Juror13

True crime and trial opinions from a layman's perspective

An Open Letter to Arnold Pistorius and Family

Pistorius family

On October 21st, after Judge Masipa let the world know that 5 years would be a sufficient punishment for the loss of Reeva’s life, Uncle Arnold let the world know that on behalf of his family, he would “address us for the last time”.

How do we feel about their statement?…

Judgejudi, a great friend in justice on the Websleuths forum, has heard his message and felt compelled to share her own…

OPEN LETTER TO ARNOLD PISTORIUS AND FAMILY

We the people of South Africa and people of the world did not accept the court’s judgement. The State is now appealing Oscar’s conviction and sentence. Accept this as fact. We embrace this opportunity for justice to not only be done but seen to be done. Accept that the court of appeal will not be influenced by the crying, vomiting and general histrionics demonstrated by Oscar in the court a quo.

You complained that the trial was being televised. This decision was made by a judge who said, “Court proceedings are in fact public and this objective must be recognized”. The defence legal team fiercely opposed it, saying it would infringe on Oscar’s right and distort proceedings, yet they failed to appeal the judge’s ruling. You and your family reveled in the media attention when he was a famous athlete. He courted the media in order to gain hugely lucrative sponsorships. Celebrities use every opportunity to use the media for financial gains, but that comes at a price and that price is privacy. Once he fell from grace, you emphatically denied every article relating to his misdeeds. Unfortunately, you can’t run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.

You asked the media and public to accept Judge Masipa’s judgement. Perhaps you will be gracious enough to accept another court’s findings.
This has been an incredibly hard and painful process for everyone, the Steenkamp family, your family, the people of South Africa and the general public worldwide. It is now time for Oscar to embrace this opportunity to pay back to society.

We are all emotionally drained. The case that was originally set down for 3 weeks has dragged out for 7 months due to the mendacity, deceitfulness and snowball of lies told by Oscar coupled with virtually all the defence witnesses who were either biased, grossly incompetent or in fact not experts at all.

You criticised the State for trying to find Oscar guilty of premeditated murder and the collateral damage caused by that persistence. The State was endeavouring to find the truth and prove that he was guilty of murder. The “collateral damage” as you call it, was due to his persistence in lying and changing his version several times.

One of the most distressful parts for Reeva’s family and the public throughout this whole trial was the refusal by Oscar and the defence to be truthful, honest and transparent with the court.

We too hope that Oscar will start his own healing process. Now he’s unable to yield to temptation and recklessness, perhaps as a family you can support and guide him as he serves his sentence.

You live in the Rainbow Nation, and somewhere over the rainbow dreams really can come true. If this is so, justice will prevail not only for Reeva but for all the women of South Africa.

women-holding-hands-sunrise-silhouette

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forum.php

63 comments on “An Open Letter to Arnold Pistorius and Family

  1. Lulu
    October 30, 2014

    Wow, just WOW!!

    Thank you, JudgeJudi for this amazing letter on behalf of us all.
    And thank you, Lisa, for publishing it here.

    Beautiful, moving photo at the bottom.

  2. crackzn
    October 30, 2014

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sdnafk

    One would think those calling for an appeal and a review and change in legislation that Oscar Pistorius was given a very lenient sentence and that the circumstances surrounding the shooting were so exceptional and unusual that it warranted a much tougher sentence. One of the cases mentioned in Court refers to a policeman who shot 8 times at 2 unidentified men who happened to be plain clothes police.

    He like Oscar believed his life was in danger. He was not given a custodial sentence although his training would have prepared him for these eventualities, 8 shots is far more excessive than 4 and he was trained to kill, therefore why was the matter of Dolus Eventualis not considered in this case and why aren’t the likes of a certain university professors utilising their time, energy and unbiased expertise wanting an appeal in this case.

    Perhaps the university has a strict code on how university time is spent or if he works part time that all his off duty hours is taken up with wanting Oscar’s case appealed because after all Oscar also thought his life was in danger but because it was woman who was killed and not two police man, perhaps society thinks their lives are more expendable. It is also interesting to note that part of his sentence was 3 years suspended the same sentence as Oscar got for the accidental discharge of a fire arm in a restaurant.

    I also respect unequivocally that it is wrong to shoot people without identifying who they are and much talk has been made of the fact that Reeva had not responded to Oscar, but in the case of the father who shot his daughter mistaking her for an intruder, I would also ask the same question, I however recognise that fear is a very powerful instinct, it is this instinct that has helped humanity evolve and not get wiped out by the many predictors that plagued ancient man, but it also results in our taking actions that in other circumstances we would not. In the cases I mentioned fear was the primary reason people took the actions they did resulting in the loss of life.

    What seems to be forgotten is the reason people are fearful, if home invasions were such a rare occurrence then it would entirely questionable as to why anyone would assume a noise in the night was that of an intruder. However in the last few days yet another two people were killed by intruders. It would seem that the other message given to society is that occupants are far less likely to respond with force for fear of the consequences and will this see a higher number of fatalities by intruders. That is not to suggest that people should take the law into their own hands but rather what the government is doing to address this.

    It was also suggested or questioned as to whether Oscar got a fair trial. The world media descended on the Court, the words of the Judge criticising the media seem to have the opposite effect and all that was missing was for much of the media to don a grey wig with a badge announcing Judge in waiting. It was particularly interesting to note that it was decided the Dewani trial would not be televised because it was felt it would not be in the interest of Justice. So again another example of how Oscar was viewed differently, but again if it was not televised it would no doubt have robbed the world of the opportunity to watch the actorial histrionics of a prosecutor who at times seemed to be mistaken that the Oscar he was trying to win was a court case and not a statue.

    How can one case be viewed as being ok to televise and not interfere in justice while another the opposite ruling was made. What the televised trial did however show was just how bias and selective the media reporting could be and one would think that watching the round up of the day was in fact a different trial to that which took place earlier in the court room.

    Similarly it would seem that no regard was given to the emotional impact of having one’s life dissected for all to see. It would seem that if one is famous, one ceases to be a person and becomes public property, possibly a real deterrence to staying in a country if one achieves fame. What seems perplexing however is prior to the sentence it seemed many legal experts felt that given his unblemished track record that a non custodial sentence would be considered. This was the sentence in the police man case mentioned above.

    In the recent Jub Jub appeal his sentence was reduced to 7 or 8 years for CH yet he had killed 4 children and 2 children were left with brain damage. Yet the state were demanding a 10 year sentence for Oscar. Does the therefore state look more favourable in the killing of children while joy racing under the influence of a cocktail of drugs and alcohol, than killing one person in the mistaken belief it was an intruder.

    It seemed strange that the ANCWL did not object to the dropping of charges in the case of the father shooting his daughter, child abuse and child deaths at the hands of their parents is very high. Yet they insist, despite the lack of evidence that Oscars case was one of VAW and therefore should the sentence should reflect the very high incidents of VAW in society.

    Personally I think the case of Annene Boysin would have been a very better case to champion. Oscars case however has as little to do with VAW as the father who shot his daughter has to do with child abuse. As a political organisation, surely they have a duty to respect the evidence presented in Court that setting their own bias agenda.
     
    I think therefore the question that needs to be considered is whether Oscar was given a fair trial and is continued to be treated fairly or is he being scapegoated. How many times do the state want a verdict which is harsher than many convicted of a similar case overturned, how many times have the state attempted to change case law in order to be able to appeal a case. I somehow don’t think this happens often which leads me sadly to conclude that the Shakespeare quote may be apt here …Something is rotten in the State of 

    • Jason
      October 30, 2014

      If that copper was sleeping with the two plain clothes policemen and he woke up and they all said happy valentines day then he turned his back and the next moment he heard noises in the bathroom … and the rest is history …

      But yes there are some relevant points in that argument.

      • Margaret Jakeman
        October 30, 2014

        how can a seemingly intelligent person make comparisons like he has, as they are not at all similar and did not understood the trail facts Oscar avoided questions changed his story on more than one occasion and his actions where not that of a normal human being.
        Only OSCAR KNOWS THE TRUTH THAT IS TRUE. To tell the truth
        you do not have to spend a million rand to get away from the truth you do

      • Jackie Young
        October 31, 2014

        Two scadalously wrong judgements don’t make a right!!!

    • thisismymoniker
      October 30, 2014

      You could argue that the NPA has been slapdash in many of those other cases and bearing in mind the country has a fairly high corruption index it would not be surprising to find a lot of “erratic” decisions in the case law, making it impossible to reliably estimate a “standard” sentence length.

      I have no doubt at all that a list could be compiled of unfair LONG sentences – e.g. the 77 years for the rhino poacher. So which is it to be. No sentence for shooting 2 people, or 77 years?

      It would be nonsensical to be guided solely by example and from different cases without knowing ALL the specifics of those cases, not to mention whether the ruling was actually any GOOD. For example that policeman who shot the 2 plain clothes officers, had one of them drawn a gun or something like that? If not, then they should have charged him simple as that.

      The failure would be the earlier case not this one. This problem exists in every country but the more corruption the worse it gets.

      Maybe a defendant that had admitted more of the facts of his state of mind when firing would not have invited negative press, or this appeal? Even the judge says he lied and admitted she was “conjecturing” – but it’s a direct evidence case so how is that possible? It’s not just a straightforward case of a “mistake” for example one shot with a clear trigger which we could understand. It’s a lot more bizarre than that!

      Clearly, having such a high profile they wouldn’t particularly want to have legal errors enshrined into their case law in this of all cases, right.

      If the appeal has no merits then it would be dismissed by the SCA – simples. But if it has merits then it’s correct application of the law, right, and it doesn’t help to say the law was not applied correctly by completely unrelated members of the NPA in different years and places who let someone else go when they shouldn’t have.

      Remember this is a country with one of the highest homicide rates in the world & it is increasing. Perhaps they need to be getting their high profile legal rulings right as a matter of urgency.

      The jub jub “culpable homicide” appeal decision came AFTER the Oscar Pistorius judgement – it’s quite likely Jub Jub’s case was downgraded as a RESULT of the lenience given to Oscar – since the two cases were being openly compared with people crying “shame!” that Jub Jub’s was treated so seriously.

      One case a time people! It’s only an appeal hearing – takes a few hours – it would be looking at legal definitions and stuff like that – not a big deal. 🙂

      • Margaret Jakeman
        October 31, 2014

        I could argue that to many cases in SOUTH AFRICA are too lenient I am referring to a case where I believe a car overtook another and then collided with an oncoming motorcyclist.The blame was put on the motorcyclist because she was traveling too fast and may HAVE BEEN DRINKING. No mention how fast the car was going, where it was positioned or if the driver was sober or not .It looks in South Africa as is around the World IF YOU HAVE MONEY YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH MURDER!!!

    • thisismymoniker
      October 30, 2014

      @Crackzn. P.S. I think the only aspect is that the NPA doesn’t believe Oscar at all.

      This might cause them to act on perceived legal errors with greater vigour than normal. What they SHOULD be doing, of course, is investigating things better in the first place, and acting on ALL legal errors they find not just in this case but everywhere. They need to stop letting people off for serious gun related “accidents” as well some of these parallel cases are ridiculous. You might as well reclassify “shooting to death” as a form of minor, common assault of some kind – which indeed seems to be the mentality I’m getting from a few people.

      In regard to the media, oscar is a victim of his own success there. Had he not been such a bright star…then the killing would have passed by with much less incident really. It’s a pity we did reach the end of the trial without actually knowing what the events were, because the state’s version was rejected, Oscar’s version was rejected, the judgement made up a new version where he intended to do things he never admitted…so who to believe? Masipa? Oscar? The press? Nel?

      We just don’t know.

      I do agree that for both families sake the matter should be allowed to rest and i hope it doesn’t excite ongoing controversies for sure. I think the appeal will be fairly low key and dry and dusty legal arguments so I don’t see any harm in that, however, general media titillation should probably be given a wide berth! I mean it is getting ridiculous – did you see the tabloids getting excited with the revelation he was Tweeting to Katie Price during this trial – because she wrote an article urging people not to judge him and he was grateful for that? But they managed to make it sound salacious that he was having “chitchat” with her. Seriously pathetic!

      It does get a bit sickening but this isn’t just Oscar, this is the entire media, how it links between the public and celebrities, trying to sensationalize to get more internet clicks or copies sold. Surely there is an element of “devil’s bargain” when you sign big public sponsorship deals and all this kind of stuff, knowing it will make you rich but at the same time you will become “highly accessed” public image commodity/brand. It’s money in exchange for intense focus on ones private life as a matter of course, right?

      And that didn’t change before and after his trial, it just became about a murder inquiry instead of his gold medals. Ironically all the previous public attention is what gave him a big bank balance, big enough to hire the 5 lawyers and all the experts to persuade the court as to the possible truth of his version.

      So the public – and it’s desire to consume media – paid his defense! Which is an interesting though. 🙂

    • thisismymoniker
      October 30, 2014

      @crackzn. Sorry – in the one about NPA and media – it should say “The other…” rather than “The only..”

    • thisismymoniker
      October 30, 2014

      @Crackzn. Just to clarify one point above: It’s possible he would have hired just Roux and an assistant, plus Wolmerans and Lin, called the Nhlengethwas and Standers, and received exactly the same charge and sentence.

      I personally think he overspent considering the simplicity of the facts in the case, as such.

      I also think the NPA called too many unnecessary witnesses, including a couple who were completely mistaken.

      All the relevant data – i mean the MOST relevant material – could have been fitted into a much smaller court record for sure! Both sides’ cases became rather overblown? lol

    • thisismymoniker
      October 30, 2014

      ‘Oscars case however has as little to do with VAW as the father who shot his daughter has to do with child abuse. ‘

      I posted on this before – it’s not only what was in his state of mind but the circumstances as a whole – which may make it accessible for domestic abusers to disguise their actions as a form of “justified violence” in the name of home defense. Reeva really was scared, she really was hiding. Oscar really was advancing, swearing and then shooting to death. How is that any different to what MIGHT have happened to a vulnerable woman, in a similar situation?

      To excuse breaking the law in this case, namely, firing through the locked door four times, it could wind up making domestic violence easier, all in the name of “home defense”. So there are wider problems any time the line between attack and defense is moved too far in favour of the attacker. This remains true no matter what was actually in his mind at the time.

      It could be perceived as the state abandoning it’s own “home defense laws” safeguards which are supposed to ensure there is a strong enough deterrence against domestic violence, in the general case.

      The law needs to work the same for everyone so you cannot possibly satisfy ALL home defense scenarios at the same time as protecting ALL domestic violence victims – there needs to be lines drawn somewhere and I guess shooting INTO a small locked cubicle would be a sensible place to draw one of the lines.

      Surely that is just nothing but an attack?

  3. Tess
    October 30, 2014

    Interesting to see the above reply as it is from a totally biased website/person….that being Dee at http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sdnafk
    if you note, she is “Proud supporter and member of Oscar Pistorius global family ” Kind of obvious from the above skewing of the truth… One theme runs true with most of those in the pro-Oscar camp (including Oscar himself)
    is that it is always someone else’s fault for anything that happens to him. Now they are blaming the NPA (someone high up may have a criminal record), the media, his father, Nel, the whole country, his own mother!, ex-girlfriends, stress, PTSD from killing Reeva, the sun the moon the stars! (you get my drift!_) anyone else BUT the guy who pulled the trigger, FOUR times, with black talon bullets, but hey! It’s not his fault, it’s everyone else. Don’t look here look over there!
    Poor Oscar (and by poor I don’t mean monetarily, don’t believe for a second this Pistorius family isn’t wealthy beyond our imaginations! remember when Pistorius was drinking during that night club altercation about just how wealthy the Pistorius’ family is, that they OWN Zuma? so much so that he can P___ on Zuma?)….in several articles before his verdict, he was seen at the Diamond trade center, just Google Oscar and the Diamonds, is that where he put his money? It’s stated his defense was more than $1m but he had 10x that or more just from his bail statement, where did that go? He was taxed an extra $110,000 in fines when someone from the government heard his bail. That was just a fine, how much money would you have to be hit with a fine that large? I’m not sure if anyone else noted this, but also in his bail he stated his “S. Africa holdings” and we know now he had more holdings outside of the country. Still not sure why that was not required at the time, but it did concern the prosecution.
    And in all “fairness”, so strenuously stated in above note, OP got one of the most FAIR trials ever!! How many times did Masipa stop the trial for OP’s tears and being upset, etc? And that’s just one instance. The complete injustice of the verdict speaks volumes about the concern for “fairness”.
    **During Masipa’s reading of the Sentencing she stated that she and she alone was responsible for the sentencing. To me it raised my suspicions again that the verdict was largely based on Advocate Janette Henzen-du Toit and her holistic approach to criminal defense, (concerning the whole person, his situation, his needs, etc. and coming up with the least judgment possible) It was noticed how different the verdict was from Masipa’s previous rulings, even in tone and terminology. Given that Ms. Henzen-du Toit is working on her thesis concerning Holistic justice, this statement is telling!**
    Something is indeed rotten…..and it’s in a jail cell right now….hopefully for much much longer than the 10 months he’s hoping for!

  4. jaymes
    October 30, 2014

    But Oscars case is rather unique. In all probability, the incident didnt happen as he claims. His story doesnt make sense, we know, Judge M also knows. Why else does a killer lie except to escape punishment?

    Am sure had he taken society into his confidence and whole heartedly expressed remorse and told the whole truth, society would have empathised. What he did here was cheat the law and undermine peoples intelligence. People generally dont take too kindly to that, especially when it involves killing of another human being.

    Should the appeals court NOT find him guilty of the higher charge, then we must let him be. But the doubt in his conviction MUST be cleared. Who knows, the ruling may be in his favour…

    • Margaret Jakeman
      October 31, 2014

      I agree with you entirely, if he told the truth and was consistent with the truth, there would be doubt. Because he was inconsistent with having different versions of the truth and was unable or did not answer questions he was a bad witness; as stated by Judge Masipa . Pistorius stated under oath that he was protecting himself and Reeva; how is it possible to protect someone when you don,t know where they are. A normal person would FIRST ASCERTAIN where the person was who they where protecting, MAKE SURE they are safe CALL the police, he did non of these though he stated he asked Reeva to call the police!!!(why did he not wait for an answer?.He also stated he ran on his stumps towards the bathroom. (my comment; ran over a duvet and pair of jeans that were on the floor in in the pitch dark and never fell over, strange even his defense witnesses stated differently as to his capabilities)

  5. Colette Longworth
    October 30, 2014

    Suck it up Uncle A……..

  6. Milk
    October 30, 2014

    Whole family are sickening ,Pistorious is a lucky lying piece of garbage and Massipa can not be that gullible. Reeva was shot -if Oscar didnt deliberately kill her thinking she was a burgular who murdered Reeva then.

    Yes glad its being appealed . If I am angry and disgusted the Steenkamps must be livid with this farce. Open letter brilliant ! RIP.Reeva

  7. jaymes
    October 30, 2014

    And why does Arnie feel the need to “address” us? Something like the Presidents address to the nation? Do we need to be ‘addressed’ by Pistorius? If so, why, uncle Arnie, why?

    • thisismymoniker
      October 30, 2014

      I think it’s to discourage journalists from camping outside the gates of the family home trying to get statements from those that come and go. It was short and to the point, seems fair to me.

      • thisismymoniker
        October 31, 2014

        @Margaret. I find your message really offensive and unnecessary.
        The spirit on these boards is far more civil, have a browse, you will notice people simply chat they do not give one another orders using capital letters.

      • juror13
        October 31, 2014

        I have removed the post you are referring to. I agree, it was not in the proper spirit of this board.

      • thisismymoniker
        October 31, 2014

        @Margaret. You do understand it was Oscar’s trial not Arnold’s don’t you.

        How exactly did you ascertain my view’s about Oscar’s actions from a simple remark about the appropriateness of his family giving a short statement to the press?

        This would seem to imply that the entire family was on trial, which as i understand it, is not how the legal system works, although perhaps in some of the more primitive systems of society it was common to shun all the next of kin when a person committed an offense, i do believe we moved on from that code of ethics a long time ago.

    • Tonya Keppel Smith
      November 4, 2014

      completely agree..like they are high and mighty..sigh…

  8. Dianne Varon
    October 31, 2014

    people from South Africa said he would be found guilty because they say it’s common knowledge that if you have money you just give it to the Judge. I believe that happened in this case. Crooked Judge just wants the payoff and your free.

  9. miktal
    October 31, 2014

    That`s nonsense, Diane

    If anything, Masipa showed a little inexperience for this level of trial, that is all. She confirmed that when commenting on OP`s show of “remorse” after the shooting; she only interpreted that one way, when two were possible.

  10. thisismymoniker
    November 1, 2014

    Just read South African homicide rate increased by 5% last year – at least having watched the trial we can understand partly why….

    It is no longer a complete mystery as to why South Africa has all this violence, the principle of “I acted before thinking” is acceptable in law and leads to manslaughter even where you used a gun four times, so there’s your answer.

    If it is assumed you can simply “forget” the laws while acting then it will become a more popular pastime to break the laws!

    No finer example of that than was demonstrated in the possession charge ruling. Why bother with the paperwork, it would be up to someone else to go to the trouble of proving you intended to possess the things in your own safe?

    It’s like – don’t worry about being a responsible adult – it’s the state’s job to prove when you break the laws that you actually were thinking. ???? Otherwise, it’s ok to break them. hmmmmm….

    • thisismymoniker
      November 1, 2014

      P.S. Sorry I mean that in an exaggerated sense only, it is clear there are lots of problems with the legal systems in every country, and likewise, there are MANY other causes of violence in South Africa apart from tolerance of “acting before thinking” BUT this case, if it reflects general principles WOULD I am sure make a more lazy approach to adult responsibility as a matter of course, so I hope it doesn’t generalise in that sense. Otherwise, well yes to be frank it definitely must be having an impact on the statistics. “I forgot the law” isn’t usually a defence.

      Like, “Oh, I didn’t realise I couldn’t just have sex with her without asking first.” – clearly if that were to be accepted anywhere in world as a valid defence to rape, it would have an impact on the rates of rape.

      It bothers me there is nothing between “negligence” and “murder” in the homicide scale – why is there no “intentional violence resulting unfortunately in death”?

      Too much “negligence” as the name for things IMO.

      Maybe “acting before thinking” – or the “omission of thought” – as a defence against actual lawlessness is being accepted more often by S.A. courts than in other jurisdictions, it could perhaps have an impact on rates of lawlessness if so IMO – for fairly clear reasons if you would follow the logic! :-).

      I am probably talking rubbish but seriously, here must be reasons why crime is such a problem. It must depend on cycles getting established and then becoming worse. We tend to consider things like gun laws, corruption, and poverty, but is there anything in the legal principles themselves which is not helping?

      Some hang-over from bygone era maybe which allowed “ruling class” to get off when they wanted, but now the ambiguities are more widely exploited, with loopholes that have not yet been eliminated somehow?

  11. miktal
    November 1, 2014

    You`re not talking rubbish as all of your questions NEEDED to be answered, and Masipa failed to address them.

    What was OP`s intention??

    How on earth can you just ignore OP`s weapons training and his gun proficiency test? In order to own a gun you must know the law of when you can and cannot use lethal force and OP passed every question. He therefore cannot hide behind “getting a fright” and “before I knew it I`d fired FOUR shots!”
    Nel hammered home the message of OP not taking responsibility for his actions and proved it countless times. But because of his false remorse, Masipa gave him the benefit of doubt every time.

  12. Jane
    November 2, 2014

    Oscar ‘s trial is so far removed from ‘fair’. Nobody not even the late Nelson Mandela death could overshadow this trial. The reason, anyone and everyone who could spin money off this, did so, much to the detriment of the trial itself, due to outside influences. Oscar himself is no threat to society. He is not a common criminal, yet the State or is it in particular Nel, feels the need to bury him. A life is lost, and I believe Oscar made the horrendous mistake of misjudging the person in the toilet, but anyone as had been proven, could do the same, especially being vulnerable as a disabled person. it is obvious that Oscar is being used as the scapegoat, (much the same Hansie was) since the media and some private persons could gain from this financially and to the public worldwide, it was live court entertainment. Little did anyone really care about the kind and generous hardworking person behind the crime who so happily helped charities and other disabled . Judge Masipa did. She knew that it was a mistake, but Oscar had to pay the price and she knew that the vengeance of the world would not be satisfied had she decided on a fully suspended sentence, so she settled for a compromise. That the remaining evident suffering life is being used and abused and have to beat to the drum of a public with an insatiable appetite for more sensationalism, is sadly even worse than the deed itself. How sad a world we live in. To all the perfect self-appointed judges who was there in that mansion on that fateful night, shame on you.

    There is not a single person on this planet who stand either to gain or lose should Oscar serve his current sentence. One can but only assume that the mob justice mentality is at play. it is not a daily occurrence for someone to be killed by a disabled person, so his case can hardly be used as a ‘case law’ and there are thousands others to be compared to.

    Oscar is more useful to other disabled bodies outside than inside prison. Let him go!

    • juror13
      November 2, 2014

      Discussing and interrogating evidence of a trial is not the same thing as mob justice. It’s freedom of speech.

      The fact remains, Oscar intentionally killed a human being. There is a price to pay when you rob a person of their life.

      • Margaret Jakeman
        December 12, 2014

        –I have tried to argue the testimony of Carice Viljeon many times with the Pistorian supporters to no avail. Here for me lays the true facts of contamination and the concealment of evidence, Carice Sander as she was known at the time of the shooting was a law graduate her actions were inconsistent with that of her profession.She, Carice explains how things were moved or
        removed from the crime scene the movement of people within what should have been an extended crime scene but not put in place by her when she first entered the door.By doing the things she did and with others she perverted the course of Justice. Where did Judge Masipa go wrong, she accepted the window was open, she accepted the lights were off and the toilet light was blown, she accepted the fans were moved the blinds were moved the curtains were drawn.Her comments for why Reeva took her mobile phone to the bathroom is only to justify her decision. In her Judgement pdf Judge Masipa wrote: Clarice a witness, I do not know any witness by that name and must question her credentials.

      • crackzn
        December 12, 2014

        Aah, yes the famous toilet window pops up again.
        Like I said, it is highly unlikely that someone would get up in the dead of night with making a single sound and be so quiet as to not let their partner know they have gotten up out of bed from nothing but a couple of meters, then proceed to fling a window open in the bathroom even though the toilet she allegedly got up to use is seperate from the bathroom with its own window.

        It was found open with a force that made such noise that it was heard in the bedroom, which really is strange as one may expect that on slamming a window shut but on opening it to possibly just let fresh air in? I doubt it.

        Another thing is the jeans outside the TOILET window tells me it was the toilet window that was open that night not the bathroom. The other reason I say this is because the female screams heard were much clearer than the “muffled” male shouting and thats because RS was heard through an open toilet window and OP through a closed bathroom window.

        Why wouldn’t she have opened the toilet window instead of the bathroom.
        Why open a window if your partner had just got to close the bloody doors.

        Its all possible but is it likely or probable?
        I don’t think so.

        Surely OP family look at his lies and the contradictions in the case and wonder, wow , things just don’t add up here the way OP says they do. I mean they are all seemingly successful and definitely educated, no ways they cant see what many of us see?

    • crackzn
      November 2, 2014

      Another pistorian who didnt bother to analyse and digest the evidence, solely relying on the odd newspaper clipping and what was heard around the water cooler or gym changeroom.

      If one REALLY UNDERSTANDS the evidence that was presented in court then im sorry but only a dam fool could accept it was a accident.

      I have lost count of the times i have asked pistorians to provide evidence that it was an accident and to date not 1 has offered any.

      • Tonya Keppel Smith
        November 4, 2014

        Every time I hear two sides of the story it makes me think…doubt the situation. All I do is think back to the days Oscar took the stand…he was clearly lying…..voice… body language..evasive…arrogant…..need I say any more

      • Jason
        November 4, 2014

        Tonya, Judge Masipa said Oscar was lying through his teeth but just because he was lying through his teeth doesn’t mean he is a murderer. Consequently she felt he was clearly telling the truth when he said that while he was firing a salvo of bullets through the door he was imagining that Reeva was still in his bedroom. And clearly because he was imagining Reeva was still in the bedroom it was impossible for OP to imagine that the person behind the door could possibly die as he fired his dum dum exploding bullets into the tiny cubicle.

        It is because of this reasoning a team of psychiatrist want to search for Judge Masipa’s brain during the appeal stage.

    • Peter
      November 2, 2014

      Hi Jane, OP does have a billionaire family to fall back onto when he comes out of prison in 10 months time – so although his public reputation is shot, I think he will be alright, financially. While this has all been going on (before final sentencing) the “mob” where unable to prevent him from finding new girlfriends and spending time in night clubs. So overall I think he will be okay.

    • miktal
      November 3, 2014

      “I believe Oscar made the horrendous mistake of misjudging the person in the toilet,”

      Jane with all due respect, you cant post something like this and expect to be taken seriously. This basically says that OP intention WAS to kill, he just killed the wrong person, which is exactly what everyone against him is saying.

      After all that has happened it is quite unbelievable that some people are still hanging on to this “mistake” excuse!

  13. juanita le roux
    November 2, 2014

    If appeal is granted back to Waterkloof again awaiting outcome 4 as long as it takes. Perhaps celebrating his new found freedom clubbibg again? Dr Dee did nullify this behaviour to normal, remember? T.t.t. without a gun? That should be a challenge. Wonder if he may be allowed to go chill with a babe across the border in Moz again. Mos standard procedure 4 the famous and rich. What the hell. Last ride. Go boy.

  14. thisismymoniker
    November 3, 2014

    Just heading off but final thought on “TV trials”, which might be coming to a country near you, so how does this sound:

    Such trials are perhaps flawed because they daily analysis becomes too “intense” – for everyone??? Obviously the families but perhaps the public as well. If the effect is more exhaustion, for everyone, that can hardly be a good thing.

    In the period after the end of the trial the atmosphere was calmer. Too many were held in suspense as to the verdict – instead of it being something one merely read in the news. It’s not good for people to be in a nervous suspense to that degree.

    If anyone considers to televise a trial again, especially a “celebrity one” perhaps it might be an idea to only stream it through a specific portal and have the judge address users (which can be restricted to a national region) in the same way s/he would the public gallery.

    Perhaps that would ensure that the discussion and general “public chatter” would be less emotive. It would also make it more consistent with streaming in countries which have juries, because if there is to be a retrial, it can become difficult to find unbiased jurors if the original one generated a lot of media.

    Could even need to specially register for the access, so those that are genuinely interested will get involved, automatically filtering out a lot of rubbish debate, and there could be certain rules similar to the gallery. But without actually having to give up your day job to go and see the proceedings.

    The standard of discussion on here is pretty high. This would be a good model for how this kind of discussion forum should look IMO. Definitely not all the YouTube 1-liners during a “live show”. That stuff was garbage.

    It would be fantastic if there was a conduit that did allow public, not just journalists, and those that have the time, to observe the workings of the courts. But i think it should uphold very similar “mood” somehow to the actual court. Very much like Masipa’s “overflow” court NO. 2 – it was a “part” of the court. Logically, that is how it should be and then there will be no issues at all.

    So, that’s my final thoughts on the matter, for those of you in the UK the Lord Chief Justice is conducting a REVIEW into such trials – extending from Appeal courts – to sentencing – and then possibly entire trials. This is meeting with a stiff opposition. Liberalists will always be pushing for more “Free Speech”. The Judiciary are generally opposed because of the law of unintended consequences e.g. defendants playing to the gallery – or barristers for that matter. Where do you stand on this spectrum?

    Would some kind of “official court viewing” service be a good compromise? Would you sign up? Would you like a better quality debate during a trial but still the ability to watch the courts in operation (sometimes)? how much regulation / how much freedom?

    tvtrialdebate@hotmail.com

    You guys know better than anyone perhaps how the experience did affect you (and i’m guessing it wasn’t always positive). Maybe better insight, even, than the Lord Chief Justice’s researchers. Maybe we should share our thoughts on the matter. If so, get in touch…

    Take care all.

  15. FrankieUK
    November 3, 2014

    Where there is a jury, perhaps a televised trial is not such a good idea.

    There has been intense interest over the Dewani trial and that is not televised.

    The public zooms in if it appears that something does not quite add up.

    • thisismymoniker
      November 4, 2014

      Good point about Dewani trial. And the laws in South Africa do permit a very high degree of freedom of expression during ongoing court cases, this is another factor of course.

  16. jaymes
    November 4, 2014

    @frankieuk: and in Pistorius case things just didnt add up. To me the Judge was too linient. She seemed to ignore obvious indications of intentional killing, and rather focused on how to let him off the murder charge. A case of valuing the perpetrators rights higher than that of the victim? Shame, its like RS had no right to a life. Lets look after poor vulnerable and charitable Oscar.

    • FrankieUK
      November 10, 2014

      I think you are correct.

  17. jaymes
    November 4, 2014

    I feel an appeals court MUST explain to society how a trained and licensed gunman shoots 4X into a very small/confined space, with deadly ammunition, and changes aim in the process, somehow NOT foresee harm to the person behind that door. This is a gunman who grew up around guns and knows their devastating effects. We may believe OPs version, but expecting people to believe he didnt expect the intruder to be injured…thats really stretching it.

  18. Jason
    November 5, 2014

    Deserving to die? State justice versus local justice? Collateral damage? Some cultures have an eye for an eye justice – I think Australian “aborigines” had just a system until their culture was destroyed by “well meaning” colonists wanting to “civilise” them.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-29901304

    • thisismymoniker
      November 5, 2014

      My problem with that is … what if the girl happened to have made up the story because she didn’t like the tenant. Imagine the guilt she would now be feeling if so. I doubt many people would be calling the dad a “hero” if that turned out to be true.

      One incident from uni days sticks in my mind. A boy said he had been raped by another lad after they got out of their shared taxi, claiming he’d been dragged into a park. However there were CCTV cameras which showed them disembarking from taxi, and nothing happened, there was no dragging into a park, nothing like that at all. He imagined it and / or lied perhaps because he was drunk, perhaps because he was upset or angry about something. The actual story however was completely false!

      It happens fairly often: This lady was initially so plausible with her rape claims and injuries that her ex wound up in prison awaiting trial for 36 days (as a “sex offender”) – until it was revealed he had cast iron alibis, she had faked her own injuries, and it had all been lies to provide her with reasons for failing law exams:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-28045679

      So for every 10 suspected rapists tortured to death wonder which ones would be the victim of a malicious lie or a mistake?

    • thisismymoniker
      November 5, 2014

      Regards: authoratarian rule and crime rate. I would guess “random” crime gives way instead to “institutionalized crime” and this could lead to an overall increase in crime – the only difference being the crime is carried out behind closed doors, by officials, and never investigated. The other “crime” in such societies is random scapegoating of particular ethnic groups, usually, who have to pay higher taxes, live in ghettos, or be gassed etc, in order to help define the national spirit and emphasize the greatness of the leader, etc. Not a fan!

      Much scarier if the “supreme power” of your country is a delusional and potentially extremely twisted individual that you can’t get rid of no matter how insane they become.. – that definitely can’t be worth the trade off to reduce rates of petty thefts and so on lol 🙂

    • Jason
      November 5, 2014

      With regard the thirteen year old Indian girl she was found to be pregnant by the doctor and it is alleged that the tenant mocked the father. I suppose they could do a DNA analysis. The question they should ask is should the Indian State deny a wife and her six children their father and breadwinner.

      In such situations we have to be careful not to impose our own armchair ideology on others that maybe can’t even afford an armchair and live in societies where there is little state money available for the functioning of a western standard of justice. It happens and it India it happens a lot it seems (rape).

      • thisismymoniker
        November 5, 2014

        Their own police force advised people not to take law into own hands! I don’t believe poverty gets easier with more vigilantism. If they let this man go with no charge it would be to say to people – do away with police investigation, psychologists, courts, the whole caboodle, just let people act on suspicions with the response of torture when they see fit? And inevitably sometimes in error.

        Suppose the girl actually slept with a boy from school and the tenant had a low IQ or was a khat addict, and would say anything the girl asked him when he was in a stupor, but the family took it seriously. So the girl escaped from having to admit what otherwise would have got her thrown out of the house. But at the cost of an innocent man being tortured to death.

        Maybe those are the facts.

      • thisismymoniker
        November 5, 2014

        Or … perhaps even the family made the whole story up to avoid admitting shame for their daughter, as they found out she had slept with someone and got pregnant. Rather than admit the “shame” they planned someone to blame (the tenant) and then killed the tenant ensuring he would not be able to deny it (because dead). This whole thing could be a planned murder.

      • thisismymoniker
        November 5, 2014

        It could even be the father who got his own daughter pregnant and needed a scapegoat for the pregnancy before his family found out what he had been doing. Preferring to be arrested for the more “honorable” crime of killing the rapist rather than the “shameful” one which might have come to light later.

        They definitely should consider a DNA test to prove the facts on the father, anyway.

        Vigilantism always much too easy to exploit: Isn’t that one of the concerns with Oscar’s “home defense” scenario even if true, if people can turn “domestic violence” into a “justified violence” then it’s a much better way to try to explain an impulsive homicide in the home – mistakes, panics, imaginary intruders…???

        The lack of charging a couple of others on grounds of sympathy even when the law was clearly broken is what is making it difficult to establish even a baseline for murder in his case either, even with the four bullets and the locked door.

        It’s like subsidence in the foundations of the case law.

        Adds up to a counsel of despair IMO as though crime situation is already so far gone there is nothing to be done but to embrace lawlessness as a way of life from now on. Every man for himself & his kin – as in Wild West? Bullets ricocheting past your ears as you ride out of town? 😉

      • thisismymoniker
        November 5, 2014

        Just thinking how this case in India would be investigated over here, it might be similar process…

        1. The father has a defense of “provocation” – the circumstances of discovering your daughter has become pregnant through rape would be sufficient for arguing it.

        So in English law, if successful, it would convert murder into manslaughter (but not acquittal).

        2. But first the facts need to be established: Did the tenant really do what the father and family is saying, and was this the real reason for how the father acted?

        3. In the cause of acting did his rage cause him to lose his self-control so he was behaving far in excess of the violence normally in his character?
        – the fact he handed himself in suggests that is so.

        4. Then finally the question would be asked, could a reasonable person in his situation have become so incensed to lose their self-control in a similar fashion, at least, to become somewhat violent and sadistic towards, and in the process kill, the tenant?

        Some countries would scrap the “objective test” [4] and just consider his circumstances as in [3].

        So i think probably a “manslaughter equivalent” charge, if true circumstances, and given he handed himself in quickly, would be a best outcome.

        “Manslaughter by acts” is usually higher than “negligent manslaughter” (though in S.A. no distinction drawn strangely) – so in a lot of places, it could be quite a long sentence for it, even with the provocation (since that’s already been taken into account). Maybe if it was in UK, then 8 years with a parole in 3?

        Completely take your point though: Perhaps the family would suffer too much as a result, if there are many people depending on his income. I read judgements from various countries where they would tend to work out other solutions if possible rather than prison if it was going to leave an entire family destitute. Such as suspended sentence and supervision. Social work basically. Guess that depends on their circumstances (maybe the father was not working anyway!).

        That’s my swivel chair judgement…lol :-).

      • thisismymoniker
        November 6, 2014

        Just to get back on topic for a mo….I think appeal is going to struggle due to the Schultz report. Nel seems to be in denial about its existence, as reflected in his lack of cross-examining Schultz and at all subsequent points asserting Pistorius was aggressive. The tendency is undiminished in the appeal documents.

        I’m wondering how things are supposed to work considering the lack of a psychological profile to the effect that Oscar was NOT fearful.

        Hasn’t the boat sailed on that part of the argument, making PPD hard to avoid, even if Oscar jabbered incoherently about the act of actually firing the gun? It’s too late if the scenario as a whole is accepted because “intruders are scary” and “Oscar gets scared of threats when on his stumps”.

        I think what is needed is explicit arguments to illustrate why the scenario casts him as the attacker and the dominant one e.g. because he shouted “Get the F—- outta my house” causing the supposed “intruder” to back away from him, hiding in cubicle; and this was not sufficient to stop Oscar firing.

        I guess i think that should be the “breaking point” for PPD, if at a certain point the person who is supposedly the threat actually tries to get away, and it doesn’t prevent them from being killed. It’s mentioned in a way, with the cubicle having “no escape”, but i think it could have been made even stronger if attention was drawn to the shout – because even Oscar’s lawyers described that as “overconfident”. The fact it caused a climbdown / submission by “perceived intruder” IS significant – and a “reasonable man” would have interpreted that as a capitulation of the threat.

        And then on account of the fact Oscar was not being “candid” about his intentions, he would have his claims replaced by “reasonable man” at various points – well after the door slam, that could certainly be a problem for him if so. I think it would result in him being cast as an attacker. Logically. The only problem being (i) it hasn’t been argued and (ii) the counter-arguments are the vague, waffly remarks of Prof Schultz – sadly not cross-examined.

        Do you think there is enough rigorous argument left in the state’s armory to get around the “framework of the fearful man” in his scenario? If not, then dolus isn’t going to happen.

        I kind of think perhaps the appeal will clarify all the principles but deliver the same outcome as a result – with Professor Schultz’s intervention as the deciding vote, in the end. Such a pity we didn’t get to see him justify his arguments in open court. I still don’t understand why he did all that psychological profiling since he was only really supposed to be finding out if “fight/flight” or “vulnerability” affected Oscar’s “criminal responsibility” during the commission of the offense. But the only thing he didn’t write about in his report was the offense itself. Bizarre!

  19. Jason
    November 6, 2014

    Gun societies – isn’t that an omission by the state that the law can’t protect them – allowing the citizen to take the law into their own hands – empowering individuals as judge and executioner under conditions in which the individual perceives others to be a threat to them? In gun societies you can shoot and kill people perceived to be threatening you or your loved ones during the perceived attack but can’t kill people if they have already carried out the attack because the latter would be deemed as vigilantism. But you could say you meant to kill them during the attack but was just a bit slow in responding.

    In gun societies are you allowed to kill people that attempt to rape you or your loved ones? Lets say a man breaks into your home and you find him in your daughters bedroom raping her – would you be allowed to use your gun?

    Okay the above is a hypothetical but the law should be able to address hypotheticals.

    • thisismymoniker
      November 7, 2014

      OK, I think the following:

      If you caught someone raping your daughter in your house you could definitely shoot them on sight. They are clearly violent and dangerous and are committing a shocking criminal offense that is scaring and traumatizing your daughter before your eyes in your home. So yes, shoot, and once the facts were cleared up, would not get charged for that.

      But if you learned 3 weeks later that it had happened, then you would be expected to go to the police and report it, and let authorities deal with it.

      If you took law into your own hands, and went to “hunt down and kill” the person, when it was far too late to stop the actual attack, you’d probably be up for a murder charge – to which you would raise the defense of provocation and probably be found guilty of a manslaughter instead of a murder, if you were upset enough (and if your suspicion was correct). Rule of law would require a prison term but it would be something the person probably reconciled themselves to when they decided to carry out the actions. They would probably have no qualms about going to jail because, for them, it was “morally right”, regardless if it was legally permitted.

      There are lots of people in prison who are happy to be in prison because they made that decision, weighing up their moral beliefs against the law, and choosing the former and feeling “proud” of their actions no matter it resulted in a jail term. Lots of those!

    • thisismymoniker
      November 7, 2014

      Personal “moral homicides”:

      – hunting down someone who hurt you or a relative
      – gang revenge killings
      – terrorism
      – honor killings

      All these are grounded in the moral convictions of the individuals.

      The loss of liberty would be considered secondary to the necessity of the actions, in their eyes.

      In most cases, the general public disagrees and finds all this kind of stuff barbaric and completely beyond the pale.

      In a few rare cases, such as killing a paedophile or a rapist, there might be much more widespread sympathy.

      In a few cases, in hindsight, a terrorist movement turned out to be an honorable fight for social justice.

      Not usually though!

    • thisismymoniker
      November 7, 2014

      P.S. Disclaimer: If you come hope and discover someone having sex with your daughter, do NOT shoot on sight, until you have established that is not actually her boyfriend! This once again emphasizes the need to think before acting… 🙂

  20. Pamela
    November 8, 2014

    I had realised that judge masipa was a ‘token’ judge – she found it difficult to read at some points. I felt she lacked in the fine legalise required by a judge. It was very clear to me that she was biased towards pistorius all the way through the trial. I felt that she had maternal instincts at play. I struggle to see how she wasn’t sickened by the heinous murder of reeva. I will never forget the photograph of her injuries.

    • FrankieUK
      November 10, 2014

      You summed Judge Masipa up.

    • michounette
      November 10, 2014

      You’ve got it ! Judge MAsipa was biased from day One against OP. She let Nel get away with his trumped up accusations, his lying rehearsed witnesses, his tampered evidence, his abuse of defence witnesses, his disgusting histrionics and coups de theatre worthy of a cheap boulevard melodrama. She was obviously scared of him. He has the NPA in his pocket and was protecting his mate and former Scorpion M. H.Botha, the lead investigator and his acolyte who were never called to take the stand because it was suddenly conveniently discovered that they has murder charges pending against them. Where is Botha? Why haven’t we heard about him again? The whole farce has been engineered by Nel and his cronies for very very fishy reasons. I will say no more on this platform because I am scared of GN and his cronies too.

      • thisismymoniker
        November 13, 2014

        Was it Nel or Hilton Botha who shot the four rounds through the door and killed Reeva in a private dwelling in middle of the night, the bullets striking her in the exact same number as would kill her. I thought Oscar did that. So didn’t he engineer his own downfall by using his gun to shoot someone that couldn’t fight back on account of being locked in a small cubicle? I’m pretty sure Oscar played a part in that… could be wrong though.

      • thisismymoniker
        November 13, 2014

        Also your conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense because if Botha was one of “nel’s cronies” then why would he then have charges placed against him by NPA? Surely they would just prepare much more carefully for the trial but use Botha in that case. Botha’s issue at bail was really having a lack of information – but that was before investigations e.g. into ballistics had taken place. The guy was also clearly under a lot of stress at the time, being a “humble W.O.” suddenly thrust into spotlight of the world’s media and grilled by one of the country’s top defense advocates … he was perspiring and seemed physically overwrought and mentally drained, answering in a lacklustre way many of the questions placed to him. It doesn’t in itself prove a lot about Oscar’s state of mind while firing his gun if it turns out afterwards that an officer who went to the house and gave people various orders the morning after has a stress disorder.

  21. Margaret Jakeman
    November 9, 2014

    Under South African law be could any person/ persons be charged with removal of evidence?re:evidence of Carice Stander regards Michael Jakeman

  22. OTAZL
    October 20, 2015

    The guy is guilty as hell. End of.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on October 29, 2014 by in Oscar Pistorius Trial and tagged , , , , .
%d bloggers like this: