Beth Karas on Oscar Sanitizing the Crime Scene?

One of America’s most renowned legal journalists, Beth Karas, spent time with Nick and I yesterday in an hour long chat about two of the biggest cases in modern history.

Screenshot 2016-06-30 10.21.29

Before diving into Oscar and O.J., Beth shared with us some stories from her early days in New York where she started her legal career.

In this conversation, you’ll hear about some of the differences between South African and American law.  Beth explains how premeditation is typically defined, as well as the different levels of murder here in the states.  Meanwhile, Nick introduces his idea of “post-meditation” as we shift our focus to an examination of the Oscar Pistorius crime scene.

In response to our recent blog post titled An Oscar for the Great Pretender, Beth said:

“Her face being clean does seem to indicate it’s been wiped off.” 

To hear more of Beth’s opinions on #Shakedown’s findings, check out our full conversation on YouTube…

 

Follow us on Twitter:

@KarasOnCrime

@lisawJ13

@HiRezLife

 

An Oscar for the Great Pretender [WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES]

crime scene tape

blurred image

Oscar’s voice will once again trump[et] the airwaves, while many media outlets have elected not to show images of Reeva Steenkamp’s injuries, even at the behest of her traumatized father, 73 year old Barry Steenkamp.

Reeva1

More than three years after the crime that robbed her so cruelly of her life, we’re wondering what Reeva would have thought, what sort of sentence she’d impose.  We’re wondering because Oscar – her murderer – is making a suggestion for what she thinks his punishment ought to be for murdering her “by mistake”.

Unaware to almost everyone is that Reeva was attacked previously and she made her feelings clear then.  In this post we’ll once again provide a voice to those sentiments, and a voice for Reeva where Oscar claims to speak for her.  Though Reeva herself cannot speak,  her images still can and do – her image [her bloodied body] – speaks eloquently of an insight none have yet drawn, not the media, not even the prosecution [in so many words].

I contacted the prosecution today via phone and email, and have procured additional unseen images of Reeva Steenkamp directly from the judge’s clerk.  It goes without saying that these are the most disturbing and gruesome images yet.  The reason we are publishing them [a world first, as far as we are aware] is to shock people out of their Oscar-obsessed hypnosis.

Remember Reeva

“It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away everything he’s got and everything he’s ever gonna have.” – Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven

On 14 February 2013, Oscar murdered Reeva Steenkamp, taking away all she was and all she was ever going to have.  He has since invented a bogus narrative to minimize and sanitize his crime, as well as to cover-up and embellish his part in it. All of this is aimed at mitigating his sentence not by taking responsibility for his actions, or even acknowledging them, but for mendacity in the face of a world watching.  We saw that same mendacity when Oscar demanded to be treated as an able-bodied athlete with no clear advantages.

In our view Oscar not only committed premeditated murder, but continued with a post-meditated clean-up of not just the crime scene but Reeva herself.  In court, that bogus narrative has continued unabated, with a performance calculated towards one end: our sympathy.

In the section below we will provide a blow by blow of Oscar’s bogus version as provided to ITV, the court or in his re-enactment video, and in each instance we will counter the defects and manipulations.  We leave it to you to decide which makes the most sense.

This page will be updated through the course of the night and the following week as we add additional examples and references.  First-time visitors are encouraged to read our reconstruction compiled in the final chapters of our fourth book Revelations.

Oscar’s B$ Version [ITV$] versus #Shakedown [#S]

On ITV this evening Oscar said of the moment he found Reeva’s body slumped in the bathroom:

hqdefault (1).jpg

ITV$:  “I opened the toilet door and immediately when I saw Reeva she was over the toilet. And I [breaks down], at that point I knew that I’d killed her. I knew that she was dead. And I went down on my knees and pulled her onto me.”

Snip20140705_89.png

#S: The toilet door had already been battered, and I could see through it.  I could also see through the bullet holes and a long vertical crack made early on by bashing the door. 

bullet holes

I saw and heard Reeva before I shot her, thanks to the sounds of her voice and the phone, and the illumination of her phone under the door and through the keyhole.  When I saw Reeva, after breaking down the door, she was obviously dead; she had an enormous dark red hole coming out of the back of her head. 

She was lying on the floor to the right of the toilet [opposite bullet hole D], she also had a huge red hole coming out of the back end of her right arm, so too her hip. 

bullet holes 2

I reached in and unlocked the door, then moved Reeva to the toilet, leaving prosthetic footprints on the toilet floor.

bathroom floor

I then placed her on her right side with her head overhanging the toilet, to drain her body of blood.  I then flushed the toilet the first time and began wiping the rest of the toilet.

toilet

ITV$: “And I put her on the bathroom floor; and I pull the curtain.. the towel down for her head.”

towels on floor.jpg

#S:  I used a grey towel to mop up the toilet and bathroom floor.  I erased my own footprints, I’d obviously erased the bullet holes by bashing down that section of the door, and some splinters and a bullet casing lay submerged inside the bloodied toilet bowel.

ITV$: “And I just see blood and it’s just blood everywhere. [sobbing] It’s just blood everywhere… So much blood! [sobbing] and I don’t know what to do.”

 

Head1

#S: I knew exactly what to do.  I had to contaminate my own crime scene, and that meant getting Reeva outside of it, and getting rid of as much blood as I could.  And that included blood on Reeva herself.  I wiped Reeva’s bloodied face clean, carried her to the bottom of the stairs and placed her with the better side of her face facing the front door.  I then went back upstairs to clean my footprints [unlike O.J. who left a trail – see below for a reference of an unstaged scene], and mop up the toilet itself – although by then some of Reeva’s blood had dried. 

Fullscreen capture 20160622 085845 PM

ITV$: “I’m trying to pick her up but there’s so much blood I can’t stand up. And I thought Reeva had started breathing, so I had my fingers in her mouth and I was trying to give her mouth to mouth, but there was so much blood.”

toilet 3

#S: Instead of picking her up, I drag her out.  Remember, this is someone bleeding to death.  Instead of stabilizing her, I’m reaching for towels to put under [ie wipe her] head.  I’m moving her – a disabled person on a slick surface – from upstairs, to downstairs.  I’m carrying a mortally wounded person, even though I’m disabled, covered in blood, and moving down stairs.  I don’t put my fingers down her throat to resuscitate her, I put them there to pretend to resuscitate her.

aimee 2.png

Note: Professor Saayman, the pathologist, indicated that Reeva’s airways had no blood in them, indicative that she did not take more than a few shallow breaths before dying.  Given the time it took Oscar to break down the door, it’s impossible that he reached her body while she was still alive, or breathing.

Furthermore, between bullet holes A and D [Oscar firing from left to right, and at a slight downward angle], Reeva had time to go into a defensive posture hence the bullet injury on the webbing of her fingers.

trajectory 6

What’s wrong with this picture?

IMG_9885 (2)

  1. The right side of Reeva’s face, facing the bloodied toilet, has no blood on it.  It has been wiped completely clean.  But the right side of Reeva’s face, according to Oscar, was lying on the toilet.  Below is how Oscar says he found here, along with images of the blood on the toilet.

So why is the right side of her face completely clean?  Because Oscar has wiped it clean.

Reeva3

2. Note the latent blood flow out of the left nostril [from the viewer’s perspective] flowing left to right, instead of right to left as it should have been with the flow of gravity, as per Oscar’s version.

3. Note the diluted blood stains around her hair line.

4. Note the dry crust of blood on the bridge of her nose suggesting that the rest of it was wiped away [the same was done on the rim of the toilet seat.]

5. Note the discolored eyelid area.  That’s not make-up or external bruising, but bruising caused by severe internal brain hemorrhage.

6. Note Reeva’s hair color is no longer blonde.  It has been discolored by a large volume of blood.  Her hair’s been discolored but not her face?

7. Notice Reeva’s hair lying on a dark material surface.  Towels and black plastic bags were also lying in the immediate area of her body.

8. The pathologist Saayman stated that no blood was found in Reeva’s airways.  Thus, she would not have needed resuscitation.

9.  The images show conclusively that Reeva died within seconds after sustaining the final shot.  Probably less than 5 seconds.

10. The blood from Reeva’s nostrils oozed out after her face was wiped clean.  You can see the oozing is recent by it’s redness.

For reference, these are the images of Nicole Brown Simpson, lying dead in the spot where she was killed.  This is what Oscar didn’t want you to see…

What Oscar wants…

ITV$:  “What is difficult is dealing with this charge of murder. The day before we started the trial on the 2nd March 2014 I sat with my lawyers and I said to them, whatever happens I will spend – the maximum for culpable homicide is 10 years – I said to them, ‘I will spend 10 years in jail for taking Reeva’s life, for culpable homicide, but I won’t spend a day in jail for murdering anyone. I don’t want to go back to jail; I don’t want to have to waste my life sitting there. If I was afforded the opportunity of redemption I would like to help the less fortunate like I had in my past.  I would like to believe that if Reeva could look down upon me that she would want me to live that life.”

What would Reeva say to this?  Well actually we have an answer, or what’s analogous to an answer, because 8 years ago she survived a similar attack, this time trapped with her mother behind a locked door in their home in Port Elizabeth.

October 8, 2008 Reeva Steenkamp Facebook status:

thinks that everyone in PE should be aware of the thieves running rampage on our homes. Crack the shit out of them if you catch them, they’re cowards.

From the mirror.co.uk:  The disgraced athlete said that he was willing to spend 10 years behind bars for the death of his girlfriend – but insists he shouldn’t spend “a day in jail for murder” and wants redemption.

From Instagram:  “Oscar believes Reeva would want that (that he doesn’t sit in jail).” – 24 June 2016 #oscarpistorius

IMG_9889

Claire Cohen has come the closest to calling Oscar out on his bogus narrative, calling him delusional, and his efforts to speak on behalf of the person he murdered [and how he should be sentenced] as atrociously distasteful.

This is atrociously distasteful…

Head2

From Claire Cohen…

1-Fullscreen capture 20160624 051338 PM-001

1-Fullscreen capture 20160624 054154 PM.jpg

Actually there’s another explanation for Oscar’s speaking so graphically.  He’s actually extremely self-aware as most narcissists are.  His self-awareness is aimed at manipulating his audience into sympathy.  But the graphic nature does imply a seeming lack of remorse.

The rest of Claire Cohen’s article is insightful and worth noting.

1-Fullscreen capture 20160624 051405 PM1-Fullscreen capture 20160624 051416 PM

1-Fullscreen capture 20160624 054231 PM

Uncontaminated Crime Scene

Here’s what an uncontaminated crime scene should look like.  This is Bundy Drive, where Nicole Simpson, O.J.’s ex wife, and her friend Ron Goldman, were murdered.
50beef8fd53f9eb85c6c0e48630a0434hqdefault (2)hqdefault (3)
oj-simpson-nicole-brown-ron-goldman-murder-scene-blood-07
Here’s Oscar’s sanitized crime scene.

In the above illustration we’ve demonstrated a pattern of covering up, sanitizing and embellishing a crime scene.  Are we imaginative, or is this an accurate analysis of Oscar’s psychology?

When you understand the underlying patterns in true crime, they line up perfectly in the crime itself, behavior before a crime, during a crime, and after a crime, all align perfectly.
So can we apply covering up, embellishing and sanitizing to Oscar’s sporting career?  To the boating incident, blamed on a submerged log rather than hitting the pier?  To the incident at Tasha’s where Oscar had a friend take the rap and asked Reeva to keep the mishap a secret?  To the crime itself where it is embellished by Reeva dying in Oscar’s hands, his trying to save her, it is sanitized where Reeva is removed from the scene of her own death, the scene itself is flushed and contaminated to confuse the viewer, and Reeva and Oscar himself are washed.
And in court, has Oscar embellished, sanitized, and covered up his version?  Wasn’t his cellphone secreted from the crime scene for thirteen days, and once collected, it had been remotely accessed by his brother’s computer [Titanium Hulk] and its contents wiped [covered up]?  Wasn’t the crime itself a sanitized, embellished, covered up version of a dark room with an invisible Reeva, a terrified Oscar and Oscar not shooting Reeva but an intruder?
And in court, in his final performance, wasn’t the trembling Oscar hardly able to balance a sanitized version missing one vital element?
He was carrying a gun when he was “vulnerable” and on his stumps.
And poor, anxious Oscar approached the danger, trapped the intruder, shot her four times, bashed down the door [that’s how weak and terrified he was] and then carried her down the stairs.

He couldn’t run away from the threat?  Wasn’t he a champion runner?  In his re-enactment video he demonstrates running on his stumps, and in his own version he said he ran from the door to put on his prosthetic limbs.

An extended version of this blog post will be published as a chapter in WHITE HORSE, detailing the final scenes of the Oscar show and how easily the courts and its followers have been misled.  WHITE HORSE will be available July 10th 2016.

Follow Juror13 on Twitter at:  @lisawj13

and Nick van der Leek at @HiRezLife

 

 

#Shakedown RED ALERT

At 22:00 local South Africa time today [1:00pm California time] #Shakedown will reveal exclusive evidence pertaining to the #OscarPistorius trial.  We will publish never before seen photos and explanations that provide crucial insight into the trial at this URL.  This is intended as a counter to the narrative broadcast this evening on ITV which we believe to be a reconstructed “false” narrative.

Oscar Pistorius Sentencing Hearing: Day 3

 

Screenshot 2016-06-13 20.56.18 (2)

JUDGE MASIPA WILL DELIVER OSCAR’S SENTENCE ON JULY 6

Nick & Lisa’s Day 3 Wrap-up…

12:20pm – It’s now Nel’s turn:  “I will attempt, my Lady, to address relevant points.  I will not address society.  I will not address investigators that wrote the book.  I will not address perceptions.  I will not address perceptions in the media, although I will consider dealing with some of the perceptions that Mr. Roux has mentioned.  May I start my Lady that I was rather perplexed when Mr. Roux – and I heard these words – when Mr. Roux argued about the lady in a shop that wasn’t happy with Mr. Pistorius in the shop.  Mr. Roux said the following: ‘She called him a murderer, a murderer of what?’  Not who, a murderer of what.  Someone that he thought was an intruder.  As if, my Lady, the mere fact that the accused thought it was an intruder would detract from the seriousness of murder.”

“A murder of what, my Lady, that ‘what’ is Reeva.”

Nel’s points:

5. Mr. Roux argued that Mr. Steenkamp’s pain was exacerbated by an understanding that this may have been Dolus Directus.  “My Lady, I’ve been astonished by the argument diminishing the father’s real grief.  I’ve been astonished.”  

“If we want to talk about a broken man, we saw a broken man” – Nel talking about Barry Steenkamp

6. He address the Visagie case.  Both the trial court and the SCA rejected putative self defense.  That puts Visagie to rest.  It’s not relevant.

7. The accused accepting the court judgement now because it’s the judgement and he has no choice, Nel says is very different than accepting wrong doing.  It is a pretty laughable argument on behalf of the defense.

Screenshot 2016-06-24 02.50.15.png

8. The argument about Oscar not being able to study in prison is just not valid.  Many people study in prison.  Nel says there’s no foundation for this argument.  Oscar’s no longer crying.  He’s staring intently at Nel looking particularly pissed off.  Nel reminds the Court that Oscar asked for many things while in prison, including a TV, and was granted many of them.

9. Roux argued about Sister Mashabane’s evidence that if he were in Oscar’s shoes [in pain and wanting his medicine of choice] that he may have acted as the accused did.  Nel:  “I don’t expect of any man to enter a room where there are three female sisters sitting, banging a table and throwing things on a table. Being aggressive. But my Lady, we have a convicted prisoner doing that.  Convicted of a violent crime.”  This was only 4 months into Oscar’s incarceration.

10.  Nel:  “Is it not time to see what this accused did to Reeva Steenkamp?”  Nel tells the Court that the family wants to show the world, and they have requested Nel’s help in making that happen.  Nel says he will be asking the Court to lift the ban on the images of Reeva.

11. In reference to State vs. Herrera, a case cited by the defense, deals with an abused lady who killed her partner after years and years and years of abuse.  That is not what we have in this instance.

tweet

Nel reads from Masipa’s judgement:

“There was ever a feeling of unease on my part as I listened to one witness after another, placing what I thought was an overemphasis on the accused’s vulnerability.  Yes, the accused is vulnerable, but has excellent coping skills.  Thanks to his mother, he rarely saw himself as disabled and against odds, excelled as a top athlete, became respected worldwide and even came to compete against able-bodied persons. For some reason, that picture remains obscured in the background”

The SCA’s judgement also points out Oscar’s success as an athlete.

Dr. Scholtz went to great pains to describe Oscar’s depression and anxiety.  There is medication that can help Oscar with these conditions – medicine that was ordered for him in prison – that Oscar never took.  Scholtz also suggested that Oscar should be hospitalized, yet no steps have been taken to hospitalize Oscar.

“If one takes that paragraph – ‘I know there’s somebody in the bathroom, I fired 4 shots through that, into the toilet door’ – why is that not very close to Dolus Directus?  So we argue the accused’s degree of culpability is very close to Dolus Directus.”

Nel then address the ITV interview.  In addressing Oscar’s multiple versions, he says:

“I don’t know what will happen with ITV, my Lady,

but in this Court, there’s no acceptable explanation ever offered.  He had the opportunity to do so

– he failed.”

gerrie vs barry

“Our courts have a duty, my Lady, despite any personal doubt, to impose the minimum sentence.  It’s a duty of this court.” – Nel

Part 2…

Part 3…


IMG_9701

Roux concludes by saying Oscar could not possibly be deterred any more than he already is from his former imprisonment, from his rehabilitation programs and from the restrictions of house arrest.

“If a sentence is now imposed on a basis of further general deterrence, this will mainly serve as a veil for retribution.”

After Oscar puts his legs back on and takes his seat in the dock, a phone rings out playing music from the gallery.  The owner of the phone attempts to turn it off but can’t and gets booted out.  In the front row is Carl with Jenna Edkins [now rumored to be living with Oscar at Arnold’s mansion] and father, Henke.

Screenshot 2016-06-24 01.22.42

 

See for yourself, Oscar’s demonstration in court.  Begin the video at 02:28:30:

“I don’t want to overplay vulnerability, that’s not what I want to do.” – Roux

Part 1…


12:00pm – Roux asks that Oscar may stand before the Court to show them how he gets around on his stumps. It’s time that the Court sees, Roux says. I hadn’t really considered it before that they might pull something like this, but as soon as I saw Oscar in his gym clothes earlier I just knew we were in for a show.

Masipa grands permission and Roux turns around at Oscar and wags his finger at him signaling him to come up.

“He’s very embarrassed but understands that it’s important to do that.  He’s very, very embarrassed and ashamed.”

IMG_9540

Yes, damn right he should be ashamed.  Here’s a reaction from one of my friends on Websleuths:

“I was at Mass this morning and spoke about this with a parishioner who can’t walk because of spinal stenosis and she was livid at his audacity.  As you say, disability is not an excuse for murder and every disabled person I know would never ever wish to suggest so.  Oscar really is the pits!”


11:40am – Oscar comes back from break dressed in a grey t-shirt and work-out shorts, with Nike logo.  Can’t imagine their PR people are too happy about that.  IMG_9489

Roux starts in with PTSD talk. Reminds the Court that Oscar is a broken man and isolated.  But he has completed all rehabilitative programs that were required.  Which is an interesting topic.  The defense’s stance was always that Oscar has anxiety, but wasn’t a disordered person.  He wasn’t aggressive nor was he narcissistic. Yet, he had to take anger management, assertiveness, conflict-handling and other behavioral courses.  Doesn’t exactly stack up with a guy who supposedly had one bad night, does it?

These programs are designed to correct the offending behavior.

Roux next addresses the fact that Oscar’s been labeled a female abuser. It upsets him that he’s basically the poster child for gender violence.  Oscar cups his face with his hands and covers his eyes while Roux tells the court that Oscar has always been opposed to abuse of women.  Reeva would disagree with that.

Reeva snapped at

So would Samantha Taylor

Samantha said she was left with bruises and scars after the Blade Runner bit and pinched her, but she was also tortured mentally by him during the 18-month relationship. “I was really scared. He made me stand on the stairs and shouted at me. It was like I was on the naughty step.”  “He’s a very insecure man. He’d call at all hours. I was scared of him at times because he had very bad anger issues. He was so possessive, he would look through my phone and find a photo from long ago or look on my Facebook, and often get quite angry.”


11:20am – As break begins, Carl is doing his usual schmoozing  with the crowd.  You’ll hear Nick’s first hands impressions of him in our day 3 wrap-up podcast.  Carl seems oblivious to the fact that this is still a murder trial that’s taking place.  He chats and jokes with the gallery, while playing with his phone.  Meanwhile, the Pistorians munch on candy bars.

IMG_9449

 

11:15am – Ok, I confess.. I just bailed on the last 15 minutes, but did catch Roux saying that Oscar has sworn off guns, wants nothing to do with them and has sold off his collection. It’s time for tea break.  Masipa is comatose as usual.  Other than saying – yes, Mr. Roux and yes, Mr. Nel, she hasn’t said a damn word the entire day.  She also has no clue what time it is, and has to ask Roux.  The camera pans over to Oscar who looks absolutely drugged to the gills.  He’s been weeping on and off all morning.  His face is red and he continually wipes his nose.

IMG_9557

Masipa’s notes…

IMG_9571


9:51am – Roux goes first with his arguments for the defense.  He tells Masipa they’ve taken her judgment and compared it to the SCA’s judgement to reconcile the differences.

Roux says the Steenkamp’s pain has been aggravated by “enemies” who have promoted the accusation that Oscar intended to kill Reeva [Dolus Directus].  He also says the public [the enemies] have unfairly brought up Oscar’s prowess on the track.  He says you can’t think of this case in terms of an Olympic athlete killing Reeva, it was a 1.5m man on stumps in the middle of the night.  That’s a different person.

It’s a weird beginning to his arguments because he’s basically moaning about what the public thinks of Oscar.  Who cares.  I can’t tell you right now, Masipa obviously doesn’t doesn’t care what the public thinks.  Just get to the point.

The first case he cites is the Visagie case.  The man who shot and killed his daughter who had mistaken for an intruder stealing his car.

“There must be an unease when anyone tells you you must send Mr. Pistorius 15 years to jail when it’s a man on his stumps at 3 o’clock in the morning who did not want to kill his girlfriend.  Who believed that at the time she was in the bedroom.  Do you send that person 15 years to jail?  How is that so far far removed from Vleis Visagie case?”  

Roux mumbles quickly, there are differences, and then keeps rambling on…  Woah, hang on there.  Yes, there are MAJOR differences.  Visagie didn’t pump 4 bullets into a person standing behind a door who was never seen nor spoke a word, on Oscar’s version.

Screenshot 2016-06-23 20.03.59

“There was nothing in the SCA argument saying there was an argument; saying that she ran to the cubicle; saying that he wanted to shoot her.   That’s not this Court’s case and it’s not the case in the SCA.”  Oscar not knowing who was in the cubicle is an ‘undisturbed’ fact.

Then they talk about aim.  Roux uses one of Oscar’s arguments from trial, that if he intended to kill he would have aimed higher.  An incredibly lame argument when you consider 3 out of 4 shots hit his target, with the 4th shot only narrowly missing.  I’d say Oscar’s aim is actually just fine.

“The SCA found that the accused must have foreseen that the accused must have been gambling with that person’s life. Not Reeva. It is irrelevant who was behind the door.”

“He was guilty of being irrational, that’s it.”

“The SCA found that although the accused may have been anxious, and although the accused was frightened, most certainly nobody was going to say he was frightened of Reeva, the deceased.   For the persons still not wanting to believe this, are they saying he was frightened she might attack him? What would the thought process be.”

Well, let me explain the thought process simply.  Yes, Oscar may have had a lot to be frightened about.  Frightened that Reeva knew something he didn’t want anyone else to know which Reeva could have exposed.    Frightened of something on his phone because we know his dipshit brother wiped it clean.  Frightened that he’d lose his stature, his career, his contracts, his money; everything.

IMG_9535

Roux whines that Visagie got sympathy but nooooo, not Mr. Pistorius.  Boo hoo.

Roux also says:  “We deal with moral blame-worthiness, and may we make this submission. Once
you have a reduced moral blame-worthiness,  I cannot think that any court would say you qualify for the minimum prescribed sentence [15 years.] Because factually, it’s wonderful that you have remorse, and it’s wonderful that you have five children to look after and that you go to church everyday, and that you make money for charity. And additional smaller factors.  What is really important in a case?  You look at that person’s moral blame-worthiness to determine, who is it that I’m dealing with.”   

Roux for some insane reason compares Oscar’s crime to a person who rapes a 3 year old, to say who has more moral blame.  Huh?

“The fact that the accused is criminally liable for dolus eventualis, does not mean he thought the deceased was in the cubicle.  It remains that he thought an intruder was in the toilet.”

Roux also takes a dig at the Molletts referring to them as “new investigators”… he questions why people are publicly putting new theories out there when all the experts in court agree that it was shots first, then the bat.  The Pistorius’ nod their heads as Roux talks.

His next statement is a doozy.  Roux refers to the lady in the grocery store [a story told in earlier sentencing testimony] who screamed when she saw Oscar, because she didn’t want to be in a store with a murderer… To that, Roux says:  Screenshot 2016-06-23 21.21.15

“Murderer of what?”

Uh, murder of a person.


“He stands before you on murder and we know that what the man wanted to do in his vulnerable state was to protect himself and the deceased and he incorrectly in law fired four shots and is guilty of Dolus Eventualis murder.  But it does not mean that he did not want to protect.  It does not mean that he was not scared.   It does not mean that he didn’t think it was an intruder.  It does not mean that he wasn’t vulnerable.  It does not mean that there were many supporting facts indicative it was an intruder.  They all remain.  You cannot ignore that.” 

Now there’s mention of Scholtz and his big F-up saying that Oscar now accepts that he did intentionally shot.  Interesting that Roux uses the words “accepts” and not “admits.”  Kind of a big difference.  Oh, and also… it’s not like Oscar got his ass up on the stand and confessed anything.  His ding dong psychologist ran his mouth a little too much, and in an effort to make it seem like Oscar was remorseful, let it slip that yes, Oscar intended to shoot.  Slippery, Roux.  Very slippery.

“It’s not a third version, it’s an acceptance.” 

IMG_9562

Roux brings up the following [undisputed] mitigating factors:

  1. Personal circumstances of the accused [Roux references page numbers for Masipa to view;]
  2. Accused is first offender.
  3. Accused is remorseful.
  4. Accused lost a person who he genuinely loved as a result of his unlawful shooting.  He must live with that for the rest of his life. Self-punishment/inescapable guilt.  The state has shown compassion for this type of human tragedy before – Visagie.
  5. Accused apologized to the parents of the deceased after making concerted efforts previously to do so in private.
  6. The conduct of the accused after the incident shows that the accused wanted the deceased to live.
  7. The accused can never resume his career.  He’s punished himself and will punish himself for the rest of his life far more than any court of law can punish him.

IMG_9555

“He lost his future with his chosen loved one.  He has paid physically with losing his health.  He has paid emotionally.  We say he’s a shell of the man that he was.  He has paid financially. He’s left independent of others.  He’s paid socially.   He’s judged and vilified by many and verbally attacked.  He’d paid by the loss of his identity.  He’s a person filled with self-loathing. He’s paying constantly.”  But, he notes, I’m not taking away from the grief of the parents.  IMG_9646

Roux says it should be taken into consideration… Oscar can perform public service in Reeva’s memory and notes some of his charitable works.  He’s changed the public’s perception of disabled people.  He’s ‘desperate’ to speak to the Steenkamps.   He’s studying with the London School of Economics [and online course] which he wouldn’t have access to in prison.

Roux says Scholtz “produced a second report and we say it’s a report of exemplary scientific rigor.”

“He [Oscar] is not a psychopath.”

 

IMG_9650

 


9:42am – Roux reads quotes from Reeva’s friends and wants Kim to comment on them:

Sam Greyvenstein:  “Reeva told me that Oscar was amazing and that he  treated her like gold.  And that she thought they had a lot in common.  Reeva told me she really liked Oscar.   The relationship slowly progressed and became more serious.  Reeva often mentioned how happy she was and that Oscar made her feel that way.  Reeva confided in me that even though she and Oscar had not been together for very long, she really loved Oscar and she could see a future with him.  She told me that if Oscar asked her to marry him, she would probably say yes.”  sam g

Kim responded that she didn’t know Sam G at all [even though Roux says she was one of Reeva’s best friends].  Sam was Justin Devaris’ long-time girlfriend. And Justin was part of the hot-head, car-loving, skirt-chasing crowd that Oscar got involved with in the last few years prior to meeting Reeva.  Justin and Sam are actually the people that got Oscar and Reeva hooked up.  It seems like Reeva didn’t talk much about that group to her family as she did about some of her other friends.  Can’t blame her.   It’s not unusual to have our “party” friends and our true blue friends segmented to some degree.

Kim said she and Reeva were as close as sisters, and she asked Reeva if she was happy.  Reeva just shrugged her shoulders, smiled, and said we’ll speak later.  “I could see there was a fondness for Oscar, but I didn’t see any love.”  Screenshot 2016-06-17 20.08.23

Here’s Oscar’s weepy expression….  

It’s really sick how the defense has exploited Reeva’s feelings to save the future of the man that killed her.  Reminds me of when Oscar told the Steenkamps during his testimony at trial that Reeva went to bed loved that night.  To this day, that’s still one of the most infuriating things I’ve heard from his mouth.

Roux also read some quotes from TV interviews with Gina.  Kim says she knows Gina very well and as far as she’s concerned, Gina was Reeva’s best friend. This is something that’s in contrast to what June told us.  These interviews were given on February 27, 2013 [13 days after the murder.]

Gina Myers to Mandy Wiener:  “She was happy.  I think in every relationship there’s ups and downs, and you know, stuff that you go through when it’s a new relationship.  But everything was normal.”  gina m

Gina Myers to Andrew Harding:  “I did [think she was happy.]”

Kim says, “I know she liked Oscar” and doesn’t dispute that.  But she doesn’t think Reeva loved him.  Roux can read all the quotes he wants, the fact remains they had only been together for a few months.  I sense something a little different in Roux.  It feels like he doesn’t have quite the same level of passion in his arguments as I’ve seen in the past. 

There was also a moment where Roux screwed up the evidence.  Roux points Kim towards the Piers Morgan interview in 2013.   Kim told Piers about when Reeva lived in Jo’burg she confided in her about an abusive relationship.   Roux says – “that was your previous evidence, and we know now you could not say that.”   IMG_9647

Nel objects and tells Roux to double check “that relationship” because it’s not Oscar she’s referring to.  Kim confirms, she was talking about one of Reeva’s first relationships.  Doh!   Roux apologizes a few times, somewhat flustered – I think some legal intern is gonna get their ass chewed out after this.   

He finishes off with one last quote from a February 20, 2013 interview where Kim talks about how she first learned Reeva was dating Oscar.  “When it first came out, there was rumors.  When she attended the one function with him, and I remember I sent her a message and I said, ‘is it true cuz?’ and at the time she said no, but he’s a very nice guy. And that’s basically it.  She never really spoke much to me about him other than that.”   Kim agrees, that’s true. 

Roux ends like a petulant child and reminds the court, and Kim, that Reeva said I love you in her Valentine’s card.  Kim doesn’t really acknowledge him, and that’s it.  Witnesses are done.  

No offense to Kim, because she handled herself well against Roux, but this testimony was kind of ho hum.  She was up and off the stand in, I don’t know, maybe 15 minutes. Kinda crazy for the last witness of this saga.


9:40am – Direction examination was very short.  Roux doesn’t mince words on cross.  Basically in a nutshell, he says he was nice to Barry yesterday, but don’t expect the same from him today.  He wants to bring the focus back to Oscar and wants there to be a true interpretation of Oscar’s relationship with Reeva.  Oh, this should be good.


9:32am – Kim says she and her family are coping but her three children have suffered a lot.  They have issues which she doesn’t want to openly discuss in court.

Screenshot 2016-06-17 20.03.06

Kim saw her father (Reeva’s uncle) cry for the first time when Reeva died, and the second time when he heard Kim had to testify again. “It’s very unfair what our family’s been put through.”  Makes me wonder what Masipa thinks of that.  Of course, if she hadn’t screwed up the original verdict, none of them would be in the courtroom today, almost 2 years later. 

As far as what Kim thinks about the ITV interview which will be aired June 24:

“I’m not happy about that at all.  I just think it’s very unfair to want to talk to the world about your version when you had the opportunity in court to do so.” 

“All we’ve ever wanted was the truth.  I don’t feel there was an apology from him.  I don’t feel the true version came out.”


9:30am – I’m surprised to see Kim Martin, who gave very moving testimony during the trial, back on the stand as the last witness for the state.  I was really thinking it would be June based on the fact that Nel said this witness could potentially take a few hours.  Kim, not knowing Oscar at all, is really more of a character reference for Reeva, which is great, but she doesn’t have information that could be picked apart at any great length.

Aside from June, the other person I was really hoping to hear from was Samantha Taylor, or her mom, Trish.   I know the Taylors take a fair amount of heat from the public in terms  accident waiting to happenof their intentions, mostly because Trish wrote a book.  Which, by the way, if you’ve never read An Accident Waiting to Happen, I highly recommend it.  There’s some seriously crazy shit in there.  Nick and I have occasionally spoken with Trish and I believe her to be a sincere, well-meaning person.  I think she and Samantha have moved on and want nothing to do with this whole fiasco.  


9:28am – Nick made it to court just in time, after needing to pull over for a chat with the cops.  He got away O.J.-style and managed to find his seat without having to ask the Pistorius family for directions 🙂

IMG_9442

Meanwhile, other court reporters are doing this…

IMG_9561 

After Barry Steenkamp gave emotional testimony on Tuesday, Carl gave a comment to his [his rumored girlfriend] Karyn Maughan. 

IMG_9654

 

 

IMG_9560

 

 

Has Judge Greenland Become Persona Non Grata?

One of the most vocal critics of Oscar Pistorius’ culpable homicide verdict has always been retired High Court Judge, Chris Greenland.  Not only has Judge Greenland been a regular legal pundit on Carte Blanche, he’s also become a Facebook and Twitter friend to many who follow the Oscar case.  He’s been generous with his time and opinions.  Speaking personally, I’ve had the opportunity to Skype and Whatsapp with him on several occasions and have always enjoyed our conversations.

Now, three weeks prior to Oscar learning his sentence [on July 6th], the tide has suddenly changed.  And oh, the seas are rough.  People have unfriended him in droves.  They’ve chastised him across social media.  The reaction to his most recent public comments has been harsh, yet completely understandable.

Judge Greenland told Carte Blanche:  mansion

“The sentence that I would impose is one of 15 years house arrest where house arrest means, house imprisonment.  In other words, no liberties except liberties within his home environment.  Coupled with 15 years of community service.”

WTF?

He further explained on his Facebook page:

“…that way he [Oscar] would be in prison without being brutalized and have a chance at rehabilitation, society would benefit, the offence is not trivialized and good is done in Reeva’s name.”

Nick and I do not subscribe to the notion of leniency in sentencing for rehabilitation purposes when it comes to murder.  So 15 years house arrest is not something we support. We feel strongly Oscar needs to go to prison.  There is the flip side of the conversation though, and that’s addressing the reality of law.

Judge Greenland laid out 19 points on his Facebook page explaining why he would give house arrest.  We’ll address those details in our upcoming narrative WHITE HORSE.  Here’s the problem.  The Court [Judge Masipa] found that Oscar didn’t intend to kill Reeva.  Not only that, he didn’t intend to kill the intruder either [although he could foresee that possibility, and decided to act anyway, which was the cause for the reversal of his verdict.]  Oscar just shot off 4 bullets like a jackass with apparently no intention at all in the eyes of Masipa.  Because that’s kinda sorta reckless, Masipa slapped him with a culpable homicide conviction.  Yes, those are the shitty “facts” of this case.   So what does a judge do?  Do they now issue the appropriate sentence based on their findings, or issue one based on the new verdict alone?

What Judge Greenland is doing is providing a purely legalistic view of what he believes Masipa 2should be done based on the letter of the law, not based on what we all believe the findings should have been.  He believes, like most of us, this should have been a Dolus Directus conviction and Oscar should be in prison.  But something important to remember, the conviction of Dolus Eventualis does not change the original findings.  Sadly, they will always remain.

Interestingly enough, Judge Greenland and I just talked about this topic last month when I asked him if he felt trial by judge was generally better than trial by jury.  He believes trial by judge is best, but he did speak frankly that it frustrated him at times when he’d have to acquit an accused that he felt was guilty because of some narrow law.  With juries, even though they have instructions too, they’re more inclined to convict if a person is clearly guilty, regardless of what the law says.

There are a few points here for us to debate:

  1.  Taking into consideration the Court’s findings, and forgetting your own personal opinions of what you believe really happened, is Judge Greenland’s suggested sentence reasonable for this crime?
  2. By sharing his opinion publicly, Judge Greenland runs the risk of Judge Masipa listening and being influenced by his opinion.  Should he have shared it publicy or kept it to himself?
  3. Finally, how much weight should a family’s wishes be considered, above and beyond the narrow letter of the law, when delivering a sentence?

“He has to pay for his crime.” – Barry Steenkamp

Steenkamps

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oscar’s Freudian Slip of the Mind

In True Crime, patterns emerge in the ether.  The criminal mind tries its damnedest to shroud the truth, and yet patterns form in the dark matter like ripples of gravity expanding through time.  These ripples are the ripples of guilt, of a criminal knowing exactly what he/she has done, and the efforts to fill an absence with a false reality that doesn’t quite fit with the whole reality.  The interesting thing is how our minds, even when we consciously try to lie or deceive others, make little slip-ups.  Why?  Because our brains aren’t designed to tell false stories, our brains are designed to record reality accurately.

Nel 3

So let’s look at an instance of not merely a Freudian slip, but one of the mind.

Oscar Trial, Day 20, April 11, 2014. 

From YouTube: [27:25]:

Nel:  After you brought the two fans in, what happened then?

Oscar:  I placed the two fans on the floor and I closed the doors, and I closed the curtains my lady. 

The words “I placed”. Oscar’s first two words, are already indicative of a ruse.  Most people would say “I put” or “I moved”.  Imagine you’re moving chess pieces; would you “place” them or move them?  Placing them is a strategic intent.  What is the strategic intent behind “placing the two fans” anywhere?  Well, there’s a very clear strategic intent to deceive via distraction.  By Oscar “placing” objects, he’s also placing us where he wants us in his story, and Reeva too.  He’s playing us for a bunch of pawns.

Nel:  Yes, and then? hifi system

Oscar:  I then went to the amplifier to cover the light with the pair of jeans, and it was at that point that I heard the noise coming from the bathroom my lady.

Besides “placing” Oscar is “covering” the light, and by inference muffling the thing making the noise too.

Nel:  Now, let’s just deal with that.  You, why did you want to cover the light?

Oscar:  Because it was distracting my lady.

Did you say DISTRACTING?  Don’t you mean disturbing?  Distracting is to divert attention, something disturbing you is bugging you, perhaps preventing you from sleeping.

Nel:  Why would that be?

Oscar:  I was trying to sleep.  If there was a light on, it would distract me my lady.

Nel:  So that was sharp enough light to bother you in your sleep?

Oscar:  It must have been my lady.

Ummmm…actually, I’m going to have to disagree with you.   When a murderer gives a version, everything is important, even the diversion.  So let’s look at this one and test it, shall we?

When somebody says something and it’s a lie, the psychology of the lie – what it’s revealing or not revealing – is a clue to what happened.  It’s dissembling.

Marc Batchelor, one of Reeva’s friends who’s occasionally attended trial proceedings, thinks that Reeva made a recording of an argument between Reeva and Oscar on Oscar’s phone.  Oscar in turn may have subconsciously been thinking about that act of getting rid of the phone by using the stereo light as symbolism for the phone. A stereo like a phone is something that makes a noise and shines a light.  cell phone

We know that in the true scheme of things, subsequently the phone was wiped by Carl in an elaborate cover-up.  So the sound and the light was covered up.

A parallel to all this is that Carl’s Twitter account was closed, and then later re-opened but made private, this past week at the request of Uncle Arnold.

It’s a shutting down of some type of leaking of information.  Is that what Oscar was doing?  Let’s face it, the story about the stereo and the jeans was certainly odd.

From Psychology Today:

Sigmund Freud, whose name is indelibly linked with such gaffes, called them Fehlleistungen(faulty actions) in his 1901 book, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. He deemed them notable for revealing an unconscious thought, belief, wish, or motive. “Almost invariably I discover a disturbing influence from something outside of the intended speech,” he wrote. “The disturbing element is a single unconscious thought, which comes to light through the special blunder.”   It threatens to reveal passions and motives and problems that lurk so far below the surface that we don’t even know they exist. 

But when we know where to look not only do we find what exists, but the dark arts our murdering artist is actually engaging in…

Oscar Pistorius Case Discussion – Open Forum

This page is open to all who’d like to discuss the Oscar Pistorius case.  All related topics are welcome.  Click on “Leave a Comment” at the top of the page to begin a discussion.  Those who are interested in participating can reply in return to that comment.  

I do monitor for trolls, spam and inappropriate material.  We don’t mind spirited debate, we encourage it, and it’s fine if you like to swear – we do too! – we just ask that you be respectful of your fellow posters.  We look forward to the conversations.