Oscar Pistorius: The Sentence

The judge mentioned that Barry and June had forgiven OP. I thought one of them specifically said they don't? Barry - in his testimony? Or do I remember that wrong.
 
ngwe23 said:
But, whose idea was it that the judge that got it wrong the first time should do the sentencing again.
Click to expand...

SCA. She was the original judge. If it wasn't referred back to her a new judge would have to start the trial afresh. My personal view is that on the appeal the SCA should have sentenced him as well.
 
813f7cbc800680416a8371d1c1edba40.jpg


How about a 3rd Oscar. The one that was on trial for split Reeva's skull with hollow point bullets
 
xeslaro said:
Adv Roux from the outset played an excellent game of chess. For example, the unsuccessful attempts from the outset in apologizing to Reeva's parents was a maneuver that weighed heavily in the mitigation of sentence - Adv Roux was acutely aware of this tactic and its importance in the long run.

/Interesting to see what Roux serves up in O'Sullivan's case.
Click to expand...
One thing I noticed how Roux leads witnesses and talks a lot during questioning instead of just questioning witnesses.
Judges have weeks to read through transcripts long after a case and these transcripts contain everything that Roux says before asking the question making it sound like it is facts and the witnesses agree to it when you read it. He knows he can testify himself during questioning to muddy the waters and make a weak judge not be able to give a letter to the law sentence. I don't think that is intelligence, rather he is gaming the process.
 
Last edited:
Now, now, now. We must not question the judge's judgement. That would be racist and sexist now.:whistle:

State is going to appeal this, and Masipa is going to be left with an egg on her face.
 
skimread said:
One thing I noticed how Roux leads witnesses and talks a lot during questioning instead of just questioning witnesses.
Judges have weeks to read through transcripts long after a case and these transcripts contain everything that Roux says before asking the question making it sound like it is facts and the witnesses agree to it when you read it. He knows he can testify himself during questioning to muddy the waters and make a weak judge not be able to give a letter to the law sentence. I don't think that is intelligence, rather he is gaming the process.
Click to expand...

Roux does exactly what a good lawyer does. Defend his client.
 
skimread said:
One thing I noticed how Roux leads witnesses and talks a lot during questioning instead of just questioning witnesses.
Judges have weeks to read through transcripts long after a case and these transcripts contain everything that Roux says before asking the question making it sound like it is fact when you read it. He knows how to testify himself during questioning to muddy the waters and make a weak judge not be able to give a letter to the law sentence. I don't think that is intelligence, rather he is gaming the process.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with this. He's merely doing a good job - that Courts need robust and vigorous examination of all evidence - it is fair that only such evidence found reliably probative be used against an accused, our justice system demands this or else it would be a morally corrupted endeavour. The outcome of a criminal case, as this one with a perceived injustice, is not Masipa's being "weak", we are all human beings, and as such we don't operate in a system of valueless binaries - there are many factors that must influences a Judge in sentencing/judgments. Rather have a system that errs on the side of caution.
 
SlowInternet said:
SCA. She was the original judge. If it wasn't referred back to her a new judge would have to start the trial afresh. My personal view is that on the appeal the SCA should have sentenced him as well.
Click to expand...

The SCA has in other cases changed verdict and then proceeded to impose a new sentence without referring the case back to the original court or judge. One example I remember is the cape town taxi driver who had his murder conviction & 20 year sentence overturned to culpable homicide and the sentence reduced to 10 years by the SCA.
 
R13... said:
The SCA has in other cases changed verdict and then proceeded to impose a new sentence without referring the case back to the original court or judge. One example I remember is the cape town taxi driver who had his murder conviction & 20 year sentence overturned to culpable homicide and the sentence reduced to 10 years by the SCA.
Click to expand...

Agree it has been done and currently they still do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X