Juror13

True crime and trial opinions from a layman's perspective

Carlin calls it despair, I call it deceit

John Carlin says Oscar Pistorius is likely to retreat into “despair.” Before we examine this statement from Carlin, let’s take a look at how Oscar appeared in court today as he applied for bail.

Screenshot 2015-12-08 05.06.43 (2) Screenshot 2015-12-08 05.10.37 (2) Screenshot 2015-12-08 05.11.24 (2) Screenshot 2015-12-08 05.12.15 (2) Screenshot 2015-12-08 05.15.07 (2) Screenshot 2015-12-08 05.15.09 (2) Screenshot 2015-12-08 05.35.52 (2) oscar smiling

Is this the look of a man distraught with his current circumstances?  Or a man determined to muster the appropriate face at the appropriate time?  Although, smugness is most definitely not appropriate – ever – in court, that was the face Oscar chose to wear today.

What I can’t understand is why the State is not opposed to bail.  They did oppose some of the conditions, but they agreed not to challenge Oscar’s right to stay out on house arrest.  I’m not aware of any other countries where convicted murderers, not defendants, qualify for bail.  Anywhere else, they would immediately throw you in jail upon conviction and the convict will deal with appeals and hearings as necessary while incarcerated.

Not only does Oscar have bail, meaning he can continue to live at his Uncle’s mansion, he can leave the house (with monitoring & supervision) between 7am and noon up to a 20km radius.  I’ve seen some say this is freedom and others say it’s not.  While it’s not complete freedom, compared to a jail cell, in my view the luxury of enjoying sunshine for 5 hours a day is freedom.  It’s a luxury that’s been afforded to Oscar.  Why exactly does Oscar Pistorius deserve this luxury?  The simple answer is he doesn’t.  It’s just another “condition” that Oscar’s been able to weasle for himself using his high-powered legal team and influential family.

TO VIEW THE FULL BAIL AFFIDAVIT, CLICK LINK BELOW:

OSCAR PISTORIUS AFFIDAVIT DEC 8.2015

There were two things that bothered me most about Judge Ledwana during today’s hearing.  First, when Nel was arguing that they [the state] was prepared to provide the appropriate monitoring of Oscar, the Judge stated that would create unnecessary extra work.  Could the judicial system in South Africa be any lazier?  Yes, it’s work.  Monitoring criminals takes work.  Is it an appropriate argument to not provide monitoring because it involves “work”?  I don’t think so.

Second, Judge Ledwana equated denying Oscar the right to leave his Uncle’s house to “punishment”.  Yes!  That is what is supposed to happen when you are convicted of a crime, especially a violent crime, and especially murder.

Is this just more indifference to judicial affairs, is it corruption or a bribe, or is it yet another example of our insane political correctness and need for leniency in the world today?  What is it getting us?  More crime, more death, more dangerous people on the street.  Why?  So we can feel good about giving people second chances?  Murderers need to do time in jail.  It’s that simple.  It’s not vengeance or blind punishment; it’s justice.  That is what needs to happen to protect the public as well as maintain civility through the enforcement of our laws.

Last week was a great week for justice as Oscar was finally convicted of murder.  Nick and I were there to witness it and I’ll be writing about it in a separate post.  But lets not take a step backwards now and allow the Pistorius family, and a lazy, corrupt, justice system, undo the good of Justice Leach.  In order for real change to begin, we must remain vigilant that Oscar do his time.

For those of you who claim Oscar feels bad and can’t win whether he cries or appears confident while in public, let’s consider some of the statements he’s made and cut through the BS of this topic once and for all.

Yesterday, I came across an article that Pistorius buddy, John Carlin, wrote for the Sunday Times.  Here are some of the finer points Carlin shares with us:

Murder verdict revives Pistorius suicide fears

“I was with Pistorius at a part in the home of his lawyer, Barry Roux, on the night of September 11, 2014, hours after Judge Thokozile Masipa had made it evident in court that the verdict of manslaughter was what he could expect and that she would formally deliver her sentence the next day.

He would then be going straight to prison, but at that party Pistorius wore the calm, satisfied look of a man who felt he had been vindicated by the justice system and believed his honour had been saved.  “I don’t give a shit about the sentence,” he told Roux.  “I am not a murderer.”

He knew he should expect a five-year sentence but appeared untroubled by the prospect as he chatted politely with guests and took turns to flip steaks and boerwors sausages on the barbecue.

It was a boozy party, but Pistorius did not drink alcohol and left early.  The last thing he told me before driving home was that for the first time in a long time – since he had shot and killed Steenkamp a year and a half earlier, on Valentine’s Day – he had found some peace.”

Oscar was calm and satisfied, and didn’t give a shit, because he and his family know that they [initially] dodged an enormous bullet.  Yes, pun intended.  But Oscar surely did give a shit as soon as he got to prison and realized how hard it would be.  No amount of favors, or ties with mobsters, could ease the discomfort and disgrace of wasting away in a cement box.  Yes, jail is horrible.  People should reconsider before they murder.

Carlin goes on to say:

“Pistorius, who will feel that the justice system and God have failed him, may be extracting some crumbs of comfort from the knowledge that he will never now be found guilty by a court of law of deliberately killing the woman he has always said he loved.

Yet, short of a shock confession by Pistorius, we will never know for sure whether he was telling the truth or not.  

What one can be certain of is that right now, as he faces the imminent prospect of arrest prior to a new and lengthy sentence being passed in the new year, he is devastated.  

We had just met for the first time and he sat across from me in his uncle’s study on a long leather sofa with his head resting on his aunt’s shoulder.  Pale and thin, a pitiful shadow of the “Bladerunner” who had triumphed in the London Olympic and Paralympic Games of 2012, he looked and sounded like a five-year-old boy whose puppy had just died.

Arnold Pistorius had read that in America, in cases where people had killed a person they loved and later regretted it, 20% ended up taking their own lives.  In his nephew he saw signs for alarm.”

Let’s come back down to reality – “The woman he said he loved.”  Saying you love someone, and actually loving them are two very different things, and I think we all know that actions are the proof.   Why should it matter to Oscar if the court attaches a name to the deceased – he killed Reeva Steenkamp, he knows he killed Reeva Steenkamp, so the rest is just semantics for him.  It’s a boo-hoo mentality of please don’t attach her name to this murder – yes, now we can call it murder, so let’s call it that.  But it’s not semantics for us.  I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again.  Oscar should have been found guilty of Dolus Directus!

Oscar Pistorius should have been found guilty of killing

Reeva Steenkamp.

Now, for Carlin, or anybody, to say “we’ll never know” is the pinnacle of absurdity.  Of course we know.  We know from the evidence collected at this scene that Oscar lied.  That is a point that even the incompetent Masipa recognized.  No, we may not know every detail, but we know, as does Captain Mangena, that Oscar intentionally killed Reeva behind that door.   To say “we’ll never know” is merely a mischievous cop-out.

As for being a “pitiful shadow of the Bladerunner”, do you know what that really is?  That pitiful shadow is the real Oscar Pistorius slinking in the background never wanting to be seen.  Take away the limbs of steel, the upper body muscles and the flash of the camera bulbs, and you have a very small man on stumps.  But, the stumps aren’t what make him pathetic.  It’s that ridiculous comic book-like persona that makes him pathetically sad.

Oscar didn’t triumph at the London Olympics – he got there by being a spoiled brat who kicked and screamed for four years to cheat his way into the competition, at the expense of others.  And once he got there, he lost.  Not only did he lose, he was crying and carrying on behind the scenes threatening to leave after screwing others out of the opportunity to be there.  That’s not a fallen hero.  Get a grip, John Carlin.  And it wasn’t his puppy who died, it was a young woman with her entire life ahead of her, with family and friends who loved her, that he killed.

I would also much prefer that Arnold leave American statistics out of his rotten logic about Oscar being suicidal.  The optimal part of the statistic being “people that regretted it.” Do we sincerely believe that Oscar regrets when he tells friends like Kevin Lerena that he doesn’t need to justify anything to anyone because God knows the truth.  I suppose God also knows what was on the iPhone that his dutiful brother so kindly wiped and locked.

It’s no surprise that Oscar and Carl, and Aimee, all hide behind God.

Screenshot 2015-12-08 07.20.44 (2)

Use that three letter word and it becomes a force field, just like Bladerunner was always Oscar’s cloak.  Nobody wants to go there; nobody wants to challenge their use of God.  Because all God-fearing people are surely honest and decent, isn’t that so?  In my view, there’s nothing more despicable than somebody using religion for personal gain.  It’s not about the belief itself [we’re all entitled to our personal beliefs] it’s more about hiding behind something or someone else because you’re too cowardly to take the responsibility on your own.

So now Oscar will pay his $688 and we’ll wait four months to see if Oscar sticks or around or heads to some other exotic parts, perhaps Botswana where his family owns land.

botswana

Screenshot 2015-12-08 06.46.39 (2)

 

We’ll watch and wait to see what happens with his appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Screenshot 2015-12-08 06.47.22 (2)

One thing is certain, the Oscar show is not over; far from it.  It will never be over as long as deceit, money and entitlement are regarded as more important than the truth.  It’s up to us to remain vigilant if there’s any chance for greater peace in this world.  I’ve often heard it said many times – why Reeva?  why Oscar?  We say, why not them.  Every victim and every criminal is indicative of the other.  We have to start somewhere and right now this case holds the power for change in very real ways.  It’s imperative for South Africa, for women and the rest of the world, that Oscar gets his due process, and that the result of that process is the conviction of murder being upheld, and Oscar serving the appropriate full sentence.

IMG-20151208-00607 IMG-20151208-00608 IMG-20151208-00609 IMG-20151209-00610 IMG-20151209-00611 IMG-20151209-00612

 

84 comments on “Carlin calls it despair, I call it deceit

  1. Sarah
    December 8, 2015

    Hi Lisa!

    This is, once again, a very great article! Amen to all of it! It is a shame to see how he is getting preferential treatment over and over again. This whole case is nothing but a farce. Thank you for your sharp analysis.

    I have one question though: I was surprised (in a good way) that a few days ago Cpt. Mangena spoke outand said that he knew that Oscar knew it was Reeva and that he saw it in the evidence he collected.
    I am very glad he is so blunt about it. But he didn’t elaborate further.
    Could you explain what exactly in the evidence points to this belief?

    Thank you so much!

    Best wishes

    • juror13
      December 8, 2015

      Hi Sarah,

      Thanks! 🙂 This is what Mangena said in that article:

      “I was definitely sure he knew it was Reeva behind that door,” Mangena told News24 on Friday. “I could tell by the way the bullets went through the door and the evidence I collected pointed to that fact. It was not just any intruder he was shooting at, it was Reeva and he meant to kill her. “I just couldn’t prove it.”

      I disagree that he didn’t prove it. All they needed to do was discredit Oscar’s story that he believed Reeva was in bed – and they did that with the physical evidence of the bedroom, which in my opinion, was very clever. If Oscar’s story doesn’t pan out – then he knew damn well it was Reeva behind the door… furthermore, the grouping of gunshots can only mean one logical thing – he wanted to kill her. Add in the screams that end with the last shot, the lights on, the fight heard earlier, etc, etc…. It was a solid case for Directus. It’s a god damn shame he wasn’t convicted of that.

      • Nick van der Leek-Photo
        December 8, 2015

        I do think Mangena could have gone on to say more. I’ve just written a chapter in The Appeal titled GOING INTO THE BATHROOM FOR THE FIRST TIME. One thing we have to appreciate is that each bullet is fired at a different trajectory, and besides bullet B, every bullet is more accurate/deadly/on target than the last. This is either very bad luck on Reeva’s part, or Oscar was ‘tracking’ his target. This may seem unlikely, except the toilet was dark, and if Reeva was making a noise while being shot Oscar would know exactly where she was. Her shadows under the door could also indicate her position, besides if there were cracks in the wood when Oscar shot her [which would have given him a visual]. Was Oscar more or less likely to shoot Reeva four times, or an unknown intruder? I think the answer is obvious. Oscar shot her to silence her, and it took 4 shots to do that.

      • juror13
        December 8, 2015

        Excellent points… and I’ve just read your latest version of the chapter – damn good! I think our readers will enjoy it 🙂

  2. Rev Paul Conneely
    December 8, 2015

    Why Oscar, why Reeva?

    I’ll tell you why Lisa because empathic people are natural targets for sociopaths. Read up on the work of Dr Jane & Tim McGregor on the Empath – Sociopath – Apath Triad. It’s a fascinating read and it allows one to see Oscar for the narcissistic predator he really is.

  3. Lulu
    December 8, 2015

    Lisa, thank you!

    You’re in top form. As usual, you cut right through the cr@p to the heart of the matter with focus — and righteous indignation that I share.

    Please keep us up-to-date on reasons/speculation regarding the questions you’ve raised. It simply makes no sense to me why Nel supported the bail application. None.

    One again, aghast…

  4. Lulu
    December 8, 2015

    ps. It was believed by many that OP knew Masipa’s judgment before she read it out in court. This is confirmation that that’s exactly what happened – but the night before! I was thinking an hour before!

    Is that common practice in SA?

    Did that also occur with the appeal judgement?

    Thanks for ALL you do!!

    • juror13
      December 8, 2015

      I’m pretty sure there is no such thing as “common” practice in SA other than people being easily bought. Sad but true.

      • I don’t think it’s unusual for council to be aware of the outcome before it’s read out in court. Certainly not in SA. Lisa you should ask our friend in LA what her experience is, but I suspect it’s the same in all courts. A little like getting married. The parents and couple know before everyone else before it is actually announced in the church.

      • juror13
        December 9, 2015

        Actually, here in the US, everybody finds out at the same time. The jury comes back with their verdict, the court notifies both parties to be there, and then the jury foreman hands the verdict forms to the Judge which he/she reads out to the as court. Nobody sees the verdict in advance. Of course… it’s not a perfect world, I’m sure some stuff gets leaked sometimes… but generally this is how it works here.

  5. Nick van der Leek-Photo
    December 8, 2015

    Smug is the word. I fear he knows something we don’t, otherwise he’s a good actor. Thanks for your great commentary on this court case Lisa.

  6. Nick van der Leek-Photo
    December 8, 2015

    Maybe the state haven’t opposed because that alone would involve [or could] a protracted legal battle. It’s possible Nel is playing Oscar’s gambit…testing him. It’s clear he’s under surveillance, so if he wants to run, let’s see if he does. Either way the state wins imho.

    • juror13
      December 8, 2015

      Yea, there’s always going to be that give/take with the process. Under South Africa’s system, I suppose I can entertain the reasoning for Nel making certain concessions. But as a whole, my position is adamant that any newly convicted murderer should not be eligible for bail. Accused murderers – not convicted, just accused – are typically not even eligible for bail in the United States. Look at Casey Anthony – she sat in prison for 3 years before her case was heard. And Jodi Arias was in prison far longer than that as an accused.

  7. It would definitely curb crime here if that were the case, and in many instances it is, especially where accused can’t afford legal representation.

  8. marianmik
    December 9, 2015

    how does a now “convicted murderer” get bail? … I don’t understand that. I have a sick feeling that OP knows the rest of this (his appeal) has already been procured, bought and paid for so he has no worries … ugh : /

  9. Mags
    December 9, 2015

    Brilliantly written Lisa. I agree 100%. I have pics of OP laughing with various people after court adjourned yesterday, they would be good to add to the pics on this page. I posted them to eNCA with the caption : Is this what remorse looks like?
    I will fwd them from my phone to my laptop and get someone to sent to you, I’m a technophobe.

    Mags

  10. Mags
    December 9, 2015

    Brilliant Lisa. Really brilliant. Everything is spot on. Do you have the pics of OP in court after the bail hearing yesterday? I have about 5 of him laughing as if he’s just wont another Olympics. if you’d like me to send the to add to the pics above. Remorse ??? Sociopath.

  11. Amber
    December 9, 2015

    I would like to add that when the defense states he is destitute is incredible! Of course his funds are “hidden” remember who his Uncle is? and does anyone remember this article (probably one of the few left as Oscar’s PR firm yanked them) and this was about a year ago, right before his verdict was read (he had money then!)
    What exactly has Oscar Pistorius been doing during his numerous visits to Joburg’s Jewel City? ask Yolanda Barnard, Johan Eybers and Herman Scholtz
    It is called Jewel City – the place where merchants, under strict security, trade in diamonds and gold……..

    He was investing in gold and diamonds! duh!
    sorry had to say it but here is the link

    http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Oscar-Pistorius-and-the-diamonds-20150429

    so now he’s broke? doubt it, and I also think Roux and Uncle Arnold made a deal for a cap on attorney’s fees. I say that BECAUSE of what Roux has said. He keeps saying that OP is destitute, that he can’t afford any further legal fees. FURTHER LEGAL FEES
    Yet it’s being taken to the Constitutional Court that requires (from the news last night) that each and every page submitted must be 22 copies. For each judge to have 2 copies of everything and most people could never afford such a thing. There’s more to this than we’ll know but I wish Gerrie Nel could find a good financial investigator and prove another lie. Yes “Judge” Masipa I am calling Oscar Pistorius a liar…..

    I also have a feeling that he’s not worried, especially when it was reported that if the Constitutional Court rejects his appeal he may go directly to Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, hmmmm
    another single judge? has he already??
    The most recent article I read is that OP is CONFIDENT that he will win. No worries. Just look at the photos! (great pics, thanks!!)

  12. p grey
    December 9, 2015

    You are typical of the journalists these days, you think you are both judge and jury and sooo vindictive

    • juror13
      December 10, 2015

      To clarify, I’m not a journalist. But yes, I do consider myself to be judge and jury from a layman’s point of view. We all are. When an accused goes on trial for killing a person, they should be judged. That’s why judges are called judges. We are all entitled to our opinion, and I fear a world where we all walk around like lemmings not speaking a word of our views. There is nothing vindictive about my views on Oscar. I’ve taken the time to interrogate this case and my opinions expressed are educated ones. People certainly don’t have to agree with me, I welcome differing views, but I’m quite certain that calm minds would not classify what I do as vindictive.

  13. Blue Kanga
    December 10, 2015

    Reblogged this on Blue Kanga and commented:
    Another Abuser gaslights by asserting his victimhood and being protected by the legal system

  14. e.h
    December 11, 2015

    I suspect P grey is a Pistorian….just ‘saying.

    • Mags
      December 13, 2015

      After a very quick ‘open and shut’ trial, Sindisiwe was convicted for the murder of DJ Flabba. They were alone when she stabbed him to death, her version was ‘self-defense’, likewise Oscar and Reeva were alone at the time of the killing, Oscars version was “he thought there was an intruder’.

      Which leaves me questioning the selective principles in SA justice system. Had Sindisiwe had the money to hire Barry Roux to defend her version of ‘self defense’, would her conviction been culpable homicide followed by an appeal that resulted in overturning the verdict to murder, followed by an appeal to the Concourt?

      Sindisiwe’s medical file mysteriously disappeared, containing details of her injuries caused during a fight that allegedly transpired on the night of the killing, not implying her version was the truth. Just a comparison between two accused’s, who’s versions were both to attempt to get off the murder verdict.

      Spot the difference here???

  15. Emma H.
    December 14, 2015

    I was amazed (but not surprised) at how angry Pistorius looked when Nel was speaking at the bail hearing. As if he is the victim. I suspect Nel was sticking the needle into Pistorius by repeating that Pistorius was a ‘convicted murderer’ – Pistorius didn’t like that at all. It’s like (and I could be wrong here) Pistorius blames Nel for his predicament. It has nothing to do with him killing his girlfriend and lying his way to explain this in court. It’s all a great ‘mistake’ where he’s the poor victim. Tears of self-pity flow freely, but not tears of remorse.

    I saw an angry, rebellious man in Court saying ‘I won, I’m not going back to jail’. Why? He’s surrounded by wealthy Pistorians who live in a state of denial to protect themselves from the bleeding obvious. They refuse to tell him that he behaved terribly. No, instead focus their hate on the messenger (Nel). Invest in a preposterous theory that he was so terrified he didn’t know what he was doing (despite knowing that firing a warning shot could hurt HIM). Oh yes, and say that all those Appeal Court Judges were all wrong – they missed the law class where it says it’s ok for someone without legs to shoot someone if they’re scared.

    ‘I’ll win – you wait and see – I always win’. That’s what I saw in Pistorius. What a waste of a human being he is. He could have been a real man and told the truth to others and himself what all the circumstantial evidence and his changing story showed. That in anger and to prevent Reeva phoning the Police – he shot her so his ‘image’ wasn’t tainted by media reports. I see a determination that he won’t face the consequences of his stupid actions (he calls a ‘mistake’ – how can killing someone be a ‘mistake’?). THoughts?

    • Mags
      December 21, 2015

      You hit the nail on the head Emma, everything you stated is absolutely correct.

      What this entire murder trial has shown the world, is the frightening realisation that there are so-called civilized, educated, individuals, disguised as “moral, upstanding” citizens, (such as the likes of criminal lawyers who take on a case that was so obviously committed in an act of rage, and lie so blatantly in a court of law, defending a murderer who had an instant self defense story ready to protect his pitiful self, and the family and friends of the accused who had the gall to sit in on the trial along the same row of benches as Reeva’s grieving parents, sobbing and supporting their darling Oscar, as if he was the victim!! They are no different to common blood thirsty criminals with absolutely no remorse for victims or their families. They are no different to the convicted murderer who pulled the trigger.

      Barry Roux would have portrayed himself as a righteous, upstanding man with morals had he turned down this case. Instead he exposed himself to the world as just another criminal lawyer who sold his soul to the devil for a hefty fee.

      (And while his defense team were busy lying through their teeth, and his poor family were sobbing and hiding behind the bible and hosting an evangelist from USA to pray with them, Oscar was busy having a full on love affair with an Austrian woman online, using the pseudonym “Liam” (Liar-I-Am), totally oblivious to what he had done as he continued to feed his ego during his murder trial.

      Hauw !

  16. Amber
    December 14, 2015

    Barry Roux and President Bill Clinton
    Some years back (telling my age) we were glued to the Clinton Impeachment
    trial and I remember the famous line when asked if there was sexual contact with his intern Monica Lewinsky, and his answer became famous in the US and told volumes about lawyer “double-talk” his answer was
    “It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is……
    so that he couldn’t be impeached because the question he’d been asked was “is” not ever or was or had been..
    and he commented it wasn’t his fault if the lawyers asked the incorrect question.

    Then I looked back at what Roux has said.
    Several things he said to the SCA Appeal court was double-talk and Leach caught him at it and never let him get away with it in their court. There are so many examples that it would take a book to write what Roux said in double-speak. Roux can lie and tell the truth in one sentence and is a master at it, on par with or better than Clinton!
    If you do decide to re-watch Roux and even Oscar on the stand as he was coached but he was not as well seasoned as Roux.
    Nel was ham-strung a number of times by Masipa who didn’t want Oscar badgered to tell the truth. As benign as some of it seems, like “brought the fans in, not fan in” Nel caught these but Masipa just didn’t have a clue and seemed overly protective of Oscar.
    wish she would recuse herself from this next stage..
    One more observation:
    I’m a disabled American Veteran, proud to be and have had a lot of armchair time to watch this trial, have a BA in war history minor in law and actually this whole trial seems to be something of a battle between Nel and Roux.
    Tactics on each side, Nel is very good (think Churchill or Patton) but Roux, who looks like an evil elf to me, is very much like a Stalin. Anyone who’s studied WWII will know what I mean. and Oldwage is something akin to Goering or Himmler. Just put a Nazi SS cap on him and he’d fit right in!
    HA!! Joking, but that image did run through my mind during his nasty sneering remarks to Nel and even to the witnesses for the state.
    Thank you for giving me an outlet for my musings on this interesting case!!

    • juror13
      December 19, 2015

      Please continue to share your thoughts anytime 🙂

  17. michelelarkin2013
    December 15, 2015

    What a vile disgusting libellous article. So Oscar didn’t look a wreck. How disappointing for you. You know why he didn’t? Because he’s has justice and innocence on his side. You will never with all your misguided hate and venom take that away from him.

    • Mags
      December 20, 2015

      Interesting pseudonym whoever “michelelarkin2013” is. Not the Pistorius family spokeswoman by any chance? Just asking.

      Front page headline in Saturday Star (Dec 19) OSCAR’S MYSTERY BLONDE, and in Saturday Independent OSCAR’S LEGGY BLONDE’, story of his online love affair with an Austrian woman during the trial, when he used the pseudonym “Liam”. That is just another example of “he didn’t look a wreck” (Which, in this article, for your limited ability to understand simple English, translates to ” He has never had remorse”.) His happy snaps (see above) after the bail hearing, as he laughed and joked is what this article is about no remorse. Sociopaths do not have remorse.

      One question. Where does “justice for Reeva fit into your ‘mercy for the convicted murderer’ sob story?

      (Justice was served when the verdict was overturned to murder.) Think before you speak.

  18. FrankieUK
    December 22, 2015

    When Nel first spoke to Reeva Steenkamp’s parents, he promised her mother that he would prosecute the case as if it were his own daughter that had been murdered.

    He also told Mrs Steenkamp, that “OP shot Reeva in the head to finish her off”.

    Nel has shown doggedness and determination since the beginning, when he has been up against a very rich and powerful family with “Connections”.

  19. FrankieUK
    December 22, 2015

    Reading back through this website I noticed someone made the point, why did Oscar use the cricket bat to smash open the toilet door, when he had a gun in his hand and could have shot the lock off? Good point!

    Instead, he claims he went to the bedroom to put on his prosthetic legs and then smashed at the whole door with his cricket bat!

    Something stuck in my mind all along, why was Reeva screaming in terror before he shot her? Then I had a Eureka moment that may or may not true.

    When it was revealed recently that while friends and family were voicing concerns that he might harm himself, we hear instead that he is studying for a degree. This is a man who is only interest in the Oscar Pistorius organisation and he is applying the same focus and determination as in his athletic career.

    From that I believe he did not kill her in anger. But because he had already injured her and could not allow her to speak and harm his career and sponsorships, that some say were around US$ 2 million a year.

    JMO, Reeva was screaming in fear, because she knew he had picked up his gun in the bedroom. I would take another guess that he shot at her in the bathroom corridor and that is what caused the very large dent in the side of the bath.

    All has not been revealed. I hope Nel and Mangena reveal all one day.

    • Mags
      December 23, 2015

      Good point Frank. I wondered why the dent in the panel on the bath wasn’t part of the evidence in the trial, plus the bullet holes in the bedroom door. There were also pics of another pair of jeans on the lawn under the bathroom window which wasn’t in the states evidence.

      Its obvious that the trajectory of bullets were aimed at Reeva’s body as she fell after the first shot to her stomach, the noise he heard was her body falling onto the magazine wrack – he knew exactly where to aim the next shots.

      Masipa didn’t “make a wrong judgement” – it was so he couldn’t appeal a murder verdict. By reaching culp hom it was the state’s opportunity to appeal. Slam dunk to overturn verdict to murder. The appeal to the con court will be denied. Watch this space.

      Thoughts?

      • FrankieUK
        December 23, 2015

        Mags. I don’t really know other than the belief all has not been revealed. Here in the UK, very often after the defendant has been found guilty, the whole story comes out.

        The prosecution must decide how much evidence they will use and the jeans on the ground outside and her jeans inside out on the bedroom floor, makes us ask what happened?

        So once again I ask why was she screaming in terror? Even if he had hit her, she might shout and yell, but opening the window and calling for help and terrified, I think she saw he had picked up his gun.

        He may have shot at her in the bedroom, thus damaging the bedroom door and then another bullet as she ran along the passageway in the corridor inside the bathroom, which would produce the dent on the bath panel.

        But as I said, why smash the loo door with a cricket bat, when he had a gun and could have shot the lock off? Or was the door already damaged? Was that why she was screaming.

        Oscar should have told the truth and told her family what happened. Ultimately he may have been forgiven, but the faux mourning and the rest alienates people.

  20. FrankieUK
    December 24, 2015

    This is the best website to discuss the case and apart from the attacks from Pistorians, imo, the comments are very measured and thoughtful.

    As far as Pistorius’ family is concerned, they will not admit to themselves what he did. It cannot be easy. They have spent years being congratulated everywhere, he is only 28 years old, has ruined his life and they want to believe it was an accident, but I suspect his sister knows.

    In some way they are also culpable, because he has been thoroughly spoiled, has a terrible temper, mix that with guns and it is an “accident waiting to happen”.

    But I don’t forget that a young woman lost her life in a terrifying and violent way. How frightened she must have been and the shock with the first bullet. What her mother has said, she will never marry, have a career or children and nothing will bring her back to the Steenkamp family.

    Mags, on your final point re Masipa, not sure about that, but not well versed enough in the South African courts.

    Masipa threw out all the evidence from the neighbours and the evidence from Mangena, the ballistics expert, that evidence could not be used for the Supreme Court Appeal, so I suspect she had no intention that he would be found guilty of murder.

    Whether that was because very powerful people wanted him let off, or as a mother and disabled person herself she felt sorry for him, I cannot say. But the evidence from the neighbours made sense to me.

    All were sensible people with no reason to perjure themselves and the differences in their evidence would be explained by their different locations to Pistorius’ house and just the simple fact that people wake up at different times.

    I will wake up at the slightest noise, other people will sleep through a loud bang.

    Some neighbours were seeing the front of the house and others the back. Dr Burger was some distance from the house and would unlikely hear a cricket bat, but the sound of a bullet can travel quite a distance.

    Dr Stipp saw lights on in the bathroom and a man moving around. Roux made him look a liar, but as he actually left his home and drove to the OP house, why would he leave home if he could not see which house it was?

    I am hoping when this is over, that Nel and Mangena will reveal all. If you look up Vanity Fair, there is also an interview with Hilton Botha, the first policeman to arrive at the scene. He said that he saw straight away that it was murder.

    The police and ballistics are attending crime scenes all the time. It may not be CSI Miami, but they know what they are doing. Powerful people ensured that Botha, the first policeman to arrive, was removed from the case and that is exactly what happened with OJ Simpson.

    So we will see. A great website and thank you for giving us the opportunity to debate the case.

    • Norma Warwick
      January 25, 2016

      Hilton Botha was removed from the case because he was facing 7 attempted murder charges. He also said at the bail hearing that there was nothing in the evidence that did not fit with Oscar’s version. Your faith in the skills of our police force is touching, but misplaced.

      • Mags
        January 27, 2016

        The police weren’t on trial.

        Why don’t you join the Support for Oscar Blog – you are outnumbered on this forum by those of us who support justice for women abuse.

      • FrankieUK
        January 27, 2016

        Let us be accurate shall we Norma?

        Botha “What came next was even worse. “The bomb blew,” Botha told me. At nine P.M. on his first day of testimony, he received a call from a fellow officer, saying that a two-year-old case, since withdrawn, was being reopened. In 2011, when Botha and other officers were investigating the grisly murder of a woman, a mini-bus taxi drove straight at them at 100 miles per hour, forcing them off the road.

        When the driver attempted to flee, Botha shot out the taxi’s tires. Now the resultant charges—seven counts of attempted murder, one for each unharmed person in the taxi—were being reinstated. “I knew they had it in for me,” Botha told me. “I think that they thought if I’m not on the case they have no one to testify from the scene.”

        The next day Botha was removed from the Pistorius case.

        ‘They thought I’m not going to testify, and if I don’t testify, then everything that happened on the scene would be hearsay,” Botha continued, adding that he had been replaced by a more senior detective. “They are going to subpoena me, and I’m going to testify.”

        I don’t mind debating. Botha was removed from the case so that he could not testify. They did the same with the first detective on the OJ Simpson cse.

      • Mags
        February 2, 2016

        Hi Frankie, who do you think was responsible for getting Hilton Botha off the case? It couldn’t have been the State – did the defense have a connection that orchestrated this? Mags

      • FrankieUK
        February 2, 2016

        Mags I am not saying it is always men who are in the wrong in a relationship. A friend’s son is going through a separation at the moment and the woman is an absolute liar. But, there are more of these abusive relationships than we realise.

        It sounds like you had a very bad one to do that. Why else would he leave you to walk up the driveway if he knew there were guard dogs?

        A woman is killed by her partner every eight hours in South Africa. It is seven a month in the UK. Whatever possesses them to kill I have no idea, but it is often when a woman is leaving or has left.

        I don’t think it has all come out by a long chalk. I believe the neighbours and I don’t believe a South African would mistake a cricket bat on wood for gunshots.

      • FrankieUK
        February 2, 2016

        Mags I don’t really know, but from the very beginning I never thought the powers that be would want him in prison. He brought tremendous kudos and high profile in the sporting world and on the chat shows in the USA.

        His family has umpteen companies, which would suggest connections and a very good relationship with the ANC.

        Look now, he has been found guilty in the Supreme Court of murder, yet is allowed to stay in his uncle’s mansion and even go out.

        Even if he never goes to prison, he has paid a huge price. He could have been a television commentator after his competing days were over. I’d guess the BBC would have taken him in a shot for The Olympic and Commonwealth games. All that is gone now and no matter what happens, even if the Constitutional Court finds for him, millions and millions of people believe he deliberately murdered Reeva.

        The judge threw out the neighbours’ evidence and Mangena’s evidence, but you cannot throw that evidence out from the public’s mind and understanding of the case. I will always think of that girl screaming in fear and we can never ever truly analyse the mind of a killer.

        I reread some of the OJ case this morning and he practically decapitated his wife, the mother of his children.

      • Tess
        February 3, 2016

        Just a quick question, did anyone else note what Nel said during the SCA appeal about the defense and the state submitting new evidence if there was a new conviction? Nel talking about new evidence being led is at about 42:30 minutes into the youtube video.

        did anyone catch that?
        Thanks!
        Tess

      • Mags
        February 3, 2016

        Hi Frankie, if it wasn’t Reeva he killed, it would have been someone else, going on his history of psycho behavior. Have you read Carl Pistorius’s religious tweets? Same traits as the brother. Both are arrogant and self-righteous, the world owes them a living. They are “special”, because Oscar has a disability, the justice system “should have mercy on him” because he’s disabled – they are the victims, therefore they expected the intruder version to be sucked in by all. (At least the judge fell for it…)

        Did you know, the Pistorius family invited an evangelist from USA to travel to SA to pray with Oscar during the trial. Not surprisingly this evangelist has a website with a link for people all over the world to contribute money to his bank account. Sick how some people use the bible when the chips don’t fall in their favor.

        Did you follow the trial on TV? Every defense witness were a laugh a minute, as for the social worker who volunteered to give evidence …..because “she luffs Oskar….”. Willy Wolmarans was hilarious, what a joker. Gerrie Nel chewed each of them up and spat them out, he made a dog’s breakfast out of them and he turned Roux into a gummie bear. I honestly believe Masipa was in a trance during the trial. That’s my only conclusion. To me it was an open and shut case, that verdict was the biggest shock. There were rumors that she must have been paid under the table, that’s how shocked people were.

        Oscar is either BPD, or Histrionic Personality Disorder. They are master manipulators, and can lie their way out of anything. Same as OJ. In Oscar’s case his fear in court got the better of him, which is why he was such a bad witness. All that vomiting and crying was all to do with himself, what he has lost, his lifestyle. He had not an ounce of remorse, it was all about himself. The way he made a public apology to the Steenkamps was putrid. Had it been an accident, he would have either put a bullet in his own head after he realised Reeva was dead, or he would have behaved totally differently at the crime scene. He showed no remorse, it was all fear for the consequences.

        Let’s see if the Con Court reject his appeal……if they accept it, will be a travesty of justice.

      • FrankieUK
        February 3, 2016

        Hi Mags,

        I followed the case every day live, including on television and the written transcript from the Court. having lived in South Africa it has a special place in my heart. When I say I did not think OP would be sent to prison, it was not because there were doubts in the Prosecution’s Case, because he undoubtedly should spend a long time in prison for murder.

        I just did not think that the powers-that-be, would have the stomach to put him in jail (and I still have my doubts), but it became a political and international hot potato. Without the uproar, he would now be at home, safe and sound. Even African politicians cannot ignore the people completely.

        In the first couple of days I bought the intruder story and wondered if Reeva tried to surprise him on Valentine’s day. Then I read what happened.

        Factor in, so many women around the world are killed by their partners or ex partners and why would a man go out of his way to travel down a corridor and shoot four black talons into the small space of a locked toilet, unless he intended to kill?

        Why would he, trained in defence, position himself in front of the toilet door before shooting, if he thought an intruder might have a gun? It is instinctive to keep out of the line of fire, the safest place in the corridor, so he knew that human being was unarmed.

        Then we hear about a woman screaming for help before the gunshots. Dr Michelle Burger’s testimony was very moving, she was clearly traumatised by what she heard. She thought intruders had killed a woman’s husband and then she read the self defence story that could not be, so she was honour-bound to come forward.

        It must be a terrible thing to go through life reliving a woman screaming in fear then gunshots and there was nothing you could do.

        Things I would change in the case? The timeline regarding the neighbours’ evidence, adding the location of the different properties and why someone closer to the bedroom and living room could hear arguing. Some at the back of the property and further away like Dr Burger, could hear screaming and gunshots from the bathroom.

        Another point is South Africans tend to go to bed much earlier than in Europe or Western countries. There would not be many couples in the area up at that time and most everyone would have been sound asleep for some hours. Dr Stipp saw the lights on and a man moving around.

        Then if I were Nel, I would ask OP outright “Why RS’s jeans were inside out on the bedroom floor and why were her jeans on the ground below the bathroom window?”

  21. Emma H.
    December 30, 2015

    Thanks Mags for your compliment – you are spot on also about so called ‘upstanding’ rich folk wanting to avoid the repercussions of their actions because they are ENTITLED to better treatment – like no jail etc (a bit like ‘Animal Farm’ – all are equal except some are more equal than others’. I could have gotten this quote wrong). Someone famous once said – the true measure of a man (or woman) is his behaviour when things are going wrong. If my child did what OScar did – I’d want him to be accountable and tell the truth – not play the victim the whole time!

    Mags – you were funny with what you said about Oscar’s love affair with himself and the Austrian woman. If true, I wonder what he texted her photos of? the mind boggles so I won’t go there!

    Where I differ in opinion from you is on Barry Roux – what an amazing job he did at confusing the fu&k out of Masipa. Being a lawyer in an adversarial system, both sides must be represented vigorously and Barry did just that. Unfortunately, as Judge Greenland said – Masipa was way over her head – so all that rubbish about the ‘two Oscar’s’ got in the way of her seeing straight – plus she got the law completely wrong (how embarrassing huh?) . After all – one of the 2 Oscars shot reeva in a narcissistic rage, so it doesn’t matter which one!!

    The other ‘experts’ (i.e.: paid bullsh1t artists for Oscar) wouldn’t have confused a more seasoned/experienced judge (like those incredible legal minds on the high court bench!!). Leach turned Roux into a maggot struggling in sawdust – I thought it hilarious the way Roux was pressed into a corner.

    How amazing was Nel? THis trial has given me the most fascinating look into the top legal minds of a country that I ever saw (I missed the OJ trial). In my opinion – I could be wrong here – It’s not that Roux has no ethics – it’s his ethics and duty to his client that made him fight so hard. Although as you say – the first legal obligation is to the court – so you could argue, as you did, that by wasting time on matters that weren’t relevant impeded the administration of justice. That’s why I’m unsure why Nel didn’t object to the inclusion of such evidence (by dubious experts) – why he didn’t object? I’d love it if someone could comment on this.

    Keep up your comments everyone! I love reading them.

    • Mags
      December 31, 2015

      Hi Emma. Lovely response. Thanks. Exactly my sentiments. I’m not sure about your last paragraph on why didn’t object, explain more, I’ll give you an answer when you reiterate that point.
      Go to https://www.enca.com/opinion/oscar-pistorius-what-essential-missing-link-dolus-eventualis and read the comments by two of the Trolls attacks on me. Hilarious. (Add your comments on that link…..)
      Once you’ve done, so we’ll chat more…… 🙂

    • Mags
      December 31, 2015

      Emma I don’t think Masipa reached her verdict “by mistake” – the culp hom verdict meant the defense couldn’t appeal – had she found him guilty of murder the defense could appeal, the culp hom verdict meant the State could appeal.

      I would be interested to hear Lisa’s thoughts on this.

      • juror13
        January 8, 2016

        Hey there… sorry for the delayed response. Well, my thoughts on Masipa are two-fold. I do believe she legitimately felt sorry for Oscar. She’s a very frail woman, sick with arthritis, and I suspect she had sympathy for his disability. I think the fact that this case was in the spotlight, and she was being scrutinized by the entire world, played some tricks with her mind. BUT… I will say, there are some other things that make me lean towards her not being as clueless as her verdict suggests she is… The primary issue I have is the assessors that she chose. Now, if you were a judge working on the highest profile case to ever come through your court, and the whole world is watching, wouldn’t you pick (and it’s solely her choice) the two most solid legal colleagues possible – people with years of experience, especially with murder and high profile cases? Instead, she chose a kid right out of school who was worthless. He sat there like a bump on a log the entire time. The other woman to her left was a staunch supporter of rehabilitative programs for criminals. Why chose these two? Well clearly because they would either support her views or… her agenda. In a nutshell, do I think there were various influences behind the scenes? Yes, I do.

      • Mags
        January 8, 2016

        Hi Lisa, I listened to the entire podcast on Jen’s trial diaries, it was highly informative. You make absolute sense on everything, including the two assessors and Masipa – you hit the nail on the head.

        Your contribution to this tragedy has been a voice for Reeva, and a real comfort to her parents. It must have been lovely spending time with Barry and June, and for them to spend time with you and Nick. I admired how composed and so dignified they were during the trial. My heart broke for that family in a million little pieces.

        When June wrote in her book about the doves that were always on the window in the room they sat in at the court house during adjournments, confirmed that Reeva;s spirit was present during the trial. The doves were a sign.

        The mere fact that Oscar ignored them on the first days of the trial, as if he was the victim, showed a total lack of remorse for what he had done. His family were smug during the trial, their body language and facial expressions told a story about what they stand for. As for Uncle Arnold, it appeared that he has a heart of stone, every time anything was stated that he thought was in Oscar’s favor he had a smirk on his face. He may well have been watching Oscar run in the Olympics the way he portrayed his lack of emotions in a murder trial.

        I doubt the con court will accept his appeal.

        Thanks for your commitment and insight into this case. It’s been a huge contribution to justice in this country, and this trial.

  22. DaveM
    December 31, 2015

    One thing that I don’t think has been given enough exposure is the number of shots and the proximity to the victim. The obvious initial observation is that 4 shots simply cannot be an “accident” or a “mistake” but also , killing a person using multiple shots in very close proximity very often indicates a personal issue with the victim that has resulted in extreme rage !

  23. Emma H.
    January 2, 2016

    Thanks Mags, I appreciate your comments and everyone else here.

    I read Dr Roche Steyn’s article and to sum it up, he’s full of sh!t:

    1- Dr Steyn has less experience in DE than Dr James Grant (academic) who is a true legend and a lot more humble too. His knowledge helped win the appeal and he summarises DE here (different than Steyn’s idea of it)

    http://criminallawza.net/2015/12/02/whats-at-stake-in-the-supreme-court-of-appeal-judgement-in-the-pistorius-appeal/

    2. Dr Steyn says he “consults internationally” which means that he wrote the article in ENCA most likely for publicity, not for the greater good of expanding people’s knowledge. I’m tempted to think he wrote the article to improve his career as a paid ‘expert’ for hire, but I could be wrong.

    3. It seems at times academics prize their intellect too highly (otherwise known as head up the ar$e syndrome). After all – Dr Steyn thinks he knows better than 5 of the best legal minds in the country. Somehow, the articulate and simple judgement given by Justice Leach (no consenting Judges, too) was wrong and he’s right. THis rings alarm bells for me and screams ‘defense expert for hire’.

    Re Nel not objecting to all the ‘guns for hire’ evidence (The 2 oscars, flight-freeze-fight rubbish, other testimony of those previously on Oscar’s payroll — perhaps they bought a house for themselves on Oscar’s wallet etc).

    THis is my biggest problem? He could have objected in COurt that the expert evidence wasn’t relevant – or at least given it a go? I wonder why he didn’t?

    • Mags
      January 4, 2016

      I found reading Nick and Lisa’s books on the trial to be very informative, you should order them, hugely interesting and fact based on every part of the trial and on Oscar’s behavior patterns.

      Nel was brilliant, he made Roux look like a gummy bear during the whole trial, as for the defense “experts” – they were total idiots – that is why I think Masipa’s verdict was not “a mistake”. We don’t know what goes on behind the scenes in the legal world………..considering the state’s experts and circumstantial evidence and the defense’s pathetic witness’s (I can’t refer to them as ‘experts”…) and glaringly obvious lies, Masipa had to have a modus operandi to reach that verdict.

  24. Emma H.
    January 2, 2016

    I’ve got one more question here – we all have time we are in denial about things in our life as it is a strong human defense mechanism. We all do it as facing the truth is too painful.

    Eg: My friend denies for 18 years that her husband is having relations with everything that moves (except maybe possums – then again, he probably would).

    Do you think Oscar’s siblings/family REALLY believe Oscar’s lies when he is so obviously lying? Or do they just WANT to believe them (therefore they believe).

    Would Oscar tell them the truth? That he lost his temper? Why he lied so much on the witness box? WOuld they ask?

    Or would God take care of it all (so we forget about it)?

    It’s like women who believe someone in jail is really innocent when the facts are pretty clear they are not?

    Thoughts?

    I know Mags has said that religion is a good way to wrap up such darkness in a nice beautiful package – give it all to God – how easy!. ‘We are all sinners’ is a great deal for Ozzy as him killing someone and me ‘redistributing wealth’ by stealing a magazine from a dentist’s office are both treated the same (sin). ALthough I’m sure that dentist’s factor into their prices magazine theft, so not taking one is not having the full service. Just saying’ 🙂

    • Mags
      January 4, 2016

      Emma it all boils down to status. Society is fickle.

      I doubt Oscar’s family would have shown their support at all had he NOT been famous. Let’s say he was an out of work druggie who committed this murder, firstly his family wouldn’t have as much as shown their faces in court and not supported him in the least, secondly his trial would have had a different kind of trial, open and shut, no media publicity, no Barry Roux, Dolus Directus.

      This crime has been about ‘selling more newspapers”, the Famous Legless Athlete making news. It has been very much a trial by media. Enca’s Karyn Maughan was careful to remain “neutral” – in fact at times hearing her speak I was convinced she supports the Pistorians – she even interviewed Carl and Aimee that was aired on TV. (As if they are the victims.)

      Society is very fickle in SA. Wishy washy brain dead space cadets who are so immune to crime that they don’t know right from wrong anymore.

    • Mags
      January 4, 2016

      Just going on the witness’s accounts of hearing fighting followed by a woman screaming, it was so obvious who was telling the truth and who was lying. The Standers and the black neighbors (can’t remember their name off the cuff), were obviously covering up as both families were torn as Oscar is a friend of both of them. The Stipp’s testimony was very concise and neither of them changed their versions.

      Another aspect I couldn’t understand, although it doesn’t stand up in a court of law, is the fact that Oscar never had a polygraph test. Did he even volunteer to have one??? Interesting. Can someone answer that?

      • FrankieUK
        January 4, 2016

        polygraphs are not regarded as accurate.

      • FrankieUK
        January 4, 2016

        If witnesses actually lied in the stand than that is absolutely shocking. A woman was murdered and I wonder how Barry Roux can sleep at night, as he must know OP murdered Reeva Steenkamp.

        What no-one knows is why, any more than we know why three women a day are murdered by their partners or ex partners in South Africa and seven a month here in the UK.

      • Norma Warwick
        January 25, 2016

        Mags. your bias is blinding you to some important facts. The Stipps contradicted each other evidence on a number of issues, and Mrs Stipp blatantly lied to the court about being present, and assisting with the photography done from her home (Holding the curtain back for the photographer, to reveal what she would/could not have seen had the curtains been hanging in their normal position. But you believe whatever you want. Just try and be more factual.

        Do all the lies published immediately after Oscar’s arrest, and never addressed in court (he bashed her head in with the cricket bat, Reeva was pregnant, steroids found in his house, surfing porn sites, etc etc) not bother you. Then it certainly was a very successful media campaign to make sure no-one would ever believe a word Oscar said. A campaign driven by the police and the NPA. And you are thick-skinned enough to talk about justice. (And no, I am not a Pistorian, whatever that means. I have a law degree and a working brain, and am as interested in justice as you profess to be.

      • Mags
        January 27, 2016

        I’m not biased, I simply have more then 2 brain cells and I am entitled to form an opinion based on circumstantial evidence presented in the trial, (which I was glued to from the first day of the trial to the day the shocking verdict was presented.)

        Oscar fans, or anyone who defends him, or fell for his pathetic (3) versions, is called ‘biased’. One doesn’t have to have a law degree to work out what happened that fateful night.

        As an attorney, do you have a reasonable explanation as to why FOUR shots were fired and why Reeva took both phones to the bathroom? (Apart from all the other evidence which the SCA concluded was murder, those are two significant facts that point to guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.) The Judge erred. Not the State.

        The way you carry on it’s as if the police, the prosecutor, the SCA, plus anyone who is pro justice for the victim, are all guilty of a far worse crime than murder.

        Oscar Pistorius pulled the trigger – four times. Not the police or anyone else.

        As for your argument about the Stipps, that was part of the defense argument, it’s their job to pick holes in the State’s evidence. Maybe the judge was in a coma during the trial. Likewise the rumors in the media prior to the trial was all speculation and happens after any high profile murder – I don’t know why a qualified attorney would mention something so irrelevant, it wasn’t part of the evidence.

        I look forward to your response to my 2 questions, above. Put your money where your mouth is, or rest your case.

    • Mags
      January 4, 2016

      Apart from the estate security that has 24 hour guards patrolling every hour, electric fencing, and only one access gate ….

      He had 2 attack dogs. One of which was a PITT BULL.
      A PITT BULL……!!!! Hello ???? They even attack children without provocation.

      This should have been a HUGE part of the state’s argument to prove guilty beyond all reasonable doubt as it would have cancelled out his version completely.
      Dogs don’t only bark at intruders in the dead of night, they go hysterical.

      The points that proved beyond all reasonable doubt were :

      1) Dogs would have barked. That cancels out the “I was scared” BS, people with attack dogs feel secure as they rely on the dogs to raise the alarm before the house alarm is activated.

      2) Neighbors heard Reeva screaming, proving his version was a lie that he “thought she was in the bedroom”. A reasonable person would NEVER fire INTO A CLOSED DOOR without first checking where his partner is. NEVER. Especially a competent shotist who was well versed with gun laws.

      3) FOUR shots fired, aimed to kill

      4) No warning shot

      5) He is a trained, competent shooter

      6) Past history of negligent behavior with guns

      7) Past history of aggressive behavior with girlfriends and others

      8) He was a poor witness who kept changing his version

      9) He moved the body (that was very suspect……)

      10) Reeva took both phones to bathroom……why???

      These 10 points alone fits the pieces of the puzzle together.

      I wonder if Barry Roux believes in the tooth fairy ???

  25. FrankieUK
    January 8, 2016

    I did not believe that powerful people in South Africa intended he would go to prison and his demeanour said he knew that and thought he would get off. He boasted in a nightclub that his family “owned Zuma”. Then Gerrie Nel started questioning him aggressively.

    I lived in South Africa for ten years, was engaged to a very jealous man and had a best friend who was married to a very jealous man. That does not make OP guilty, but it does give me some insight into the behaviour and short fuse of very jealous men, how and why they lose their temper and the dynamics.

    Over and over again I have asked “why was Reeva screaming in terror BEFORE she was shot?`’ She was in a locked loo and could not see Oscar, so did she know he had picked up his gun, or had he attacked her violently in the bedroom?

    There is something missing and it has been mentioned elsewhere a missing bullet. Was the dent in the bath caused by a bullet?

    Jealous people lose their temper over the most innocent things. I was walking on eggs all the time as clearly was Reeva. Oscar walked out of parties if she spoke to a man, she was able to be friends with men and that day she had met an ex for coffee.

    In the photographs together he looks like a love sick puppy, while she is a sophisticated woman. Apparently the house where she lived, her friend’s father had told OP to back off as he was too intense.

    The fact that Masipa threw out all the evidence from the neighbours and Mangena, says she had no intention he would be found guilty of murder, or even that the State could win an appeal. Whether she was out of her depth, starstruck, or had been leaned on, we will never know.

    The outcry and anger at the killing must have shocked the powers-that-be, the publicity was bad for South Africa. One thing we do know, women are usually murdered when they are leaving, or after they have left and I think Reeva wanted to leave. She was well versed in abuse and maybe OP did something that crossed the line and made her terrified of him. Something bad happened in that bedroom.

    • Mags
      January 9, 2016

      Frankie you should order Nick van der Leeks books on the trial from amazon, all extremely riveting reads, covering all aspects of the trial, available on kindle. Each one covers facts that answer all the questions. Also order “An Accident Waiting to Happen” by Patrica Taylor, and June Steenkamps book, “Reeva”.

      All those books have all the answers to the events leading up to the crime and the evidence that didn’t come out in court.

      • FrankieUK
        January 10, 2016

        Mags, I read June Steenkamp’s book as soon as it came out and sat through the trial live, so feel I know quite a bit. I will read the other books too, although I cannot understand how Patricia Taylor allowed her 17 year old daughter to be in an abusive relationship with a much older man.

        Even if OP does ultimately get off, he will never be free. If he had succeeded with “an accident”, he would have appeared on talk shows and raised sympathy with how he “accidentally” shot the love of his life. But nobody buys that.

        One thing that satisfies me, is how many men the world over do not support him and are very angry that he killed a helpless woman, so there is hope for all of us. From the USA, UK and South Africa, men are fizzing with anger.

      • Mags
        January 13, 2016

        Hi Frankie. You’re absolutely spot on. Patricia Taylor was far too accepting of Oscar and if you read my review on her book on Amazon, you’ll see my reaction to her, as you stated.

        Had the Tasher’s owner done the right thing by reporting the incident to the police when Oscar fired the gun in the restaurant,

        Reeva would still be alive !

        (Instead he hushed it up as it meant more to his restaurant having a famous athlete be seen there……)

        Had Patricia Taylor reported his psycho behavior to the police when Oscar abused her daughter,

        Reeva would still be alive !

        The justice system here is a comedy of errors. A convicted murderer should not have been given bail …….it’s ludicrous. He should have been sent back to jail until sentencing. As for the judge in the bail hearing, he should be struck off with his history of leniency towards racists and killers.

        The fact that Reeva took 2 phones to the bathroom tells the story ………during the trial I had all the respect and faith in Masipa, I was dumbstruck when she read her verdict. I wondered if she was in the habit of sleeping with her eyes open, that verdict was as if she was in a coma during the trial. If the con court as much as entertain his appeal will show just how incompetent the justice system is.

        I believe he’s going to do a run for it (pun intended) if it’s thrown out of the con court. He’s too much of a wuss to go back to a dingy cell.

    • Amber
      January 9, 2016

      Hi Lisa!
      From the previous comment I submitted, there was a question about Oscar’s possible appeal to Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng and I realized I hadn’t done much research on this judge…..so I did…..
      and OHMIGOSH!
      No wonder Oscar has that smirk on his face, this Chief Justice is renowned for his soft stance to rape and gender-violence!
      Here is the quote from Wikipedia
      But the most widespread concerns were about Mogoeng’s judgments in rape and gender-violence cases.[6][15][16][17][18][19] The Nobel Women’s Initiative accused Mogoeng of invoking dangerous myths about rape and of victim-blaming.[20] Of the many judgments cited by critics in which Mogoeng had been lenient on rapists and domestic assailants, three were emphasised. In State v Sebaeng, Mogoeng reduced the sentence of a child rapist on the basis that he had been non-violent and indeed “tender” in raping the victim.[21] The 2005 case of State v Moipolai involved the rape of a pregnant woman by her long-term boyfriend. Despite several aggravating factors, Mogoeng reduced the man’s sentence from ten years’ imprisonment to five because the rape was, he said, not as serious as if a stranger had committed it.[22] Finally, in State v Mathebe, Mogoeng reduced the sentence, from two years’ imprisonment to a fine of R4,000, of a man who had tied his girlfriend to his car and dragged her 50 meters along a dirt road. Mogoeng’s explanation was that the man had been “provoked”. When these three judgments were raised in a BBC interview, Mogoeng compared his judgments in sexual-assault cases to a game of football, saying it would be wrong to call Manchester United a bad team because it loses three matches in a season.[23]

      There seems to be money issues with this Chief Justice as well. He was a surprise appointment to the legal community in SA some believing he’s a Zuma puppet,

      Pistorius has already said, albeit drunkenly, that his family “owns Zuma…”

      I have a bad feeling that OP knows the Concourt may/will bounce his appeal and he knows that this judge is on his team……
      there are still many articles about his controversial decisions on rape of children and violence against women.

      One newspaper article was particularly troubling:
      “The fact that this judge imposed a reduced sentence is worrying,” says Desmond Lesejane of the Sonke Gender Justice Network. “But so too is the issue around saying that the woman provoked the violence. Nothing can ever provoke anyone to become violent.”
      Lesejane argues that the case sets a dangerous precedent because it perpetuates the “stereotype of the provocative woman” and the myth that the victim can in some way be held responsible for the violence carried out against her.

      In my opinion, finding out more about this Chief Justice and the fact that Roux mentioned going to him personally, is very upsetting, It was the way it was said by OP’s team that made me start to wonder. How many people would say that? That if Concourt dismisses appeal they will just go to the Chief Justice? Made me wonder and now I know why they said it (part of me wishes I didn’t as this just makes the outlook worse for justice for Reeva)

      I realize that rape or abuse was not part of the charge against OP, BUT, it does show the mind-set of this Chief Justice. Violence against women organizations were strong in their support of justice for Reeva and so many of us believe there was abuse there. Getting Justice from this judge who’s past history shows leniency toward the perpetrator not the victim? Especially in violence against a woman. Makes me worry more than a little bit…..

      Thanks for letting this old historian post a few thoughts!

  26. FrankieUK
    January 13, 2016

    So Oscar is appealing to the Constitutional Court. I have mixed views as I always believed powerful people did not want him in prison, hence the bail after he has been found guilty of murder.

    On the other hand, the fact that Gerrie Nel pursued the case, must show that the powers at the top of the judiciary, such as Leach, are independent. Would love to sit down with a glass of wine, Leach and Gerrie Nel and hear what they really think.

    Dr Burger and her husband came forward because the story of the intruder did not sit with what they heard, which was a woman’s terrified screams and gunshots.

    Note; I call her Dr Burger and not Mrs Burger as Roux did. Because she is not Mrs Burger, her married title is Mrs Johnson, but like many professional woman she uses her single name, where she qualified and made her name.

    He should have called her Dr Burger or Mrs Johnson, but he did not want the Court to show her the respect she was entitled to, it weakened his attempts to undermine her evidence.

  27. Ajay
    January 25, 2016

    Well written article he shot to kill with criminal intent like justice Leech said at the SCA hearing. He knew who he was firing at that night no intruder it was Reeva and he wanted to kill her so he does not get exposed of what a nasty piece of work he is.

  28. FrankieUK
    January 27, 2016

    Ajay, I think you hit the nail on the head. I have come to believe it was not anger, but a cold blooded decision to stop her talking and harming the sponsorships.

    Interesting things we learn. Mangena could tell the way the angle of the bullets changed, that the gun was being aimed at the victim, not shot blindly.

    • Mags
      February 2, 2016

      Hi Frankie. Reading your comments made me think back to 1972, a few months after marrying an Irishman, I was four months pregnant. One morning he came home and said he should go with him to a client for a drive. When we arrived, he stopped the car on the road and asked me to walk up a long driveway of the house in Bryanston, to fetch a document from a client of his. As I walked up the driveway two alsations ran towards me barking, I screamed and turned my back to the dogs, one of them jumped onto me and as it started sinking its teeth into my back, the owner screamed at the dogs from the front door, managing to chase them off. She shouted to me that “he knows the dogs are vicious, he always drives to the front door and hoots.” At the time I was too young and naive, and in love with my new husband, to think anything. It was only after the divorce after 7 years of mental, physical, verbal and financial abuse, that the horrifying thought came to me, that the dog incident was no mistake, all he wanted was a South African wife in order to live and work in SA. (He didn’t need a wife, only a secure residency permit.)
      Had the dogs managed to finish me off (which was quite possible had the owner not intervened), would have been seen as a tragic accident, case closed.

      Looking back at his sociopathic personality traits and aggressive behavior, reminds me of Oscar. The tragedy is, women don’t see the signs until it’s too late. 🙂

  29. FrankieUK
    February 3, 2016

    Couple of points, one for posterity and one for relationships.

    I am an expert in dealing with the media. The publicity was not driven by the police or the NPA.

    The publicity was driven by the public, in the desire to know what happened. Take a world famous athlete, who had hit the airwaves with his determination in the Olympic Games, he had appeared on the news and television shows in the USA and UK, then have him accused of murdering a fairly well known beautiful model and television personality, add to that his claim that he thought there was an intruder and few believed it. That is what has driven the publicity, with the public connecting to media websites to find out more. The more the media professionals see there is an appetite for news, even to some extent an obsession, then the more the media will try and satisfy that by bringing in different interviews and anyone that has a story to tell.

    On the matter of relationships, women tend to focus on the good times and hope with discussion and agreement, life can be like that all the time. It takes a woman a long time to accept that as the bad times are, that is how things will continue.

    Reeva was afraid of him and that was her subconscious warning her he was dangerous.

    • Mags
      February 4, 2016

      You’re right Frankie. That is what happened that night, Reeva was advised that afternoon by her agent to cool things with Oscar, (all the details are in Nick van der Leeks first book on the trial…..), Reeva had no intention of sleeping at OP’s house that night, I believe an argument started early on in the evening, and progressed later that night into fight. The evidence in the bedroom showed that Reeva had packed her overnight bag, ready to leave. It was then he must have threatened her and had the gun in his hand. That’s when she ran to bathroom with both phones. Hence the messages from his phone were deleted after the crime. That was the part the cops can be critisized for, both phones should have been siezed for evidence, how anyone managed to take the phone was bad police work.

      The fact that the jeans were inside out also tells a story – they were pulled off her…..he was desperate for her not to leave him.

      The fatal shots were to silence her.

  30. Mr. Anon
    April 19, 2016

    The smugness is called ‘dupers delight’. Psychopaths are charming people without conscience who ACT as if they have emotions. Since they don’t have emotions they get no fulfilment out of life and so their only ‘fulfilment’ is manipulating the people around them. To do this they act as if they’re really nice people in order that no one suspects them. They’re described as ‘chamelons’ by Professor Hare, psychopath expert.

    ‘Duper’s delight’ is a moment when the Mask slips and the psychopath reveals his or her glee at deceiving everyone.

    Search for ‘Duper’s delight’ and there’s a lot of videos and photos out there. For more on psychopaths try psychopathsandlove.com, lovefraud.com or psychopathfree.com

    Also read the books ‘Without Conscience’ and ‘Snakes in Suits’, both written by the world’s leading expert on psychopaths, Robert Hare.

  31. Mr. Anon
    April 20, 2016

    One more thought – don’t know if any of you are aware but psychopaths are in all walks of life, love power and tend to gravitate upwards. They are also in the judicial system – lawyers, judges etc.

    Psychopaths make up 4% of high-powered corporate types (Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010). Also, Professor Hare has said that if he hadn’t studied psychopaths in prison he’d have studiend them on the Stock Exchange.

    In other words it’s extremely likely (no studies have been done yet because basically people don’t want to be studied for pschopathy) that in high-powered professions 4% or 1 in 25 people is a full-blown psychopath.

    I mention this because skimming through this article there were a few red flags from some of the judicial types.

    Wome who’ve had a psychopathic husband and are involved in child-custody or divorce proceedings regularly comment on the psychopathic behaviour of lawyers or judges. There are quite a few forum threads on divorce proceedings, family etc. courts at psychopathfree.com, though you’ll have to read around a little to find refrences to the psychopathic behaviour of judges, lawyers etc.

    You can read a little of what it’s like for a woman to take a psychopath to court at http://www.lovefraud.com/2012/08/22/family-court-a-psychopaths-playground-for-legally-sanctioned-abuse/ and the concept of ‘Legal Abuse Syndrome’. The comments after the article add a lot of depth.

    And you can read alittle of what it’s like to come up against a ‘psychopathic’ wall of ‘justice’ at https://hgbeverly.com/2014/02/04/systemic-evil/
    Here’s a partial quote from the author, who was fighting her psychopathic husband in court:

    ‘You won’t know to put together the words systemic evil even after friends advise you that the magistrate will blame you for everything that the magistrate is a hard ass toward women that the magistrate won’t ever let you go back to your farm I know one woman who fled with her daughter after a beating from her husband with nothing not even with her glasses and when she asked to go back and get them later this magistrate said you’re the one who left without them, so no, you can’t go back.’

  32. FrankieUK
    April 22, 2016

    So more is being revealed in this latest book. I always felt that something terrible happened in the bedroom that made Reeva scream in fear for help, something beyond a couple arguing. Many of us assumed that OP may have hit her with the cricket bat, now we see she had three pellets from his airgun in her, one in the arm and two in her back. The photographs are there as evidence.

    Whatever was going on in the autopsy and why was this not revealed in court?

    He really is a bad guy. So much dishonesty! I wonder how Masipa will manage his prison sentence after this latest revelation.

  33. Mags
    April 23, 2016

    Hi Frankie, nice to touch base again. I read the article in the Daily News last night about the findings of researches Calvin and Thomas Mollett published in their book Oscar vs The Truth.

    My question is : WHY DID THE STATE NOT USE ALL THAT IN COURT EVIDENCE ???????

    The authors even have previously unseen pictures from the crime scene – why was that evidence not revealed in court ?????

    I have always argued that the police and forensics experts involved in this crime knew what they were doing, I now have my doubts, and raises questions.

    Can Julie and Nick provide answers to above ?

  34. FrankieUK
    May 1, 2016

    Dear Mags, nice to be in touch too. I can only give a guess, that I do know here in the UK, after someone has been found guilty, more about a case is always revealed in the media.

    Whether it is because certain information can prejudice the trial, I don’t know, as I am not a lawyer, but I was waiting for more after a guilty of murder verdict. I also expect there is a lot more that Gerrie Nel could tell.

    As you have seen me ask over and over again like a dog with a bone, what happened that made Reeva scream a blood curdling scream before the gun shots, according to Dr Michelle Burger? So I was just guessing he must have seriously hurt her and put her in fear for her life before she ran to the bathroom and the bullet hole in the arm may clear that up. The jeans on the ground outside below the loo window, maybe she was waiving them to get attention, or maybe she intended to take the risk and jump, although it looks too high for that.

    I suspect that the police and forensics have so many crime scenes to attend to, that they may be lax and these guys claim police thought it was an open and shut case, but they were up against the best lawyers money can buy.

    I think the police did know what they were doing, in an instinctive very experienced way, but they may not have the knowhow to translate it to take on the likes of Roux and the rest.

  35. FrankieUK
    May 1, 2016

    Last but not least, we have to ask what the judge was up to. The Appeal judge did not look too please at the amount of evidence that she had thrown out.

    • Mags
      May 2, 2016

      Outside the court on 18 April for the postponement of his sentencing, a group of “old blondes” were holding specially printed banners about his innocence, plus a huge map of all his overseas supporters claiming they were 25,000 in total. Ja, right. Obviously a well thought out PRO stunt by the Pistorius’s and their publicist. It was published that he was in hospital on the weekend for an “heart problem.”

      They’re trying every trick in the book to reduce his sentence.

      One sick bunch of people if you ask me.

      There is enough evidence to get him life without parole. As far as I’m concerned, any murder should be a life sentence. He’s getting off far too lightly.

  36. FrankieUK
    May 4, 2016

    He is still not in jail though is he? Surely after the Supreme Court gave their murder verdict, he should have been sent down. Something is afoot, you watch. I will still be surprised if he goes to prison.

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 December 8, 2015 by in Oscar Pistorius Trial and tagged , , , .
%d bloggers like this: