Oscar Pistorius: The Sentence

Status
Not open for further replies.
blunomore said:
Could they get no better person than this woman?
Click to expand...

Like a previous defence witness, this one looks like she didn't any real work.

Just a lot of waving hands around, spewing non-specific generalisations, hearsay and unsubstantiated facts.

If this represents a professional person it says little for professional people!
 
2012 said:
The judge bribe was costly, they had to find the cheapest witness though could find within budget constraints!
Click to expand...

DarkSpectre said:
This.
Click to expand...

I presume that the two of you know that your statements put you in contempt of court.

bekdik said:
Like a previous defence witness, this one looks like she didn't any real work.

Just a lot of waving hands around, spewing non-specific generalisations, hearsay and unsubstantiated facts.

If this represents a professional person it says little for professional people!
Click to expand...

It is downright terrible. Why does she not do proper research or talk to colleagues in other departments for input in her report? No prode in her work whatsoever.
 
blunomore said:
I presume that the two of you know that your statements put you in contempt of court.
Click to expand...

You're allowed to be if your actions can't be interpreted as an obstruction of or interference with the functioning of the court.

Might be grounds for libel of course. It'd be a bit difficult to make a case and hardly worth the effort though.
 
blunomore said:
Do you know their personal (financial) circumstances? I don't, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

People are different. Some walk way from a traumatic experience in an effort to keep their composure and sanity. Others use money as a means to punish an offender or someone who hurt them (think of women who vow to bankrupt their husbands after a divorce). So let's allow for the fact that not all people deal with pain in the same way.
Click to expand...

Well, this is Steenkamps pub: http://www.portelizabeth.co/activities/places-of-interest/barking-spider/ and this http://www.heraldlive.co.za/not-so-itsy-bitsy-pub-with-truly-infectious-bite/. From what I have heard is that last year settlement discussions started with OP's team and this went into the multi-million rand figures. There was also mention of exclusives with BBC and international broadcasters who for a fee could get an insight into Reeva's life and attend the ceremony.

TBH: If you can open a pub, have staff (including a chef), I doubt that 6K/month would make any real contribution, considering those payments continued for 18 months. While one can not deny the tragedy in all of this, I personally find it morally wrong to accept money from the killer of my daughter. In the worst case, I would seek civil justice if the criminal system fails and then seek damages for a worthy cause, but not for self-enrichment or to continue making a living.

I guess, one would have to be in those circumstances to understand the decisions being made. I think it is hypocritical to accept money and almost 2 years later than go public and refuse the acceptance of "blood-money".
 
MagicDude4Eva said:
Well, this is Steenkamps pub: http://www.portelizabeth.co/activities/places-of-interest/barking-spider/ and this http://www.heraldlive.co.za/not-so-itsy-bitsy-pub-with-truly-infectious-bite/. From what I have heard is that last year settlement discussions started with OP's team and this went into the multi-million rand figures. There was also mention of exclusives with BBC and international broadcasters who for a fee could get an insight into Reeva's life and attend the ceremony.

TBH: If you can open a pub, have staff (including a chef), I doubt that 6K/month would make any real contribution, considering those payments continued for 18 months. While one can not deny the tragedy in all of this, I personally find it morally wrong to accept money from the killer of my daughter. In the worst case, I would seek civil justice if the criminal system fails and then seek damages for a worthy cause, but not for self-enrichment or to continue making a living.

I guess, one would have to be in those circumstances to understand the decisions being made. I think it is hypocritical to accept money and almost 2 years later than go public and refuse the acceptance of "blood-money".
Click to expand...
It was an existing premises within the old Greenbushes Hotel. So not arguing the merits of any payments but to refit and take over the existing business was not a massive expense.
 
MONEY PAID UNCONDITIONALLY: OSCAR LAWYER

The money paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius paid to the family of his law graduate girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp was paid unconditionally and he does not want it back, his lawyer said in the High Court in Pretoria on Wednesday.

"The money was paid unconditionally, with no conditions attached," Barry Roux, for Pistorius, said.

"Mr Pistorius does not want it back."

He said the money was paid to the Steenkamps to use as they needed after they indicated that they were suffering financially after the death of their daughter.

Roux was responding to a statement from Steenkamp's parents June and Barry through their lawyer Dup de Bruyn.

De Bruyn said Pistorius paid R6000 to the Steenkamps for 18 months from March last year.

Roux said after Pistorius sold his car for R375,000 he said he wanted to give the money to the Steenkamps.

Roux said the Steenkamps would pay back the money once arrangements could be made.

When they said they did not want it the money was paid into a trust account "should they want it later", said Roux.

He said Pistorius did not want the money back.

On Tuesday, prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the court June Steenkamp rejected the R375,000 as "blood money".

"She rejects that, she doesn't want blood money," Nel told probation officer and social worker Annette Vergeer during cross-examination.

On September 12, Pistorius was convicted of culpable homicide for the Valentine's Day 2013, shooting of Steenkamp in his Pretoria townhouse. The court found him not guilty of murdering Steenkamp.

Pistorius shot Steenkamp through the locked door of the toilet, apparently thinking she was an intruder about to emerge and attack him. She was hit in the hip, arm, and head.

On Wednesday, De Bruyn sent a statement saying the Steenkamps were surprised that the confidential agreement was disclosed in court without their knowledge.

He said the Steenkamps had wanted to disclose the agreement to the media but the athlete wanted to keep it confidential.

Pistorius was also found guilty of firing a pistol under a table at Tasha's restaurant in Johannesburg in January 2013, but not guilty of shooting through the open sunroof of a car in Modderfontein on September 30, 2012.

Roux said he would not call any more witnesses in the sentencing procedures. Nel said he would call three or four. The court was adjourned for an early lunch so Nel could consult the witnesses.


Source : Sapa /dm/jje/lp/jk
Date : 15 Oct 2014 13:01
 
REEVA'S COUSIN CALLED AS WITNESS

The State called Reeva Steenkamp's cousin Kim Martin to testify in the High Court in Pretoria on Wednesday in the sentencing procedures of Oscar Pistorius.

"We are a very small family, our fathers are brothers," Martin said after she was sworn in.

On September 12, Pistorius was convicted of culpable homicide on for the Valentines Day 2013, shooting of his girlfriend Steenkamp in his Pretoria townhouse. The court found him not guilty of murdering Steenkamp.

Pistorius shot Steenkamp through the locked door of the toilet, apparently thinking she was an intruder about to emerge and attack him. She was hit in the hip, arm, and head.

Pistorius was found guilty of firing a pistol under a table at Tasha's restaurant in Johannesburg in January 2013 and not guilty of shooting through the open sunroof of a car in Modderfontein on September 30, 2012.


Source : Sapa /dm/aa
Date : 15 Oct 2014 13:40
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X