Trial Discussion Thread #48

[kittychi]

Thank you for posting this - it just shows what a huge hypocrite and liar this man was right from the start. Compare the bold underlined statement with this description of the grounds for the appeal against his bail conditions. This article was from March 28, 2013, a mere six weeks after the murder, but OP's defence team announced their intention to appeal these bail conditions within a month of the murder.

This is an article about the filing of the appeal from 11 March, 2013.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/03/11/pistorius-bail-appeal/1977899/

This article from March 28, 2013 covers the appeal hearing:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/28/oscar-pistorius-bail-conditions-relaxed

And this is the bit which really rankles - compare and contrast.....



Disgraceful.

I can remember posting at the time that I could not see the difference between "consulting residents to prepare his defence" and witness tampering. Seriously - what is the difference?

It is obvious that a defence team needs to find and interview witnesses, but since when has a murder suspect been allowed to participate?

BBM: Right, and also make it easier for story tailoring.

 

[Lyra500]

Oh no no no, not blaming victim AT ALL...lost in context...my original post ...way back eons ago..I was being scarcastic about op actually - using italics....meaning she said something that he deemed she should not say ( she who had incensed him ). I say I am fence sitting because I like to stand back and think.
He should have NOT SHOT ANYONE. He had no reason to shoot. He may have thought (in his mind for what ever cause) that he had a right to for defence - he says - but Nels prosecution team has created significant doubt, especially with OP's ducking and weaving - it is even obvious to blind Freddy.

As I have posted previously I can also see that he may well shot in rage at the door Reeva was behind mercilessly then chose on reflection to say it was an intruder - I made an error etc.....to get out of the guilt and ultimate responsibility and culpability. It could well be that he wants to desperately believe himself that he did not secumb to rage and shoot Reeva in spite?

Hooly

Thank you for clarifying.

Your BIB is exactly what I think happened.

That almost toddlerish drive to try and shirk any responsibility seems to be an ingrained character trait (in my view):

- he never fired the gun in the restaurant (it just miraculously and coincidentally went off in his hand and it was his friend's fault for giving it to him in the first place);
- he never fired the gun through the sun roof (everyone else is lying);
- he suffers from lots of violence against him making him feel vulnerable - gosh he was even shot at whilst driving (except that he cannot produce any credible corroboration);
- people keep lying about him (several different people describe very similar events where he was both abusive and threatening, but according to him, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth).

Then there was the shooting of Reeva - apparently it is her own fault because she didn't scream when she was in the toilet cubicle. The final insult on top of the injury he did her and so, so cynical given that five people DID hear the poor woman screaming in fear for her life before she was gunned down.

 

[eimajjjj]

Thanks for replying.

I would have to agree that there IS a lot of holes and inconsistencies to wade through ! And though it is clear that there was no necessity to just shoot in this instance (could have skedaddled?), if he really did believe there was an intruder (because I think from what I have read he did have a paranoia that this was going to happen one day - default mindset)
he could have mentally went straight to 'the intruder is here - must get gun and put into practice what I have been readying myself for...." especially if he knew the ladder was outside - could have given him the yips. (sorry about the long sentence)
I know it seems weak.... That could account for bigger that needed weapon to counterbalance his (private) opinion that he was more vulnerable etc..

However regardless he should of left first, not shot first. I have mixed doubts, and OP confounded me a few times with implausible points that just beggars belief.

The judge is maybe going to need at times a Valium-salt-lick and a few double brandies on standby in her deliberations.

OH and BTW I don't think all SA is paranoid, (inset here " I am not worthy-bowing person" picture) just work with ex SA and they've said the sense if personal security is low etc .

Hooly

It seems you agree that there are an abundance of evidence against him but this is just something to 'wade through'. However, why do we have to 'wade' through anything when you have all this combined with five witnesses testifying to a woman screaming. Do we wade through that too? Do we need ten witnesses? How thick does the evidence against him have to be until it's too impenetrable to wade through and we can declare his guilt? As I've said before, bar an eye-witness or a confession, it would be near impossible to find more evidence against him: lies, witnesses, impossibilities.

If I'm honest, I think this is most likely one of the easiest cases Masipa has probably judged. The difficulty for her will be articulating her judgement and reasons for it tightly as possible to bar any chance of appeal (which is why she's so adamant on OP getting the fairest trial possible).

 

[vansleuths]

True, although he had plenty of time to lift the lid while he was in that cubicle, watching her last breaths.

True, he could have lifted the lid after the incident, but if he did that, he would be digging a deeper grave for himself I believe because the blood spatter pattern would have been very different. There would have been blood all over the top of the lid, rather then in the toilet bowl itself.

 

[JudgeJudi]

<Respectfully snipped>

I wish I shared your confidence.

I have trust and confidence in Judge Masipa, and I don't see any chance of an acquittal. I think he will be found guilty of all charges and given a heavy jail sentence.

It's what comes afterwards that gives cause for concern. Because once the trial is over, and verdict and sentence delivered, public interest will drop. The world won't be watching any more.

Pistorius will be granted leave to appeal, he will be allowed bail and will continue his life of luxury, holidaying where he pleases etc etc. This may go on for a long time pending delay after delay, and eventually money and influence will swing things so that he escapes jail altogether. But most people will be unaware of this.

What I hope Judge Masipa does is find him guilty on all the firearms charges, sentence him to the maximum jail term, and refuse him leave to appeal THOSE charges. Then at least he will spend some time where he deserves to be.

I believe he'll definitely be found guilty of at least two of the firearms charges, however I'm not entirely certain how Masipa will judge the quality of Sam and Darren's testimony relating to the sunroof incident. Irrespective of that, I think you'll find these sentences will run concurrently with that of the main sentence. That's the usual practice in South Africa unless it was, say, a rape and murder, in which event it would probably be consecutive. I believe he'll be out on bail even if he's convicted of all 4 counts.

Once upon a time I never understood why sentences were made to run concurrently. This was how it was explained to me. Let's say a person committed a crime that carried a sentence of one year, but he committed a similar crime 25 times. That would mean he'd be locked up for 25 years, i.e. equal to a life sentence. Courts don't sentence people that way. I have some things to post later in the week which will make for interesting reading (I hope).

 

[vansleuths]

Thanks, Jay-jay!

There's not enough time in the universe to wash away OP's heinous deed.

"Execute" her is exactly what he did. Honestly, whether it was Reeva or a real intruder, he was nothing short of a sociopathic coward to shoot four Black Talons through a closed, locked door.

And yes..."God" and the "Bible" and "prayer" and "religious-tweets" cover a multitude of grievous sins, don't they? LOL

Religion is always the last refuge of murderers. Ah, all the come-to-Jesus "conversions" in prison!

Perhaps OP can start his own prison ministry.

The Gospel of St. Oscar.

.

(I rather suspect we'd see angry Oscar-tweets throwing God under the bus.)

BIB, that's so true, but sometimes, people have to be at their absolute lowest and humbled before they look in a retrospective way into their life. You also see this with people that have received the news of a terminal disease.

It's only at that time do people realize that all the things that they chased in this world, money, fame etc, probably wasn't worth it and the most important thing is the family, friends and relationships that you have.

 

[vansleuths]

There is a great deal of truth and insight into what you've posted IMO.

My take on OP's disability & inadequacies . . .
OP was given the incouragement & drive from his Mom to try anything & everything and to not fear limitations due to his physical handicap. However, even with this great support and upbringing from his Mom, he of course incountered "outsiders" who could be cruel and his awareness (as he grew older) of his physical "differences" were a painful daily reality, regardless of how well he could overcome them while using prothesis. As a result, I believe OP has lots of unresolved anger, jealously, resentment and a huge "chip on his shoulder" for the situation he was born with.

I believe he has severe inadequacy issues. And even if he doesn't acknowledge them "outloud" to even himself ... he spends his daily life trying to over compensate for it. Like the flashy expensive cars, reckless behavior & always driving at such unsafe speeds, the flaunting of all the "chicks" he's been with to Reeva (and likely to all prev girlfriends), all the blonde sexy girlfriends (who look almost like clones) on his arm and the need for them to shower their attention on OP every minute. I am sure the guns help with feeling safe in S.A. but I also believe they're a power thing with OP - makes him feel like a "big man", always in control.

His moodiness and quick temper IMO are related to situations when OP is unable to control the outcome that he desires or feels he's entitled too. After achieving such "stardom in S.A." he feels a great sense of entitlement, as well as power - as all of Africa stands behind him in support and has him placed high up on a pedestal, where he can do no wrong. I think when the situation with Reeva escalated to a state where Reeva would be forced to speak out (likely to police, which means the media gets light of it as well) he felt his "image" (and all that goes with it - $$$, fame & future opportunity) was more important than sparing Reeva - he probably rationalized it as her fault somehow for letting things escalate or pi$$ing him off so badly. Anyway - due to his sense of entitlement and inflated ego - OP felt certain he could cover up yet one more "indiscretion" and he would have all of Africa's full support, even sympathy from the public, as he had just lost the "love of his life" so tragically.

This is a great write up, I believe OP did use his "possessions" as a means to compensate for his inadequacies.

I do wonder about the BIB. If this were true and it could be, I think OP would have one huge ego to think he could get away with it. My own perspective is that this was a crime of passion and in the middle of the argument, OP lost his reasoning brain and shot her. It was only after killing Reeva that the reality of his actions set in.

 

[vansleuths]

He may not be as safe as you think...
http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/oscar-pistorius-and-other-disgraced-athletes-cost-sponsors/

A fallen icon like Pistorius on the other hand, will forever be remembered as a man who killed his girlfriend. Whether it was by willful malice or grotesque irresponsibility, neither image is one to which a consumer goods company can connect its brand. A brand is the company’s reputation; A strong brand is a highly valuable asset, responsible for huge amounts of revenue. Subsequently, it should come as no surprise when a sponsor takes the next step beyond canceling an athlete’s contract, and actually sues its former beneficiary. This is exactly what happened to Lance Armstrong in 2013. The government sued Armstrong for sponsorship money earned while he was riding for Team United States Postal Service (USPS). The government claimed that the disgrace cost it over 10 million dollars when Armstrong and other members of his team were disqualified for doping.

When accepting highly lucrative sponsorships, athletes like Pistorius commit to a higher level of conduct representative of companies like Nike or Wilson. When a sponsored athlete cheats at sports, cheats on a spouse, or worst of all cheats another person out of their very life, he or she should expect a cost for their disgrace.

Let's hope Nike and some of the other sponsors bring about a civil lawsuit due to loss of reputation.

 

[eimajjjj]

BIB, that's so true, but sometimes, people have to be at their absolute lowest and humbled before they look in a retrospective way into their life. You also see this with people that have received the news of a terminal disease.

It's only at that time do people realize that all the things that they chased in this world, money, fame etc, probably wasn't worth it and the most important thing is the family, friends and relationships that you have.

Respectfully, and correct me if I'm wrong with what you're presenting, but to compare a person who is diagnosed with a terminal illness to one that has chosen to take another's life is beyond bizarre, especially in terms of one being 'humbled'.

Moreover, I couldn't give two monkeys if OP becomes introspective/retrospective or not, as long as that happens while being incarcerated for an incredibly long time.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

That fits with toddler Oscar, I think. Though 65% isn't very matching.

 

[soozieqtips]

Respectfully, and correct me if I'm wrong with what you're presenting, but to compare a person who is diagnosed with a terminal illness to one that has chosen to take another's life is beyond bizarre, especially in terms of one being 'humbled'.

Moreover, I couldn't give two monkeys if OP becomes introspective/retrospective or not, as long as that happens while being incarcerated for an incredibly long time.

I've yet to see OP express a shred of humility for his actions, or for how he's destroyed Reeva's family forever. Unless humility means arguing with Nel, laughing in court, going out clubbing, getting drunk, approaching Gina Myers with a nasty comment, and telling reporters that being evaluated at hospital was meant as a 'joke'. We're expected to believe these are the signs of a broken man, a man under stress and alienated. Yet this is pretty much how he's lived his entire life. So he's just being himself, and (to me) seems fairly confident he'll get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[Val1]

I've yet to see OP express a shred of humility for his actions, or for how he's destroyed Reeva's family forever. Unless humility means arguing with Nel, laughing in court, going out clubbing, getting drunk, approaching Gina Myers with a nasty comment, and telling reporters that being evaluated at hospital was meant as a 'joke'. We're expected to believe these are the signs of a broken man, a man under stress and alienated. Yet this is pretty much how he's lived his entire life. So he's just being himself, and (to me) seems fairly confident he'll get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

To me, this emphasizes the hypocrisy he's been displaying with his religious tweets and mannerisms and therefore the lack of respect he has for society and its rules/laws in general.

 

[vansleuths]

OK, to respond to the first paragraph .. would you say that about any other killer, or is this just Pistorius you would be ok with, getting off his jail term for murder, on the basis that 'he's lost everything anyway'? Why should he be treated any differently to any other murderer? Murder carries a jail term, he murdered Reeva, he should serve that jail term, end of.

BIB, Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was trying to convey. I don't believe that OP should get away with murder. If the court does find him guilty of murder, then certainly he deserves to go to justice.

All I meant to say that was that we've seen time and time again where an accused murder walks free because of their celebrity status or a technicality. When this occurs, life tends to find a way to dole out justice and while he may not be in jail, he face justice from civil society.

In terms of him losing everything, yes he hasn't lost his life like Reeva, but he has lost everything that was dear to him including is fame, his sponsorships, relationships. His life will never be the same as a result of this.

 

[jay-jay]

Respectfully, and correct me if I'm wrong with what you're presenting, but to compare a person who is diagnosed with a terminal illness to one that has chosen to take another's life is beyond bizarre, especially in terms of one being 'humbled'.

Moreover, I couldn't give two monkeys if OP becomes introspective/retrospective or not, as long as that happens while being incarcerated for an incredibly long time.

Absolutely, and this business of him 'paying the price' simply because he has lost his celebrity status and his sponsorships is just nonsense .. 'one' can still lead a very happy life without all of those things so it hardly constitutes punishment for murdering another person, does it. As said previously, the law currently states that murder with intent carrries a lengthy custodial sentance and that applies to all who murder .. OP should not be exempt from that, or treated any differently to anyone else who murders.

 

[Cherwell]

I believe he'll definitely be found guilty of at least two of the firearms charges, however I'm not entirely certain how Masipa will judge the quality of Sam and Darren's testimony relating to the sunroof incident. Irrespective of that, I think you'll find these sentences will run concurrently with that of the main sentence. That's the usual practice in South Africa unless it was, say, a rape and murder, in which event it would probably be consecutive. I believe he'll be out on bail even if he's convicted of all 4 counts.

Whether or not the sentences run concurrently, I fail to see why he should be granted bail if convicted of a crime for which he wasn't given leave to appeal.

Hypothetical, as I sadly believe that strings will continue to be pulled for Pistorius whatever Judge Masipa decides.

 

[eimajjjj]

BIB, Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was trying to convey. I don't believe that OP should get away with murder. If the court does find him guilty of murder, then certainly he deserves to go to justice.

All I meant to say that was that we've seen time and time again where an accused murder walks free because of their celebrity status or a technicality. When this occurs, life tends to find a way to dole out justice and while he may not be in jail, he face justice from civil society.

In terms of him losing everything, yes he hasn't lost his life like Reeva, but he has lost everything that was dear to him including is fame, his sponsorships, relationships. His life will never be the same as a result of this.

And what? To me, this paragraph seems to imply some sort of comparable justice, atonement or at worst, sympathy. If so, incredibly offensive IMO.

 

[Greater Than]

BIB, I think as a celebrity, whether he is found innocent or guilty, he will pay because he has lost everything he has ever worked for in terms of his athletics, his post-retirement plans, the respect of friends and family. It's all gone. No matter where he goes, people will always whisper behind his back about how he was once accused of murder and "got a way with it". It will never leave him in this life, it will haunt him until the day he dies.

As for the afterlife, I leave that up to OPs relationship with God, but I do believe everyone, no matter who, is entitled to forgiveness after atonement. While none of us have probably ever killed anyone, I'm sure we've all done some things we're not very proud of. Jesus did say, let he who is without sin, cast the first stone....

BIB - I do not want to get into a religious debate, but OP broke at least 3 of the 10 commandments with this case alone (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, and honor thy father and thy mother).

The conditions for God's forgiveness include repentance and forgiveness of others. True repentance involves sorrow for acts of sin. OP won't take responsibility for ANY wrongdoing, let alone taking Reeva's life, so I don't think it's a stretch to say he posses no true sorrow for doing so. Forgiveness of others means pardoning them, and ceasing any feelings of resentment and holding no grudges. OP blames everyone - his mother, his father, Reeva, Roux, Sam Taylor, Daren Fresco, the workers who left ladders out, the police - he is angry with them all, and he resents every last one of them.

Some here seem to believe he suddenly became "religious" to shed a more positive light on himself, but I'm not one of them. He comes from a religious family and if one looks through old tweets of his, it is clear his religious quotes are nothing new.

That said, being religious does not necessarily mean one has a moral compass. I love the saying, "Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does."

At any rate, the only hell I see OP trying to avoid is a prison sentence.

MOO

 

[Cherwell]

And what? To me, this paragraph seems to imply some sort of comparable justice, atonement or at worst, sympathy. If so, incredibly offensive IMO.

I don't read it that way and certainly don't find it offensive. My understanding is that vansleuths is speculating on how Pistorius himself views it - seeing it from inside his head, as it were.

Let me try and put it another way. If he does get away with it (to any degree), he will have lost far more than the average person would, because he had more to lose. That won't be adequate punishment, of course, but his life as he knew it is over whatever happens.

 

[vansleuths]

I don't read it that way and certainly don't find it offensive. My understanding is that vansleuths is speculating on how Pistorius himself views it - seeing it from inside his head, as it were.

Let me try and put it another way. If he does get away with it (to any degree), he will have lost far more than the average person would, because he had more to lose. That won't be adequate punishment, of course, but his life as he knew it is over whatever happens.

Thank you, this was the point I was trying to get across.

With a murder case, everyone loses. The biggest loss was Reeva's life and nothing compares to that and there is no comparable justice unless you believe in the death penalty, both more broadly, the Steenkamp and extended Pistorius family are affected as well.

 

[eimajjjj]

I don't read it that way and certainly don't find it offensive. My understanding is that vansleuths is speculating on how Pistorius himself views it - seeing it from inside his head, as it were.

Let me try and put it another way. If he does get away with it (to any degree), he will have lost far more than the average person would, because he had more to lose. That won't be adequate punishment, of course, but his life as he knew it is over whatever happens.

Well it's offensive to me and your point is based on the premise that being a celebrity, with fame and fortune gives you 'more' in life than the average person. Plus, I don't see any sincere remorse in OP. Anyway, each their own.