Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016 #2

[Marfa Lights]

We all know what really happened. They got into an argument and he went pistorius on her.

What I don't know and would like to is.......what was the argument over?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

I am betting the 9 minute call will Babyshoes had something to do with it. Reeva did not appreciate Oscar's double-standard when it came to their relationships with exes or other ongoing flirtations.

 

[akp]

We all know what really happened. They got into an argument and he went pistorius on her.

What I don't know and would like to is.......what was the argument over?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Pistorius brothers have made sure that nobody will know what it was over, there can only be speculation about this part.

 

[Hazy]

One of the lies in the interview:

“I had about 9 or 11 firearms, 2 cheap shotguns, second-hand shotguns and I purchased them both from the same person. I had ordered a semi-automatic assault rifle. The 9mm that I had was the only gun that I kept at home. All the other firearms I have, I’d never taken home and I always kept them at the shooting range”

However,

“Recent media interviews with Pistorius revealed that he kept an assortment of weapons in his home. ‘Cricket and baseball bats lay behind the door, a pistol by his bed and a machine gun by a window, Britain's Daily Mail noted in a profile”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/14/oscar-pistorius-murder-girlfriends-shooting

Just for interest's sake from the same article:

In 2009 Silver Woods was voted the most secure estate in South Africa according to its website.

And this:

“Pistorius's father said his son was sad following the shooting. "I don't know nothing," Henke Pistorius told SABC radio news. "It will be extremely obnoxious and rude to speculate. I don't know the facts. If anyone makes a statement, it will have to be Oscar. He's sad at the moment."

Cruelly murders the love of his life and he’s … sad.

He didn't mention the rifle!

 

[Hazy]

According to Sam Taylor, he always had his gun with him. Although I am not sure what kind of body holster he used if she meant he kept it physically on his person at all times.

Sam also said he never put the gun under the bed-- that was where she put it the time she wanted to hide it from him when he was falling-down drunk and verbally abusive to her-- she said he always put it on top of the night stand right beside where he slept. Guess that would have been a little too unbelievable that he could unholster his gun on top of the night stand yet still fail to notice Reeva was not in bed. Although that was ultimately where the holster was found according to the pictures: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-court-shown-horror-bathroom-shot-Reeva.html

I am still trying to understand why, in this interview especially, he starts sputtering on in such a distractingly cute way about how Reeva asked him to come brush his teeth. Was it because he needed some reason to explain why he took his legs off on his usual side of the bed (right hand side by the window) but after brushing his teeth he then got back into bed on the left hand side where he had already placed his gun under the bed? I tried listening to that part of the tape a couple of times but it made me so sick repeatedly listening to him get cute about the teeth-brushing bit I gave up and went on.

Why was the t-shirt he was supposedly wearing and uses to drape over his prostheses still on the upper right hand (window) side of the bed along with all his other items? Was this story intended to explain that? Didn't he say he initially placed them "at the foot of the bed" to air them out? So where were they when he was teetering around on his stumps walking from the left hand side of the bed in pitch darkness across the jeans and duvet to get to the fans to bring them in and supposedly closing the doors and the curtains?

I have hearing difficulties so I watched the interview that I had recorded with subtitles and according to those he said ' I was on the right and my legs were on the left and I couldn't be bothered to get them so I went to the bathroom to clean my teeth on my stumps'

Either a slip of the tongue or wonky subtitles perhaps.

 

[Cherwell]

Easiest to assume that everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie.

 

[Hag]

I'm looking for the full video of the re-enactment where he carries his sister. Can only find shortened version. Can anyone give me a link to the full video, please? TIA

 

[Interested Bystander]

We all know what really happened. They got into an argument and he went pistorius on her.

What I don't know and would like to is.......what was the argument over?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

I read that Reeva was going to have to tell him that she had kissed somebody on the TV programme "Tropika Island" in which she appeared. As the programme was due to be aired very soon, maybe she chose that night and he erupted. She had already said he was not going to like it. An understatement I would think given his history of tantrums if she even talked to another guy. I am unsure who spilled the beans to the press about the TV show kiss, maybe one of her close friends, but it was headline news after her death. In the event the kiss was not shown but she would not have known that.

This is all I can find.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...in-terror-over-TV-snog-before-being-shot-dead

 

[Hazy]

I'm looking for the full video of the re-enactment where he carries his sister. Can only find shortened version. Can anyone give me a link to the full video, please? TIA

Try this


http://www.channel24.co.za/The-Juice/WATCH-NOW-THAT-Oscar-video-can-be-viewed-here-20150330

 

[JudgeJudi]

He didn't mention the rifle!

My understanding of SA law is that an airgun/air rifle of less than .22 calibre is not considered a firearm and doesn’t require a licence. It is an offence however if it is used in a crime.

We did establish on an earlier thread what OP's was but I can't remember the details now.

 

[BeachSky]

I am betting the 9 minute call will Babyshoes had something to do with it. Reeva did not appreciate Oscar's double-standard when it came to their relationships with exes or other ongoing flirtations.

This is an old article but worth the read. OP called,interrupted her twice during her meeting with an ex ..2 days prior to her death. Mid article you get the big picture IMO.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eeva-Steenkamp-met-ex-just-2-days-killed.html

 

[44ALLAN]

Oh, honey... dontcha know Masipa was able to dismiss all of that testimony from the neighbors who were so adamant about hearing a woman screaming in mortal fear right up to the last shots?? With a mere wave of Roux's hand, it was gone. Poof.

Don't i know it........................she should have been dragged from the court and disbarred on national Tv IMO :0.

 

[seattlechiquita]

I can't believe the nerve of this one. Damn. My first husband was more credible in his tears than OP, and believe you me friends, he was pretty lame. He is willing to stoop to anything, as if anyone with 3 cents of common sense would ever believe him. Piece of...

 

[Hazy]

I can't believe the nerve of this one. Damn. My first husband was more credible in his tears than OP, and believe you me friends, he was pretty lame. He is willing to stoop to anything, as if anyone with 3 cents of common sense would ever believe him. Piece of...

This from a man who once told Reeva off for chewing gum in public!
He only seems to cry when he has to. He didn't do this at his bail application.

 

[BeachSky]

He ( ex b/f) said that during his five years with Miss Steenkamp, he could not remember her locking the toilet door when she went to the bathroom
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2291505/Oscar-Pistorius-girlfriend-Reeva-Steenkamp-met-ex-just-2-days-killed.html

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

The following is from the discussion following the interview.

BB: From Gerrie Nel’s point of view, is there anything from this interview that could perhaps look at him trying another tactic, perhaps trying to re-open the case? Is there any scenario, Judge Greenland, where that becomes a reality?

JG: Mm. Perhaps Mannie can help us on this.

MW: Ja. It’s actually quite simple. You can’t just re-open. You have to bring a proper application, which would obviously be opposed. The judge will have to consider all the various facts and the State will have to say, because they are the only ones who would apply to re-open. The defence, it would serve no purpose at all to re-open their case. They’ve closed their case, they’ve led their evidence in mitigation or in extenuation, so it’s only from the State point of view and they’d have to bring a substantial application to say, “We didn’t know about this evidence. This is all new evidence. This might impact on sentence. He’s given various different versions. He’s really painting himself out as the victim more than the deceased and the State would like an opportunity to introduce it and then to either lead evidence or to try and cross-examine or rebut that particular evidence”

but at the moment it’s not before the court so that’s as far as you can take it”.

Go Nel.

http://carteblanche.dstv.com/oscar-pistorius-interview-2/"

Thank you, JJ

I just finished watching part 2 where OP starts crying and snotting while re-telling what happened. What terrible acting - it seemed like he was forcing himself to cry!!!

 

[Val1]

I am betting the 9 minute call will Babyshoes had something to do with it. Reeva did not appreciate Oscar's double-standard when it came to their relationships with exes or other ongoing flirtations.

BBM - Yea, back when I was still dating I certainly didn't appreciate finding cozy pics of ex's on display when I would visit(happened once). Either the pics got put away or the relationship didn't last long. I often wonder if the pics RS had wrapped for her Valentine gift was a bit of a test for OP re below.

http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Oscar-and-his-mysterious-Babyshoes-20150429
"Evidence of the friendly relationship between Oscar and Jenna was also found in Oscar’s house.

In the upstairs TV lounge police took photographs of an A2 framed canvas picture collage featuring about 40 black-and-white pictures of Oscar and Jenna."

https://juror13lw.com/2014/10/02/babyshoes-and-titanium-hulk/

 

[Sherbert]

What I struggle to follow is the argument that proof of disability constitutes compelling evidence in support of a shorter sentence. What is the rationale behind this? Is the Defence arguing that a disabled murderer should get a shorter sentence than an able murderer?

It seems to me that the argument that Oscar fired because he was vulnerable detracts from the SCA's findings on liability and, indeed, those of Masipa J, too.

Is the rationale that he should be shown mercy because, although he was not justified in shooting, he is less morally culpable, due to his vulnerability?

As I understand it, it was held by the SCA that he might have been scared, but the question of whether or not he genuinely believed that there was an intruder in the toilet was not directly addressed, possibly because they didn't wish to interfere with Masipa's findings of fact on the subject and probably - IMO - because they were highly sceptical about those findings.

My feeling is that, although he'll get a reduction in sentence due to his vulnerability, this doesn't gel with the inferences to be drawn from the SCA's judgement.

 

[Hazy]

What I struggle to follow is the argument that proof of disability constitutes compelling evidence in support of a shorter sentence. What is the rationale behind this? Is the Defence arguing that a disabled murderer should get a shorter sentence than an able murderer?

It seems to me that the argument that Oscar fired because he was vulnerable detracts from the SCA's findings on liability and, indeed, those of Masipa J, too.

Is the rationale that he should be shown mercy because, although he was not justified in shooting, he is less morally culpable, due to his vulnerability?

As I understand it, it was held by the SCA that he might have been scared, but the question of whether or not he genuinely believed that there was an intruder in the toilet was not directly addressed, possibly because they didn't wish to interfere with Masipa's findings of fact on the subject and probably - IMO - because they were highly sceptical about those findings.

My feeling is that, although he'll get a reduction in sentence due to his vulnerability, this doesn't gel with the inferences to be drawn from the SCA's judgement.

His disability should only apply if it has cause to prevent him being imprisoned. He has already served some time so it shouldn't as he managed fine.

What they are doing here is pressurising Masipa to punish him as per her CH verdict or stupidly trying to get her to ignore SCA findings I think. The nerve of them! They are trying to do this by reinforcing hard that he can't defend himself which is why he shot. They're going all out for it and to of course get public sympathy along with it.


One must not forget that one those same stumps he had the mobility to walk to shoot someone dead !
It's desperation.

A persons mental condition however could be more suitable to use for any sentence reduction.

It remains to be seen if Masipa has been sucked in again or not.

 

[mrjitty]

What I struggle to follow is the argument that proof of disability constitutes compelling evidence in support of a shorter sentence. What is the rationale behind this? Is the Defence arguing that a disabled murderer should get a shorter sentence than an able murderer?

It seems to me that the argument that Oscar fired because he was vulnerable detracts from the SCA's findings on liability and, indeed, those of Masipa J, too.

Is the rationale that he should be shown mercy because, although he was not justified in shooting, he is less morally culpable, due to his vulnerability?

As I understand it, it was held by the SCA that he might have been scared, but the question of whether or not he genuinely believed that there was an intruder in the toilet was not directly addressed, possibly because they didn't wish to interfere with Masipa's findings of fact on the subject and probably - IMO - because they were highly sceptical about those findings.

My feeling is that, although he'll get a reduction in sentence due to his vulnerability, this doesn't gel with the inferences to be drawn from the SCA's judgement.

Agree 100%

Roux is just throwing as much mud on the wall as possible and hoping something sticks.

But my own analysis based on the SCA is that the defence has not established any compelling circumstances.

"Murdering the wrong person" is not compelling.

 

[Tortoise]

His disability should only apply if it has cause to prevent him being imprisoned. He has already served some time so it shouldn't as he managed fine.

What they are doing here is pressurising Masipa to punish him as per her CH verdict or stupidly trying to get her to ignore SCA findings I think. The nerve of them! They are trying to do this by reinforcing hard that he can't defend himself which is why he shot. They're going all out for it and to of course get public sympathy along with it.


One must not forget that one those same stumps he had the mobility to walk to shoot someone dead !
It's desperation.

A persons mental condition however could be more suitable to use for any sentence reduction.

It remains to be seen if Masipa has been sucked in again or not.

I agree with you on everything except what you say about mental condition - in his case.

His mental decline is all about him not wanting to serve time for his crime.

His condition has not warranted a hospital admission while awaiting sentencing - obviously.

He is not wracked with guilt or remorse - it is all pity for himself and stunts to hoodwink the court.

If he is well enough to reduce his meds in prison - according to Roux - he is malingering. If he is well enough to be studying and wanting to work, and performing for the ITV cameras, he is not a mental patient or a "broken man" - he has some outrageous arrogance and denial still. I could say more and worse about him, but you get my drift.

I think he has severe personality disorders, but that does not make him eligible for a reduced sentence, IMO.