Post sentencing discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with all you've said. The quality of the parenting is the most important thing. I'd like to add that a huge percentage of marriages/relationships with children end up in either divorce or separation. In Australia it's close to 50% and I've not read of any correlation between that and aggressive or deviant behaviour in the children of one parent families.

OP was not a child when his mother died, he was 15. I've not read of him displaying any aberrant behaviour prior to her death. If this is when he went to live with Arnold, you have by necessity to draw some conclusions here. Why was he allowed to drive a car without a licence? How was he able to buy a car before he was old enough to do so? This points to Arnold IMO. Young men can be very reckless when they're young and good parents can and do point out the consequences of bad behaviour if they learn of it. However young people, both male and female, often hold the view, "That wouldn't happen to me". It's critical as parents to set out boundaries from early childhood and keep reinforcing them as they mature.

A further point. Arnold has a 24 room mansion, and no doubt his brothers have very large homes too, leaving aside Henke. Is it conceivable in your wildest dreams that Oscar, Carl and Aimee would not have been taken in by someone in the family and have them placed into orphanages as wards of the state? Totally ridiculous.
Also, you have to think about what the absent father would have added to the equation. My father was aggressive and physically intimidating towards my mother, and when he and my mother divorced when I was six, my 10-year-old brother went to live with my father, where he learnt to be exactly like my father, aggressive and physically intimidating. Had my father not been around, my brother wouldn't have learnt this unacceptable behaviour from him, and his three (!) wives would have been spared a lot of heartache. So just having a father in the picture means nothing if the father is a bad influence.

If Uncle Arnold turned a blind eye to what the P boys were up to, either because he was too busy to keep an eye on them, or because he thought "boys will be boys" - then like I said before, he had an influence on their development, and the men they eventually became. Without clear boundaries, kids/teenagers can go completely off the rails, as we've seen with OP, although in his case, the rails have come back... to his new shower room :smile:
 
It's a real pity this wasn't picked up by someone on the PT. Why would any person assume there was a lady involved unless they'd heard her voice. This is sufficient proof, for me at least, that she definitely heard both a man and a woman.
BIB - Just like Dr Stipp insisted he heard a man and a woman's voice, and intermingled at one point. But Roux told him he only thought he heard two voices, which was odd, since Roux wasn't there and Dr Stipp was!
 
<Respectfully snipped>

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/23/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius/index.html

A hacker falsely posted on the Twitter account of Oscar Pistorius' older brother Saturday that the South African Olympian was going to do media interviews, a family spokeswoman said.

Carl Pistorius didn't post such a tweet, and he and his sister, Aimee, were canceling all their social media accounts Saturday, said family spokeswoman Janine Hills. All three Pistorius siblings live in South Africa, she said.
Pistorius, 26, is charged with premeditated murder in her February 14 death.
Pistorius' brother faces his own charges

Only to remember the incident. :smile: When Carl's twitter account had been hacked, he still was in the posession of OP's cellphone to hack himself ....

The following was published on 24 February 2013

Yesterday, the family took steps to lower its profile on social media after someone hacked into the Twitter account of Carl. They cancelled all the social media sites for both Oscar's brother and his sister Aimee.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/oscar-pistorius-brother-facing-culpable-1728547

I went back to Aimee's Twitter a/c and it's interesting to note that she was off from 23 February to 31 March only.

However Carl's entries, have been there constantly and never stopped.

What that family say and do, practice and preach are worlds apart.


Here's Aimee's latest offering:

Aimee Joy Pistorius @AimeePistorius · Oct 26

The invasion of personal details & intimacies is not relevant, acceptable or respectful #enoughisenough
 
BIB - The judge certainly didn't seem to think he was an adult. Why did she address Uncle Arnold and tell him to make sure OP didn't get into any further trouble, and not OP himself? He may physically be an adult, but emotionally he acts like a teenager. Arnold Pistorius would have had some hand in his development, wouldn't he?

Because Masipa knows darn well that he (OP) never takes responsibility for any of his actions as Nel told him over and over and over. FGS, he's 27.
 
BIB - Just like Dr Stipp insisted he heard a man and a woman's voice, and intermingled at one point. But Roux told him he only thought he heard two voices, which was odd, since Roux wasn't there and Dr Stipp was!

Precisely. It's that sort of comment that Roux made that IMO Nel should have jumped up and objected to immediately.

"M'Lady, my learned friend :) cannot tell the witness what the witness thought" and Masipa IMO would have to sustain that.

Sadly, there were a number of missed golden moments IMO.
 
You can find a study for pretty much anything you want these days. With respect to Oscar's behavior and "substance abuse" (as mentioned above), I think I would be more apt to look up genetic research.

While you can find a study for pretty much anything these days, people just need to use their logic to recognize what is right and wrong. If we don't accept valid research, we will never progress as a society. Take for instance sugar. There have been studies that have shown that sugar is NOT detrimental to the human body. When you dig deep into this research, you'll find that these studies have been undertaken by researchers on behalf of the sugar industry. Today, most people believe that sugar in large quantities is bad for the body, resulting in obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.

Why do we accept that sugar is bad for us? Because there is clear overwhelming research to show this.

In the same regard, while I agree with you that behavioural problems are multifaceted, one clear indication of behavioural problems is the absence of a father figure in a household. Researchers have proven this over and over and I'm not sure why some (not you personally) are reluctant to even believe this.

Below are some additional studies on this subject.

Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

High risk. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.

Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)

In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households."
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, "Household Family Structure and Children's Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children," Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).

Violent rejection: Kids who exhibited violent behavior at school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers and six times as likely to have parents who were not married. Boys from families with absent fathers are at higher risk for violent behavior than boys from intact families.
Source: J.L. Sheline (et al.), "Risk Factors...", American Journal of Public Health, No. 84. 1994.

The 'hood The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families.
Source: A. Anne Hill, June O'Neill, "Underclass Behaviors in the United States," CUNY, Baruch College. 1993
 
Cast so far......

Writer, Editor, Set Director, Sound Effects & Best Actor - Oscar Pistorius

Special Effects &#8211; Roger Dixon & Frank

Stage setting - Aimee Pistorius

Costume Design - Aimee Pistorius and Carice Stander Viljoen

Animation & Creature Production &#8211; Arnold & Lois Pistorius

Continuity & Timeline &#8211; Roux

Guest Villain & Animal Act - Bull Dog Nel

Creative Writers - Janet Henzen-du Toit and Themba Mazibuko

Foley Artist - Reeva Steenkamp

Best Actress - Judge Thokolize Maispa

Props - Prosthetics Ltd.

Photography &#8211; SAPS

Extras - Cricket Bat Swingers.

Best Supporting Role &#8211; Bathroom Door/Frame, Magazine Rack & Green Buckets

Catering Manager &#8211; Kenny Oldfatburger

Producer &#8211; Carl Pistorius

Financial Director & Executive Producer - Arnold Pistorius.

&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; and the lifetime (well it seems like it) achievement award goes to members of DS for Creative Nicknaming of guess who?

Clapperboard - Intruder

From a forum - thank you, excellent!!
 


[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Cecil Myers: [/FONT]"People will stay away from him now. Women too, they will be too afraid, no girl wants her *advertiser censored**e shot off. And if my daughter wanted to go out with him, the pawpaw would hit the proverbial fan." Mr Myers said he had decided to talk to the newspaper because, "everywhere you go, it's just Oscar, Oscar".

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]There are two (2) parts to the bolded sentence, above. While I agree with latter Part 2, Part 1 I'm afraid he's totally wrong about.[/FONT]
 
Mr. Fossil..thank you so much for the link..

I noticed that Mr. Nathi Mncube stated in his TV interview that they will file an application for leave to appeal with the Registrar of the High Court. Then they will argue before Judge Masipa.
Well..according to the Wall Street Journal article..Mr. Nathi said the exact opposite that the prosecution will file the appeal DIRECTLY at the Supreme Court of Appeals.

Anyhow..I sent an email to Matina Stevis the author of the WSJ article inquiring about this matter..she responded that Mr. Nathi definitely told her that they will file directly at the Supreme court of appeals INSTEAD of filing the appeal at the High Court..

Do you have any idea what time it was when he said that on TV? I'm thinking ..maybe the prosecution changed their plans..so I'm trying to figure out if the article was the latest update from the prosecution..

I do hope they go directly to the Supreme Court of Appeals...

I hope they don't. I want to see Nel in action, again - and see Masipa AND Roux, "knowing" Oscar is likely to go down for count on the appeal
 
[ALL IN MY OPINION ONLY]

Somebody needed to be brave enough to say it. Thank you, vansleuths.

I've always been curious about how this board would have reacted if Uncle Arnold and other family members had proclaimed upfront that "this is the final straw... we wash our hands of Oscar... as far as we're concerned they should lock him up and throw the key away!"

When did being a close knit family with the ability to show unconditional love become a negative thing?

When the news first broke that Oscar had shot and killed his girlfriend mistaking her for an intruder, an awful lot of people believed him... a rumor even spread that Reeva had secretly entered his house that night in order to surprise him. If it hadn't been for the following mistakes being made, I think Oscar would have continued to garner some public belief in him and sympathy... as did a couple of other men who shot family members in somewhat similar circumstances.

Would the tragic killing of Reeva have aroused such outraged hatred of Oscar by the vocal public if the prosecution had not mistakenly accused him upfront of some things which the media gleefully spread, literally from near to far? e.g. they had forensic evidence of premeditated murder, he had chased her and bashed her head in with a cricket bat before shooting her, he was on his prosthesis when he shot her, he was not standing where he said he was when he fired, steroids (the regular type) were found in his house, he failed to call security, he failed to call an ambulance to save her, etc. Why, when it turned out that these things that got planted in our minds weren't true after all, why wasn't there a lessening of public outrage?

I apologize to the board if my memory has failed me on some of the items listed in the paragraph above and simply ask that you please "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
[ALL IN MY OPINION ONLY]

BIB Phew, thank you for your support. I know I sometimes say things that go against the grain of this board, but we should all be able to express our opinion without fear of repercussion. It just adds to a lively debate.
 
SABC News Online retweetete
Newsbreak &#8207;@Newsbreak_Lotus 1 Std.Vor 1 Stunde

#ANC calls on judiciary to show no mercy for those who carry illegal guns as well as those who are guilty of negligence #sabcnews @taresh_h

SABC News Online retweetete
Newsbreak &#8207;@Newsbreak_Lotus 1 Std.Vor 1 Stunde

#ANC campaign announced in Johannesburg yesterday, aims to eradicate all illegal firearms in SA #sabcnews @taresh_h @bashini_naicker
 
http://ewn.co.za/2014/10/02/FIRST-ON-EWN-Police-suspected-Carl-Pistorius-of-deleting-data

Pistorius&#8217;s first stop in Johannesburg on the day before he killed Steenkamp was at Melrose Arch, where he brunched with South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) sports presenter Vaylen Kirtley.

Kirtley said their friendship dates back to 2004 and on the morning in question, they chatted about their families and their plans for the year

She said the athlete showed her pictures of the house he intended buying and pictures of Steenkamp.

Kirtley believes that in the tone with which Pistorius spoke of Steenkamp, he would marry her one day.

A further study of the phone records shows that Pistorius also spoke to a Cape Town based blonde model, whose name is known to EWN, met with lawyers at a firm in Illovo and with a property agent about his impending house purchase in Atholl.

On his way home from Johannesburg, after visiting his friend Justin Divaris at the Daytona Group car dealership in Sandton, the athlete chatted to his siblings.

EWN can also reveal that as he drove into the Silver Woods Country Estate at around 6pm, he spent nearly nine minutes on the phone to a contact listed as &#8216;Babyshoes&#8217; in his handset.
 
Cast so far......

Writer, Editor, Set Director, Sound Effects & Best Actor - Oscar Pistorius

Special Effects – Roger Dixon & Frank

Stage setting - Aimee Pistorius

Costume Design - Aimee Pistorius and Carice Stander Viljoen

Animation & Creature Production – Arnold & Lois Pistorius

Continuity & Timeline – Roux

Guest Villain & Animal Act - Bull Dog Nel

Creative Writers - Janet Henzen-du Toit and Themba Mazibuko

Foley Artist - Reeva Steenkamp

Best Actress - Judge Thokolize Maispa

Props - Prosthetics Ltd.

Photography – SAPS

Extras - Cricket Bat Swingers.

Best Supporting Role – Bathroom Door/Frame, Magazine Rack & Green Buckets

Catering Manager – Kenny Oldfatburger

Producer – Carl Pistorius

Financial Director & Executive Producer - Arnold Pistorius.

……… and the lifetime (well it seems like it) achievement award goes to members of DS for Creative Nicknaming of guess who?

Clapperboard - Intruder

From a forum - thank you, excellent!!

Sensational. I had to have a laugh - Dixon - the first character in your scenario…..I was just reading "Behind the Door" page 300.

"It was tedious. Nel was swinging his spectacles in his right hand, put his leg up on the chair and sometimes talked to his colleague Andrea Johnson as the witness rambled on. This was to be the hallmark of Dixon's testimony".
 
Melanie Davis @MelanieDavisSA · 27. Okt.

1/2 This weekend I saw some of the most childish bullying imaginable on Twitter. Double standards much... translation essential...

Melanie Davis &#8207;@MelanieDavisSA

2/2 Pistorian dictionary def: arrogance = dignity; murder = accident; killer = golden boy/hero; and discerning = hater/troll. Go figure!
 
It's a real pity this wasn't picked up by someone on the PT. Why would any person assume there was a lady involved unless they'd heard her voice. This is sufficient proof, for me at least, that she definitely heard both a man and a woman.

...or that she heard nobody (and neither did her father).
 
:goodpost: Why don't you send it to the SA media?

Thanks Estelle. I had a couple of messages from Lisa re her blog and I took the opportunity to mention that it had been suggested I send it to the SA media and also Facebook. I told her I wasn't a member of Facebook. She said if I liked, she'd post it for me on Facebook, Justice4Reeva. I thought that was a wonderful idea so that's where it's going.
 
I dare say if anyone had been hit in the Tasha "incident" OP would have made it out to be their own fault - much in the way it's Reeva's fault he shot her (in his version of events) because she didnt shout out to him! The mans arrogance knows no bounds...

Even though no-one was hit, apart from the graze on Kevin Lerena's foot, he blamed Darren Fresco for handing him the gun one up. Fresco told him it was one up before he passed it and OP denied it. Just another example of not taking responsibility for anything. Then right near the end of the trial he pleads guilty. What further proof can Masipa need of his continual mendacity. It's really quite outrageous when you think about it.
 
Thank you FG. Please see post immediately ^^^^

ETA: I loved that photo of Reeva p.41 #1020. She looks sweet 16.

I just saw the Open letter on Justice Seekers - Reeva Steenkamp shot by Oscar Pistorius Blade Runner.
There seems the letter to be in good hands, I think.

You are not on facebook, so I copy a post for you to work on:

Given we are now at the appeal stage (and presumably will have five SCA judges go through all the evidence) I want to repost one of my entries here to seek other&#8217;s thoughts. Bullet hole A. It&#8217;s always bothered me that the first shot was left and low, just 93.5cms from the ground, which meant that if Reeva was standing behind the door he was aiming at her right hip. Why would he aim at her hip rather than the middle of her chest? He is a crack shot. Why would the intent of the first shot be to maim when he clearly intended to kill her with bullets 2, 3 and 4? However, what if she wasn&#8217;t standing? What if, after taking refuge in the toilet, she sits fully clothed on the edge of the toilet bowl, facing the door while she talks to him (perhaps because she thinks she will be there for a while or even so she could simultaneously send a text)? At what height is Reeva&#8217;s voice at this point? Would it not have been around 93cms? She might have been saying that she&#8217;s not coming out until he calms down. He might have been threatening to start shooting if she doesn&#8217;t come out. What if Reeva, without saying anything further, silently stands up to continue the conversation (or even because she was going to relent and talk to him face to face), and just at that point in time, with no reason to change his aim because he believes she&#8217;s still sitting down, he fires. In which case that first shot was intended as a head shot, but hit her in the hip instead. That is a lot of &#8220;what if&#8217;s&#8221; which is why I am seeking the opinion of others on this page. Obviously it means Reeva stood up just as he fired without him knowing, and that&#8217;s why the first bullet hit her in the hip but for me it explains three things. The first is that he intended to kill her with the first shot. He wasn&#8217;t aiming at her hip. It wasn&#8217;t a warning shot. The second is the reason for the pause between the first and subsequent shots is because he knew he was firing at her head and believed that one shot would be sufficient. (The three subsequent shots were required because the first shot missed its target.) Thirdly it would have been far easier to explain one shot as a complete accident. -Keith O'Neil-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
136
Guests online
3,983
Total visitors
4,119

Forum statistics

Threads
595,164
Messages
18,020,525
Members
229,586
Latest member
C7173
Back
Top