awaiting sentencing phase

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Their father, meanwhile, wrote a letter to Oscar in which he defended his “exacting” and “sometimes even cruel” behaviour toward him. He said he was only trying to make Oscar more “self-sufficient” and capable of standing up to bullies. But by the time of the letter in 2008, the gulf between them was obvious. They seldom saw each other, and Oscar later told a journalist that his father was “not much of a parent.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-unmaking-of-oscar-pistorius/article10585576/?page=all
Click to expand...

[Admittedly, a few words from one letter don’t give the entire picture, but one can deduce a treasure trove from those few words. Why, yes, I am playing armchair psychologist and statement analyst! :D :lol:]


I believe Henke Pistorius had a far greater influence on Oscar’s life than anyone knows - and not for the good.

Even though mom Sheila was the center of his world, as a male, OP necessarily identified with his macho, patriarchal SA culture. Too bad she died too soon, her wise, counter-balancing influence gone - OP may have turned out quite differently.

Henke made Oscar “self-sufficient” alright - ironically, he helped create a world-class bully ... and ultimately, a killer. If one sees only a world full of (real and potential) bullies - i.e. anyone not on my side - one can too easily justify preemptive temper, aggression, violence as a de facto defensive lifestyle, whether genuine threat exists or not.

OP's story is 100% bullsh#t - he was never vulnerable, terrified or defensive (daddy made sure of that, see above quote) ... he was the attacker. (I ALWAYS WIN.)

“Exacting”*, in my mind, means perfection.

Dad demanded perfection; any “failure” on OP’s part no doubt came with a barrage of corrective cruelty ... no doubt to toughen him up, make him a “man”.

(I look at photos of the young Oscar, before fame, power, money and “manhood” hit him - I see an innocent, shy, sensitive, happy kid. Perhaps this is what dad wanted to correct and eliminate, as it would attract dreaded “bullies”?)

Surprise - OP became a driven, self-admitted perfectionist, on and off the track, the epitome of swaggering, South African “manhood”. His WhatsApp messages and other evidence show him to be extremely controlling and self-centered. He feels entitled to dominate; any loss is an unacceptable, humiliating affront to his ego (see 2012 Paralympics 200m loss to “cheater” Alan Oliveira ... yes, the irony is too rich).

What parent could ever justify being “cruel”?**

Whatever the rationale, cruelty, by definition, is pathological. Just as abuse (of all kinds) is handed down from generation to generation, so too are “exacting” perfection and “cruelty”.

Perfection enforced with cruelty.

What kind of child does this produce?
The abused becomes the abuser.
Is it any wonder OP is a narcissistic control freak with rage issues who sees phantom “bullies” around every corner?

I found Derman’s phrase “neutralize the threat” fascinating, if coldly clinical, a very telling red flag. What “threat” did Reeva pose that required permanent silence? Why not just break up and throw her out of the house? OP had “fiery” breakups before - what made this one LETHAL? Did it have anything to do with OP’s AWOL phone data? That BOTH Reeva and his phone data are DEAD is no dumb coincidence. IMHO, she knew/discovered something explosive that would ruin him - but in a righteous twist of karma, he ruined himself.

Apparently, good old dad also taught his son to blame others for one’s f##kups, as well as fantastical leaps of logic (he very publicly blamed the ANC (read: blacks) for Reeva’s death, accusing it of not protecting white South Africans). Is it any wonder OP never takes responsibility for anything? Too easy to blame “bullies”, “cheaters”, “ANC”, “black crime”, “incompetent, corrupt police”, “lying ex-friends and neighbors”, “defense counsel”, “GAD”, “disability”, “terror”, “automatism”, “magic guns”. The rotten apple never falls far from the rotten tree.

Does any of this excuse the murder of Reeva Steenkamp? No. But in my view, it explains a helluva lot.

Nel, my dear man, I hope you’re furiously scribbling away on your appeal.


* exacting -
rigid or severe in demands or requirements;
admitting of no deviation, as laws or discipline;
strict or rigorous; rigid, severe, unbending. methodical, careful, punctilious, demanding, scrupulous
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exacting?s=t

** cruel -
willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others;
enjoying the pain or distress of others;
causing or marked by great pain or distress;
rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cruel?s=t
 
Mr Fossil said:
Thank you. It is only a theory. Yes to prostheses on for both. We still have to sort out exactly how he held the gun (both hands seems to be favoured above) and whether this works with prostheses on re. relative heights and angles. Also, the outcome to the discussion regarding Wi-Fi is crucial (we've covered this on here before but it's fundamental to understanding the phone records). The whole speculative narrative crumbles if there's Wi-Fi ... if not, the rest of the hypothesis (my previous speculation about what happens earlier and later in the day) will fall into place.
Click to expand...


MF, all of this is waayy to technical for me. Can you explain your theory and its significance in simple language so I can get excited, too? or maybe point me to a post where you already did that... Thanks!!
 
FYI from Australian Newscorp today:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports...steenkamps-death/story-fno61i58-1227087136888
Oscar Pistorius to join other fallen sporting heroes when sentenced over Reeva Steenkamp’s death
OCTOBER 11, 2014 6:33AM
IT is one of the least desirable clubs in sport and... Oscar Pistorius will become its latest, and some would say, greatest, member.
O.J Simpson, Lance Armstrong, Hansie Cronje, Marion Jones, Mike Tyson … the list of sporting celebrities who have fallen from grace with a spectacular thud includes some of the biggest names to ever strap on a boot, wield a bat or win a race, but thanks to social media none has attracted the worldwide focus of Pistorius...
 
JubJub...

As best I can recall, someone here wrote that s/he felt the verdict appealed from DE to CH was the correct Drinking and taking drugs doesn't mean they could foresee killing someone.

I agree but why I think it should be DE is the moment they got into a car after drinking and using drugs. Anyone in 2014 who can't foresee the possibility, no matter how remote, of killing someone as a result of driving drunk / high is in dangerous denial. That's why there are laws against that, at least in the US.
 
jilly said:
Actual sentencing more than a week away.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cou...ar-term-part-suspended-1.1763118#.VDguHk10y1K

.....On Monday, Pistorius will again appear in the high court in Pretoria when sentencing procedures will start. This is expected to last for most of the week, after which the judge will postpone proceedings for a while before she delivers sentence.......
Click to expand...


...the judge will postpone the proceedings for awhile...

I'm putting my money on "a [another] month."
 
I have NOTHING to base this on but I feel like the JubJub appeal was almost overnight.

If this is appealed (please g@d, PLEASE, YES! ) and moves forward, how long do we think it will take to hear back from that panel?
 
If Masipa says that OP can no longer own? use? possess? firearms, do I think that's going to stop him?

Of course not. Why should he?


" I got off on a murder charge. There's nothing I can't get out of."

- Oscar "I-Always-Win" Pistorius



I'm upset already just thinking about seeing OP's sick smirk on Monday, whether it's on his face or in his mind, which will seep through.
 
I hope they allow witnesses to decide whether they will be seen or not. If so, I hope all or some agree to it.
 
Is there really any point, other than symbolic, for the Steenkamps proceed with a civil trial?

His money has already be spent and/or been secreted away, and they can't touch any money except Oscar's, I don't think.
 
ColonelMustard said:
MF, all of this is waayy to technical for me. Can you explain your theory and its significance in simple language so I can get excited, too? or maybe point me to a post where you already did that... Thanks!!
Click to expand...

Ok, here goes (hopefully simple but necessarily long, hope you don’t regret asking)! This is my understanding:

A mobile phone like an iPhone can communicate in three fundamental ways. It can make and receives calls, send and receive SMS text messages and finally, send and receive data (e.g. emails, browse the web, run applications that use the internet etc.). It does so by connecting with the nearest cell tower with the strongest signal and least congestion.

It's probably best to think of the phone as having 3 types of communication link to do this (although this is not technically correct).

These are:

1. Control channel. This is used to negotiate between the phone and local cell towers to obtain the best possible link, to set up calls, initiate the ringing on your phone when a call is coming in, and carry SMS text messages.

2. Data communication channel. This is used to transfer data (e.g. to browse or run apps that access the internet, send/receive emails etc.). There are a number of possible protocols, or defined methods, for doing this (e.g. GPRS, Edge, 3G, LTE etc.) which Moller calls generically 'GPRS' on his phone charts.

3. Voice communications channel. Pedantically this can be the data communications channel but we'll ignore that for now.

When a call is made or received a handshake takes place over the control channel between the phone and the cell tower to open a voice communications link over which the call can be carried. This is done whenever a call is in place.

Data is different. GPRS and its successors are an ‘always on’ protocol. This means that, unlike voice communications which are only in place when the call is happening, the data channel is always set up. This allows data like emails, WhatsApps, web browsing to happen instantly whenever required. So, from the moment you switch on your phone you have a data connection. This does not imply that your phone is transferring data though. It is ready to.

The exception to this is when you use a local Wi-Fi link to get to the internet, which you would typically do at home if you have a broadband connection as it’s cheaper and faster. This causes the cellular data link (GPRS) to be switched off for the duration of the Wi-Fi link.

So when we look at the GPRS connections on a phone we would expect to see contiguous connections to various cell towers (as a person moves about) or we must assume that the phone is either 1) using Wi-Fi instead or 2) has no signal because a) it is in an area of poor reception, b) has had the signal switched off (Airplane mode or cellular data off both achieve this) or c) the phone is turned off.

If we look at Reeva’s 5353 phone in the Phone usage stats we see a series of contiguous GPRS data connections throughout the day (from midday until 08:00 the following day). I’m missing 24 seconds, probably because the phone goes out of coverage. Clearly she doesn’t use Wi-Fi or switch her phone signal off in any of the aforementioned ways. At some points during the day she makes or receives calls and/or SMS text messages.

Now we take Oscar’s 0020 phone. Here we see GPRS connections coming on but disappearing for long periods. The only way this can happen is either a very poor signal (unlikely because Reeva’s phone is in the same house and has a continuous signal) or he’s turning the phone (signal) off and on. Whatever method he is using, he is awake.

Moller correctly states to the court that the GPRS connection at say 01:48:48 could be anything (e.g. any application that needs data: an email being received, software updates, WhatsApps) but he fails to state that for the GPRS link to have been established (and subsequently disappear) requires user intervention (or a seriously flaky GPRS signal, Wi-Fi connection or phone – hence the interest in whether he has Wi-Fi). I believe Oscar is controlling this by turning Airplane mode off and on as required.

Now when we look at the GPRS dips on Oscar’s phone we see:

1. He switches the signal off when he’s with Reeva (except perhaps temporarily when he’s upstairs, alone, to check for messages or make a call). It looks like he doesn’t want embarrassing interruptions (a call or message ringing/lighting up his phone) whilst he’s with her
2. The 3 GPRS connections between 22:30 and 01:48 are suspicious because he’s turned the signal back on. He’s awake and using his phone. To WhatsApp? Is this why the phone had to disappear later?
3. He turns the signal off immediately afterreceiving the call back from Baba. He’s been caught off his guard, needs time to think and doesn’t want any more calls (see footnote)
4. He switches the signal on briefly whenever he gets a chance after everyone arrives e.g. perhaps when Stipp and Carice leave him on his own, when he goes upstairs etc. Is he checking for something?

Footnote

1. My theory is that the call to Security was supposed to be to Stander. Moller shows us that the name associated with the number is something like Johan(n) Pretorius (difficult to read clearly). I’m guessing that Stander had the phone when he was part of the Estate Management Committee, a position he resigned from in the January that year, when it was handed back to be used as the site cell phone.
2. The WhapsApp message exchange with cousin Binge is interesting because there’s no GPRS data connection in effect when it takes place.
3. As an added benefit, because we know which cell tower a phone is connected to (the supplier Vodacom tells us this for each data connection and call) we know where the phone (and hence the user of the phone) is. We also know that the phone therefore left Silver Woods when Oscar was still in the garage. We now learn that Carl had taken it.

So, it’s my belief that the phone data has been telling us a lot more than was presented or understood in court.

Feel free to ask questions because challenging the theory is what it’s all about!
 
ColonelMustard said:
JubJub...

As best I can recall, someone here wrote that s/he felt the verdict appealed from DE to CH was the correct Drinking and taking drugs doesn't mean they could foresee killing someone.

I agree but why I think it should be DE is the moment they got into a car after drinking and using drugs. Anyone in 2014 who can't foresee the possibility, no matter how remote, of killing someone as a result of driving drunk / high is in dangerous denial. That's why there are laws against that, at least in the US.
Click to expand...
I almost hate to say this because I believe that Oscar is guilty of murder, so it's all an intellectual exercise to me. But as I understand it, Culpable Homicide isn't dolus eventualis lite.

Judge Masipa, rightly or wrongly accepted Oscar's version, so a verdict of putative self defence. But as Oscar used excess force, and a reasonable man would have chosen a defence which didn't lead to the putative intruder's demise, it's culpable homicide. So there isn't intention to kill UNLAWFULLY and dolus eventualis is knowing that an unlawful death is likely or possible from your action and carrying it out regardless. Sometimes I 'get' this, sometimes I don't, like one of those optical illusion ambiguous drawings.
 
Judgejudi said:
This is really getting to me. I think we've all been so involved and caught up with it all, it's almost like we're personally involved. Well, I guess in our own way we are. It's not only sad for the Steenkamps, the relatives, the friends, the DT and people around the world, but it's sad for the people of SA and the issue of domestic violence against women everywhere. Justice not only has to be done but seen to be done, and this hasn't happened.

Maybe, just maybe, the best thing that could happen is that he does get a very light sentence, suspended sentence, whatever, and Nel will go all out for an appeal on the basis of Masipa having erred in her interpretation of the law and it moves on to the Supreme Court of Appeal where 3 judges decide the matter differently. I don't know anymore. All I do know is that the punishment should fit the crime and I just can't see that in Masipa's eyes there's been a terrible crime committed here.
Click to expand...

Really good post !! You've expressed the thoughts so many of us here, imo, are struggling with daily... I know I do.

I'm so hoping an appeal will not be necessary. I don't know if I'm the only one here who has considered that things could get worse, for afaik a court of appeals could actually acquit him... Grrrh....

It's a fear that crosses my mind from time to time. Up until now I've been "sitting on my hands" to keep from sharing that thought in a post here...
 
@Mr.Fos I continue to be amazed at the amt of time/effort you put into your special project and the time you take to kindly explain your reasoning to the brd... e.g. post# 1233 upthread.

Now to all. Unlike Moller and those here who have tech skills where these phone records are concerned, I have none. Like Moller, I don't even own a cell phone! (: So the following thoughts I've had on the subject are probably "baby like."

#1 - Lets say there's no Wi-Fi for OP/RS. If someone who contacts them does so via a Wi-Fi connection, would that call show up differently on OP/RS's phone records?

#2 - Just for the purpose of helping me ask this question: "On that long mgs from RS to OP on January 27, the image of the record used in court indicates she sent the mgs at 2:17 PM." Now, going by the useful transcript of OP's testimony (Ty @ WwMunter) , when OP reads that mgs in Court, the lawyer says of course we add two hours to that time making it at 4:17 PM.

Question: How do you know when to add two hours to a mgs time?

Please understand that I don't need anyone taking time to explain these things to me. I simply wanted to make sure those working on the timelines have already taken these things into consideration.
 
To be fair, I think the distinction between culpable homicide and dolus eventualis is confusing - if not in theory, then definitely in practice.

For those with the appetite for it, here is an interesting link to a Swaziland Court of Appeal case, explaining the distinction. Briefly, there was a fight to the death between two sisters and because the survivor was found to be genuinely remorseful and not to have foreseen that her sister would die - she ran after her and stabbed her in the neck and back (!) - she was found guilty of CH, not murder eventualis.


http://www.swazilii.org/sz/judgment/supreme-court/1997/11


The question was put by Ms Nderi for the Crown:

“You have told this court that you have been to school and you know that a knife is a dangerous instrument.”

Accused - I know

The Crown: Did you realise then that you could injure your sister fatally , did you not?

Accused: I did not know that I would hurt her badly.

The Crown: But you did not care, did you?

Accused: I did care (and the rest of the statement becomes inaudible because she was speaking very softly).

The Crown: Yes, afterwards but I am saying you did not care when you used the knife, did you?

Accused: I did not think.”



The benefit of any reasonable doubt must, of course, ensue to the appellant. That she ought to have known as a reasonable person that the stabbing of the deceased might possibly lead her to her death, is undoubted and she should therefore, in my view, not have been found guilty of murder on the basis of dolus eventualis but of culpable homicide.

There is accordingly substituted for a verdict of murder with extenuating circumstances, a verdict of guilty of culpable homicide.


I posted the above before the verdict and am re-posting it today because the reasoning of the appellate Court seems to me to be very similar to that adopted by Judge Masipa:

1. The killer should have known her actions would kill, but didn't...
2. The killer was genuinely remorseful

http://www.swazilii.org/sz/judgment/supreme-court/1997/11

On a separate point, as I understand it, where the Defendant claims PPD, the killer's perception of an imminent threat is judged subjectively, but the question of whether or not the force used was proportionate to that threat is judged objectively. However, the Courts seem to be in the habit of accepting PPD and downgrading the verdict to culpable homicide even where the force used is disproportionate, on the basis that there was no intention to kill unlawfully because the perception of threat was genuine. However, an intention to use disproportionate force is an intention to act unlawfully, so it is difficult to follow the logic.

Does anyone understand this?
 
ColonelMustard said:
Is there really any point, other than symbolic, for the Steenkamps proceed with a civil trial?

His money has already be spent and/or been secreted away, and they can't touch any money except Oscar's, I don't think.
Click to expand...

IDK but I think their attorney will recommend they go ahead and sue OP. Even if he can show he doesn't have funds there's always the chance that OP will write a book on the case and, if the Steenkamps have won in a suit against him, they could "attach to" the funds... sorry I can't think of the right terminology to use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 157 more.
Total: 418 (members: 158, guests: 260)

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
260
Total visitors
418
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,973
Messages
18,248,144
Members
234,514
Latest member
pgilpin81
Back
Top