A S'porean living in Japan see this >> blog

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Oscar Pistorius sentenced to five years in prison

I am not going to comment on whether the jail term of 5 years for Oscar Pistorius is fair or not. The judge must have considered all the evidence as well as the arguments put forward by both the defence and the prosecution before finding Oscar not guilty of murder but instead guilty of culpable homicide.
In my humble opinion, the outcome of the verdict will depend on how good or otherwise on the defence counsel or prosecutor of the trial.
Remember the case of my ex-colleague who was stabbed to death at the old Sea View Hotel in Katong back in 1970? The accused was armed with a big knife and the victim was unarmed.
The accused was charged with murder but his lawyer the late David Marshall did an excellent job and eventually got his client off the hook.
Many thought the accused would at least be be found guilty of manslaughter and given a long prison sentence for taking the victim's life but the judge thought otherwise.

The post on the Sea View killing of my ex- colleague is here.


Anonymous said...

And so was the case of O.J. Simpson.

Anonymous said...

On BT's friend who was stabbed at Seaview Hotel in 1970. Marshall proved to the prosecution that it was the doctor's negligence that killed the victim, not the alleged murder weapon. Pistorius' lawyers put up a very strong defence while the prosecution was hell bent on getting even with the defendant. There many times during cross examination where the the chief prosecutor showed his prejudice against Pistorius, like he had some personal issues against him. He was sacarstic, hostile and engaged in mud slinging a well. These could have raised the sympathy barometer for the defendant.

Anonymous said...

Did the judge find Jack had grounds for self-defence in using a knife against the unarmed Bud?

As I see it, even if Marshall convinced the judge (his target is not the prosecution, and jury trial was abolished in 1969) that it was doctor's negligence, it still opens Jack culpability to inflicting the wound on Bud - causing serious injury, not to mention it opens the culpability of the doctor to being sued or charged.

That you said Jack was freed suggested the judge found him justified in causing the injury in the first place.

Anonymous said...

The judge found Jack acted in self defence against a mob of unruly and half drunken stewards.

Anonymous said...

There was nothing to prevent the parties concerned to launch a suit against the doctor for his negligence that led to the death of the victim. A fresh trial would have been required to hear the case. Can anyone state that this was ever initiated?

Edmond said...

His new name is PISTOLRIUS!

Anonymous said...

With good conduct, he will be out of prison in ten months. This child amputee has the advantage of massive sympathy for his condition.

Anonymous said...

Ridiculous verdict by a judge! What kind of verdict it would have been had the accused been a black man? He took an innocent young life and just serve 10 months?