Oscar Pistorius trial

[JillJ72]

Starting a new thread as as was pointed out on the other thread, it is not an appropriate place to "talk" and continue to "promote" a really poor excuse for a "joke".

Yesterday's post-mortem evidence was awful; if ever there's a way to get across just how unglamorous guns are, post-mortem evidence is a painfully honest way of doing so.

I listened to the trial live today. My main impression? That Darren Fresco consulted with legal experts to ensure his affidavit did not incriminate him, yet left room for questions that weren't explicitly answered. If he'd paid for that input from legal experts, they didn't sew it up nicely and tightly. I got the impression he was a bit of an unwilling witness really, and had problems remembering some things, yet was very insistent on others. Some good journo feeds on twitter that give different flavours and interpretations.

I'll be honest. I hope this was as OP said, an appalling mistake. But equally so many questions, the constant "whys". And so I am sitting on the fence, listening to argument and counter-argument, and waiting for the judge's final decision.

Never have been in a court of law before, are proceedings usually this long, slow, going round in circles, playing cat and mouse?

My forlorn hope for Monday then is that there is a text or phone call from Reeva that lends weight to one or other side.
I'm trying not to read Twitter comments but I must admit some of the tweets/articles from journalists seem wildly inappropriate eg joking about a witness' tie, linking to spoof songs about the trial. I've worked in the media for years and I do recognise that kind of black humour but it should never be part of published journalism. I just keep thinking a woman died, how can you think it appropriate to link to parody raps?! [Yes, looking at you Telegraph]

I have also thought one of the best things he could do in the future would be an anti guns campaigner.
If he doesn't get a jail sentence I still wonder how hard it would be to run again at such an elite level. I am sure his work trying to enable people to have better /any prosthetics can continue though maybe uncomfortable for a while. I am sure there will also be room for him in one of the family businesses.
This is the kind of thing that could make you are evaluate your whole life and attitude to it. That is supposed to read re evaluate!
I almost feel the judge is going to be obliged to sentence him or there could be a terrible backlash of the one rule for the rich influential white and one for the rest.
Fwiw. I think he is telling the truth weird though it might be. Though I do think he needs to be taken to task/ sentenced for his recklessness.

Isn't there precedent for not jailing for culpable homicide? The rugby player who shot his daughter dead after mistaking her for a burglar. I'm sorry, but her name has gone out of my head.

If he is found guilty of culpable homicide I don't think he'll go to jail and I hope he carries on with his foundation to help disabled disadvantaged people access prosthesis quickly and finically effectively. I also agree with the antigun campaigner stance, that'd be something towards making amends for what he did.

I think June Steenkamp is an amazingly strong and brave woman, to sit so close to the man who killed her daughter and remain so calm and composed and talk of forgiveness, she's a better woman than me.

Money aside I am not surprise he,s selling the house. Can,t imagine he would every want to live there again. And I bet his brother and Sister having been there on the morning of the 14th would rather never step foot in the place again either.

“Why, if they were having a row that escalated to something so horrific, would Reeva not run out the bedroom door, why to the bathroom.” Because once running out of the bedroom, where would she go? It’s likely that the house had gates on the front door to which OP would have had the keys, and bars on the windows, so she wouldn’t likely have just been able to get out of the house. So running out of the bedroom would make her a moving (and visible) target. I don’t imagine she thought she was at risk from a gun, but from physical violence, hence hiding behind a closed door rather than running.

“I don't think his work is done. I think this is an opportunity to turn a nightmare into something that commemorates Reeva and what she wanted to stand for.” I don’t think so. He killed someone – in cold blood – regardless of whether he thought he was shooting at an intruder. The South African view (I grew up in SA and have many contacts there) is that he has always been arrogant, always known for his violent temper and that this was a disaster waiting to happen. Moreover, I have not heard one single South African say that the culture of fear is such that shooting someone through a locked door could ever be justified or normalised.

Regardless of what the trial turns up, the fact remains that OP killed a defenceless person. Because even if it was an intruder his life was not at risk at that time.

No self respecting charity or sponsor would touch him with a bargepole and rightly so.

I do think that there is an element of people wanting him to be not guilty because of his disability, no-one wants to imagine someone with a disability as a potential murderer, someone who overcomes adversity and fights hard to get to where they are. But fact is everyone is a human being, and disability doesn't change the kind of human being you are.

I’m not surprised he’s selling the house, although can’t imagine, actually I can imagine the kinds of people who would want to buy it. Ghules with an interest in its significance

Don't think this has anything to do with him being disabled wannabe.

For me it's about hoping a human being wouldn't do something so horrific, on purpose.

Having been at the Paralympics, and also at the Sainsburys Anniversary Games Paralympic athletes day, I don't see the disability standing out - to me Oscar or Jonnie or Richard - men with blades - are just who they are. I don't see Oscar as a disabled person having killed someone, I see him as a person having killed someone. But that's me and my personal viewpoint, and yes, I'm sure there will be people who define him by his disability and "how could he?". Well, peeps, he's a person just like lots of other people (rich, successful, have it all people that is).

Except he did something truly horrific. And sometimes, sadly, people do.

This is a wrong that can never be put right. But I do think he has an opportunity to do something useful and sensible, and he should use it wisely.

"For me it's about hoping a human being wouldn't do something so horrific, on purpose."

I agree and it's about not wanting to accept that someone who seemed to have so much potential, who was a role model and an inspiration to many and who probably had so much more to give to society could do something so unimaginable.

I appreciate this is a somewhat elitist view but there are some who become killers and you think society failed them in some way or that their life was heading in a certain direction or that having them in prison will make the world a safer place and perhaps they will be rehabilitated/educated and end up a better human being in some way. In this case we thought we had the good human being, we find them deeply flawed (a tragedy in a truly Shakespearean sense) They will go to prison and one wonders whether instead of rehabilitation there will be the creation of something even darker.

But don't get me wrong I'm not saying the rich and privileged shouldn't be held accountable just wondering how he could make amends if as pp said no charity would touch him with a bargepole.

Is loss of freedom the worst punishment? I would have thought whether in prison or out he has lost his freedom anyway. He will probably never compete again. He will always have a stigma attached to him.

"He will always have a stigma attached to him".

On every level seeing such a bubble of ambition and achievement burst is sad, disappointing. It's that pedestal thing. That aspire, achieve, admire thing. But he has his life....

"But he has his life...."

I hope he has greater respect for it and that of others now

Can only hope so.

I think it’s a bit of an insult to Reeva Steenkamp to suggest that OP do anything in her name/memory. In fact I think that anything of that nature could only ever be seen as an attempt for OP to minimize what he has done.

Regardless of whether the court finds him guilty of premeditated murder, the fact remains that he killed Reeva Steenkamp. It wasn’t a car crash which could have been avoided, it wasn’t even a gun which shouldn’t have been out which went off accidentally, he fired four bullets through a closed door with the intention of killing whoever it was on the other side. He was a trigger happy maniac who had no control over his impulse to use his gun.

So he feels remorse, so he bloody well should. So what he’s heard in court has made him sick, good. What he has achieved in the past is irrelevant. Whether he intended to start up a foundation to do good is irrelevant. Jimmy Saville did a lot of “good” too. I find it just a bit that people are somehow saying that some good can come out of this for OP. Why should it? Wreckless idiots like him need to learn that you can’t just go around shooting indiscriminately at whatever you feel is a threat, and that if you are that out of control you shouldn’t own a gun in the first place. OP was well aware of the gun laws in SA, and no, they do not sanction shooting through locked doors at unknowns on the other side. Moreover, he had another six guns on order. No-one needs that many guns, you can only use one at a time....

Would anyone really be comfortable for someone like that to come down to your school and train your kids? Really?

Whatever the outcome, I cannot see any charity wanting to be associated with him, as an amputee I'm afraid with his attitude to guns I'm rather he wasn't, a lot of amputees have lost limbs through violent means, accidents, land mines etc and it would seems somewhat odd and I would think could make people uncomfortable to have a spokesperson who has killed someone in such a violent way (even if it were an accident) but I accept that's my own personal view.

I have absolute no doubt he is getting a fair trial, and have faith the judge will come to the right decision either way. My own feelings are very much on the fence at the moment, I swing one way then the other.

Totally agree with ^^

not only would no reputable charity want to be associated with him, but no-one would want to lend their backing to any kind of charity he might start either.

Nelson Mandela (Acts of Violence and terrorism), Ghandi (spousal cruelty, emotional abuse), Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness (Terrorism)- Leslie Grantham (murder)

All rehabilitated and in some cases venerated for the work they went on to do- it's not impossible

you're comparing OP to Nelson Mandela?

The obvious difference here is that the majority of those mentioned above, while they did sanction acts of atrocity, for the most part these were politically motivated and with a specific goal in mind. you know, such as fighting against the oppression of black people in an entire country... Whereas someone with a history of violence and a known love of fire arms blindly killing their girlfriend is just that - a common murderer.

"Would anyone really be comfortable for someone like that to come down to your school and train your kids? Really?"

Well I'd prefer my children not to grow up in a country that felt it was ok for people to own loads of guns.

I accept people can own guns in this country (for gun clubs, farming etc) but even that I think is unacceptable. Would prefer to see total ban on gun ownership and maybe access for gun clubs/clay pigeon shooting only

I made the suggestion in no way to be used as an excuse to minimise what he has done, rather to be a not-glorified, quiet, humble, accountable example of what he has done. But the former will be perceived and promoted, even if the intention is firmly the latter. So be it.

Point taken about who would want to be associated with him. Unlikely. Not impossible. Who knows.

"you're comparing OP to Nelson Mandela? "

I'm obviously not putting him on the same level just saying that all humans are capable of violence, some out of necessity, some for self- defence, some out of recklessness, stupidity or evil. That doesn't mean they can never again do a worthy thing or have a productive life surely.

I think prison can rehabilitate but it doesn't always.

Maybe SA government should review it's gun ownership laws- it should take more than a questionnaire that any fool could answer

maybe he could be rehabilitated but that doesn't mean he should ever be held up again as a public role model. He is not the kind of person we should want our children to look up to.

People like Nelson Mandela oversaw violence because they were young and possibly driven by a desire for change but not mature enough to do it in the right way, or possibly not in a position where they could challenge authority in the right way. When Mandela went to prison the rest of the world had not yet come on board with what apartheid meant and stood for and saught to bring about change. We can tell our children that while the way he went about it was wrong, his motivation was in the right place, and ultimately, he did seek to negotiate a peaceful outcome when there was more chance of achieving a positive result, and that because of those actions the fate of South Africa changed and he became their president. (one man's freedom fighter and all that).

But what of OP...? "erm well it's like this... see he was an athlete, but he was a bit full of himself, a bad loser, had temper tantrums on the track when he didn't win, even accusing others of cheating. On the whole he wasn't all that nice in the first place, and it was all in the name of his own success. And on top of all that he loved his guns. loved to carry them with him, owned lots of them, fired them in temper and so on. Then one night he claimed he heard someone in the bathroom, door was locked and he could have called foor help, but instead he pelted the door with bullets until he could be sure whoever it was was dead. Except it was his girlfriend who he hadn't actually bothered to tell that he was about to fire multiple bullets at the door - if there had been an intruder she would have woken up and probably been terrified at the sound of gunshots (waking up to gunshots isn't normal in SA). and there she was, dead. and OP had loads of guns and it was shown tht he was a bit trigger happy, but he went to jail and he's all rehabilitated now and ... err... wants to compete again in the Paralympics..."

nope, not sure you can in any way explain that in any way that makes OP come out as anything more than a gun crazed maniac.

You know what, I had been enjoying this thread, enjoying the discussion of the facts and evidence, being presented in court. Not what the media printed,not what some posters "know", but the actual facts from the court case.

I'm bowing out until Monday

I never thought much about OP till valentines last year. I had heard of him a few years back and was/aware of the south African runner who ran on blades and wanted to be allowed to run in able bodied races. I knew he lost his original case because the blades gave him an unfair advantage. I was therefore surprised to see him at the Olympics. After his tantrum after loosing to Olivera I remember being glad that Johnny Peacock beat him. However I didn't,t think much more . Then after he shot Reeva I really couldn't,t get him off my mind. Something about this "incident" really got to me. I don't really know what. How life can change in a moment. The utter desolation that was palpable even via the media. They way it brought a lot of the culture is South Africa to the rest of the world.
It prayed on my mind for ages. . Don't really know what I am saying here.
Now I just hope the truth comes out . For Reeva,s family, For Oscar and his family and South Africa.

Agree with wannaBe ^

To be 'rehabilitated' surely requires an initial admission of wrong doing?