads of messages from someone identified as "Babyshoes" on the phone - this has been discovered to be another of his ex-girlfriends. He was on the phone to her for 9 minutes on the evening of the incident, for example. The reason the phone was sent to Apple was because the state could not access it as the password that Oscar used no longer worked and that it had been changed. Hence why his brother was being investigated for defeating the ends of justice, but they did not have enough evidence to prosecute.

Fran Hagarty · Oct 21, 2014

Reeva's parents have behaved with dignity throughout and want the sentence to be closure. I don't think it would be helpful to expose them to further proceedings with appeals against the conviction or sentence. Whatever society thinks about the outcome and whether justice has been done, it seems to me it is in the interests of Reeva's family to allow the closure they want.

KZNSeagull · Oct 21, 2014

Fran Hagarty said:
Reeva's parents have behaved with dignity throughout and want the sentence to be closure. I don't think it would be helpful to expose them to further proceedings with appeals against the conviction or sentence. Whatever society thinks about the outcome and whether justice has been done, it seems to me it is in the interests of Reeva's family to allow the closure they want.

Indeed.

The thinking amongst the law fraternity though is that the state will appeal on a matter of the law (that is all that they can appeal on) surrounding the interpretation of Dolus Eventualis and the judge's interpretation of intent to kill, which a law professor here has said has been a matter of hot debate for nearly 30 years and needs to be clarified. (for example, in a recent ruling in another case where a murder conviction was reduced to culpable homicide, it was successfully argued that because the accused was drunk when he got into a car, he could not have reasonably foreseen that he could crash into a queue of people killing 4 of them!)

fat old seagull · Oct 21, 2014

Fran Hagarty said:
Reeva's parents have behaved with dignity throughout and want the sentence to be closure. I don't think it would be helpful to expose them to further proceedings with appeals against the conviction or sentence. Whatever society thinks about the outcome and whether justice has been done, it seems to me it is in the interests of Reeva's family to allow the closure they want.

Knowing nothing at all about a South African law I don't know how there appeal system works. however if it was in line with ours there need be no more stress for the family. It's not a retrial as such and is overseen by judges with legal input. Though that is only a guess.

Skylar · Oct 21, 2014

As he's not an EU citizen then will he barred from entering the UK now? He'll be barred from the U.S.

atfc village · Oct 21, 2014

He will offend again .

hans kraay fan club · Oct 21, 2014

atfc village said:
He will offend again .

He offends me, for starters.

Leekbrookgull · Oct 21, 2014

There is without doubt the belief had this shooting been by a poor black lad on a 'rich' white the outcome wound have been different,let's it how many black south africans can pay for an expensive legal team ? The book as said is a done deal and don't rule out a film. Further don't rule out O/P trying to enter the S/A Olympic team for 2016

KZNSeagull · Oct 21, 2014

Leekbrookgull said:
There is without doubt the belief had this shooting been by a poor black lad on a 'rich' white the outcome wound have been different,let's it how many black south africans can pay for an expensive legal team ? The book as said is a done deal and don't rule out a film. Further don't rule out O/P trying to enter the S/A Olympic team for 2016

International Paralympic Committee has said he will not be allowed to run at any of their events for 5 years, even if released early.

Leekbrookgull · Oct 21, 2014

KZNSeagull said:
International Paralympic Committee has said he will not be allowed to run at any of their events for 5 years, even if released early.

Let's wait a see,you know as well as me most things are challenged in court these days.

Leighgull · Oct 21, 2014

God...I wish I'd just taken my ex to South Africa and shot her in a bog. Would have been far less traumatic than the 10 months he'll do in some salubrious cell.

dangull · Oct 21, 2014

Looks like all the emotional outbursts by OP may have been a factor on his lenient sentence, i thought it was more like crockadile tears. I could see him making a comeback in a few years as a holliwood movie star.

Barry Izbak · Oct 21, 2014

I simply cannot understand how or why the media in this country deem this story worthy of rolling news status.
It can't be just because we are nation keen on sport or celebrity obsessed.
For me it is right up there with the OJ Simpson trial.

Couldn't give a toss and fed up with this leading the news

sir albion · Oct 21, 2014

Christ he certainly pulled that one out of the bag big time....MONEY TALKS

Soulman · Oct 22, 2014

sir albion said:
Christ he certainly pulled that one out of the bag big time....MONEY TALKS

Nah, Oscar Pistorius was jailed for five years after authorities failed to find a good way of putting an electronic tag round his ankle.

Thunder Bolt · Oct 27, 2014

South Africa prosecutors are going to appeal the conviction and sentence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29786011

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Oscar Pistorius

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Banned

Well-known member

The voice of reason.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

U.T.A.

New member

New member

Silly old bat

Share this page