ummm..... they did adjourn for a MONTH between verdict and sentencing hearing. I see No excuse to be needing time to prepare witness, let alone figure out what witness to call.
I don't know if the now-tight time line is praying on Roux' mind, but it seems to me he could have spent more time cross examining Nel's witness? Could maybe have used more time to prepare final submission. After all Nel's time wasting (and some from Roux) I would hate to think the last event, effecting OP's very life, is in anyway compromised because time has simply run out.

I wonder how the day will go. They still only work very short days, so the two arguments will take most of the day?
Then what? Does Masipa have time to deliberate and consult with assessors? Will we get a sentence announced? or come back (in a month) for the sentence to be announced??

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Hi Steve and Rumpole,

Nel seems prepared to use people at any cost to satisfy his own ego.

I agree with this. He is a very odd man and he certainly doesn't seem to have a handle on things. Like Rumpole said, for the love of Justin and Pete the man had a month to prepare. It seems a prison official should have been prepared about 28 days ago.

The SA system is just very odd to me, it has a casualness that you would never see in the states.

A whole load of curious characters.

I really like Roux he is so professional, respectful and unflappable.

Ciao!

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Oh, I like Barry too. He goes out of his way to make sure witnesses are offered every opportunity to say what they want to say and comfortable that what they say is what they meant. It's light years from Nel who is a disgrace to decorum of a courtroom

But that mannerism has to be tempered with flourishes of just the opposite and many times he left me speechless with failure to object and unpreparedness in the case facts. If an objection is not made in real time when it should be, that particular point of contention is forever lost for use in appeal, if one is needed. The objections SHOULD be made, if for no other reason than that. And Roux has been dismal at preserving the record. In my opinion, he has also been dismal in preparing witnesses for Nel's predictable assault.

Barry is extremely good in argument. His closing was exceptional. But were it not for such pathetic evidence that the State tried to patch together in attempting a successful railroad job of Pistorius, the outcome could have been very different. The savior in this case for Oscar is Masipa and her two assessors. If this had been a jury, Nel's act of illusions and delusions might have swayed a majority that there was a murder committed. Witnesses are not Roux's forte and neither is his temerity to slam a prosecutor and break his rhythm when it's patently appropriate.

The soap job this prison commissioner tried to portray of his prison being a model country club where Oscar would have every luxury afforded disabled inmates, was not decimated and exposed as the farce it should have been by Roux. If Oscar gets a custodial sentence now of any length, it's going to be because of the appalling cross examination of that smart aleck who needed to be embarrassed and smacked down until he was stammering all over himself. I could have done it.

Roux's style is his forte and his curse. He needs another home run tomorrow on this closing argument for sentencing.

The judge has a very full diary for the next 3 weeks, I can't believe she hasn't already decided on the appropriate sentence. However, if she has not, the we will have another wait!

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Good opening speech by Roux about his client.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Nel really is an ass.. and Roux (and Masipa) let him get away with it.

STILL arguing OP shoulda been found guilty and sentence should reflect it?

Blatantly LYING when he says OP had multiple veeeeeeersions and has still not told court what happened? Eh?

Nel does not understand thru wilful ignorance and delusion.

Nel says how BAD a witness OP was.. yet that was only because at the stage NEL was calling him a liar and insisting he shot Reeva intentionally ??? Besides.. OP being bad witness is a MYTH started by Nel. I thought OP did very well.. given the abuse and badgering by NEL pushing an IMPOSSIBLE version of events, calling OP a liar etc.

I really despair at the shit Nel continues to get away with.

Nel wants MINIMUM 10 years prison. That is DEATH PENALTY and Nel knows it.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I agree with what you're saying, the only thing I'd add is that he was found guilty of manslaughter, so there will need to be a reflective sentence.

Of course Nel gets away with it - he is the most famous lawyer in all of SA'dom because of past cases, I despair at their system though in a big way, thank God I don't live there.

Nel insisting that he should serve 10 years min amazes me, I would have thought the judge makes that decision without any say so from either prosecution or defence - well that's obviously how things are done in SA.

Now she has a busy 3 weeks ahead, and I've heard Tuesday is the only day should would be able to return to this case - hence her reason I guess for choosing 9.30 am on Tuesday as her decision day.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I'm hoping it will not be 10 years. The waiting for a decision causes such anxiety for me so I can't even imagine how it is for OP. I thought maybe she had already decided.

I’ve made it through 20 minutes of Roux’s mitigation and find it genius so far. Roux is speaking only to Masipa and those who have any influence over her, the two defense friendly assessors. Roux rightfully does not really give a damn about public opinion when it comes to the verdict or the sentencing, Roux is there to argue Oscar’s case for mitigation and he is doing so by affirming the validity of the verdict, the application of law and quite masterfully bringing in uBantu (Mandela was a strong proponent of this philosophy) and restorative justice. It seems from past interviews that judge Masipa is an advocate of restorative justice. And again I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the assessors are both big fans of uBantu and restorative justice. For Goodness sake one is a defense attorney and one is an academic.

Roux was also adamant that he would be approaching sentencing with full respect toward the judgement that Masipa handed down.

A few excerpts from Roux's summation in the first 20


I understand everything must be read in context but it is there and I need to highlight this it is at page 33326 and onwards I would just read short passages where it says “In the present case, on his own version the accused suspected that an intruder had entered his house through the bathroom window his version was that he genuinely but erroneously believed that his life and the life of the deceased was in danger there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that this belief was not honesty entertained.

Further at page 33347 where the court repeated this “It cannot be said from the above that the accused did not entertain a genuine belief that there was an intruder in the toilet that posed a threat to him And then at page triple 34 coming to the culpable homicide, very correctly I believe the court found the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force.


And on page 3328 the court found clearly, and I’m just reading one part that is important he did not subjectively see that he would kill the person behind the door and then importantly let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time.

The accused did not consciously act unlawfully and it’s an important factor in the consideration of sentence.It is also so important my lady when you look at the excessive force used by the accused, the negligent conduct of course there is a high degree of negligence when you fire 4 shots into a door when there is someone behind it, no one can dispute that, but we cannot isolate it is it just someone walking to the door and thinking there is an intruder and recklessly firing shots into the door or is it a compromised person reacting excessively. Yes it was. It is not what we are saying, it is the evidence of a highly regarded independent psychologist (mentions 4 experts).

Factually whatever way we see it, the accused actions were to some extent dominated by vulnerability and anxiety and that is very different from a person walking up to a door thinking there is an intruder and firing shots into it. It is compromised person doing that and for purposes of judgement of course the reasonable man with the same disabilities approach that is perfectly correct to convict but when you come to sentence you cannot isolate those actions you have to look at those actions within his frame of mind to see if there was any deviousness was there any conscious unlawfulness and there was not.


Masipa already spoke about the courts allowance for "subjective reality" in her rendering of the verdict there is no reason to think she will totally dismiss it at sentencing.

And more from Roux'x first 20

I am simply dealing with the principle and what it says to me, what uBuntu worked and must still work is in this way, get him to give the goat back and if he cannot get him to do something for that society to compensate, to work back carry water whatever do something good in society coupled with your apology that everyone can benefit, the victim, the family and the restorative justice principle that could not be separated from rehabilitation. When that person stealing the goat is back in the community pays the price in a very correct and restorative way and then when one looks at the case law where Justice Battlesman(?) dealt with stand we will refer to this case and 2 judges in the (?) high court explain this principle. One gets a far better understanding of the real meaning of restorative justice and a far better understanding of the judgements to which I will refer to say, previously as if it were standard you commit a crime you must go to jail.


Maybe there are cases where we must just sit back and look again and see is that really, is that really what the law is all about? And of course it is always one danger and that is the wrong concept of society, the society is very different, from the interests of society and case law makes this clear. In society there will always be a part of society that will want the death penalty for the accused irrelevant of what the courts finding is. In society he will always be crucified as by some people as a cold blooded murderer and, I will deal with that, and they would want the maximum sentence but that is not the case, the case is what is in the interest of society and that is why the court is there because the court is the ultimate custodian on behalf of the interest of society, to say taking into account all the facts what is really in the interest of society.

IMO Roux does a lot in this short excerpt, he pounds down the fact that the goal with Oscar has to be rehabilitation along with punishment, because even the maximum sentence is only 15 years which means at some point Oscar will be reentering the community, Roux emphasizes the importance of "restorative justice" and in his previous words Roux drives home the fact that this is a case of negligence by a comprised man, a vulnerable, anxious man, who thought he was protecting himself and Reeva.

No idea what way Masipa will go, but Roux has certainly opened the door for a restorative justice sentence (read non-custodial). I have not listened to Nel at all but I did read a bit. What I read came across as sour grapes about it not being a murder verdict all tossed about with a lot of vindictiveness and hate.

Hopefully I can catch up later.

One of these days I will write a short review

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

So the next 12 minutes is Roux asking a former social worker judge, a defense attorney who has defended murderers and rapists and an idealist academic to reach a higher plain of thinking and to be better than “common thinkers” to lead the way to enlightened law and to take into account the devastated physiological state of Oscar as part of his punishment. He even put forth cases that used restorative justice and uBuntu.

Roux again summarized Oscar’s difficulties. Oscar has lost everything of monetary value in his life, he has lost his career, and he lives with his guilt and consequences of his actions. “Because when you kill someone you must live with the consequences”.

Roux indicates that the consequences which have been fairly attributed to the accused are not equal to those consequences imposed by the State, Nel, the media, and social gossip sites.

Roux’s summation of MSM and social media;


"Denigration, humiliation, ridicule, the blame, the false allegations", sounds libelous to me.

Roux refers to a “unique set of circumstances before the court” and refers again to the court being the custodian of the interest of society .…an informed society, not a society consisting of vengeance, overreaction and emotive incitement, premised on uninformed allegations and speculation, the last mentioned do not represent the public interest.


And more class from Roux;

One thing that as a human you need to do is to have that grief and that’s happened to the accused in this matter of course when you cause the death by your negligence of a loved one this grief for this loss harbors something far more than that, far worse, it is that permanent excruciating pain, is that it is you that caused the death of a loved one. It is you, it will never go away, whatever punishment lifelong, 15 years, 10 years, correctional supervision, it can never be equated to that pain, as it can never be equated to the pain experienced by the parents.

And God bless his soul, Roux chastised those uniformed promoters of speculation and allegation as fact, who still claim that Reeva was screaming for her life. He graciously brought to the courts attention the emotional harm it has done and is doing to the Steemkamps.

And that gets me up to 49:00 minutes.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

I envy you being "back in time" listening to the Sense talked by Roux

If you have not listened to Nel yet..... BRACE YOURSELF!!!

I found it annoying, saddening and oh so frustrating!. Nel gets away with stating as fact stuff that he made up. Problems and doubts and confusion that is of his own making. Things that the court REJECTED as not true... I could go on.

And the general point that occurred to me, as both attorneys seemed pushed for time yesterday. The length of this trial was ridiculous. There would be a glimmer of sense to that IF it was because they wanted to cover things EXTRA thoroughly. To call extra witnesses. To question them in extra detail etc. But that is NOT what has happened. They have pissed about for 7 months and in the end are still pushed for time. There are many important aspects that were not covered. Police corruption or at best incompetence was simply worked around when it was (IMO) reason to dismiss this entire case out of hand. Nel was allowed to persist with a "State Case" that had little to it. Speculation based on nothing and no evidence to support it. An impossible timeline of events etc. Again reason to dismiss this case after State failed to present a valid case at all. And Nel was allowed to get away with vicious attack and abuse of witnesses. In many cases perhaps permanently damaging to those people. Oscar in particular. I think the months of this trial and Nel's vicious attacks now form part of the mental trauma that OP suffers. It is actually disgusting to watch Nel in action. I wonder if he get pleasure from the people he has damaged over the years? I would not be surprised if he is the primary cause of a few suicides. I wonder if he keeps score?

Looking back, the length of trial is because they are all (Nel especially) under-prepared. Given time to remedy that over and over they simply dont do it. On the day to day level, they do not bother to plan the best use of the (Short) day available. They adjourn to "prepare" at every point.. they often do not even have witnesses waiting and so simply knock off early. All in all it makes for a somewhat farcical system.

I do maintain some hope.... in Masipa and the assessors.

Despite all I have mentioned.. the verdict we have is fair. Though I point out again, a charge of culpable homicide should have taken a few weeks at most, and could then have been explored more fully. There was no need to interrogate and torture Oscar or any witnesses.

I do no hope Masipa rejects ANY time in custody. Frankly OP HAS suffered enough punishment. Financial destruction. Life and career kaput. loss of his "love" The guilt of him having caused that. And torture by Nel alone is a major punishment.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I have just gotten to Nel



He seems angry from the get go.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Started listening to Nel.

Nope.

I value my time too much to listen to that nonsense which is simple rage at not getting his way and meant to be emotive rather than a lawful reasoned case for aggravating circumstances. As soon as he started about the screaming woman I paused and then when he got to the faux whining about depriving Oscar of his millions I shut it off.

Thanks Rumpole, I'll take your assurance that it gets no better from there on out.

Life is too short.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

He ends with stating 10 years prison is minimum, even says he could ask for 20 or 15 (he said both). He contends that OP (obvious) remorse at Reeva's death does not even qualify as "remorse Nel style". Not easy to work out what would.. but it seemed to me that ONLY if OP admitted shooting to intentionally kill would he show remorse in Nel's eyes. That is Nel STILL expects OP to confess to Murder. The Spanish Inquisition were amateures compared to Nel.

He KNOWS than any time over a few weeks will be an OP DEATH sentence.. he really is that nasty.

Likely Nel is responsible for deaths in the past. He seems OK with that. He is a monster.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Nel is like a tire stuck in the mud, spinning faster and faster but doing nothing but getting dirty.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Ye cee ye cee ye ceeeee ....... I'D de-e-e l with it alright.

"The negligence borders on intent?" You reprobate. You belong with the sewer rats, only the rats probably wouldn't want you either.

I'd like to see him in handcuffs, loaded into a C-130 and shoved out over Liberia.

Did Nel really say that "The negligence borders on intent" ?

Does Nel really think the judge is suddenly going to say "Ok if you feel that way Mr. Nel I will simply throw Oscar in a pit until he dies".

Negligence is the verdict Nel, live with it or appeal, but you don't get a retrial and a new verdict in the sentencing phase.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Hi everyone,

I was surprised how far Nel was allowed to revisit the case during pre-sentencing. Most of his time was spent displaying his annoyance that OP was not found guilty of intent to kill Reeva. I've never seen a case before where an advocate has used pre-sentencing time purely as a sounding board to 'inform' the judge that he believes the wrong decision was made. I was waiting for Masipa to interject with 'OK Mr Nel, the verdict has been made in this trial and it is not under debate' or words to that effect. I was gobsmacked at what I was hearing.

Almost every point that Nel made contained reference to OP just being a hairs breadth away from being a premeditated murderer. This shouldn't have been allowed in the courtroom. Whatever spin Nel wanted to put forward, a verdict was reached that this was an accident - albeit an accident that could and should have been avoided. He treated OP with as much contempt as of he had been found guilty of murder with intent.

I've found Masipa's methods of allowing the proceedings to flow quite refreshing (I mean this strictly with reference to interruptions - not tea breaks and adjournments) however I do believe Nels pre-sentencing antics were nothing short of vulgar and crossed a line.

Just a thought Rumpole, do you think Nel would ever have gone anywhere near a premeditated murder charge if the SA system had a double-jeopardy ruling?

Not sure what you are driving at Steve? How does double jeopardy come into it?

I think Nel overcharged, as prosecutors are want to do. Often really hoping to score the lesser conviction. I find that tactic often abused in US trials, so it's not just SA. He had a very flimsy case at best, damaged further by Bail hearing, cops mishandling etc. But really never a case at all. Nel MUST have seen the timeline made his speculation impossible.. or he should have, but maybe he did not because he is so lazy (as we see now). Nel certainly saw his case made no sense early on in his presentation at this trial.. as we all saw. As I kept saying Nel should have conceded that OP's version was essentially true, and abandoned M1. He could then at least have argued the level of negligence as he wants to now.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light