Why did “Oscar Pistorius: Blade Runner Killer” jumble its timeline? Why is it such a god-awful mess?

No doubt about it, “Blade Runner Killer” is a confusing flick. It jumps around unnecessarily…or is there a reason it’s such a muddle? By Nick van der Leek

I’ve spent a few days meticulously analyzing the first film about the Pistorius case, premised on Reeva’s perspective. I’ve taken an interest because the 14 books Lisa and I co-researched and co-wrote between June 2014 and December 2017 follow exactly the same theme – Reeva.  What was her perspective on her murder? What was this crime like for her?  What did it look like from the inside, what did Oscar look like inside his home, and inside the cubicle?

Going through the 83 minute film, it soon became clear the timeline was not only muddled, but incorrect. Starting with the second slide, Reeva is presented in the kitchen, cooking dinner at 17:30. In fact she only arrived home that evening at 18:00, and Pistorius ten minutes later at 18:10.

Fullscreen capture 20180128 111844

To appreciate just how jumbled the plot is, have a look at the following screen-grabs – all of which are taken on the dozen or so occasions when the film time-stamps itself with a caption.

I’ve included the above slide in the timeline again for reasons of completeness.

Fullscreen capture 20180128 111634Fullscreen capture 20180128 111844Fullscreen capture 20180128 112043Fullscreen capture 20180128 112256Fullscreen capture 20180128 112739Fullscreen capture 20180128 113502Fullscreen capture 20180128 113506Fullscreen capture 20180128 113949Fullscreen capture 20180128 114209

Fullscreen capture 20180128 114504
In this particular slide, the caption is undated and at the top for the first time. The incident here seems to depict three separate events. Reeva is dressed in black, the same way as she appeared at the Virgin Active Sports Awards on January 7th, 2013. However, Oscar’s jealousy and tantrum seems to be a conflation from at least ten days prior, at Darren Fresco’s engagement party. It was after this party that Reeva wrote her “unhappy and sad” message at 14:17 on Saturday, January 26th, 2013, complaining about being in a “double standard relationship”.  The film also conflates the exit from the awards with the incident where Oscar drove so fast it frightened Reeva, and June ended up chastising him over the phone, while he was driving.

Fullscreen capture 20180128 114832Fullscreen capture 20180128 115422Fullscreen capture 20180128 115848Fullscreen capture 20180128 120115Fullscreen capture 20180128 120636

If it’s still not clear, around half the slides are out of order, inaccurate or both. “Trial Day 1” doesn’t make any sense, because the previous slide, “March 3, 2014,” was the first day of trial, so why say it twice?

Below is a list showing in bold and red what’s out of order, inaccurate or both.

  1. February 13th, 2013, 06:04
  2. February 13th, 2013, 17:30
  3. February 14th, 06:43
  4. February 13th, 2013, 14:16 
  5. 5 months before Reeva’s death [inaccurate]
  6. New Year’s Eve – 6 weeks before Reeva’s death
  7. 1 Week before Reeva’s death
  8. Oscar’s trial, March 14th, 2014
  9. South African Sports Awards Party [undated, caption appears at the top for the first time][Actual Date Virgin Active Sport Industry Awards 2013 held at Emperors Palace on Feb. 7, 2013]
  10. 1 month before Reeva’s death.
  11. February 14th, 2013, 11:26
  12. Oscar’s Trial, March 3, 2014
  13. Trial Day 1 [March 3, 2014 – date not provided, but same as 12] 
  14. Appeal Trial narrative provided [not including November/December 2017]

About half of the narrative, set out in this way, is taken out of the normal chronology.

When one colour-codes the narrative, it becomes even more obvious how out of order the narrative, but also how unnecessarily, out of order it is.

Fullscreen capture 20180202 132907

Yet when rearranged [see above] the plot fits together perfectly. So if you’re going to go to the trouble to set out a timeline, why not have a proper seamless, chronological narrative in the first place? Isn’t that why you have a timeline – to structure and properly explicate your story, especially when it’s a legal drama?

Overall, it seems as though the filmmaker’s went to a lot of effort to get the details right.  Plenty of effort went into the special effects to show South African born Andreas Damm, who plays Oscar, walking on his stumps.

The film narrative also refers to and dramatizes the actual content of WhatsApps.  They even got Reeva’s outfits at the awards ceremonies right, down to her hairstyle, his and her tattoos and even the tippex-like splodges on the back of Oscar’s head.

In the film, a message on Oscar’s phone from “Baby Shoes”, and Reeva intercepting it and confronting him about it, appears to be what triggers the conflagration, leading to Reeva’s murder.

Fullscreen capture 20180128 182419

Accents aside, I thought both actors nailed the emotional dynamic of the relationship for the first time.

So here’s a question. Why would you go to so much effort to get the details right, and then intentionally fuzz up your own film, fudging the chapter details, jumbling the flashbacks within the flashbacks, confusing and irritating your audience?

Why would you go to the trouble to set up a timeline, and then Rubik’s-cube it, effectively shooting yourself and your film in the foot?

 

 

The Dark Matter of the Oscar Behind the Great Pretender [White Horse II Review]

WHITE HORSE II: Oscar Pistorius

Review by Melissa Manzella, August 21, 2016

oscar 1

“A brilliant narrative, replete with super sharp observations of both the case and the characters, this narrative brings the truth into ever clearer focus, and does so by having a kind of running theme on the ‘real’ narrative, Oscar knowingly killed Reeva, versus the ‘bogus’ one, Oscar thought he faced an intruder, referencing both often. In doing this, one really sees the flaws in the bogus one.

These two have such a good grasp of the case, having sorted Oscar long ago, and that now applies to their narrative of what happened the night Oscar killed Reeva, and I consider it to be definitive. In this narrative, the reader is brought early on to what may be a fascinating juncture in the case, this involving the rescheduling of sentence date by Judge Masipa, a matter which otherwise might be seen as an ordinary one, except that it was sentencing and the author was in court and caught the face of surprise on Prosecutor Nel, who obviously wasn’t expecting it.

He also noted an awkward looking Masipa, whom he thought looked to be gazing Roux’s way, for some kind of direction. Perhaps guidance on that date? This is what occurred to Van der Leek as he watched this exchange unfold. She changed it from June 17th, to July 6. With this single observation by Van Der Leek, bewildered trial watchers the world over who’d witnessed two vastly different Oscars at the sentencing hearing as opposed to the sentencing, might have just received clarity. We’re talking about collusion here, or more appropriately, the possibility thereof.

Without giving too much of the book away, the author does establish a plausible nexus between the rescheduling of this sentencing date, and a particular activity Oscar was engaged in at the time, outside of the realm of court. Did it happen? Well, Van der Leek doesn’t commit to saying that it did, but does supply the reader with relevant facts that would support it, and leaves readers to draw their own conclusions. Who knows if there was trickery afoot? Who knows that there wasn’t?

Here’s what I like about Van der Leek, and Wilson too, for that matter. They see something that looks wrong, and aren’t afraid to say it. They’ve always called a spade a spade, and have gone where the evidence has led them. Nick also talks about where he thinks this case went wrong, and it’s his belief that Masipa might have had her limitations, with that said, might simply have been overwhelmed with so much evidence. He thinks the case could have benefitted from a narrative, something that might have served to help her focus. He wishes Nel might have employed such. I tend to agree with him. He mentions that as a legal matter, and especially before a judge, showing motive certainly isn’t required but in this case might have been helpful.

Oscar being the scoundrel that he is, did an interview for ITV weeks before his sentence, looked well as he lied and cried his way through it, and then wouldn’t bother to take the stand in court. Van der Leek considers Mark Williams-Thomas the king of the soft ball questions, noting his bias. This narrative also saw new evidence emerge to do with the blood, and the authors made a crucial find here to do with Reeva that is a real game changer! Wow. I’ve not seen what they found documented anywhere else, so leads me to believe they were first in this finding! Impressive.

Both lament the fact that the bogus narrative is now the legal one, and Nick was incensed at Masipa’s doubling down at sentencing, memorializing this joke of a conviction. I’m hearing now however, that there’s a chance for a counter that may be coming down the pike in White Horse III, and I definitely say cheers to that! Looking forward to that read.”

WHITE HORSE II is Available on Amazon

WH2 Cover

shakedowntitle.com

Shakedown Reviews Blade Runner Killer, Oscar Pistorius – Part 2

Listen to clips from the film and hear our views on the relationship between Reeva and Oscar…

Reeva’s Twitter timeline from January – February 2013…

The BEST mommy in the world  #flu #moms #love http://instagr.am/p/USx-pxwPZN/

3:38 AM – 10 Jan 2013

View this post on Instagram

The BEST mommy in the world ☺ #flu #moms #love

A post shared by Reeva Steenkamp (@reevasteenkamp) on

Yaaaaawn!!!! Let me know when you’re done wasting your time trying to wear me down *files my nails*

5:42 PM – 11 Jan 2013

Finally feeling better today! Time to get back into  #brandnewme #2013

12:05 AM – 14 Jan 2013

My favourite sketch at the moment #art #expression #thought #beautiful http://instagr.am/p/UjRot1wPdj/

1:23 PM – 16 Jan 2013

Out of every misery, you WILL find your rainbow. A lesson. A truth. Nothing is a wasted experience if you look with willing eyes!

4:38 AM – 16 Jan 2013

Still can’t believe I went to the movies last night! First time in years!!! It was fun but I prefer DVDs at home. What have u seen lately?

12:00 PM – 16 Jan 2013

” You built your walls so high, no one could climb it. But I’m gonna try boy … Would you let me see beneath your beautiful … ”

18 Jan 2013

My new apartment will have one of these guys in it ….  http://instagr.am/p/UrK8zewPbw/

2:58 PM – 19 Jan 2013

OK blocked and reported times 5. Seriously, if I am that distasteful and repulsive to you then please don’t follow what I am doing. Thanks.

1:45 PM – 21 Jan 2013

This week has taught me that people will say what they like about you regardless&others will believe them.Carry on anyway.Be brave.Be you.

2:17 PM – 27 Jan 2013

28 Jan 2013

Sometimes your blessings lay beneath a mountain of tribulations. Be patient and see them through. You will appreciate them far more!

Some days you just want to stay in bed and nap and think and watch tv and drink tea. It’s those “I need my mommy” days.

8:39 AM – 29 Jan 2013

#FF The most amazing PR company in SA @CapacityR Thank you for always looking after me at events. World class! Cc @CandyGoldring

5:32 AM – 1 Feb 2013

He certainly doesn’t need more followers but he’s beautiful to look at & says some smart stuff too 😉 @OscarPistorius

Fun at the Vaal  http://instagr.am/p/VRiyRowPbb/

12:37 PM – 3 Feb 2013

Thinking of Valentine’s Day well ahead of time – in love with love as Gina Myers put it

 

Grab a copy of the latest @People_SA I’m wearing a few numbers to inspire those ladies looking to spoil their men on Valentines Day 🙂 #Love

10:11 AM – 4 Feb 2013

The queue … Is queueish … At home affairs …. It’s all wrap around and stuff. Fml.

4:25 AM – 4 Feb 2013

Preparing to go overseas?

Feisty

 

Yes, push into the queue that we’ve all been patiently waiting in AND don’t say thank you.

11:55 AM – 6 Feb 2013

New rules:

 

8 Feb 2013

Lying on a blanky in the garden with my @gi_myers breathing in some fresh air and chatting about life. http://instagr.am/p/VeRGH5QPZm/

 

 

Let the hate motivate.

5:12 AM – 6 Feb 2013

 

 

Before you lift a pen or raise your voice to criticise, acknowledge people’s circumstances. You don’t know their struggles. Their journey.

1:54 AM – 8 Feb 2013

 

When it takes you an entire day to try and compose a fitting response, a lacking one at that, rather leave it. It’s just substandard.

7:48 PM – 7 Feb 2013

: Funeral begins for Anene Booysen: ” RIP princess!

Winter Throwback. Myself and at a track day with .

 

 

Excited for a chilled Saturday evening in with good food, movies, popcorn, frozen yoghurt & my boo. #happiness #love #chilling #weekend

6:56 AM – 9 Feb 2013

It’s the last supper with 😦 I think and I will kidnap you forever!!!!

(Martin Rooney leaves 10th of Feb. Murder happens 4 nights later.)

I woke up in a happy safe home this morning. Not everyone did. Speak out against the rape of individuals… http://instagr.am/p/Viq8nNwPRy/

11:17 PM – 9 Feb, 2013

 

When you fall in love with someone’s personality everything about them becomes beautiful.

12:15AM – 9 Feb, 2013

Check out The Link tonight 4 a sneak peek of “Tropika Islands of Treasure” , ,

It’s a beautiful day!Make things happen.Starting my day off with a yummy healthy shake from my boo 🙂

 What do you have up your sleeve for your love tomorrow???

3:37 AM – 13 Feb 2013

WEAR BLACK THIS FRIDAY IN SUPPORT AGAINST AND WOMAN ABUSE

4:34 AM – 13 Feb 2013

 

Revelations

 

shakedowntitle.com

Shakedown Reviews Blade Runner Killer, Oscar Pistorius – Part 1

p14586320_p_v8_aa

Listen to clips, and hear #Shakedown’s review of the film…


 


Reeva’s Twitter Timeline from 2007 – January 2013…

July 31, 2007

keeping a secret…

July 31, 2007

excited to see the King again xxxx.

But in August, whilst auditioning for a spot on Top Billing, and signing up with ice Models, Reeva hints at some financial difficulties in her early days in Johannesburg. She also reveals a protracted struggle to find the right man, losing her phone, the trials and tribulations of the nightclubbing scene, and her innermost feelings of conflict and frustration – did she make the right choice to pursue modelling?  A close friend passes away in the same month and Reeva is missing her parents.

After dropping a few hints, Reeva first mentions Warren on Facebook on October 11, 2007, nearly 4 months after their first meeting.

October 11, 2007

at home doing work…it’s nice having Warren here to keep me company…

But 2008 proves to be a year Reeva would prefer to forget.  On April 7 Reeva posts:

‘[I stand] corrected. You do not get over the past. The past decides when to let go of you.’

On May 8, 2008, Reeva changes her relationship status on Facebook to ‘In a relationship’ although Warren and Reeva have been an item since January.

(They spend Christmas and New Years apart)

Going to miss some of my best people tonight @OscarPistorius @gi_myers @Iamfomo Have the most amazing night crazies! Send piccies 🙂

1:33 PM – 31 Dec 2012

No reply from Oscar or deleted.

I’ve learnt many valuable lessons this year. Thank you 2012 for the education! Above all, “trust your inner voice” stands out for me. #2013

12:52 AM – 31 Dec 2012

Flies to Cape Town on New Years Day

The chauffeurs in Cape Town hey. Nice! http://instagr.am/p/UBZZG0wPV5/

4:38 AM – 3 Jan 2013

Home time! Back to work. Thank you Cape Town & all the special people who made this break memorable! #friends #family #ocean #sunshine

3:40 AM – 7 Jan 2013

Visiting my boo on set. He shoots more than me! I need to up my game!!! #manonfire

3:47 AM – 10 Jan 2013

1506863434 (1)april-screams-in-the-night-oscar-cp

shakedowntitle.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Seeking Leave to Appeal on #OscarPistorius Sentencing – Hearing, August 25 [LIVE BLOG]

The hearing begins at 9am local SA time.  I’ll be providing updates live on this page.  You can also follow Nick on Twitter at @HiRezLife

Nel is walking Masipa through the points of the state’s argument.  He calls the sentence “shockingly and inappropriately lenient.” 

Nel tells Masipa that Oscar’s personal circumstances were “over-emphasized”

STATE’S APPEAL DOCUMENTS

The camera primarily focuses on Nel but when it does pan to Masipa, she doesn’t look too pleased.

“The court misdirected itself in believing that the perception of an intruder entering home was a mitigating factor.”

Nel points out that Oscar formed his INTENTION to fire in the bedroom when he got his gun… not in the bathroom.  This should have been taken into account as an aggravated factor.

“The court failed to take into account the findings of the SCA”

Masipa

Nel says the court made credibility findings about Scholtz, therefore the court should have rejected that Oscar was in no condition to testify.  He also questions her finding that Oscar was remorseful…

“There’s a chasm between regret and remorse.”

Knowing that the SCA found that the accused had never given a proper explanation for why he fired, the accused should have provided testimony during sentencing.

Right on schedule…. a cell phone goes off.

Nel politely uses the words “respectfully” and “utmost respect” repeatedly while he basically tells Masipa her sentencing judgement is shit.

Nel hammers home – the benchmark is 15 years – that’s the starting point of a sentence, not a clean slate.  Go Nel!

“He decided in the bedroom to shoot at whoever – if there was somebody in the bathroom – whoever…”  “That was the fact of his intention – to shoot whoever.”

The court failed to grade the degree of Dolus Eventualis.  The court was bound by the inferences of the SCA.  Likely and Obvious are degrees in Dolus Eventualis… SCA found it was obvious that Oscar’s foreseeability was he would kill a person.  “Those are all very aggravating factors, My Lady.”

#Masipaface

Masipa 2

Nel talks about what bothers Mr. Steenkamp… he wondered what his daughter felt when she was being shot.  Nel feels this wasn’t fully taken into account.  He also emphasizes the cruelty of Black Talon.  It should have been an aggravating factor.  It didn’t get the attention in sentencing that it should have.

The court misdirected itself when the court ignored the SCAs finding that Oscar’s subjective intention was unaffected by his vulnerability.

Nel also points out that the physical demonstration of the accused in court was very different than a person walking down their hallway with a lethal firearm.  In other words, the reenactment in court is not a true reenactment.

The public’s misperception [of why Oscar shot, the argument theory] is irrelevant and shouldn’t have been considered.   Nel says, what is important to note about the public – society has an interest in a proper sentence being imposed based on the nature and gravity of the crime.

Nel wraps up by saying they can only appeal to the SCA, therefore they are applying for leave to appeal.

Roux starts by saying how shockingly inappropriate the state’s appeal arguments are.  Points out the state waited 15 days, and let poor poor Oscar sit in jail waiting to see what they would do.  Roux says the state is “prejudice.”  Reminds Masipa how much Oscar cried in court.  The state has not given a “fair appraisal of this matter.”

Roux says about Masipa’s judgement… “The judgement made me proud of judiciary.”

In case you want to revisit that nightmare, here is the document…

Masipa’s Sentencing Judgement for Oscar Pistorius 7.6.2016

Roux

“What is it that the state wants?”  If it’s 8 years, they want 10 years?  He ponders, should the respondent should sit and be subjected to uncertainty.  “Enough is enough.  It does not comfort you that justice is fair and reasonable.”

“My Lady, we live in the real world.  If I wake up at 3 o’clock in the morning, and I believe there’s an intruder in my house, it’s dark and I have no legs to walk on…”  He stops there… was waiting for him to say I’d shoot somebody too, but then he’d have to add in ‘4 times’ to be accurate and um, that kinda sounds bad.

Masipa still looks stern but slightly softer as Roux speaks.  She listens intently and takes notes.

Roux says the court was fair in dealing with Kim Martin and Mr. Steenkamp.

Very few people in the courtroom today.  Even Barry Bateman has given up on tweeting today.  They’re at the South Gauteng Courthouse today, not the usual North Courthouse.

courtroom

There must be a reasonable prospect that another court would interfere with the sentence. Roux trying to argue that there’s no basis for determining what the SCA would consider reasonable.

Karyn Maughan is going to town on her gum right now.

Roux says Masipa should dismiss the state’s application, with cost…

“It should be the end”  “It’s been exhausted beyond the point of any conceivable exhaustion.”

And Roux’s done.  Phewww… I love when he’s brief.  So essentially his entire argument is based on emotion.  That it’s unfair to make Oscar sit around and wonder when this ordeal will finally be over.  Roux did not cite any legal cases.

Nel counters with a few last points saying they did not ignore evidence as Roux suggested, the evidence he referred to was rejected by the SCA.

Nel also emphasizes it is indeed strikingly inappropriate if the minimum sentence is 15 years and results in 6.

Masipa:  “I’ll be back…”  She takes a break to consider the arguments… and make sure that Arnold has the proper routing number.  Haha… kidding 🙂 … Kinda.

Masipa dismisses the state’s bid to appeal Oscar’s sentence.  Dismissed with costs.

Ulrich Roux Chimes In…

Listen to the hearing…

Twitter buzz…

 

Expert Psychologist Discusses Oscar’s Narcissism

“Oscar was a disaster waiting to happen.  And everyone who witnessed his cross behavior, and didn’t caution him he shouldn’t own a gun, is actually complicit with what happened.  If you add all the incidents together, this was inevitable.” – Leonard Carr

A few weeks into trial in 2014, while the media and most expert contributors were
reluctant to make their opinions known [most still are today], expert psychologist Leonard Carr made no bones about saying what many of us were thinking…

“[Reeva] was in a typically abusive situation.” – Leonard Carr

From the Times Live article titled, Is Oscar Pistorius the Boyfriend from Hell?

Carr said the messages between Pistorius and Steenkamp suggested “a highly controlling relationship”.

“He controlled her with jealousy, with isolation. From these [messages] he looks like someone who is unable to really love. He doesn’t show any empathy for her; he doesn’t show any deep respect for her.”

Pistorius was “highly manipulative” and had “an overdeveloped sense of entitlement”, said Carr.

Nick and I have always believed that Oscar is a narcissist.  Despite the watered down test results from Scholtz, and the endless stream of sympathetic defense witnesses touting Oscar’s simply a man suffering from anxiety, a thorough investigation of Oscar’s life tells us something very different.  Something much darker and more frightening.  Although, at times, Carr expresses that he doesn’t believe Oscar’s a “bad” person.  Nick and I are not on that same page with Carr.  However, we do all agree Oscar is damaged.

“Oscar is a person who from infancy has always relied on mechanical, external prosthetic devices for a sense of wholeness and power, and his gun was no exception to that.  His gun was always on him – always a part of him.  I think it was totally natural for Oscar to pick up his gun the same way he’d pick up his prosthetics.” – Leonard Carr

Our motivation for our narratives has always been shining a blazing light on the truth.  So too, Leonard Carr.  In WHITE HORSE III, just released this week, we asked Leonard to contribute more of his fascinating views in the chapter titled The Bottomless Pit.

Today we had the opportunity to speak with Leonard some more.  In an hour long discussion we covered some of the topics that have been burning up social media.  Here are some of his responses:

What do you think about the absence from the state in countering the endless defense testimony from Scholtz and his experts?

CARR:  “I think the psychological evidence on both sides was incredibly weak.  For the state side, it was virtually non-existent.  And it would have been so simple to destroy the defense’s psychological evidence but the state never presented much of a case in that regard.”

“One thing you’ll notice about Scholtz’s report is that he’s talking from data based on tests and he hasn’t really integrated the data into observations.  For example, where he says that Pistorius shows no signs of narcissism, I mean, even if we take the Reeva Steenkamp story out of it, if you just look at someone with his kind of drive, his kind of career, sacrifices that he’s made; he’s driven this to get ahead, his behavior on the sports field… I mean you can from that pick up narcissistic traits.   To say that he has an absence of narcissism, then you have to ask well then how did he get to where he got to.  They don’t even have healthy narcissism.”

How did Oscar’s childhood/parents help shape his future?

CARR:  “His [Oscar’s] mother’s message, and they repeated it many times, was actually a very negative message.  The positive way of saying the message is ‘you are different than everybody else because you’re not an able-bodied person but in no way should that make you feel less than and no one should ever put you down because of it.’  But when you say to a child you are the same as everybody else and your stumps, your prostheses and Carl’s legs are exactly the same, what you’re doing is you’re rendering his disadvantages and vulnerabilities illegitimate.   Then put that with what he also said very proudly that his parents used to make him deal with bullying himself and go to the principal’s office alone without their support to fight his battles.  The fact of the matter is that to achieve equality in life, you have to build in handicaps for people who have got challenges.  I mean, that’s what they do in sport all the time.  So, he’s never been allowed to acknowledge his vulnerabilities, he’s never been able to admit weakness or pain or shortcoming or whatever it is, or to ask for help.”

What effect did it have on Oscar to teach him ‘there’s no such thing as I can’t’?

CARR:  “I perceive the Pistorius family as having a kind of sense of entitlement.  They’re like a sort of self-appointed royal family.  And everything they do, there’s always a suggestion of we’re extraordinary, and therefore, you know, we deserve special privileges.  And I think Oscar’s grown up in that atmosphere.  But remember there’s another message as well.  The weird thing is the double message that his father also rejected him at the point that he had his amputation.  So on the one hand there’s the entitlement and specialness but on the other hand there’s the rejection.”

“I think that Oscar’s a very wounded person.  And actually, if you want to know what I would loved to have been involved in, in this trial, if I had been given a role to pick, I would have wanted Oscar to plead guilty right at the beginning and then for me to have written a report for him in mitigation.  Because I think there’s a very very strong case in mitigation but of course, you can’t bring a strong case in mitigation if the person shows no remorse.”

Carl’s been pretty vocal lately including recently speaking to a school as a sort-of mentor for the students.  Yet, his claim to fame is basically that his (former celebrity athlete) brother killed somebody.  Isn’t that pretty narcissistic?  What’s the deal with him?

CARR:  “I think that his approach, even in the media, has been incredibly arrogant.  He gives me this impression of having this kind of holier-than-though approach.  Let’s not forget for a minute that Carl himself killed someone.  And the fact that they couldn’t find that he was drunk or whatever it is, and they kind of blamed the victim… but if you look at how the Pistorius’ operate, that seems to be their modus operandi.”

“I think the whole family has been cast into a public role.  I think, to put it crudely, I think they’re quite low-class.  They’re rough around the edges.  And Uncle Arnold’s got lots of money and now they’re playing this role of like self-appointed royalty.  Like the Middletons, they’re like suddenly cast into the spotlight after leading a relatively ordinary life, and I think that that’s what they’re playing to.”

Reeva didn’t fit Oscar’s usual mold for a girlfriend.  He historically dated young women, even teenagers at times.  But he worked hard to “woo” Reeva and win her, and she in turn seemed to ignore several red flags dealing with his nasty criticisms in order to stay with him.  Can you talk a little bit about the dynamics of narcissistic relationships?

CARR: “First of all with Reeva, there was the financial aspect.  Oscar was supporting her financially, and he was giving her parents money.  I think that very possibly, Reeva was an aspiring model and Oscar was like a bridge to get instant celebrity.  But I think this issue is actually the core of all the issues in the relationship.  Number one, to go where you started, Oscar is very low on emotional intelligence.  I would even go so far as to say Oscar’s not too bright in general.  I think Oscar’s poor performance is not because he’s a bad person, I think he genuinely doesn’t understand the issues.  That’s number one.  Number two, I think that he went out with little girls of 18 and 19 because that is his emotional level.  That’s because of all the issues we discussed and especially his lack of experience in [all] relationships in general because of his relationship with sport.”

“[Reeva] was way out of his league in terms of intelligence and sophistication, and social and intellectual and academic accomplishments.  So I think there was a sense of inadequacy there from the beginning.”  

[Carr acknowledges at this point he’s speaking graphically to explain his point] “Now, can you imagine as a man, you might look great in a suit and you might be on the front cover of Time Magazine, but you want to go to bed with a woman, you take off those prostheses and you have these horrible little stumps, it must creep a girl out.  Obviously in the context of a loving, established relationship, it’s not an issue, you know, because obviously abled people aren’t damned. But if you look at this kind of relationship, the appearance vs. the reality, in the bedroom Oscar’s not this Olympic champ.  For a person with a fragile ego, and his lack of emotional intelligence and relationship skills, I can’t imagine how well he would deal with that.  I can’t imagine he’d deal with that with maturity and finesse.”

“The younger women, from an unconscious pressure point of view, you’d feel much more in control with a young woman who’s being a sycophant than with an older, accomplished woman who’s more challenging and you know has had experience probably with other guys.”  

The recent “suicide attempt” story from prison was very bizarre.  What do you think that was all about?

CARR:  “I think that Oscar is a PR nightmare.  And I think the Pistorius family want their cake and to be able to eat it.  On the one hand they argue he’s so vulnerable and psychologically precarious that he deserves his special treatment… um, they go to court with a psychologist saying he’s fragile and suicidal.  When he acts fragile and suicidal [supposedly] they don’t want him to look like a pathetic, manipulative wimp, so they deny it.  He just fell out of bed and happened to cut his wrists.”

So you think he really did try to commit suicide?

CARR:  “Look, first of all, I think he’s a drama queen, so who knows.”


To read more of Leonard’s views on narcissism and Oscar, below are additional articles:

Pistorius Charmed the World with Idealised Image

Parenting in the Age of Oscar Pistorius

The Oscar Trial:  Aspasia and Psychologist Leonard Carr on Cliffcentral


Some of Scholtz’s BS

Relationships:

Relationships

Test Results:

Results 1

Results 2

To read the full copy of Scholtz’s Psychological Report on Oscar [from Oscar’s time at Weskoppies in 2014] click here.

http://www.shakedowntitle.com

All three WHITE HORSE narratives are available on Amazon Kindle

Fullscreen capture 20160507 043749 AM      WH2 Cover      WH3 Cover