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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Excerpt from WHITE HORSE III #OscarPistorius

IMG_1931

From the Chapter:

In Court

“The way they act in court – they act like they own the court!” — Mikey Schultz speaking about the Pistorius family

Arnold in court 3

I looked at Uncle Arnold surveying his kingdom, taking in the little people of the gallery.  He wasn’t just glancing from one side of the gallery to the other, he was scanning.  It reminded me faintly of a Terminator

He had his back to the front of the courtroom, and for a long moment, he took in all of us.  Slowly, calmly, he took in each face. It had a calm, calculated quality about it, but the feeling I got wasn’t evil or menace, more satisfaction. All told Oom Arnold felt like things had turned out basically as he’d hoped, was the impression I got.

If this sounds easy to say after the fact, it wasn’t.  It was my observation at the time – to Marc, and via WhatsApp to Lisa. Something else that was bizarre was a white policeman barking at us just before the trial began.  He told us to turn off our cell phones, he warned us not to take any photos.  

Marc BatchelorI was a little shell-shocked.  I asked Marc: “If our phones are off, does that mean we can’t tweet…No man, I think he means turn off the sound of your phones.”

Then, shortly before Masipa arrived to take her seat I asked Marc a few quick questions about Justin Divaris.  Botha had mentioned him and I wondered whether Marc could fill in any of those blanks.  
Justin and Sam

“Are Justin Divaris and Samantha Greyvenstein still together?”

Marc told me they had gotten married, had had twins, but that one of the twins had died.

“Are Justin and Oscar still friends?”

Marc replied that at first they [Oscar and Justin] had remained friends, but subsequently Justin had felt Oscar had misled him, and thus, were no longer friends.

“Who did Justin call after Oscar called Justin?” [At 3:55:02 on February 14, 2013]

Justin called Major-General Shadrack Sibiyaa policeman the former head of the Hawks in Gauteng. 

I guess Justin just happened to have the head of the Hawks number on his phone, don’t most of us?

Sibiya, who has been found not guilty of fraud, and I think not guilty as well of gross dereliction of duty, and not guilty of gross misconduct, was Justin’s first port of call.

Sibiya then made a call to…

WHITE HORSE III is available now on Amazon.

Stay tuned for the final book in this series titled Justice Eventualis.

WH3 Cover

http://www.shakedowntitle.com


IMG_1955

4 True Crime Writers Join Forces to Interrogate Oscar

On July 17, 2016, Nick and I joined forces with Thomas and Calvin Mollett, authors of Oscar vs The Truth, for an intensive 3+ hour discussion about the evidence in the Oscar Pistorius case.  This conversation was a long time coming and sparked by the outrage of the Pistorius family declaring ‘there was no fight.’   Using the recent words of Masipa…

I disagree!

All four of us disagree.

Did the investigators miss key clues?  Was Professor Saayman’s medical examination complete?  We’re examining these questions and sharing our collective insights.

Images courtesy of Thomas and Calvin Mollett

www.shakedowntitle.com

www.truth4reeva.com

[FULL DOCUMENTS] Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal #OscarPistorius July 21, 2016

We respectfully submit that the sentence of six years’ imprisonment, in all the circumstances, is disproportionate to the crime of murder committed in casu, that is to say, shockingly too lenient, and has accordingly resulted in an injustice and has the potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. 

Read the Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal Here:

NPA Sentencing Appeal Documents July 21 2016

www.shakedowntitle.com

WHITE HORSE and WHITE HORSE II available on Amazon

IMG_1269

An Excerpt from WHITE HORSE II #OscarPistorius

From the chapter…

#TheInterview Deconstructed



IMG_0998In the same way a horse rider uses a stirrup to ride and steer a horse, Oscar has used the ITV interview to ride and steer his horse.  The horse of course is the amorphous brand that once existed that was Oscar Pistorius.  Oscar’s still defending it, still trying to bring it back into visibility, back to centre stage.  At the end of this narrative we’ll reveal the most sickening insight of all – what all these snivelling shenanigans have been about, why we’ve been exposed to a stump walk with Oscar dressed in Nike, what it all means.

Before we get to that, let’s deal with the matter at hand.  The ITV Interview.   

In this chapter we want to deal with two issues primarily:

  1. The timing and execution of the interview
  2. An analysis of the interview itself.  

IMG_0971TIMING AND EXECUTION

Let’s start with the timing and execution. I’ve already stressed the assumption in the introductory remarks to this narrative that it’s very likely this interview served as Barry Roux’s paycheque, which is why Roux may have been instrumental in making sure a window was created during sentencing for the ITV broadcast. If Roux could pull this off maybe there was an additional incentive, perhaps an extra R5 million thrown in.  And everybody wins.  ITV could get maximum bang for their buck, Roux could get paid in full plus a hefty bonus and the deal would be no skin off Oom Arnold’s nose.  And obviously the cry-baby would benefit too – not just financially, but he’d get in the last word, a final PR boost before going silent again during his jail time.  IMG_0881

Even in the documentary itself Mark Williams-Thomas contextualises the narrative, he gives it a historical perspective and admits the production schedule when he says “Oscar will be sentenced in a few days”. Let me stress that again: in the documentary itself, which was released on June 24th, they already knew when sentencing was likely to be.  In other words…..  

WHITE HORSE II, the follow up to WHITE HORSE, is available on Amazon.

WH2 Cover

To read without a Kindle, just download the free Kindle Reading App to your computer or any smart device.

The final book in this series is due out in August 2016.

Follow the authors on Twitter at:

@Shakedowntitle

@HiRezLife

@lisawJ13


www.shakedowntitle.com

IMG_0993