Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

[Marfa Lights]

Thanks, Greater Than. Makes you realize why the SCA politely declined to indulge Oscar in his repeated attempts to deny responsibility.

 

[Paul Connelly]

Roux: At any time did you intend to kill reeva
Oscar: I did not intend to kill Reeva or anybody else Mi'Lady.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=49


Oscar: It was accidental. My understanding is I didn't intent to shoot the intruder. I got a fright from someone inside the toilet.
Nel: You never fired at the intruders intentionally, the gun went off unintentionally?
Oscar: I didn't have much time to think. I dealt with a set of circumstances.
Nel: you're giving evidence. Did you shoot intentionally?
Oscar: I shot out of fear.
Nel: Because of fear you shot at them.
Oscar: I didn't intend to shoot at them, I didnt intend to kill someone. When I heard the noise from the toilet, I thought someone was coming out to kill me. I didn't have time to think.

Nel: Did your gun accidentally go off or did you fire at the intruders
Oscar: My firearm went off, it was an accident it happened. I fired my firearm before I could think

Oscar: At the time I fired the shot, I didn't have time to think. I didn't intend to shoot at anyone. I can't say I didn't. I never fired shots purposely into a door.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=50


Nel: Did you fire deliberately, still accidentally.
Oscar: I'm still that I fired the gun out of fear. I didn't mean to pull the trigger so in that sense it was an accident.
Nel: I never meant to pull the trigger. You never wanted to shoot at intruders coming out of the bathroom.
Oscar: I didn't have time to think. I didn't want to shoot at anyone.
Nel: Whatever happened never caused you to shoot - it happened accidentally.
Oscar: The noise came from the toilet, caused me to pull the trigger. I didn't have time to think about it, I heard a noise, and I discharged my firearm.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=52


Oscar: I didn't intend to shoot, when I heard a noise, I didn't have time to think. I fired my weapon. It was an accident.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=53


Nel: If you did not want to shoot the person, what did you want to do.
Oscar: My intention was to make the person flee.
Nel: Nothing else.
Oscar: correct
Nel: And when you got into the bathroom there was nobody there.
Oscar: correct

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=55


Nel: But isn't your defence that you thought you were in danger and wanted to shoot the person in the bathroom.
Oscar: No
Nel: Is it your defence that you fired at the perceived attacker.
Oscar: I fired at the door

Nel: Is it your defence that you fired at the perceived attacker.
Oscar: No.
Nel: Then what is your defence
Oscar: I heard the noise and I didn't have time to interpret it and I fired my firearm out of fear.

Nel: I don't understand your defence you can't have two
Oscar: I understand
Nel: The way I understand the defence is that you acted in putitive self defence. that you fired at the attacker to ward off an attack.
Oscar: I didn't have time to think. I fired my firearm.
Nel: you defence has changed from putitive self defence to involuntary action.
Oscar: I don't understand the law.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=56


Nel: IF your version now is that you fired because you were scared? Why only four, why not empty the magazine? Why not fire at the window. Did you not think there was someone on the window.
Oscar: My firearm was pointed at the door.
Nel: Did you not think of firing into the shower
Oscar: If I fired into the shower it could ricochet and hit me.
Nel: But firing into the door you should know it could hit someone.
Oscar: I didn't intend to fire my gun.

Nel: you thought the intuder was coming out, and they would have to turned the door handle. For them to get out the door they have to use the handle, and you could see it.
Oscar: I guess I didn't focus on the handle, I focused on the door as a whole.
Nel: Did you not fire at the handle.
Oscar: I can see that is not the case
Nel: If you wanted to fire at the intruder, where would you have fired.
Oscar: Probably at chest height, probably on the right.
Nel: So we can exclude that you fired to protect yourself.Did you fire to shoot an intruder.
Oscar: No I fired because I had a fright.
Nel: If there was an intruder in the toilet, would it have been an accident.
Oscar: I never intended to shoot anyone, yes.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=57

Well that's pretty emphatic then. If he never intended to shoot he can hardly claim PPD. It's not like he said it once, he was like an inculcated parrot on mogadon!

 

[Susza]

Hi Tortoise. I agree with almost everything but I think that his disability has never and will never leave him feeling impotent. I think he is a sociopath and he is all about control and imposing his will on his victims. I imagine that somehow Reeva discovered his dark side that had until then only flashed warning signs. I believe the evidence points to her leaving him that night and he could not stand for it. No sociopath ever would.

Fortune was not with Reeva that night because of Oscar's deep love affair with hand guns and particularly destructive rounds of ammunition. In my experience in the UK such partners are usually able to walk away without the sociopath murdering or seriously harming them. Even then though the sociopath will continue to target them and victimise them. It's hard to shake them off without help.

Oscar however, had the perfect means to dominate and instil fear into Reeva. He didn't need to suffer the indignity of her walking out on him. He had his ultimate symbol of power, his beloved handgun and he used it mercilessly as he got high, feeding on the the euphoria of Reeva's primordial screams and pitiful pleading.

In that moment he felt like a God, he'd showed her, she'd never again have the temerity to think she had any say in the matter. He owned her and now he'd ended her.

Since then, he's never quite had such an intense rush. Sure the PR campaign, applying the the acting lessons properly in court, manipulating Masipa and Du Toit, watching Roux humiliate himself on his behalf, all these gave him some reminder of the high he felt the night he taught Reeva who was really in control. But Oscar always wins... He'll bide his time, he can wait because he controls everything. The world is his playground, his personal running track, he is the champion and he's just biding his time so he can beat his personal best and relive once more the adrenaline rush he felt that night.

I honestly don't think Oscar gave a thought to his disability that night. I have little doubt it affects his personality at a subconscious level but he is incapable of feeling impotent. Impotence is the antithesis of what he feels and Reeva will forever be a testimony to that fact.

I agree.
Re BIB:
Would it be possible that someone like OP becomes addicted to the enormous attention (due to his disability) - no matter wether positive or negative - he received since he was a child and discovers it as a powerfull mean to manipulate those surrounding him? And that it becomes then a need to manipulate as he must be the center of the world?
Or is this one-pence psychology?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Lord Owen in collaboration with a psychiatrist developed this in relation to politicians, I was reading about it re. Blair & Zuma. Equally Pistorius shares some of the characteristics. Here's the checklist, only some are expected to be present. The background is in the article linked.

1. A narcissistic propensity to see their world primarily as an arena in which to exercise power and seek glory; NPD.6
2. A predisposition to take actions which seem likely to cast the individual in a good light—i.e. in order to enhance image; NPD.1
3. A disproportionate concern with image and presentation; NPD.3
4. A messianic manner of talking about current activities and a tendency to exaltation; NPD.2
5. An identification with the nation, or organization to the extent that the individual regards his/her outlook and interests as identical; (unique)
6. A tendency to speak in the third person or use the royal ‘we’; (unique)
7. Excessive confidence in the individual's own judgement and contempt for the advice or criticism of others; NPD.9
8. Exaggerated self-belief, bordering on a sense of omnipotence, in what they personally can achieve; NPD.1 and 2 combined
9. A belief that rather than being accountable to the mundane court of colleagues or public opinion, the court to which they answer is: History or God; NPD.3
10. An unshakable belief that in that court they will be vindicated; (unique)
11. Loss of contact with reality; often associated with progressive isolation; APD 3 and 5
12. Restlessness, recklessness and impulsiveness; (unique)
13. A tendency to allow their ‘broad vision’, about the moral rectitude of a proposed course, to obviate the need to consider practicality, cost or outcomes; (unique)

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/02/12/brain.awp008.full

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 :dunno:, 7, 8, 9 and 10, 11 soon coming, 12 in any case, 13 maybe the appeal is the "broad vision" (consequences see above).
Done, all checked.

 

[Val1]

Well that's pretty emphatic then. If he never intended to shoot he can hardly claim PPD. It's not like he said it once, he was like an inculcated parrot on mogadon!

Imo, the fright he claims that caused him to fire came from one of his replies to Nel. ie. his brand meant everything to him.

At about 16:55,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_hle5shsDY#t=1023

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Hi Tortoise. I agree with almost everything but I think that his disability has never and will never leave him feeling impotent. I think he is a sociopath and he is all about control and imposing his will on his victims. I imagine that somehow Reeva discovered his dark side that had until then only flashed warning signs. I believe the evidence points to her leaving him that night and he could not stand for it. No sociopath ever would.

Fortune was not with Reeva that night because of Oscar's deep love affair with hand guns and particularly destructive rounds of ammunition. In my experience in the UK such partners are usually able to walk away without the sociopath murdering or seriously harming them. Even then though the sociopath will continue to target them and victimise them. It's hard to shake them off without help.

Oscar however, had the perfect means to dominate and instil fear into Reeva. He didn't need to suffer the indignity of her walking out on him. He had his ultimate symbol of power, his beloved handgun and he used it mercilessly as he got high, feeding on the the euphoria of Reeva's primordial screams and pitiful pleading.

In that moment he felt like a God, he'd showed her, she'd never again have the temerity to think she had any say in the matter. He owned her and now he'd ended her.

Since then, he's never quite had such an intense rush. Sure the PR campaign, applying the the acting lessons properly in court, manipulating Masipa and Du Toit, watching Roux humiliate himself on his behalf, all these gave him some reminder of the high he felt the night he taught Reeva who was really in control. But Oscar always wins... He'll bide his time, he can wait because he controls everything. The world is his playground, his personal running track, he is the champion and he's just biding his time so he can beat his personal best and relive once more the adrenaline rush he felt that night.

I honestly don't think Oscar gave a thought to his disability that night. I have little doubt it affects his personality at a subconscious level but he is incapable of feeling impotent. Impotence is the antithesis of what he feels and Reeva will forever be a testimony to that fact.

"Writer" - thank you, very well worded and certainly true!

 

[Paul Connelly]

I agree.
Re BIB:
Would it be possible that someone like OP becomes addicted to the enormous attention (due to his disability) - no matter wether positive or negative - he received since he was a child and discovers it as a powerfull mean to manipulate those surrounding him? And that it becomes then a need to manipulate as he must be the center of the world?
Or is this one-pence psychology?

I agree.
Re BIB:
Would it be possible that someone like OP becomes addicted to the enormous attention (due to his disability) - no matter wether positive or negative - he received since he was a child and discovers it as a powerfull mean to manipulate those surrounding him? And that it becomes then a need to manipulate as he must be the center of the world?
Or is this one-pence psychology?

Hi Souza, it's certainly possible, and definitely worth more than one pence, but I really couldn't say with any degree of certainty. Sociopathy is notoriously difficult to diagnose. It's not like you can find a definitive diagnosis from a MMPI2 test or other such tests. Family and social historical testimony is crucial and in this case such testimony was likely to be impartial because of what was at stake. His family and friends also seem to be enablers, empaths and apaths so it's likely their testimonies would be less useful than they otherwise might.

Two years ago I used WS as an example in a thesis I was writing on how pastoral work had evolved since the advent of the internet. Back then I read all the well researched and referenced articles and comments in this forum with a professional detachment but they led me inexorably to believing Pistorius is a sociopath. Nothing he has done since he murdered Reeva has given me reason to think otherwise.

Any sociopath would use any means necessary to manipulate their victims, including a disability. But I stress it could be any means. It may well be that he used it prior to his fame and used it again in the trial. Then again maybe it was Roux's idea? We will probably never know as much like leopards, they can't change their spots because it's pathological.

It's really a case of nature and nurture. He's unfortunate that his family background has always enabled and defended his nature and continue to do so even in the face of a woman's death at his hands. His disability is really a red herring. He was always a train crash waiting to happen. This is why I'm delighted that he faces a long time in prison because it is the best thing that could happen to him and society. Sociopaths are extremely dangerous and sociopaths aided and abetted by a family as powerful as his are is even more dangerous. I am all for redemption, forgiveness and rehabilitation but sometimes, alas, it isn't possible and prison is the only answer.

 

[Tortoise]

Hi Tortoise. I agree with almost everything but I think that his disability has never and will never leave him feeling impotent. I think he is a sociopath and he is all about control and imposing his will on his victims. I imagine that somehow Reeva discovered his dark side that had until then only flashed warning signs. I believe the evidence points to her leaving him that night and he could not stand for it. No sociopath ever would.

Fortune was not with Reeva that night because of Oscar's deep love affair with hand guns and particularly destructive rounds of ammunition. In my experience in the UK such partners are usually able to walk away without the sociopath murdering or seriously harming them. Even then though the sociopath will continue to target them and victimise them. It's hard to shake them off without help.

Oscar however, had the perfect means to dominate and instil fear into Reeva. He didn't need to suffer the indignity of her walking out on him. He had his ultimate symbol of power, his beloved handgun and he used it mercilessly as he got high, feeding on the the euphoria of Reeva's primordial screams and pitiful pleading.

In that moment he felt like a God, he'd showed her, she'd never again have the temerity to think she had any say in the matter. He owned her and now he'd ended her.

Since then, he's never quite had such an intense rush. Sure the PR campaign, applying the the acting lessons properly in court, manipulating Masipa and Du Toit, watching Roux humiliate himself on his behalf, all these gave him some reminder of the high he felt the night he taught Reeva who was really in control. But Oscar always wins... He'll bide his time, he can wait because he controls everything. The world is his playground, his personal running track, he is the champion and he's just biding his time so he can beat his personal best and relive once more the adrenaline rush he felt that night.

I honestly don't think Oscar gave a thought to his disability that night. I have little doubt it affects his personality at a subconscious level but he is incapable of feeling impotent. Impotence is the antithesis of what he feels and Reeva will forever be a testimony to that fact.

Bib 'he is all about control and imposing his will on his victims' - that does suggest to me someone who really does not feel in control - otherwise where does the need to control come from? Which leads me back to feelings of impotence.

 

[Paul Connelly]

Bib 'he is all about control and imposing his will on his victims' - that does suggest to me someone who really does not feel in control - otherwise where does the need to control come from? Which leads me back to feelings of impotence.

I understand what you mean but sociopaths are pathologically incapable of feeling impotent.


Sociopaths believe they are superior beings.

Sociopaths see nothing wrong with using people and then throwing them away. They feel completely justified in lying, cheating, stealing, and manipulating others. In fact, not only do they see nothing wrong with their behavior, they actually believe that they are incredibly superior to other people! Every time they are able to con their targets, they view that as evidence of the targets’ weakness. And, they do not suffer from low self-esteem or insecurities (although they often pretend to “feel” that way in order to manipulate others). On the contrary, they are egotistical and arrogant. And this makes it impossible for them to benefit from therapy, and it makes it impossible for them to change. Why should they change, when they believe they are already better than everyone else?

It's possible he did feel and thus act out of impotence. If he did though he's not a sociopath because they never feel impotent. It's anathema to them.

 

[foxbluff]

Bib 'he is all about control and imposing his will on his victims' - that does suggest to me someone who really does not feel in control - otherwise where does the need to control come from? Which leads me back to feelings of impotence.

BINGO! You've got my vote.

 

[Ochre Blue]

Before I heed the wisdom of others and hit the ignore button I wanted to exhort you to examine your conscience for the following reason:

Reeva is but a few years dead and the grief still raw and although my profession necessitates a study and understanding of Ponerology from both a theological and scientific point of view, it chills me to see how your comments effortlessly manage to dance on her grave for no good reason.


I'm admittedly struggling to absorb the sheer scope of such hateful idiocy. It's like gazing through a squalid little window into an infinitesimal universe of pure blockheaded spite. Spiraling galaxies of ignorance colliding against a backdrop of what looks like dark prejudice, dotted hither and thither with twinkling stars of snide innuendo and hopelessly deranged fantasies.

Reeva has been murdered once by the person she desperately tried to love despite his best efforts. I sincerely urge you not to demean yourself by murdering the rights of her remaining loved ones to not have to stumble across such feculent and hurtful fantasies.

Fabulous post, Paul C! Thank you!

Spot on!

'Ponerology': study of evil .... Might you now be a priest ... Or a philosopher? None of my business, of course!

I love your posts and the wise perceptions therein!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

IMO, OP's trial is one of the strangest. Frank, the manservant, present and living on the premises, the perfect witness to what happened, but not a peep, where in the world could this ever happen?! OP will always win, the murdering liar!

I followed the Dewani trial, Judge Traverso belittled and mocked the prosecution lawyer, it was shocking and disturbing! The Van Breda murders, guess what, no one arrested, the police even lost the docket at one stage!! The only survivor and POI has an uncle who is richer than OP's uncle! Says it all!!

I don't know if I have the strength to follow the Panayiotou trial, it's another in SA! :gaah:

 

[Ochre Blue]

Daily Mail is fronting a piece about how to spot a liar - guess what - they've put a photo of Pistorius in the article. Usually I can't stand that "paper" but it's gone up in my estimation just for today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...erated-hand-movements-signs-hiding-truth.html

Thank you very much, Tortoise!
Fascinating that they used OP's photo! Very apt!
The article applies equally to the Gerard Baden-Clay case in Australia, which has attracted huge & justifiable community outrage when GBC's conviction was downgraded from murder to manslaughter on appeal.
There are very many similarities between OP, GBC & their cases. The one exception being that GBC is still in prison!
Permission to post your link across to the GBC Websleuths forum (in Tapatalk)!

 

[Ochre Blue]

Hello again. Gosh, April came around quick, didn't it?!

Following on from your discussion about the inherent improbabilities of his "version", I think it's always worth highlighting them so that the Pistorians are in no doubt of why it is, exactly, that we don't believe him:

A) Is the first thing you say to someone who's been asleep for 5 hours (not rousing even when you nip downstairs for a late, late, lonely supper) "Can't you sleep, Baba?"

B) If it's so humid that it wakes you up, is your first thought to close the windows, blinds and curtains and then position the fans so that only the person on the right of the bed (Reeva) gets the benefit of them?

C) Who slips off their slippers, positions them neatly pointing at and next to the top of the bed, then walks round to get in the other side?

D) I currently have a frozen shoulder (my right), certain positions at night can be uncomfortable. Changing my side of the bed would make no difference to anything and it has not even occured to me to do so.

E) If Reeva took her phone as a light source she would only have done so if it really was pitch black - so the curtains must already have been closed when she got up. In a very dark room, a lit up phone screen is as bright as a torch. I know it is because I often use mine to find my keys in my bag on a dark door step. The room WOULD have got lighter overall and then darker again as she went into the bathroom. Back turned or not, it is impossible for Pistorius not to have been aware of the two events....the room lightening then darkening again.

F) The biggest and most glaring improbability of all......absolutely NOBODY would have stood frozen in fear at a noise and said nothing to the person a few feet away. If she was asleep, OK, but she was awake and had been talking to him. In his fear, he would have wanted reassurance that he wasn't alone, some moral if not physical support. Some confirmation that he wasn't hearing things. His dash to get the gun would have to have been accompanied by a garbled explanation - SOMETHING to alert her to the potentially life threatening situation they were in.

G) As he stood there, "frozen in fear" - what's the best, best bit of news Pistorius could have had at that moment? What would have taken his fear from 100 to 0 in less than a second? Realising that it was Reeva. There's no way that a frightened mind wouldn't have spent a moment or two hoping for this....but no. He didn't even glance at her. Rationalising it away as "Well, he knew she was in bed" does not work....he knew she was in bed a minute ago and hadn't seen or spoken to her since. His first though would HAVE to be, "I hope that's Reeva". It wasn't. Impossible to explain.

H) Why was he too scared to speak above a hush yet seconds later begins screaming so loudly fairly distant neighbours could hear him....let alone someone in his en suite bathroom. Why wait until he is actually out of the bedroom (and away from Reeva) to start screaming?

I) Why was he screaming, exactly? It's dark, he cannot see and he's also unstable on his stumps - he needs every clue he can get of what the "intruders" are doing. He also won't want them to know exactly where he is because this would make him a target. So screaming has the effect of blocking out any sounds that the intruders make (which he needs to hear) and metaphorically pinning a glowing target sign on his chest.

J) Wasn't thinking? Yes, he was. He made a decision to shut up when he got to the bathroom door so they "wouldn't know where he was". If this consideration was EVER in his mind it would have been much, much sooner. In fact, it would have stopped him screaming at all.

K) What was it about the empty bathroom that made him start screaming again? The window being open? Confirmation that there was someone there? So, suddenly, it didn't matter anymore if they knew where he was? He's in more danger now than ever, and yet he pins that glowing target back on his chest?

L) He doesn't warn them he has a gun, in case it exacerbates the situation and makes the intruders come out and shoot him. Surely to goodness, it's if they DON'T think he has a gun that is more likely to make them come out and shoot him. They are trapped in the toilet...and he doesn't want them to know that the screaming householder outside of it has a gun? It's better to let them think he is unarmed?

M) He screams at them to "get out" knowing that they can't without opening the toilet door. It was the bathroom window they came in by, not the toilet, so that's not where the "ladder" is. The toilet window is high, small and with a long drop to the ground. "Get out"? How? Why does he not tell them to stay exactly where they are...he has a gun and the police are coming.

N) Nothing from Reeva as her boyfriend stands screaming just feet away. She knows there's no one in the bathroom except her...so who is she hiding from and terrified of? Herself? All of the screams are directed at her...and yet she doesn't want to know what it is in the bathroom that Pistorius is screaming at? She knows she's the only one there....and she'd have heard someone coming in the window when she was using the toilet because she had the door open. And the screams are coming in her direction, towards the toilet, so why doesn't she do the only thing she can to protect herself from whatever and get the hell away from the one place she's vulnerable to attack from....the door.

O) Whatever the reason Pistorius screamed "Get out" was, it wasn't because that's what he wanted or expected them to do. The moment the intruder seemed to be complying with that demand, he shot them four times.

P) Knowing, as we do, exactly where Reeva was standing when she was shot....how did she manage to make the magazine rack move a milisecond before he shot her? It was against the back wall which was only a couple of feet but would need a large stride to take her from there back to the door...and there wasn't time for that. We know the noise was not the door opening or the handle moving, and it is impossible for it to have been Reeva nudging the magazine rack...so what was it?

Q) Why did Pistorius expect to see Reeva still sitting up in bed when he went back to the bedroom? Isn't the very first thing any unarmed person would do when hearing gunshots in the next room is flee out of the door and the house? Where was Reeva's fight or flight response? If Reeva was not, at first sight, in the bedroom when he got back his very first assumption would be that she'd left the room. And he'd be wanting to join her. But no...he never even checked to see if the door was open. Fair enough if he looked and it was still closed with the cricket bat, but he DIDN'T EVEN CHECK. This is, quite literally, impossible.

It was apparently the fact that she wasn't still in the bedroom that took him from "Must be a terrifying intruder" to "Might be Reeva" - and yet, the LEAST likely place Reeva would be is in the bedroom.

Even worse - when he ran to fetch the cricket bat, he took no note of the fact that the door was still locked and closed, almost as if he fully expected it to be. Why?

There's more, of course..but when looked at together, the "inherent improbabilities" become impossibilities.

That he's lying is impossible to escape. He is lying.

And I don't care how many examples of people accidentally shooting friends and familiy the Pistorians come up with....not a single one of them comes with the list of extremely unlikely circumstances that this one does.

If Pistorius ultimately escapes jail, then he will have escaped justice. The man is a lying murderer. Nothing less.

(Sorry for the essay!)

Thank you for your post! Excellent essay!
Re-reading it - point D) struck me afresh.... If OP did indeed have a frozen shoulder (& has this been verified at all?) - he would have found it extremely difficult, if not impossible to raise both arms into the shooter's position. So, methinks, add it to the long list of his lies.

 

[jilly]

Hi Tortoise. I agree with almost everything but I think that his disability has never and will never leave him feeling impotent. I think he is a sociopath and he is all about control and imposing his will on his victims. I imagine that somehow Reeva discovered his dark side that had until then only flashed warning signs. I believe the evidence points to her leaving him that night and he could not stand for it. No sociopath ever would.

Fortune was not with Reeva that night because of Oscar's deep love affair with hand guns and particularly destructive rounds of ammunition. In my experience in the UK such partners are usually able to walk away without the sociopath murdering or seriously harming them. Even then though the sociopath will continue to target them and victimise them. It's hard to shake them off without help.

Oscar however, had the perfect means to dominate and instil fear into Reeva. He didn't need to suffer the indignity of her walking out on him. He had his ultimate symbol of power, his beloved handgun and he used it mercilessly as he got high, feeding on the the euphoria of Reeva's primordial screams and pitiful pleading.

In that moment he felt like a God, he'd showed her, she'd never again have the temerity to think she had any say in the matter. He owned her and now he'd ended her.

Since then, he's never quite had such an intense rush. Sure the PR campaign, applying the the acting lessons properly in court, manipulating Masipa and Du Toit, watching Roux humiliate himself on his behalf, all these gave him some reminder of the high he felt the night he taught Reeva who was really in control. But Oscar always wins... He'll bide his time, he can wait because he controls everything. The world is his playground, his personal running track, he is the champion and he's just biding his time so he can beat his personal best and relive once more the adrenaline rush he felt that night.

I honestly don't think Oscar gave a thought to his disability that night. I have little doubt it affects his personality at a subconscious level but he is incapable of feeling impotent. Impotence is the antithesis of what he feels and Reeva will forever be a testimony to that fact.

Thank you PC - very much enjoying your posts and all other poster's which address this psychological aspect.

I agree with you that Oscar didn't give a thought to his disability that nite. Reason being, imo., is that since childhood,
he has built up a protective defense mechanism to deal with this disability. The "best defense is an offense" a fraidy cat offing verbal abuse or showing off with a gun. Add to that, a rich prestigious family who turned a blind eye because they had already learned that they shouldn't rock the boat.

I don't know, if Oscar has the ability to "bide his time". Do you really think that he'll be able to control himself with house arrest, until April at least?

Otoh.........maybe you're right. Perhaps the reason is that Uncle Arnold is calling the shots now and this is probably the only form of discipline he's ever had. Maybe he's even relieved with it.

 

[mhiforme]

Thank you for your post! Excellent essay!
Re-reading it - point D) struck me afresh.... If OP did indeed have a frozen shoulder (& has this been verified at all?) - he would have found it extremely difficult, if not impossible to raise both arms into the shooter's position. So, methinks, add it to the long list of his lies.

This would depend on just how frozen his shoulder was. If it wasn't that bad, then there would be no issue for him to raise both of his arms up, perhaps with a small degree of pain. Nel failed to explore this issue to its full extent so we'll never know.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Daily Mail is fronting a piece about how to spot a liar - guess what - they've put a photo of Pistorius in the article. Usually I can't stand that "paper" but it's gone up in my estimation just for today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...erated-hand-movements-signs-hiding-truth.html

Btw only: The Courier Mail now has the pic of Bill Clinton as a "decoration" of the liar-article. Bill Clinton had been harmless in comparison to OP - Clinton's lying nowadays is hardly worth mentioning.

 

[Ochre Blue]

Hi Tortoise. I agree with almost everything but I think that his disability has never and will never leave him feeling impotent. I think he is a sociopath and he is all about control and imposing his will on his victims. I imagine that somehow Reeva discovered his dark side that had until then only flashed warning signs. I believe the evidence points to her leaving him that night and he could not stand for it. No sociopath ever would.

Fortune was not with Reeva that night because of Oscar's deep love affair with hand guns and particularly destructive rounds of ammunition. In my experience in the UK such partners are usually able to walk away without the sociopath murdering or seriously harming them. Even then though the sociopath will continue to target them and victimise them. It's hard to shake them off without help.

Oscar however, had the perfect means to dominate and instil fear into Reeva. He didn't need to suffer the indignity of her walking out on him. He had his ultimate symbol of power, his beloved handgun and he used it mercilessly as he got high, feeding on the the euphoria of Reeva's primordial screams and pitiful pleading.

In that moment he felt like a God, he'd showed her, she'd never again have the temerity to think she had any say in the matter. He owned her and now he'd ended her.

Since then, he's never quite had such an intense rush. Sure the PR campaign, applying the the acting lessons properly in court, manipulating Masipa and Du Toit, watching Roux humiliate himself on his behalf, all these gave him some reminder of the high he felt the night he taught Reeva who was really in control. But Oscar always wins... He'll bide his time, he can wait because he controls everything. The world is his playground, his personal running track, he is the champion and he's just biding his time so he can beat his personal best and relive once more the adrenaline rush he felt that night.

I honestly don't think Oscar gave a thought to his disability that night. I have little doubt it affects his personality at a subconscious level but he is incapable of feeling impotent. Impotence is the antithesis of what he feels and Reeva will forever be a testimony to that fact.

Totally and utterly agree with your insightful & incisive analysis, Paul C, thank you!

OP, definitely a sociopath with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and part of the Cluster B personality types. (No, I'm not psych trained).

FWIW Spartanlifecoach.com is totally brilliant on this type of person.

 

[Ochre Blue]

Lord Owen in collaboration with a psychiatrist developed this in relation to politicians, I was reading about it re. Blair & Zuma. Equally Pistorius shares some of the characteristics. Here's the checklist, only some are expected to be present. The background is in the article linked.

1. A narcissistic propensity to see their world primarily as an arena in which to exercise power and seek glory; NPD.6
2. A predisposition to take actions which seem likely to cast the individual in a good light—i.e. in order to enhance image; NPD.1
3. A disproportionate concern with image and presentation; NPD.3
4. A messianic manner of talking about current activities and a tendency to exaltation; NPD.2
5. An identification with the nation, or organization to the extent that the individual regards his/her outlook and interests as identical; (unique)
6. A tendency to speak in the third person or use the royal ‘we’; (unique)
7. Excessive confidence in the individual's own judgement and contempt for the advice or criticism of others; NPD.9
8. Exaggerated self-belief, bordering on a sense of omnipotence, in what they personally can achieve; NPD.1 and 2 combined
9. A belief that rather than being accountable to the mundane court of colleagues or public opinion, the court to which they answer is: History or God; NPD.3
10. An unshakable belief that in that court they will be vindicated; (unique)
11. Loss of contact with reality; often associated with progressive isolation; APD 3 and 5
12. Restlessness, recklessness and impulsiveness; (unique)
13. A tendency to allow their ‘broad vision’, about the moral rectitude of a proposed course, to obviate the need to consider practicality, cost or outcomes; (unique)

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/02/12/brain.awp008.full

Brilliant, Cotton W! Spot on ... See my post in response to Paul C....

OP part of Cluster B personality types (like Sociopaths) ....Narcissistic Personality Disorder ... No empathy, compassion, all me, me, me etc.

Also brilliantly elucidated by Spartanlifecoach.com.

 

[Ochre Blue]

Hi Souza, it's certainly possible, and definitely worth more than one pence, but I really couldn't say with any degree of certainty. Sociopathy is notoriously difficult to diagnose. It's not like you can find a definitive diagnosis from a MMPI2 test or other such tests. Family and social historical testimony is crucial and in this case such testimony was likely to be impartial because of what was at stake. His family and friends also seem to be enablers, empaths and apaths so it's likely their testimonies would be less useful than they otherwise might.

Two years ago I used WS as an example in a thesis I was writing on how pastoral work had evolved since the advent of the internet. Back then I read all the well researched and referenced articles and comments in this forum with a professional detachment but they led me inexorably to believing Pistorius is a sociopath. Nothing he has done since he murdered Reeva has given me reason to think otherwise.

Any sociopath would use any means necessary to manipulate their victims, including a disability. But I stress it could be any means. It may well be that he used it prior to his fame and used it again in the trial. Then again maybe it was Roux's idea? We will probably never know as much like leopards, they can't change their spots because it's pathological.

It's really a case of nature and nurture. He's unfortunate that his family background has always enabled and defended his nature and continue to do so even in the face of a woman's death at his hands. His disability is really a red herring. He was always a train crash waiting to happen. This is why I'm delighted that he faces a long time in prison because it is the best thing that could happen to him and society. Sociopaths are extremely dangerous and sociopaths aided and abetted by a family as powerful as his are is even more dangerous. I am all for redemption, forgiveness and rehabilitation but sometimes, alas, it isn't possible and prison is the only answer.

Spot on!

And agree re forgiveness etc ... The better course, but not always an option in reality .... (Especially if it depends on a perpetrator accepting any responsibility.... It ain't gonna happen).

Interestingly, the Gerard Baden-Clay case here in Australia also involves a similar personality type. He killed his wife and there's a Websleuth/Tapatalk forum on his case too.