Post sentencing discussion

[delilah]

I doubt very much she would have got that precise information, bang... bang bang bang - from anywhere. It fitted in completely with Mangena's testimony, which is why I couldn't understand why Masipa stated all the shots were fired in quick succession. Did she even explain why she totally discarded Mangena's testimony?

I suppose it could be argued that bang...bang bang bang can be described as quick succession, especially if you don't attach any significance whatsoever to the pause.

The reason Masipa was able to dismiss the significance of the pause was that by that stage she had been convinced 100% that it was shots screams bat. She used that to argue that RS could not possibly have screamed as the ear witnesses described because she would have been dead almost immediately after the final shot, so the screams had to have come from OP:

"The shots were fired in quick succession. In my view, this means that the deceased would have been unable to shout or scream, at least not in the manner described by those witnesses who were adamant that they had heard a woman scream repeatedly. The only other person who could have screamed is the accused. "

Shots screams bat is the foundation on which her verdict is predicated. It allowed her to dismiss every bit of prosecution evidence, because none of it makes any sense if the shots came first.

So why was she so convinced of shots screams bat? OP's blubbering testimony and Roux's cherry picked timeline.


Sorry I am just repeating what we all know, but it makes me angrier every time I got through it.

 

[cottonweaver]

9 minute interview with Marc Batchelor on the sentence.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Multimedia/Other-Sport/Batch-weighs-in-on-Oscars-sentencing-20141022

That was pretty interesting, thanks Judi. Never heard him talk so fast - obviously he really needed to get out everything he had to say in his allotted TV slot. Can see why he would not be great on the stand for Nel though because he doesn't hold back.

Recommended- rather listen to this guy's point of view than some of the lazy cliched TV journalism we have seen of late.

 

[soozieqtips]

Well, it's a strange analogy foxbluff since Jonas Salk didn't kill his wife. And I'm sure if he had that would be as associated with him as his good deeds and work. I also noted soozieqtips very apt comment on Jimmy Saville. My opinion is that allowing Pistorius to retain an honorary degree tarnishes it for other recipients, and I too am sceptical about how much of his charity work was altruistic and how much was just good PR. It was certainly recounted in great detail, honorary doctorate included, to try and get him a softer sentence just last week.

At the time Pistorius was awarded the degree, 'Prof Sir Jim McDonald, principal of the university, said: "His sporting success, combined with his determination to help people affected by disability, has made him an excellent role model, not only for our graduating students here at Strathclyde but for millions of people across the globe"*. Does that still ring true to you? It doesn't to me.

* http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20296201

BIB - As Nel correctly pointed out, many many "celebrities" do charity work. OP was "recognised for his outstanding sporting success", not for coming up with a cure for anything. Yes, he may well have inspired other disabled people to have hope and to take chances, but his background was wealthy and privileged. If it hadn't been, maybe he would never have become the "Blade Runner" at all.

Although he may have done good things for the disabled community, it doesn't erase the life sentence he's inflicted on an innocent family. He's been disgraced, and should stay disgraced until such times that he acknowledges how his actions have wiped out Reeva's parents forever, instead of always being focused on his own feelings and how he's a bloody victim!

Oh, me me me. Reeva's dead but what about me and the millions I can't make??

Okay, I know this is the Daily Fail, but the study is still valid.

When celebrities lend their names to a good cause, it rarely fails to attract some welcome publicity.

The trouble is, the main beneficiaries are usually the stars themselves, according to a study by British academics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nks-good-causes-make-celebrities-popular.html

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

I suppose it could be argued that bang...bang bang bang can be described as quick succession, especially if you don't attach any significance whatsoever to the pause.

The reason Masipa was able to dismiss the significance of the pause was that by that stage she had been convinced 100% that it was shots screams bat. She used that to argue that RS could not possibly have screamed as the ear witnesses described because she would have been dead almost immediately after the final shot, so the screams had to have come from OP:

"The shots were fired in quick succession. In my view, this means that the deceased would have been unable to shout or scream, at least not in the manner described by those witnesses who were adamant that they had heard a woman scream repeatedly. The only other person who could have screamed is the accused. "

Shots screams bat is the foundation on which her verdict is predicated. It allowed her to dismiss every bit of prosecution evidence, because none of it makes any sense if the shots came first.

So why was she so convinced of shots screams bat? OP's blubbering testimony and Roux's cherry picked timeline.


Sorry I am just repeating what we all know, but it makes me angrier every time I got through it.

Yet, Masipa forgot this completely when she ruled that OP was remorseful because he tried to resuscitate Reeva (even though she was long dead) by putting his finger in her mouth!

 

[Cherwell]

That was pretty interesting, thanks Judi. Never heard him talk so fast - obviously he really needed to get out everything he had to say in his allotted TV slot. Can see why he would not be great on the stand for Nel though because he doesn't hold back.

Recommended- rather listen to this guy's point of view than some of the lazy cliched TV journalism we have seen of late.

I wanted to listen to this, but I just couldn't understand him. I could have coped with the accent if he'd spoken more slowly, but he gabbled so fast. It would be great if someone was able to transcribe the interview.

 

[emirates1957]

I speak from personal experience as an abuse survivor, so consider myself to be somewhat of an ‘expert’. I know the dynamics inside out.

That a victim would even feel the need or have to ask such a question above illustrates the insidious power, the destructive stranglehold that VAW has on victims’ psyches.

Must I?
Should I?
Can I?
Would it be OK if?

Constant, debilitating fear.
Insecurity on every possible level.
Zero self-esteem.

Forever asking PERMISSION of not only the abuser, but anyone higher, anyone more powerful, anyone more worthy, more knowledgeable - which is essentially everyone else.

It is psychological bondage - a spirit crushed into absolute subjection, a broken will compelled to obey ... or incur wrath and punishment.

An abuser does not necessarily use physical violence to control. Angry, explosive rages* alone are entirely sufficient to terrorize, as is a subtle word, a threatening glance, a soft touch ... even ominous, ice-cold silence can easily command instant compliance.

When one is in survival mode, one learns very quickly.

Reeva:
“I'm scared of u sometimes and how u snap at me and of how u will react to me. ... I do everything to make u happy and to not say anything to rock the boat with u. You do everything to throw tantrums in front of people. ... I can't be attacked by outsiders for dating you and be attacked by you -- the one person I deserve protection from.”

That Masipa - an ex-social worker supposedly squarely in the corner of abused, victimized women - was so willfully, inexplicably blind, so grossly dismissive of Reeva’s clear words as nothing but indicative of a “fickle”, “normal” relationship is beyond comprehension.

Fear is not normal.
Walking on egg shells is not normal.
Jealousy is not normal.
Double standards are not normal.
Public humiliation is not normal.
Tantrums are not normal.

Less than a week after her last angry, unhappy WhatsApp, she was DEAD.

2 + 2 is not rocket science.

Not only was Masipa grossly biased she was grossly incompetent in the extreme.

The autopsy stated there were no physical signs of abuse. IMHO, considering multiple unexplained marks on her body, that’s highly debatable. Regardless, whether previous physical violence occurred or not, Reeva was clearly a victim of verbal and mental abuse - which led to murder.

It’s absurd that an abuse victim should feel “grateful” when justice is done, however great or insufficient that justice might be. Justice is a human RIGHT. It’s not an arbitrary gift, some privilege handed out to the special, worthy few (at least in theory ).

It is OP who should feel grateful he was not convicted of murder and sent down for 25 years to life.

(Although OP’s gratefulness might be short-lived if Nel appeals and he’s upgraded to murder.)



* Up to and including property damage and animal abuse.

Hi there Lux,

First thank you for your insightful comments. Whilst I am no expert in these matters, I agree with your thoughts regarding unexplained trauma to Reevas body. I am currently reading Behind the Door page 123.....quote a study of Reevas entire body revealed a number of other small bruises and scratches, a reddish discolouration of Reevas right nipple, a bruise on the upper part of her thigh, bruises on her shin and a small scratch on her right thumb unquote. As a model one would assume you would try and eliminate any bruising etc from being sustained to your body. reading this particular chapter regarding the damage done by these bullets is simply staggering, I was shaking my head in disbelief upon every word.

I am at a loss for words, regarding OP not knowing the damage this sort of ammunition could inflict. And for the judge to give such a stupid sentence as noted by half of the population leaves me gobsmacked.

 

[lithgow1]

BIB - As Nel correctly pointed out, many many "celebrities" do charity work. OP was "recognised for his outstanding sporting success", not for coming up with a cure for anything. Yes, he may well have inspired other disabled people to have hope and to take chances, but his background was wealthy and privileged. If it hadn't been, maybe he would never have become the "Blade Runner" at all.

Although he may have done good things for the disabled community, it doesn't erase the life sentence he's inflicted on an innocent family. He's been disgraced, and should stay disgraced until such times that he acknowledges how his actions have wiped out Reeva's parents forever, instead of always being focused on his own feelings and how he's a bloody victim!

Oh, me me me. Reeva's dead but what about me and the millions I can't make??

Okay, I know this is the Daily Fail, but the study is still valid.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nks-good-causes-make-celebrities-popular.html

All good points soozieqtips and as you say, he was largely recognised for his success. And yes, he inspired millions and now I imagine there are millions who are very disillusioned. It's only fiction I know but Dalgleish, PD James's detective, has commented when investigating a case that people's private lives are no longer their own and all their secrets are laid bare when it comes to a murder investigation. That happened here IMO, with all the stories and rumours about the 'golden hero' that no-one wanted to acknowledge seeing the light of day after the shooting. The below quote is from the same article I quoted above. Maybe he still is a hero to Adam but somehow I think that lad will be one of the miilions who are very confused and upset about what his hero did and the man he has been revealed to be.

'Oscar Pistorius, 25, was recognised for his outstanding sporting success at the ceremony in Glasgow.

The South African sprinter also visited the university's National Centre for Prosthetics and Orthotics.

He met swimmer Adam Donnachie, born with both his legs missing. The 11-year-old said Pistorius was his "hero". Adam, from Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, said: "It was the time of my life getting to meet him, a dream come true. He's my hero because he just never gives up. Meeting him was the best thing that's ever happened to me. I swim with Scotland just now, we train four times a week, and I'd like to follow in Oscar's footsteps by going to the Paralympics. It's one of my goals to make it to Rio in 2016." Pistorius' parting words to Adam, who trains four times a week with the Scottish junior disability swim team, were: "I'll see you in Rio."

 

[Estelle]

Elizabeth McGill ‏@elizabethmcgil1 Oct 21

@carlpistorius @RobynCurnowCNN @OscarPistorius
Nelson Mandela found God in prison! Oscar must look at this as a time to meditate and learn!x

 

[Estelle]

Oscar Pistorius gets different treatment to other disabled prisoners at the same South African jail

Ms Leslie does not believe the profile of the Pistorius case, the first to be televised, will change much for the average South African seeking access to justice.

Prisoners have suggested that Pistorius, because of his fame and profile, will be well-looked after in jail. By and large disabled prisoners are not targeted by able-bodied prisoners.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wor...100048873?nk=fa703682209e0b76c7e97d7b6e8ad531

 

[JudgeJudi]

Sorry, I am unable to quote from the previous thread that is closed, but someone asked about Roux being English and Nel and Oldwage being Afrikaans as their first language. It is actually the following: Roux and Nel are Afrikaans, and Oldwage is English. Their surnames are indications, but I've also heard them whisper in Afrikaans during the trial. I can also tell from their respective accents.

Hope this helps!

Even though Roux sounds different to Nel, his accent still sounds Afrikaans to me too. I've always thought from the very beginning that Roux appears to have come from a wealthy family himself. I can well believe he went to an exclusive school where he would have been exposed to English from an early age. His presence in court is more dignified and his writing skills, as in his HoA, are superior. Oral and written skills are given more importance in private schools. Their aim is to turn out well-educated "gentlemen".

I think Nel on the other hand comes from a more middle class family but through sheer intelligence and hard work has achieved his current status. His accent is far more pronounced, he's stumbled over some words that I wouldn't have expected, and from time to time when reading a report has still had difficulties. His HoA was nowhere near as professional as Roux's ... and I'm not talking about the legal content here. Even the way he used to put one foot up on a chair is something I could never imagine Roux doing.

Roux often displayed a patronising manner. Nel preferred sarcasm or very direct speech as in "You are lying". If their positions were reversed, Roux would have spoken quite differently IMO. Obviously I'm generalising here but if you took a cross-cut of counsel from all age groups, you can nearly always see the difference in their family backgrounds and upbringing.

I've known judges from both types of background and some of the nicest have come from the "upper class", but equally some of them can be the biggest ba****ds you could ever wish to meet.

Those from elite backgrounds tend to use their wealth to assist others. People like Nel give of themselves, as in teaching little boys how to wrestle in the evenings. Could you seriously see Roux doing that? I don't think so.

Sorry, I've gone a bit off-topic here. Just have to say ... I luv Nel and despise Roux.

 

[patCee]

Thinking back to Colonel Vermeulen's testimony i still find it difficult to see what the prosecution were trying to achieve, they put him up there to declare that in his opinion Pistorius was on his stumps when he used the bat but then failed to spell out whether it was possible that The bat was used on the door before the gunshot's, which seeing as they agreed he was on his prosthesis when he fired the shot's probably came across confusing.

Vermeulen testified that the bat was after the shots. He went on to say that at least the bat strike that created the larger split in the door came after, explaining the split had gone through the bullet hole and why it had to have been after the shot. Whether any bat strikes were made before the shots was left uncertain. Presumably because there were no marks to indicate this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc from 52.00


I leaned towards the idea of bat first, after listening to the witnesses who heard the shots and how that fitted with the timeline. I think Mr Fossil's hard work may now be disproving that one.

ETA Sorry James, missed the point you were making. Yes I agree, why would he have taken off his prosthesis after the shots, and then to hit the door with the bat? More work for Mr Fossil I think.

 

[lithgow1]

Interesting points above Judgejudi and I can see those backgrounds being likely. Not having much real life experience of lawyers and barristers my example of a 'good' upper class lawyer would be from reel life - the QC in the Aussie film The Castle, which I imagine you may be familiar with. Idealised yes but I'm sure people like him exist.

With this case I didn't despise Roux, though I found him very smarmy. I saved all my dislike for Oldwage. To me he was almost like a caricature of a pompous and snide legal man. Roux at least seemed to have a bit of a spark about him, and a sense of humour, something I saw no signs of in his learned colleague.

 

[Estelle]

73% of British people think that Oscar Pistorius’s sentence was too lenient – but they are divided as to whether culpable homicide was the right conviction

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/23/oscar-pistorius-sentence-too-lenient/

 

[soozieqtips]

Pistorius is undergoing a 36-hour assessment by prison staff to determine if he is a suicide risk



You'd think The Mail would have double-checked this photo before adding the caption!

Is he being monitored by a masked man on the roof? Or is that an intruder?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...d-five-year-term-killing-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

 

[Errrr]

May I just vent about the things in this trial that seem suspicious to me?
From the start we were warned OP had been over charged and could get off the charge of premeditated murder. Then there were things like phone records that should have shown times called. Why look at the phones themselves? Is SA different? OPs phone records should have shown all the people he called. If it is so difficult to nail down times why would they toss multiple testimony about fighting and screaming so as to make dubious phone records match an uncertified scenario?
Why were obvious signs of an altercation overlooked? A bullet hole in the bedroom door, clothes ripped off, bedclothes tossed around bullet dent in the side of tub, blood all over end of bat, jeans lying outside the murder cubicle (was she trying to flag for help?). How loud is an air gun or a door slam? I would think louder than a few cricket bat pries on a panel door. Why was forensic evidence of them being awake a short time earlier tossed because OP said they were fast asleep. That bruise on her back...I never knew the dead could bruise. Since when do corpses hold their pee? Why didn't prosecution ask for maximum of 15 yrs as Nels said the crime was on the outer limits of culpable homicide?
Maybe it is the way the SA justice system works but all the grandstanding looked like they were putting on a show to make it look like they were being hard on OP. OP looked like he had to pretend he was suffering.
Has anyone told him he can stop acting now? I have never before heard the word of the accused accepted as fact so that any evidence must be twisted to fit or else ignored if it won't.
As for his"career", I hope Canada has no plans to let a felon in here.:tantrum:

 

[Estelle]

Even though Roux sounds different to Nel, his accent still sounds Afrikaans to me too. I've always thought from the very beginning that Roux appears to have come from a wealthy family himself. I can well believe he went to an exclusive school where he would have been exposed to English from an early age. His presence in court is more dignified and his writing skills, as in his HoA, are superior. Oral and written skills are given more importance in private schools. Their aim is to turn out well-educated "gentlemen".

I think Nel on the other hand comes from a more middle class family but through sheer intelligence and hard work has achieved his current status. His accent is far more pronounced, he's stumbled over some words that I wouldn't have expected, and from time to time when reading a report has still had difficulties. His HoA was nowhere near as professional as Roux's ... and I'm not talking about the legal content here. Even the way he used to put one foot up on a chair is something I could never imagine Roux doing.

Roux often displayed a patronising manner. Nel preferred sarcasm or very direct speech as in "You are lying". If their positions were reversed, Roux would have spoken quite differently IMO. Obviously I'm generalising here but if you took a cross-cut of counsel from all age groups, you can nearly always see the difference in their family backgrounds and upbringing.

I've known judges from both types of background and some of the nicest have come from the "upper class", but equally some of them can be the biggest ba****ds you could ever wish to meet.

Those from elite backgrounds tend to use their wealth to assist others. People like Nel give of themselves, as in teaching little boys how to wrestle in the evenings. Could you seriously see Roux doing that? I don't think so.

Sorry, I've gone a bit off-topic here. Just have to say ... I luv Nel and despise Roux.

I agree with what you say here. I used to train students in communication which included public speaking and presentation skills. Sometimes, I felt as if Nel could benefit from getting some feedback as to how to improve his delivery. His body postures were not always appropriate, he often spoke too softly and had to be asked to repeat himself. His use of the microphone could be improved, he could have used more visuals as in the Casey Anthony case and he often did not conclude or make a summary statement. He just went on and I often felt left up in the air as to what the conclusion was. I think he should use a microphone such as those used by TV reporters. Was Roux using one of those? The volume of Roux's voice was much better. Because Masipa seemed hard of hearing, this was important and no one on his team gave Nel feedback? I felt like flying over there to give Nel some free training. Don't get me wrong. I love Nel and was behind him all the time but IMO he has to improve his articulation. I sent my son to a private school and he was coached in public speaking as he used to be shy. Now he gives talks all over the world and lives in New York. I guess as his mother, I also helped him. But it would not take much to improve Nel's presentation 100% by just giving him some feedback and a microphone to wear.

 

[Sherbert]

Here's a sketch of what I'm thinking. It's not finished but I'd like to invite discussion sooner rather than later. If I've missed something vital that completely undermines it, I'd rather know now and divert my efforts! Equally, it still needs some refining so I'm hoping a bit of 'crowd sleuthing' will speed this up!

Witness testimony analysis 2

Some key points and assumptions it makes:

1. The earlier sounds that the Stipps hear are Reeva slamming the toilet door three times as she struggles with OP to close and lock it (see below)
2. The Stipps see the bathroom light is on at this point. This is damning to OP's version.
3. The Johnson call time is wrong. Burger's phone is fast (see below). The police could prove this but perhaps didn't recognise the need to
4. Burger and Johnson hear OP mimic Reeva's cries for help (mocking, sounded embarrassed). They don't hear his later shout for help because they have come inside and are talking
5. The trigger for OP firing the gun is the loud click made by an iPhone 4 when you enter your Passcode (thanks to Nick van der Leek and Lisa Salinger for this) because she is going to call the police
6. OP uses the bat after the gun, as he says
7. Nobody hears the cricket bat striking the door (the Stipps have also come inside to await Security and are talking)
8. Dr Stipp sees OP moving in the bathroom at a time OP says he is

I'm out this evening so may not have time to discuss anything until either later (UK time) or tomorrow.

The phone usage argument remains unchanged, although the precise logistics for the argument that EvdM hears on and off for an hour may change. The argument fits better if it is on the front side of OP's house (e.g. nearest EvdM) for her, and only her, to hear it. The fact that the security guards miss it is irrelevant as it's intermittent. She only hears Reeva because OP is keeping his voice down but Reeva isn't. She's confronting him. I'm wondering if the open door may relate to this period ... but would OP be downstairs on his stumps? The barging of the bedroom door follows when Reeva runs upstairs (with his phone?) and locks the bedroom door before running to the bathroom after he pushes it open.

A couple of other points:

Toilet door slamming

I think OP was convincing when he argued that Reeva wouldn't have answered him when she was in the toilet because she was scared. He points Nel to a previous episode in her life. In his version, she wouldn't know what was happening outside the toilet and wouldn't have risked giving herself away. I think that is totally plausible (even though Nel doesn't). But what is not therefore plausible in this version is Reeva slamming the door after he has been screaming and shouting: she would have closed it quietly. It was this that put me on to thinking about door slams being what the Stipps heard. Does OP use real events: the door slamming, pulling on the handle, barging the door, but in a different context?

Johnson call time

Johnson provided the time in his statement from the phone itself and subsequently voiced his concerns to Roux about its accuracy by asking where the reference to times was taken from.

Roux: We have the time
Johnson: M’lady, can I ask the reference to the times, were they taken from my statement or were they taken from a central time server which I would assume the cell phone provider would have available?
Roux: Mr Johnson, I’m curious about it, because you explain to us, and we know your cell phone data, we know that’s the central data, we know you put it in your statement. You know you would not lie to the policeman and say it was 3:16 and the duration 58 seconds. You said to us that you checked it. That’s why I’m saying to you, and we received ... let me help you, we received from the police the time calls were made by the accused. The exact time calls.
Johnson: Thank you

The exact times calls were made by the accused?! How does this help? Johnson has been duped by Roux into believing the time of his call has been verified but it was never corroborated against any other objective evidence (Strubenkop call log or the cell phone provider's records).

Mr Fossil, thank you for posting your revised theory.

I'm not too sure about the door slamming loudly three times - if Reeva were struggling to shut it, I don't see how the momentum of the door would be great enough to produce such a loud sound - at least, not three times in quick succession.

Before the trial started, I was convinced that OP was enraged because Reeva had his phone and was checking it inside the toilet. I thought that, perhaps, she had waited for him to fall asleep, so that she could creep out of the bedroom with it, under cover of darkness, and check it. However, we now know that it would have been passcode protected, so it would not have been possible for her to check it unless she was familiar with his passcode. I am wondering if she knew the code, or thought she might know it, because he used the same code for other devices that she had accessed with his permission.

In any case, if the iPad and iPhone were synced, would it not have been possible for Reeva to read his iPhone texts on the iPad? Just imagine if she were sleeping in the spare room and able to read his texts off the iPad as they came in?

 

[Estelle]

Vermeulen testified that the bat was after the shots. He went on to say that at least the bat strike that created the larger split in the door came after, explaining the split had gone through the bullet hole and why it had to have been after the shot. Whether any bat strikes were made before the shots was left uncertain. Presumably because there were no marks to indicate this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc from 52.00


I leaned towards the idea of bat first, after listening to the witnesses who heard the shots and how that fitted with the timeline. I think Mr Fossil's hard work may now be disproving that one.

ETA Sorry James, missed the point you were making. Yes I agree, why would he have taken off his prosthesis after the shots, and then to hit the door with the bat? More work for Mr Fossil I think.

I've often wondered whether the Prosecutor gets to meet and interview each witness before they have to testify. Or are they just given the statements and have to go off that?

Also I do not think it fair that the Defence gives their reports/statements at the last minute as they did. How can the Prosecutor prepare properly? Most often Nel then had to read whatever he was given and even ask for time to do that. I have not seen that done in other countries.

IMO there should be a rule that Prosecutors are given reports/statements so many days in advance.

 

[Estelle]

Interesting points above Judgejudi and I can see those backgrounds being likely. Not having much real life experience of lawyers and barristers my example of a 'good' upper class lawyer would be from reel life - the QC in the Aussie film The Castle, which I imagine you may be familiar with. Idealised yes but I'm sure people like him exist.

With this case I didn't despise Roux, though I found him very smarmy. I saved all my dislike for Oldwage. To me he was almost like a caricature of a pompous and snide legal man. Roux at least seemed to have a bit of a spark about him, and a sense of humour, something I saw no signs of in his learned colleague.

I liked Juan Martinez in the Jodi Arias trial. He was wonderful.

 

[Estelle]

Pistorius is undergoing a 36-hour assessment by prison staff to determine if he is a suicide risk

View attachment 62126

You'd think The Mail would have double-checked this photo before adding the caption!

Is he being monitored by a masked man on the roof? Or is that an intruder?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...d-five-year-term-killing-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

LOL perhaps it is the only photo they could find.