Are They Taking the Pistorius? Thoughts on the Sentencing

Oscar with gun

First of all, I'd like to say to all the Pistorius supporters out there, that I didn't want to believe someone who had overcome so much to achieve so much, could do something so evil but the facts speak for themselves. In my previous blogs, I've looked at some of the questions that have not been answered, for instance why Reeva was fully clothed, why she took two phones to the bathroom with her, why Oscar told security that there was nothing wrong after he'd shot and killed her. If we accept Oscar's account, there are no satisfactory answers to these questions. Now for my thoughts on the sentencing hearing.

1 So-called remorse
Whether Pistorius has remorse or not is moot and should not affect his sentence. He should be sentenced for what he’s convicted of: murder. June and Barry Steenkamps’ forgiveness is no indicator of Oscar Pistorius’s remorse but rather a reflection of their religious beliefs and should not impact on his sentence. It does not absolve or exonerate him. He still has to be punished appropriately. He attempted to contact Reeva’s family once, right at the start of the trial when they were in no mood to consider it. He has neither admitted to, nor apologised for, killing Reeva. See the words he uses to downplay the murder. We’re expected to consider the fact that Oscar has paid 6,500 rand per month for 17 months to the Steenkamps as part of a civil lawsuit evidence of remorse and are told that he doesn’t want it back. Wow. What a hero.

Feeling very sorry for yourself is not the same as remorse.

Nel and Roux

2 Mental fitness/expert witness
The expert witness, Jonathan Scholtz, who the press for some reason (I don't know why, ask Sky) are assuming is independent is a witness for the Defence, supplied and briefed by Barry Roux. He's about as independent as Arnold Pistorius, or Uncle Arnold as Alex Crawford calls him. This is why Gerrie Nel had to cross-examine him, which he did rather ham-fistedly. His testimony is that Oscar is a 'broken man' not fit to testify. This is the man who was seen partying while out on bail and is rumoured to have a pregnant girlfriend. Despite the court proving the contrary after Oscar was evaluated by professionals, he asserts that Oscar is suffering from PTSD and other anxiety disorders. See my blog on General Anxiety Disorder or what I like to call Guilt Anxiety Disorder. He might be stressed, even a bit depressed. That would be a natural reaction to his situation. If he's mentally fit enough to put on a display for the court and to appear in a TV interview, he's fit enough to be questioned.

3 Press bias
At least the press have finally started to call the killing of Reeva a murder rather than an incident. Despite the court's findings, the ‘expert’ still refers to the killing as ‘the incident’. He’s been convicted of ‘murder’. The only reason you wouldn’t call it this is if you were biased. And I know that the court didn't find that Oscar intended to kill Reeva in particular, just whoever was behind the door (although I believe he did intend to kill her - see Who Put the ‘Story’ in Pistorius?). Barry Roux goes even further, calling it an 'alleged incident'. Surely no one doubts that it actually took place?  See my previous blogs. But Alex Crawford of Sky News still shows much more sympathy for Oscar and his family than for the Steenkamps, criticising June Steenkamp for 'harbouring a lot of anger over many years' and being surprised that 'she is a woman who's been very affected by her daughter's death'. Crawford makes it sound as if June were completely unreasonable. She comments on the nasty people glaring at poor Oscar.

Barry Steenkamp's pain

4 Barry and June Steenkamp
Barry Steenkamp's testimony had me in tears. I always cry when I think about what Reeva went through, how much pain and fear she was in. He said: 'I want the world to see. I want the world to see the photos of the wounds inflicted on her. To know my daughter’s pain. To know what her last few seconds were like, so that this is stopped - so that others do not have to go through this ever', adding 'Oscar has to pay for what he did'.

5 Oscar's disability
Making Oscar walk on his stumps is a shameless attempt by the Defence to elicit sympathy in the hope of convincing Judge Masipa to deliver a lighter sentence. But if Oscar is really this unstable on his stumps, how was he able to race to the bathroom and hold the gun steady enough to fire the fatal shots? There's talk of 'restorative justice', 'time served', etc. But, listening to the evidence, in prison, Oscar had access to what amounts to a personal gym, supplements on demand and so forth. Unfortunately, we know that Masipa is easily swayed and can't distinguish lies from truth. Anyway, didn't his Mum tell him he could do anything an able-bodied person could do? That includes accepting his punishment.

6 Judge Masipa
I'm really not sure why it falls to the judge who got the original verdict wrong to decide and pronounce the sentence. She's already shown that she doesn't have a good grasp of what the trial is about, let alone what has been proved and what hasn't. See my blog comparing her to Judge Judy. Is this typical of SA justice?

Oscar in TV interview

7 TV interview - some observations
I'm not sure that a convicted murderer should be allowed to do a TV interview to get his story across. This proves another exercise in 'poor me'-ism (Oscar is well practised by now), in which Oscar continually seesaws between accepting and denying responsibility. The frequent inclusion of 'at this point', 'at that point' is telling as it is commonly used by people who are lying (a giveaway) as they need to continually remind themselves of the order in which the events they're fabricating happened and need to establish a credible narrative for the listener but as Judge Judy always says, 'If you tell the truth, you don't need to have a good memory'. See ‘I don’t remember what I’ve forgotten’. Oscar says 'at that/this point' at least six times in his description of what happened.

It becomes apparent in the course of the interview that he's still hopeful that he can come across as a hero who put himself in harm's way to protect Reeva.

Crime scene photos of Reeva

He contradicts himself as he's done throughout: 'I knew (at that point) I had killed her'. 'I knew (at that point) she was dead'. Then: 'I thought that she was breathing'. Which is it?

There's a degree of self-absorption when he talks about 'the pain that it's caused my family' before adding 'the pain that it's caused Reeva's family'. Oscar is still alive and Reeva is dead. Which family is suffering more?

The tears he tries to squeeze out are about as convincing as a child feigning illness to get off school. His Defence team advised against the interview but Oscar always thinks he knows best. See NPD below.

Of the incident in Tasha's, he says 'I took responsibility for that'. In fact, he never did. He said: 'I didn't pull the trigger.'

As so many times before, he tries to eliminate his own agency in Reeva's death, saying 'How can this have happened?' It didn't just happen. He made it happen. Then: 'I'd only contributed positively to people's lives before this tragedy happened.' His reversion to his old habit of distancing himself from his actions with his language has crept back in. Back to remorse - he can't really feel remorse for something that he thinks 'just happened'.

He says 'I don't want to go to jail'. Newsflash: No one wants to go to jail.

Reeva as a child

Oscar places a strange emphasis on something that doesn't seem relevant. He tells us he asked Reeva to close the doors and switch off the telly. Then he reminds us: 'The sliding doors were still open. She'd forgotten to close them.' Later, he says: 'Why didn't I close the door?' then 'Why didn't Reeva close the door?' Why is he so obsessed with this? Is he trying to say that an intruder came into the bedroom through the sliding doors, but then got taken short so had to cut through the bedroom to use the toilet before proceeding with the burglary? It's interesting how many times Oscar mentions Reeva's failure to do what she was asked. Then he says: 'Why didn't she shout at me?' Now that is a valid question. Why? I'll say it again - of course she was shouting at him, pleading with him for her life, petrified. It makes my blood run cold to think about it.

Black Talon ammunition

Unbelievably, he expects sympathy because a lady made a scene and he had to leave a supermarket. It doesn't really equate to being shot four times with Black Talon ammunition. Get some perspective.

Oscar says: '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'.

I believe that Reeva would want to ensure that someone as volatile as Oscar was put somewhere where he couldn't harm anyone else. After all, she was a passionate activist for women's causes. She would want the sentence to serve as a deterrent to Oscar himself and to any other men who kill their partners (an average of three a day in South Africa).

Before this, he has deliberately used words that fail to convey the enormity of what he did: 'I made a mistake', 'I fired my gun. It was an accident.' He fails to see the contradiction here.

I do think it's possible that Oscar has either an antisocial personality disorder (i.e. a sociopath) or  a narcissistic personality disorder. See what you think.

Sociopaths are often popular as they can be charismatic but they have little or no empathy and are very self-involved. They tend to blame others when things go wrong. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly but seldom feel guilt or learn from punishment.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Young Reeva

Conclusion - Please read this, Judge Masipa
Imagine. Imagine Reeva and Oscar had argued (not because of her ex but because of the call he made to his ex, on the phone that disappeared and was returned, wiped, after two weeks), that he was furious (probably because she was about to walk out on him). She ran from him, perhaps not realising she was running for her life, locked herself in the toilet to call for help, heard him charging after her, shouting 'Get the fuck out of my house!', possibly with the intention that a neighbour would hear this line and be persuaded that there actually was an intruder. Imagine, like her parents do, although they must wish they couldn't, the fear, the absolute terror she must have felt. And then the dreadful pain as the Black Talon bullets tore through her body. Did she live to see him break down the door? Did she understand that he would not call for help till she was dead?

Reeva was robbed of the chance to fulfil her potential, to do good in society as she planned. She wasn't a hero. But she still could be. If the judge can pass a sentence that reflects the heinous nature of this terrible crime, one that discourages other trigger-happy control freaks from attempting the same thing, that demonstrates that even the rich and famous cannot get away with it, then she will have achieved something great and her death won't have been in vain. Please, Judge Masipa, do the right thing.

She was just a sweet-natured, kind-hearted girl who fell for the wrong guy. Rest in Peace, Reeva.

'Carefree, bubbly - she'd just walk into a room and light it up' Reeva Steenkamp RIP

For my blog on another murder, see JonBenet Ramsey – The Ramseys 'In Their Own Words'.