Post sentencing discussion

[Deleted member 102539]

www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/g...orius-says-reeva-steenkamps-death-an-accident

Gold Coast cousin of Oscar Pistorius says Reeva Steenkamp’s death an accident

HE’S been called everything from trigger happy and gun-toting to a cold-blooded killer.

But to Gold Coast doctor Nichola Drew, Oscar Pistorius is family.

For the past two years, the South African-born Currumbin woman has watched her disabled cousin fight a public battle over the killing of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in the toilet of his home.

But as the former golden boy and pioneer of world athletics sits in a Pretoria prison cell for five years, Dr Drew is finally ready to speak out.

I have personal insight, yes, but I do know the facts and they show that it was an awful accident.”

Dr Drew, 38, said it was gut-wrenching looking into Pistorius’ eyes the past two times she had been back to South Africa.

“The last time I spent a long while with him was in December last year when we stayed in a holiday house on beach,” the GP said.

“He’s very down and subdued, but when you get a small moment where you see he’s genuinely laughing and for a moment it appears he’s forgot about everything. It almost feels like the old days.

“We don’t like to talk too much about it, but it’s an elephant in the room.

 

[KarenUK]

Even though no-one was hit, apart from the graze on Kevin Lerena's foot, he blamed Darren Fresco for handing him the gun one up. Fresco told him it was one up before he passed it and OP denied it. Just another example of not taking responsibility for anything. Then right near the end of the trial he pleads guilty. What further proof can Masipa need of his continual mendacity. It's really quite outrageous when you think about it.

Sums up everything you need to know about the mans character!

 

[JudgeJudi]

I've also heard that lawyers will take on high profile cases for little, less, or not money because of the exposure, publicity, and "going into the history books" for, plus other similar reasons.

Maybe Roux doesn't really care that much. He certainly got more than his share of the other stuff. Maybe media talk on this is all clickbait.

Not that I've heard of here in Oz. Surely you're not suggesting pro bono in a huge case? I've never heard of that.

 

[kittychi]

[ALL IN MY OPINION ONLY]

<Respectfully snipped>

When did being a close knit family with the ability to show unconditional love become a negative thing?

Would the tragic killing of Reeva have aroused such outraged hatred of Oscar by the vocal public if the prosecution had not mistakenly accused him upfront of some things which the media gleefully spread, literally from near to far? e.g. they had forensic evidence of premeditated murder, he had chased her and bashed her head in with a cricket bat before shooting her, he was on his prosthesis when he shot her, he was not standing where he said he was when he fired, steroids (the regular type) were found in his house, he failed to call security, he failed to call an ambulance to save her, etc. Why, when it turned out that these things that got planted in our minds weren't true after all, why wasn't there a lessening of public outrage?

I apologize to the board if my memory has failed me on some of the items listed in the paragraph above and simply ask that you please "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
[ALL IN MY OPINION ONLY]

Nothing wrong with a close knit family. We dont know what has gone on and what has been said behind closed doors. Perhaps OP's family believes he snapped in a rage, but still want to support him. I think I know how I would be if my own brother was in OP's situation.

I find, with very rare exceptions, the people on this board are a very compassionate lot. IMO, the false reports you mention were in the news very early on and have been gone from peoples' heads for well over a year.

The horrible truth was enough on its own to cause outrage. Coupled with that there is the sense of entitlement communicated by this family with statements made to the media in various forms, including Twitter. There has been the immediate PR damage control. There was evidence removed from the crime scene. There were the three other charges. OP's lies, denials, and refusal to take any responsibility on the stand. His behavior at the VIP club. His remark in court to Gina Meyers. Then the judge discounting witnesses who heard screams. I am sure this is not an exhaustive list.

I suspect the friends who have abandoned him have outrage also.

IMO Oscar has thrown himself out with the bathwater and expects everyone else to save him.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://ewn.co.za/2014/10/22/OPINION-Ranjeni-Munusamy-Things-we-lost-in-the-Pistorius-fire

Things we lost in the Pistorius fire

Will we ever know the full truth about Reeva Steenkamp’s killing?

Not from Pistorius. Judge Masipa found him to be a “very poor witness” and the inconsistencies in his evidence point to him deliberately bending the facts. His family is so intent on blaming everybody else for his actions that they are likely to mollycoddle and indulge him for the rest of his life.

After the sentencing on Tuesday, his uncle Arnold Pistorius attacked the prosecution, saying they wanted to “inflict as much damage as possible” and had tried everything to make the premeditated murder charge stick. In television interviews on the eve of the sentencing, Pistorius’s siblings Carl and Aimee condemned the media for “negative media, twisted truths and untruths” around the case. It is in keeping with the defence throughout the trial and sentencing procedure: Oscar is the tragic victim, he should not be held accountable for his actions.

When he is released from prison in a few months, Pistorius will not simply be able to go back to life as normal. As a professional athlete, he will feel the sting of not being able to compete in the 2016 Paralympics and he might be restricted from travelling to some countries due to his status as a convicted killer. He feels shunned by society and will probably continue to feel that way. He will live in fear that his next bad act will also be caught out.

bbm = he has to have fear, yes!

 

[sleuth-d-]

I agree with all you've said. The quality of the parenting is the most important thing. I'd like to add that a huge percentage of marriages/relationships with children end up in either divorce or separation. In Australia it's close to 50% and I've not read of any correlation between that and aggressive or deviant behaviour in the children of one parent families.

OP was not a child when his mother died, he was 15. I've not read of him displaying any aberrant behaviour prior to her death. If this is when he went to live with Arnold, you have by necessity to draw some conclusions here. Why was he allowed to drive a car without a licence? How was he able to buy a car before he was old enough to do so? This points to Arnold IMO. Young men can be very reckless when they're young and good parents can and do point out the consequences of bad behaviour if they learn of it. However young people, both male and female, often hold the view, "That wouldn't happen to me". It's critical as parents to set out boundaries from early childhood and keep reinforcing them as they mature.

A further point, but nothing to do with your post. Arnold has a 24 room mansion, and no doubt his brothers have very large homes too, leaving aside Henke. Is it conceivable in your wildest dreams that Oscar, Carl and Aimee would not have been taken in by someone in the family and have them placed into orphanages as wards of the state? Totally ridiculous.

bbm
further points to your further point

according to the biog, op lived with uncle ap from 'last year in school' until moving into his first house [2006/2007?].

the op biog refers to staying weekends at Aunt Diane's [mother's sister] following his mother's death.
'for a couple of years carl and i were rather like rudderless boats - effectively homeless, floating between boarding school, diane's house and the houses of our closest friends.

also, op's mother re-married [nov 2001]... 'a pilot' [name not mentioned in op's biog]. should the stepfather have had responsibilities towards the children?

 

[sleuth-d-]

I must admit I spent ages considering the permutations of bat and gun and how the crack through the bullet hole could be caused by just yanking the panel out but I'm now very much of the opinion that the three bat strikes came after the gunshots that killed Reeva. It's the most obvious sequence that fits the evidence. I'm favouring earlier shots heard by the Stipps and nobody hearing the bat strikes (just like so many people didn't hear quite a few things).

bbm. have you worked this from the op defence point of view, and from the bail statement point of view?

for instance, three further shots not included in the bail statement - wouldn't that be a risk, not knowing at the time what any witnesses had heard? or what the police might find?
and conversely, three prior shots could have been woven into the bail statement, and helped the op defence - i.e. as warning shots to the 'intruder'.

as an aside.
looking back at the bail statement throws up a few things, in light of what we now know. for instance:
"With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in"
and...
"I have no knowledge of any evidentiary material which may exist with regard to the allegations levelled against me.
In any event, I believe that whatever such evidence may be, it is in the possession of the police; it is safely secured and I do not have access thereto."
and, maybe more pertinent to the gunshots/bat order...
"A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door." - if the door hitting/breaking with the cricket bat was done in one step, why the need to qualify here with 'panel or panels'?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-full-court-statement-1718677

 

[Cherwell]

Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

(snipped)

All right, you've made your point, thank you. As someone who lost their father to cancer as a young child, I don't need to keep being told this stuff.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://auturgy.co.uk/Oscar Pistorius - A Summary.pdf

Oscar Pistorius - A Summary

I'm not able to exact copy an excerpt, sorry. It's interesting and well written!

 

[jay-jay]

"A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door." - if the door hitting/breaking with the cricket bat was done in one step, why the need to qualify here with 'panel or panels'?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-full-court-statement-1718677

~rspb~

.. thanks for this, I hadn't picked up on that before when I read the BS, but what a strange thing to say, especially considering that if just the one panel had been broken off, then there would've been no way he could've leaned through the door to get to the key .. you're right, why even say 'panel or panels'? (I've always thought this 'picking up the key off the floor' is highly suspicious, anyway .. so that just makes it even more so, to me.)

 

[Lochlynsmom]

While you can find a study for pretty much anything these days, people just need to use their logic to recognize what is right and wrong. If we don't accept valid research, we will never progress as a society. Take for instance sugar. There have been studies that have shown that sugar is NOT detrimental to the human body. When you dig deep into this research, you'll find that these studies have been undertaken by researchers on behalf of the sugar industry. Today, most people believe that sugar in large quantities is bad for the body, resulting in obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.

Why do we accept that sugar is bad for us? Because there is clear overwhelming research to show this.

In the same regard, while I agree with you that behavioural problems are multifaceted, one clear indication of behavioural problems is the absence of a father figure in a household. Researchers have proven this over and over and I'm not sure why some (not you personally) are reluctant to even believe this.

Below are some additional studies on this subject.

Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

High risk. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)

In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households."
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, "Household Family Structure and Children's Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children," Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).

Violent rejection: Kids who exhibited violent behavior at school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers and six times as likely to have parents who were not married. Boys from families with absent fathers are at higher risk for violent behavior than boys from intact families.
Source: J.L. Sheline (et al.), "Risk Factors...", American Journal of Public Health, No. 84. 1994.

The 'hood The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families.
Source: A. Anne Hill, June O'Neill, "Underclass Behaviors in the United States," CUNY, Baruch College. 1993

BBM- Wonder if anyone has studied the effects of growing up in a wealthy family where the rules don't seem to apply to you. I can think of a few families that the offspring have found themselves in trouble. IMO his behavior has more to do with his self entitlement and self indulgence then lack of a father figure.

 

[Greater Than]

Studies about fatherless mice and sugar consumption?

What the hell is going on around here?!!! :doh:

 

[jay-jay]

I don't think we as a group give uncle Arnold enough credit.

When OP's mother passed away and his dad abandoned them, it was uncle Arnold who took the three Pistorius kids and specifically said these three kids were equal to his own biological kids.

That's something very special and worth remembering, not all people would do something like this.

In that same regard, I'm sure uncle Arnold will give OP a well paying job so he will never be destitute. Plus, I believe that OP has money, it's just we're looking at a shell game that wealthy people are good at, we just don't know where the money is.

I just want to go back to this post again, because I don't think that anything you have said there makes Uncle Pistorius special at all and I don't know anyone who wouldn't take in their nephews and/or nieces if something happened to their parents, and I certainly would've taken in my niece had something ever happened to her mother and father (my sister and her husband) .. there would've been no question about it .. and I'm not a saint, like you are trying to portray Uncle Arnold there, I'm just an ordinary person who would do the same thing as any other ordinary person would do. Obviously, if there were a number of children and you only had a two bedroomed house, that might prove difficult .. but what I'm saying is that if you have the means to do it, which Uncle Arnold clearly has with his huge great mansion, then you would do it .. and you would endeavour to do it, even if you didn't have all those things .. because who in their right mind would willingly allow their neices/nephews to go into care if there was something they could do about it to prevent it. I'm sorry, but this has made me quite cross now to suggest that he was being such a saint for taking them in when it is what any normal human being would do if they had the means to do it.

 

[jay-jay]

Studies about fatherless mice and sugar consumption?

What the hell is going on around here?!!! :doh:

:goodpost:

 

[mister happy]

Studies about fatherless mice and sugar consumption?

What the hell is going on around here?!!! :doh:

A little known fact, fatherless mice tend to be diabetic.

 

[Susza]

Hahahahaha - great find FG . . . but you need to warn other forum members . . . this is SATIRE !!

I wasn't happy with coverage of even the best german media . . . but it w/b unjust to go by THIS article

BBM
Hi Paul, I know it's OT but I'd love to know what's the best german media in your opinion.

Besides that, I totally agree with you about a very weak coverage of this trial in the german media.

 

[akp]

bbm. have you worked this from the op defence point of view, and from the bail statement point of view?

for instance, three further shots not included in the bail statement - wouldn't that be a risk, not knowing at the time what any witnesses had heard? or what the police might find?
and conversely, three prior shots could have been woven into the bail statement, and helped the op defence - i.e. as warning shots to the 'intruder'.

as an aside.
looking back at the bail statement throws up a few things, in light of what we now know. for instance:
"With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in"
and...
"I have no knowledge of any evidentiary material which may exist with regard to the allegations levelled against me.
In any event, I believe that whatever such evidence may be, it is in the possession of the police; it is safely secured and I do not have access thereto."
and, maybe more pertinent to the gunshots/bat order...
"A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door." - if the door hitting/breaking with the cricket bat was done in one step, why the need to qualify here with 'panel or panels'?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-full-court-statement-1718677

Excellent points; specially the one about the shots!

 

[JudgeJudi]

~rspb~

.. thanks for this, I hadn't picked up on that before when I read the BS, but what a strange thing to say, especially considering that if just the one panel had been broken off, then there would've been no way he could've leaned through the door to get to the key .. you're right, why even say 'panel or panels'? (I've always thought this 'picking up the key off the floor' is highly suspicious, anyway .. so that just makes it even more so, to me.)

When a person giving testimony gives added detail like this, red flags start going up. Another example is when he went upstairs to get Reeva's handbag and added words to the effect, "I didn't go through it". No-one suggested that he did. Immediately that raises the suspicion that that's exactly what he did.

Once you know the whole story and you listen to it again, you pick up so much more because you're listening to it in a totally different way, such as "Get the *advertiser censored** out of my house". If he was speaking to an unknown person he would have said, "Get the *advertiser censored** out". By adding "my house", to me that implies that he's saying it to someone he knows. He did, and it was Reeva.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Excellent points; specially the one about the shots!

sleuth-d-
for instance, three further shots not included in the bail statement - wouldn't that be a risk, not knowing at the time what any witnesses had heard? or what the police might find?
and conversely, three prior shots could have been woven into the bail statement, and helped the op defence - i.e. as warning shots to the 'intruder'.

IF OP had shot 3 x out of the window before the fatal shoots, then he also would have had to explain, why Reeva didn't scream. He didn't admit in bail hearing, but perhaps maybe, he thought to explain it away with some loud bat beating at his intentionally confusing scenario.

 

[Mr Fossil]

bbm. have you worked this from the op defence point of view, and from the bail statement point of view?

for instance, three further shots not included in the bail statement - wouldn't that be a risk, not knowing at the time what any witnesses had heard? or what the police might find?
and conversely, three prior shots could have been woven into the bail statement, and helped the op defence - i.e. as warning shots to the 'intruder'.

as an aside.
looking back at the bail statement throws up a few things, in light of what we now know. for instance:
"With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in"
and...
"I have no knowledge of any evidentiary material which may exist with regard to the allegations levelled against me.
In any event, I believe that whatever such evidence may be, it is in the possession of the police; it is safely secured and I do not have access thereto."
and, maybe more pertinent to the gunshots/bat order...
"A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door." - if the door hitting/breaking with the cricket bat was done in one step, why the need to qualify here with 'panel or panels'?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-full-court-statement-1718677

You pose a good question but I believe it is necessary to start that approach from before the bail statement.

If OP had fired earlier shots and removed the cartridge casings (e.g. when he went up to fetch Reeva's bag) then he can't include the shots in the bail statement as there is no evidence of the shots and that would be difficult to explain.

He could be confident that the police wouldn't find evidence of the shots as the bullets could be anywhere (they can travel 2,300m apparently).

As to what the witnesses heard, how will anyone prove what those sounds were? In fact the Stipps say they hear sounds much earlier than the shots that killed Reeva if their evidence is taken at face value. These earlier sounds may also be supported by Christo Menelaou's account. So yes, he took a risk.

So why remove the cartridge casings? To have left them in place and include warning shots to the intruder in his story would lead to the question then as to why Reeva didn't speak up in the period between both sets of shots. You wouldn't fire warning shots without engaging with the intruder e.g. "I have a gun and will use it if you don't come out of the toilet" ... which can only lead to the response "Ozzy, you pillock, it's me". Even harder to explain if the shots were fired from the bedroom out of the balcony window and the cartridge casings are on the bedroom carpet.