Post sentencing discussion

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is 4 Nov the NPA deadline to appeal (e.g. 14 calendar days after sentence on 21 Oct) or is it 14 working days?
It's 14 working days.


Your observation of the linguistic trickery Roux engaged in regarding Johnson's phone call time was fascinating. As you previously mentioned, Roux seemed to do the same thing in relation to pinpointing Dr Stipp's call to 10111 at 3:17am.

I'm still enjoying reading all your thoughts regarding the sequence of events Mr Fossil. It certainly is puzzling, keep up the good work.
 
It's interesting what June said about OP finishing Reeva off so she couldn't "tell the world what really happened". In the earlier days, many of us speculated that OP perhaps did something so bad that Reeva was going to call the police and report him ("I asked Reeva why.... if she's calling the police). The "theory" was that OP may have thought it was enough to finish his career, and shot her to make sure no one ever found out. Then he came up with the simple intruder story. Far fetched as it may have seemed, we know that OP fought hard to keep his private wrongdoings out of the public realm, and now it looks like June is thinking the same thing.

I agree completely. Many of us have wondered what the trigger (excuse the pun) for this killing was. I've thought about it a lot. One of the "theories" that kept coming up was that Reeva discovered a message/photo either via his phone or iPad, that he was being unfaithful. As the relationship was a very new one, the fact that they'd been apart for some of this time, the fact that she was "afraid of you sometimes and how you snap at me", I'm still wondering if it was something else other than jealousy that caused the argument. The argument as such was never proven although I'm sure most of us believe it happened. If it wasn't jealousy, what else could she have discovered and confronted him with that was so bad to make him want to kill.

The other thing that really bothers me is that the doctors at Weskoppies found that he wasn't suffering from GAD which in itself is insignificant and is very common in the general population, but neither did they find anything else of significance. I would have been happier if they found something that could have been treated.

Leaving that aside, everyone now knows of his violent temper, controlling nature, recklessness, love of guns, etc etc If he hasn't got a medical condition, that only leaves these other potentially deadly personality issues. How could anyone associated with him in any capacity ever be truly safe. To me he's like a ticking time bomb ready to explode at any moment and nobody knows what could trigger a repeat of that fateful night.

Once he's released back into the general population, there are obviously going to be many people who will goad and torment him. Having now lost virtually everything, surely he's even more dangerous now.
 
Good point.
As per the judgement most probably no restriction for him to stay in a house with guns. It just said he is not fit to OWN a firearm again* . . . thinking about guns being around him . . . I wouldn't want to set a foot in that house, no.

*It was shocked again about Masipa when exchanging words with Nel on that topic. How can a judge NOT KNOW about these things ?? One would expect it's her daily business, no ?

Exactly. He didn't OWN the ammunition either and was found not guilty on this count. If he has access to firearms, surely that's enough. If he was caught with a firearm, all he has to do is use this same defence, his own case law, The State v Oscar Pistorius - he didn't OWN it even though it was in his possession. "Not guilty". Two dangerous precedents this trial has inflicted on the population of South Africa.
 
I agree completely. Many of us have wondered what the trigger (excuse the pun) for this killing was. I've thought about it a lot. One of the "theories" that kept coming up was that Reeva discovered a message/photo either via his phone or iPad, that he was being unfaithful. As the relationship was a very new one, the fact that they'd been apart for some of this time, the fact that she was "afraid of you sometimes and how you snap at me", I'm still wondering if it was something else other than jealousy that caused the argument. The argument as such was never proven although I'm sure most of us believe it happened. If it wasn't jealousy, what else could she have discovered and confronted him with that was so bad to make him want to kill.

I've never thought she discovered something earth-shattering, or anything like that. I think it's most likely that she somehow caught him cheating, and things went from there. Or something she said set him off - we know that he'd had a bad day, so it could have been something quite trivial.

Whatever it was, he went into one of his temper tantrums, shot in a rage, and then yes, realised in an instant that his best chance of saving his arse was making sure she didn't survive.
 
Another tweeter to follow, Kim Martin's husband. Says Nel is 100% sure that OP knew Reeva was behind the door.

https://twitter.com/TVdionysus/with_replies

Some interesting tweets from Kim Martin's husband.

Dionysus @TVdionysus • Oct 23
@tompeck
No Tom you are wrong. I can categorically state that Nel believes, as I do, 100% OP knew it was Reeva behind the door.

Tom Peck ‏@tompeck Oct 23
@TVdionysus
and how can you do that?

Dionysus ‏@TVdionysus Oct 23
@tompeck
Becuase I have heard him say it on more than 1 occasion.

James Grant ‏@CriminalLawZA Oct 24
@TVdionysus
Thanks. For me, this is not about Oscar or Reeva. Its about getting the law right for everyone.

Dionysus @TVdionysus • Oct 24
@CriminalLawZA
Wonderful news. One thing I do know is team Nel keeps an eye on twitter. All the erudite tweeting helped.
 
I have a trial subscription, but not sure if the conditions rules disallow you from posting content. But I'm going to post a small section, as it's actually an excerpt from her book, "A Mother's Love".

Contrary to Pistorius’s claims that they were in love, Mrs Steenkamp said they had not slept together because her daughter “was scared to take the relationship to that level”.

She believes that her daughter knew “in her heart of hearts” that they would not be happy together. She writes: “Her clothes were packed. There is no doubt in our minds: she had decided to leave Oscar that night.”

I have always predicted that they had not slept together (meaning no intercourse) as Reeva used to go home about 10.30pm to the Myers house and Cecil Myers used to meet her half way. Even that night, Reeva had planned to go home but I think OP stopped her. It was reported that one of their car doors were open. Was it Reeva's car or OP's? I have always felt that the arguments began on the ground floor and OP prevented her leaving, so she (or he grabbed her phone to do it) sent a message to Cecil about 10.30pm to tell him not to meet her at their arranged spot. I think he trapped Reeva there so she ran up to the bedroom to get her bag and he locked her in the bedroom. Later she ran into the toilet and locked herself in there and the rest is history.
 
Is 4 Nov the NPA deadline to appeal (e.g. 14 calendar days after sentence on 21 Oct) or is it 14 working days?

David Dadic is doing a countdown. From this it appears ...


David Dadic @DavidDadic · 7h 7 hours ago

NOT day 4/14

... that it's working days.
 
As OP allegedly has no money left, and in the remote possibility of a retrial, would Uncle pay his legal fees? Is the family a bottomless pit of money?

The possibility of a retrial sounds interesting to me. If OP has really run out of money, I wonder if they have legal aid in South Africa? I am hoping for a retrial and that OP is so broke he cannot afford Roux again.
 
He is allowed up to (2) visitors, correct?

My guess would then be....Carl, Aimee & Uncle Arnold. :gathering:

Uncle will use his influence to allow all (3) in to speak to him at some point this weekend. You know, being it's his 1st week and he is disabled, suffering from PTSD, mother died when he was 15, etc, etc. (He'll probably be packing a "picnic lunch" from some 5 star restaurant, a few extra cell phones and perhaps an iPad baked into a homemade apple pie.)

Anyway, that would be my guess. (It WON'T however, be his agent or trainer there to discuss his non-existant future racing career plans, as some articles have suggested, IMO.)

Hopefully Roux & Oldwage have already checked in on him ....but if no longer on the payroll, perhaps not.

BIB I did read that OP's lawyers were going to check in on him, but the article didn't state which ones.

My gut tells me that even if Roux wasn't being paid (I think he is), he would still visit OP in prison. If he didn't, it would reflect poorly on him as being a money hungry lawyer that was a hired gun and now that the money is dried up, he's out. Just wouldn't be good for his own PR.
 
David Dadic is doing a countdown. From this it appears ...


David Dadic @DavidDadic · 7h 7 hours ago

NOT day 4/14

... that it's working days.

Professor James Grant did confirm that it is working days
 
I have always predicted that they had not slept together (meaning no intercourse) as Reeva used to go home about 10.30pm to the Myers house and Cecil Myers used to meet her half way. Even that night, Reeva had planned to go home but I think OP stopped her. It was reported that one of their car doors were open. Was it Reeva's car or OP's? I have always felt that the arguments began on the ground floor and OP prevented her leaving, so she (or he grabbed her phone to do it) sent a message to Cecil about 10.30pm to tell him not to meet her at their arranged spot. I think he trapped Reeva there so she ran up to the bedroom to get her bag and he locked her in the bedroom. Later she ran into the toilet and locked herself in there and the rest is history.
Interesting.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
 
The possibility of a retrial sounds interesting to me. If OP has really run out of money, I wonder if they have legal aid in South Africa? I am hoping for a retrial and that OP is so broke he cannot afford Roux again.

I can't speak about South Africa, but I can tell you that in Australia at least it's not as simple as you think to get legal aid. Just because you have no money does not mean you're entitled to it. It's also discretionary and is given out on a case by case basis. I suspect OP would have Buckley's of getting it. The government isn't exactly known for having a surplus of money.
 
I agree completely. Many of us have wondered what the trigger (excuse the pun) for this killing was. I've thought about it a lot. One of the "theories" that kept coming up was that Reeva discovered a message/photo either via his phone or iPad, that he was being unfaithful. As the relationship was a very new one, the fact that they'd been apart for some of this time, the fact that she was "afraid of you sometimes and how you snap at me", I'm still wondering if it was something else other than jealousy that caused the argument. The argument as such was never proven although I'm sure most of us believe it happened. If it wasn't jealousy, what else could she have discovered and confronted him with that was so bad to make him want to kill.

The other thing that really bothers me is that the doctors at Weskoppies found that he wasn't suffering from GAD which in itself is insignificant and is very common in the general population, but neither did they find anything else of significance. I would have been happier if they found something that could have been treated.

Leaving that aside, everyone now knows of his violent temper, controlling nature, recklessness, love of guns, etc etc If he hasn't got a medical condition, that only leaves these other potentially deadly personality issues. How could anyone associated with him in any capacity ever be truly safe. To me he's like a ticking time bomb ready to explode at any moment and nobody knows what could trigger a repeat of that fateful night.

Once he's released back into the general population, there are obviously going to be many people who will goad and torment him. Having now lost virtually everything, surely he's even more dangerous now.

Going on what June said about them not sleeping together, my gut feeling is that Reeva refused to sleep (have intercourse) with OP until she felt he was fully committed to her. So, if that is so, I don't think that the problem was that he was being "unfaithful" as such, it was that he was not fully committed to her. Surely Reeva had heard on the grapevine and on twitter that there were other girls around in his life and OP was playing the field.

However, I do think also that Reeva could have got to know some dark secret about OP that he did not want exposed. I used to think that it could have been drug taking eg cocaine.

Many people have commented that there was no evidence that they had sex that night which seemed unusual on Valentine's Day Eve. Maybe OP put the hard word on her and insisted on having sex that night and she refused as she had found out he was having sex with others. So he told her he would not let her go home that night until she did have sex with him which led to their fight and she said it was over. Who knows? But many girls would not have sex with a guy when they know he is playing around with others.
 
BIB I did read that OP's lawyers were going to check in on him, but the article didn't state which ones.

My gut tells me that even if Roux wasn't being paid (I think he is), he would still visit OP in prison. If he didn't, it would reflect poorly on him as being a money hungry lawyer that was a hired gun and now that the money is dried up, he's out. Just wouldn't be good for his own PR.

I think Brian Webber would be the one to visit him plus Roux maybe. Do lawyers have access any time they want or do they also have to only visit on weekends and they are not counted as "visitors"?
 
David Dadic is doing a countdown. From this it appears ...


David Dadic @DavidDadic · 7h 7 hours ago

NOT day 4/14

... that it's working days.

Does that bring us to Monday, 10th November then?
 
I can't speak about South Africa, but I can tell you that in Australia at least it's not as simple as you think to get legal aid. Just because you have no money does not mean you're entitled to it. It's also discretionary and is given out on a case by case basis. I suspect OP would have Buckley's of getting it. The government isn't exactly known for having a surplus of money.

Maybe Oscar thinks he can represent himself then as he always wins????? Oscar's father should be the one who pays or maybe his grandfather against any inheritance he might get one day. I am not sure Uncle Arnold would be so generous except to clear the family name. However, if the NPA go ahead, it appears that it is very likely that they would win so paying for Oscar's legal fees would not be a good investment especially if there is a retrial.

PS: I have just looked it up and anyone who lives in South Africa is entitled to legal aid if the case is criminal.

http://www.legal-aid.co.za/?p=956
 
Seeing how excerpts have been posted here from books, I don't see an issue with posting the entire article from The Times. There's not much there that we don't already know anyway.

Part 1.

They waited 20 months for justice. This week, Oscar Pistorius was sentenced to five years in prison for killing their daughter, Reeva. In an exclusive interview, June and Barry Steenkamp talk about how they’ve coped – and why they fear they may never know what really happened

This is the first time I have seen June Steenkamp smile. She is sitting at the far side of a long wooden table overlooking a swimming pool in the shady courtyard of a guesthouse, which has become her second home in Pretoria.

The avenues outside are flush with jacaranda blossoms. Pupils from Pretoria Boys High School, which is just across the road, are trickling through the gates in their old-fashioned uniforms: short-sleeved khaki shirts and ties, matching khaki shorts and tan socks pulled up to their knees.

It was as a pupil there that her daughter’s killer, Oscar Pistorius, first discovered he could run.

June Steenkamp has stayed in this small, discreet guesthouse many times since March, when South Africa’s national hero went on trial for murder. It was here that she’d wake up at dawn every morning during the trial and steel herself to face the world’s media – and the double amputee, known as the Blade Runner, accused of shooting dead her daughter, Reeva, a model, in the early hours of Valentine’s Day last year.

For much of the past seven months I have sat one row behind June and the entourage of relatives, friends and women’s league supporters, in the North Guateng High Court, as we heard, in unsparing detail, how four hollow-tipped bullets tore into Reeva’s body and “blew the brains out of her skull”. The courtroom gasped as one when pictures flashed up on television screens of Reeva’s broken head. We watched Pistorius sob and vomit. Yet we were spared the burden of being the victim’s mother.

Five hundred and seventy four days after that night, and following a trial that lasted six months, Pistorius was acquitted of premeditated murder but convicted on the lesser charge of culpable homicide, the South African term for manslaughter. In a tense courtroom, Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled the state had failed to prove Pistorius knew it was Reeva when he opened fire through the locked toilet door of his apartment in an exclusive gated community in Pretoria. Throughout the trial, he said he mistook his girlfriend of three months for an intruder.

“He said pulling the trigger was ‘an accident’. What? Four times an accident?” June rails in her book, Reeva: a Mother’s Story. “He said Reeva did not scream, but she would definitely have screamed. I know my daughter and she was very vocal.”

In court, June’s lips were always pursed. Her eyes gazed inscrutably at whoever addressed the judge. Sometimes it seemed as if she had been sedated, but tells me now she only took tranquillisers to help her through the funeral, which she can barely remember. “The press referred to me as Stoneface,” she recalls. “But a lot of people said they admired my composure.” When the pictorial evidence was too graphic to bear, the state’s lawyers would throw her a glance to warn her to look away or take off her glasses. Just once, she didn’t turn in time and saw a picture of Pistorius, topless, standing on his prosthetic legs, drenched in Reeva’s blood.

“Hi,” is all she says by way of greeting, but her eyes light up and her lips part into a smile. She’s just being polite, but it casts away the death mask she has donned in public. Suddenly, after all these months, she seems more human – and her grief more real. “I think I have a way of coping and keeping things in; that’s the only way I have survived this,” she explains. “But I think once all this is over it’s going to ... It’s all going to come rushing back and things are going to be even harder.” She lets out a sigh as her voice trails off and she contemplates the future.

“You can laugh about some things,” the 68-year-old says. “It’s not like you are miserable all the time. It’s just this wrenching pain that you get in your heart.” She pauses. “And your soul. That’s what it is.”

At times her pain was so intense, she thought she might be going insane.

“This is going to sit with us for the rest of our life. It’s never going to be right. Because she’s not with us. It’s always there. The minute your eyes open in the morning, or if you wake up in the middle of the night, there it is.” She often wakes at around 3am, the time when Reeva died.

Almost 50 years after June left Lancashire, there’s no trace of Blackburn in her accent. She moved to Cape Town, aged 19, and has never been back. It was Cape Town where she met her second husband, Barry, Reeva’s father. He is sitting at the table, leaning on his forearms as he does in court. With a bushy white beard and a publican’s gut (they run a “working-class” restaurant in Port Elizabeth called the Barking Spider), the retired racehorse trainer looks a little like Father Christmas. He heaves himself round to greet me.

Barry, 71, has suffered two strokes since his daughter died and he was only well enough to attend the trial in time for the closing arguments in August, six months after it first started. “As soon as he gets cross or upset about anything, he has to put these tablets under his tongue so he won’t have a heart attack,” June explains to me, as if he isn’t here. The first day he attended court he took three, she says.

They lived apart for 14 years, but never got divorced and moved back in together in 2008, after burglars broke into June’s home on a night when Reeva had been visiting from Johannesburg. Reeva said it wasn’t safe and forced her parents back together. Fragile marriages might have cracked under the trauma they’ve endured, but she says they have grown closer. Barry sits smoking and only chimes in occasionally. “We are happy. We are very close,” his wife says.

Both have children from their previous marriages who live in England. Reeva, their only child together, was born 18 years after June’s first daughter, Simone. Barry has a son, Adam. Reeva was “unexpected”, June admits. “I think she was a gift from God.”

They have a recurring image of Reeva, who was 29 when she died. It is the thought of her terrified and alone in the small toilet cubicle, pleading for her life or screaming in agony once she had been shot. June: “Both of us are haunted by the same nightmare. The vision of Reeva suffering this terrible trauma. Her terror and helplessness. Her yells for help piercing the silent night air.”

Her husband imagines her begging for her life. “He agonises over what was going through her mind: ‘Where is anyone? Who is going to save me?’ ”

There are two lawyers at the table with their laptops out: Dup de Bruyn and Tania Koen, who have acted as spokesmen, gatekeepers and pseudo-celebrity agents since these grieving parents were thrust into the limelight last year. We’re here to talk about her book, de Bruyn reminds us. “We’ve got a contract on the financials so you can’t touch on that.”

In the last days of the sentencing, the Steenkamps were again in the headlines. Gerrie Nel, the prosecutor known as “Pit bull”, revealed Pistorius had paid the Steenkamps 6,000 rand a month (£340) since March 2013. He also offered Reeva’s parents a one-off payment of 375,000 rand (£21,000) from the sale of his car, which Nel denounced as “blood money”. De Bruyn says the Steenkamps rejected the second offer and plan to repay the monthly stipends, because “their circumstances had changed”.

June admits in the book they “always had money worries and that was stressful and draining”. At the point when Reeva was murdered they were penniless. “They were indigent,” de Bruyn says. Throughout Reeva’s childhood, when Barry ran a livery stable, the family was poor. “As long as I can remember, they really battled,” Reeva’s cousin Kim Martin told the sentencing hearing. “People tend not to pay you, and Barry would never turn a horse away.” They had moved from Cape Town to the Eastern Cape where Barry was bankrupted and forced to close his stables. After the funeral, when it was revealed in the press that the couple were broke, their landlady served them with two months’ notice for fear that her rent would not be paid.

Reeva was their pension. “She used to say that she was working to look after us in our old age,” recalls her mother.

In their last conversation, the night before she died, Reeva told her mother she had sent them money to pay for cable television, because she wanted them to see her in a reality TV show, Tropika Island of Treasure, which had been filmed in Jamaica and was just about to air.

Eighteen months on, as the “trial of the century” draws to a close, the Steenkamps are no longer poor. “I have done some deals,” says de Bruyn, in a thinly veiled reference to the book and the lucrative television interviews he’s arranged on their behalf. “Every time they have an interview they must go and live through the trauma of what they have experienced, and they suffer,” says the lawyer in their defence.

“And they need the money, so what is wrong in asking for something for that suffering?”
 
Part 2.

Are they exploiting Reeva’s death?

“I think she would have wanted us to have some money,” her mother says. “Imagine going through this and you are having no money for anything. Imagine going through this trauma, suffering, pain and having no money. Sometimes not even for food or anything. Struggling.”

The monthly stipends from Pistorius were supposed to be offset against any civil claim for compensation the Steenkamps might choose to make, but the court was told the couple have no plans to sue. Reeva’s mother suggests that’s because they don’t need to any more.

“Well, how long do you think we’re going to live?” she asks. “I’m 68 and Barry’s 71. How long do we have? Without money, how would we have done that? How would we have survived? It was a matter of survival at that stage.”

The money they’ve made is theirs, but once the trial is over they hope to start fundraising for the Reeva Steenkamp Foundation. She bangs the table in excitement at its very mention. “That’s gonna be …” she says, before she seems to catch herself. They hope to run two women’s shelters, in Port Elizabeth and Cape Town – in South Africa a woman is killed by a partner every six hours. “There are very poor areas and they have got very little help for anything in that direction and I want to do it properly, you know,” she says.

At times the memoir reads like a scrapbook of doting memories. It draws on letters, school reports and keepsakes. Sometimes it’s Reeva’s CV. But in some way it is an attempt to redress the balance. Not only did they lose their daughter in a horrific, violent way, they had to watch her reduced to “Oscar Pistorius’s girlfriend” in the deluge of coverage that followed. During the trial, her mother notes how Reeva was referred to as “the deceased” in the sterile language of the court.

“Reeva has become sort of invisible,” she says. “She’s a person. She’s somebody who’s loved and somebody who’s going to be missed for ever and ever.”

Yet what June hid in court, behind her stoic mask, she reveals in print with abundant frankness. In her view, Pistorius is “arrogant”, “moody”, “volatile” and “combustible”. He is “gun-toting”, “trigger-happy”, “possessive”, “vague”, “evasive” and “shifty”. She does not believe his story. “It was Reeva’s bad luck that she met him, because sooner or later he would have killed someone. I do believe that.”

Judge Masipa, a former crime reporter who became the second woman appointed to the High Court in South Africa, said Pistorius had been a “poor witness”. But she concluded that he gave a version that “could reasonably, possibly be true … In criminal law that is all that is required for an acquittal,” as she acquitted him of the murder charge with its mandatory life sentence.

“I wasn’t happy with it at all,” June says. Her voice seems more measured than her words deserve. “I don’t think that was justice for Reeva at all.”

According to the athlete’s version of events, he was in love with Reeva. On the night she died, she came to his house in Pretoria’s exclusive Silver Woods estate and cooked him a meal of chicken and vegetables before they went upstairs. She did some yoga on the bedroom floor, while he lay on the bed browsing the internet and making phone calls. They fell asleep together sometime after 10pm.

It was a hot summer evening and the balcony doors were open, where two fans blew air across the bed. Oscar said he woke around 3am and Reeva asked him, “Can’t you sleep, Baba?”

He went to the balcony, on his stumps, to move the fans and close the doors, then went towards a chest of drawers to obscure a light glowing on his hi-fi, which he told the court had been disturbing him, but before he could drape her jeans across the light he heard the sound of a window sliding open in the bathroom. “That’s the moment that everything changed,” he said.

Afraid it was an intruder who had scaled a ladder to break in and harm them, he scrambled back to his side of the bed, grabbed his Taurus 9mm pistol and hobbled to the bathroom, screaming at the intruder, “Get the *advertiser censored** out of my house!”

He saw the bathroom window was open. The toilet door was shut. Then he heard a noise, coming from the toilet cubicle, which he believed was the intruder coming out to attack him. He fired four shots “without thinking”.

The screams the neighbours heard were his, his lawyers said, once he realised his mistake. The other “gunshots,” which came later, were the sounds of a cricket bat as he battered down the door to try to save Reeva’s life.

Reeva’s parents are unconvinced. “He’s the only one who knows the truth,” June says.

__________

In the three months that they knew each other, Reeva and Pistorius had become South Africa’s red-carpet couple. She had broken up with her long-term boyfriend Warren Lahoud, the man her parents thought she’d marry, a few months earlier. There was a short-lived dalliance with Francois Hougaard, the South Africa scrum half. When she appeared at the South African Sports Awards on Pistorius’s arm in November 2012, her friends feared she had become a “trophy girlfriend”.

The athlete told his trial that she struggled with the press scrutiny that came with the relationship. June scoffs that this is “rubbish”. On the contrary, Reeva enjoyed the attention, and perhaps it clouded her judgment. “How much of an unattractive attitude did she dismiss because he was a golden boy,” June wonders in the book. “How much was she flattered to have won his heart?”

Pistorius told the court they were planning a life together, but June thinks Reeva had “nagging doubts about their compatibility”. “She had confided to me that she hadn’t slept with him. They’d shared a bed, but she was scared to take the relationship to that level … She wouldn’t want to sleep with Oscar if she wasn’t sure. I believe their relationship was coming to an end. In her heart of hearts, she didn’t think it was making either of them happy.”

The pathologist, Professor Gert Saayman, who carried out Reeva’s autopsy said food in her stomach suggested she had eaten around 1am, when Pistorius said they were both asleep. Her mother is also troubled by the photographs that showed Reeva’s jeans strewn across the bedroom floor, because Reeva was a “neat freak”. “She would never leave them on the floor. She was tidy to the extreme.”

In the book, Reeva’s mother dissects every text, every tweet, every email, for hidden meaning in the brief relationship. She concludes that it was volatile, unpredictable. Barry recalls that when the police read out messages from the WhatsApp messaging service, it was as though their daughter was “talking in court”. Reeva said Pistorius scared her, and that he picked on her “incessantly”. In her parents’ version of events, their daughter was gradually being ground down by Pistorius’s demands.

Reeva, her parents say, was unhappy when she arrived at Oscar’s house. CCTV footage, according to her mother, shows her looking miserable as she approaches the compound. Something was brewing. By 1am, when Reeva ate, the couple were fighting, which is backed up by a neighbour who heard two people arguing from 1.56am. “There is no doubt in our minds that something went horribly wrong, something upset her so terribly that she hid behind a locked door with two mobile phones,” June writes.

Reeva was shot wearing a sleeveless black top and grey tracksuit shorts, “clothes for a summer’s day, not her night clothes”. She was facing the door when the first bullet struck her hip, “probably pleading”.
 
Part 3.

“Either of them could have received a Valentine’s Day message from another admirer that might have sparked a row,” June speculates. “Her clothes were packed. There is no doubt in our minds: she had decided to leave Oscar that night.”

Michelle Burger, a university lecturer who said she heard bloodcurdling screams the night Reeva died, said there was a pause between the first shot and the final three.

“I think he may have shot once and then he shot her again,” June writes.

__________

Reeva’s mother says she sat through the trial because she wanted justice and she wanted the truth. Both, she feels, have been denied. Yet she seems strangely calm. Judge Masipa made the right decision based on the evidence before the court, June says. It’s just there was something missing.

She sympathises with the athlete’s family. Pistorius’s mother died when he was 15, but his siblings, Aimee and Carl, his uncle Arnold and aunt Lois were in court almost every day. His estranged father, Henke, also came towards the end. “They did nothing wrong,” she says. “They are suffering like we are suffering. Except that he’s still breathing. That’s the only difference.”

Aimee passed her a note during the second week of the trial. “She wanted to know if we needed anything and she included her phone number.” She says it was sweet, “but it would not have been proper to accept their family’s show of concern”.

Some legal experts have suggested the state could appeal, claiming that Judge Masipa made an error with the law by not convicting him dolus eventualis – indirect intent – a type of murder used when a person realises there is a possibility that their actions might kill someone, but carries on regardless.

“That would entail us another five years of court,” June says.

She gets recognised now, when she’s out in the street. “I’m Reeva’s mum,” she says by way of introduction. But most of all the couple want to escape, once the trial is over, “to a little a cottage with a little stream where the wild horses come and drink”. “We just want it over and done with,” Barry adds.

In the lead-up to Pistorius’s sentencing Reeva’s cousin Kim Martin said their family had been ruined and urged the judge to jail Pistorius. In the event, he was given five years in prison and an additional three years’ suspended sentence for a firearms offence, a sentence June believes was “right”. She insists the family isn’t “seeking anything” but agrees on the importance of sending a message to society that what Pistorius did is “not OK”. “We wouldn’t want him to suffer,” she says, because that would be inhuman. “Even though he has done something terrible.”

Both of them have found a way to forgive. It’s what Reeva would have wanted. “Reeva, I think, she would have forgiven him, too,” Barry says.

In fact, they want to meet Pistorious. They never met when their daughter was going out with him. Steenkamp says it would be a way of “claiming back” their daughter. “I am not entirely sure what I am going to say. I know how I feel, but it’s in my head and it must stay there until that time that we meet,” she says. Her husband wants an apology. He wasn’t in court the day Pistorius turned to Reeva’s mother and promised her that her daughter “felt loved” when she went to bed that night.

“I would like him,” Barry says, “to really, truthfully say, although he said it in court, ‘I’m sorry.’ ” He is smoking his third cigarette in 40 minutes. “I would like him just to say it to our faces. You know, to be genuine with us and sit down and say how sorry he is for everything. And also the grief that he has caused everybody.”

Do they think he would tell them the truth?

“No,” says June in a whisper.

“Improbable,” Barry adds.

“Very improbable,” she says.

Reeva’s death was “a double tragedy”, June writes. Two gifted young lives were shattered. Two days after Reeva died, the reality TV show in which she starred was broadcast with the Steenkamps’ blessing. “A lot of people didn’t understand that,” she says. “Because, how many women can watch, when they know their daughter’s dead? I wanted to see her laughing and alive. I didn’t miss one of those episodes.” As for Pistorius, “He’s lost a lot,” she says. According to his lawyers, the Paralympian is penniless. “He lost all his sponsors. He lost all his money. He hasn’t even money to pay for legal expenses,” defence lawyer Barry Roux told the sentencing. He is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and his reputation is in tatters.

“But Reeva’s lost the possibility of having a grandchild for us,” her mother says. She isn’t smiling now. “Having a baby, getting married. And, of course, her career was going so well. She was just about to take off. Now, she’s not even here breathing, you know. That’s the thing.”

Extract from Reeva: a Mother’s Story by June Steenkamp

‘Oscar’s apology put me in an awkward position’

On Monday, April 7, Oscar took the witness stand. We’d been warned through the lawyers shortly beforehand that he intended to make a public apology. He turned and faced us for the first time in 17 days of court proceedings and for the first time in the 14 months since he took our daughter from us.

“My lady, may I please start my evidence by tendering an apology,” he said in a whisper. “I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to Mr and Mrs Steenkamp, to Reeva’s family, to those of you who knew her who are here today” – and he promptly broke down in tears.

It was an extraordinary moment. You could cut the atmosphere in the courtroom with a knife: silence, but for the sound of journalists tapping on their screens. It put me in an awkward position. Why decide to say sorry to me in a televised trial in front of the whole world? I was unmoved by his apology. I felt if I appeared to be sorry for him at this stage of his trial on the charge of premeditated murder, it would in the eyes of others lessen the awfulness of what he had done. He was in the box trying to save his own skin after he had killed my daughter and I was sitting in that courtroom waiting to hear factual truth, not to see emotions cloud the truth.

Oscar spent five days giving evidence and, for me, it was the most interesting phase of the trial. I studied him intently and listened to my instinct about whether he was telling the truth. All the time I found myself looking towards him to see his reaction to questions. I couldn’t help myself, even though I didn’t want to fixate on him.

Over the next few days I listened and watched as Oscar was vague, evasive and shifty by turn. He’d say, I don’t remember. I don’t know. Sometimes he’d even blame his legal team as he resisted the prosecutor Gerrie Nel’s attempts to dismantle his version of events. Nothing added up to a coherent picture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
2,819
Total visitors
2,933

Forum statistics

Threads
600,831
Messages
18,114,274
Members
230,990
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top