Oscar Pistorius

I find the judges dismissal of the witnesses as incredible.

The judge also reviewed evidence by neighbours who testified of hearing shots and screams, saying many "had their facts wrong".
She said huge media coverage of the case could have affected some witnesses.
"I am of the view that they failed to separate what they knew personally or what they heard from other people or what they gathered from the media," she said.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
FOUR WITNESSES.


I suppose it's like TWO dogs getting their facts wrong and being influenced by their handler.

Ex-girlfriend on how Oscar Pistorius terrorised her: I hid gun because I feared he'd kill me
By MirrorUpdated Friday, September 12th 2014 at 08:19 GMT +3
Share this story:        
 

Samantha Taylor was left with bruises and scars after the Blade Runner bit and pinched her - she was also tortured mentally during the 18-month relationship
Oscar Pistorius’s former girlfriend has spoken of her ­terrifying ­relationship with the “angry and possessive” Paralympian.
 

Samantha Taylor said she feared he would kill her and revealed she once hid his gun after he flew into a rage at her.
Pistorius, 27, was cleared of  murder yesterday, but he could still be jailed today for shooting dead his model ­girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
And ahead of the verdict, Samantha, 20, said: “It could have been me.”
Samantha said she was left with bruises and scars after the Blade Runner bit and pinched her, but she was also tortured mentally by him during the 18-month relationship.
Sam Taylor 'Happy couple': Samantha and Oscar
She said: “Oscar used to lock me in his house and then go out. I had no food, I couldn’t get out. It was dangerous.
“He often went out saying he will just be an hour or so and ended up out all day or night. I wouldn’t hear from him all night and his phone would be off.
“He would say he’s going out for an hour and the next day, three in the morning, he would drive home.”
She also described how he once left her paralysed with fear when he used his beloved Porsche as a weapon, driving her at up to 200mph to “punish” her.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why did she not tell the Court that when she took the stand?  Was she advised not to?

One does wonder Aiyoyo.
Perhaps she only answered what she was asked?
Some more below, taken from a UK paper. Apologies if already posted:

Shuddering, she said: “What happened to Reeva Steenkamp could so easily have happened to me. I definitely think that could have been me – without a doubt – many, many, many times.”
Samantha first met Pistorius in 2010 when she was 16 and he was 23 at a rugby match, but they did not start dating for another year.
Speaking of one ordeal, she said: “He gets so mad, so angry he can’t even speak.
“He was trying to string his words together, spitting, shouting, grabbing. It was horrible. He used to bite me a lot, pinch me in anger and in fun. I had bruises and scars. It was painful.”

Andy Stenning Sam Taylor
Sam Taylor former girlfriend of Oscar Pistorius, pictured with her mum Tricia.
Another time the couple rowed when he accused her of sticking up for one of her ex-boyfriends.
She said: “I was really scared. He made me stand on the stairs and shouted at me. It was like I was on the naughty step.”
But one night, things got so bad she thought he was going to shoot her at his home in Pretoria, South Africa, with the gun he would later turn on Reeva.                       
Samantha said: “I had to hide his gun, I was so scared of him.
“We had friends over for dinner, at his house and we’d all had a little to drink but I think he was going for one that night.
“He was on the hard liquor. He moved all the couches and set the floor on fire and danced around it.
"It was a marble floor and he used alcohol to light it on fire. He slipped and he chipped his tooth.
“But because he was so drunk he thought I’d beaten him up. He started screaming at me.
"He was looking for his gun. He was saying I was a bitch because I beat him up. ‘What kind of person are you? You bitch.’
"I felt threatened. Both of us went upstairs to bed and I was walking a bit in front of him."

Daily Mirror Sam Taylor
Oscar Pistorius and Samantha Taylor
She continued: “When I got to the room I hid his gun, because I really did think he’d use it.
“I hid it under the bed knowing he wouldn’t look there. He kept that gun, the one used on Reeva, on his table or by his prosthetic legs on the floor.
"He slept on the right near the windows and he never kept that gun under the bed, like he claimed in his statement.
“He kept telling me I was a bitch because his lip was cut, but I think he realised things had gone too far.” The next day the couple went to a wedding.
She said: “We rushed and he didn’t realise he had left his gun at home and he said to me ‘Oh my word, where’s my gun?’ I told him why I had hidden it.
“He didn’t apologise but didn’t want to acknowledge what had happened.”

Daily Mirror Sam Taylor
Oscar Pistorius poses for a photo
Pistorius would vanish for nights of boozing, partying and chatting up impressionable women.
But when the couple were apart for longer periods, like when Oscar had athletics events abroad, his jealousy erupted.
Samantha said: “His jealousy was very tough. He’d phone my mum and dad 10 times a day to find out where I was. In one month I received around 700 calls.
“It was excessive. If I hadn’t replied to messages within 30 seconds I was doing something wrong.”
 

  Video loading 
   
  
Miming taking a selfie, she explained: “I had to show him photos ‘look at me in my pyjamas – I’m not out! Look I’m watching TV, sitting with my brother.’
“He’s a very insecure man. He’d call at all hours. I was scared of him at times because he had very bad anger issues. He was so possessive, he would look through my phone and find a photo from long ago or look on my Facebook, and often get quite angry.
“It was horrible, when you are in a relationship you want someone to trust you. He never allowed me to wear make-up and would make me take my belly ring out.
"If we were going out he would just give me a few minutes so I would not have time to get ready.
“He didn’t like me dressing up and other men looking at me.”

Daily Mirror 
Oscar Pistorius poses with a gun
Samantha said everywhere Pistorius went his gun went with him – tucked in his “pants”.
She also struggled to keep up with his rapidly changing personality – switching from sweet and charming to sobbing and suicidal.
She said: “He would arrive at my house at 5am drunk and wake everyone up. He had a temper. Everyone has a switch inside of them, but when his went off he couldn’t control it. You just have to be calm with him. Not react to it.
“He shouted at me for random stuff, like if his coffee wasn’t made. He would get angry about weird things that shouldn’t really get to someone.
“He screamed and shouted at me a lot. He’s got quite a foul mouth.”
 

  Video loading 
   
 
At Pretoria High Court yesterday, Pistorius was cleared of murder, but he could still be found guilty of culpable homicide – the equivalent to manslaughter here.
Samantha had to testify and has since revealed her frustration at watching him “lie, lie and lie again” in the witness box.
She was so outraged she even tweeted mid-trial: “Last lies you get to tell. You better make it worth your while.”
She said: “When I gave evidence we stared at each other all the time.
“I was just so frustrated because he was lying. He was so good at lying.
“Among my family we always had a joke he’s got a different personality every day. One day he was a gangster, the next day he is a romantic, then a race driver and the next day Rambo with a gun. We used to say ‘who are you today?’.”

Daily Mirror Sam Taylor
Oscar with dog that killed Sam Taylor's dog
Speaking of today’s looming verdict she added: “I have a lot of faith in the judge, I am sure the decision she makes is a good one.
"I did not know what to expect – so many people have preconceived ideas. It looks like the judge is going towards manslaughter."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Culpable homicide = Manslaughter
Max 15 years

PeterMac wrote:Culpable homicide = Manslaughter
Max 15 years

He has extenuating circumstances that the judge has already hinted at.

She said he really believed there was an intruder and was merely negligent in his response to that.

Also.. many people in SA think intruders in your home are fair game for a bullet if you feel you are in danger.

I will be amazed if he gets anything more than the barest minimum.

PeterMac wrote:Culpable homicide = Manslaughter
Max 15 years

I wish,but I cant see him getting any jail time,i am absolutely disgusted with this judge

BlueBag wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Culpable homicide = Manslaughter
Max 15 years

He has extenuating circumstances that the judge has already hinted at.

She said he really believed there was an intruder and was merely negligent in his response to that.

Also.. many people in SA think intruders in your home are fair game for a bullet if you feel you are in danger.

I will be amazed if he gets anything more than the barest minimum.

BlueBag, because of our huge crime and murder statistics, many incidents happening in peoples houses, most of us would most definitely shoot at intruders, (but NOT through a locked door), because we know that it could lead to one and ones family being tortured and murdered, but this is against South African law, especially shooting through a closed locked door. One needs to first be shot at, or similar, or be able to prove that ones life was in danger, before one is allowed to defend oneself with a gun. These coward gangs almost always attack in gangs of six, and NOT just one intruder). Just to add that such attacks hardly ever happen on these secure estates, but rather on farms, where mostly old defenceless people are targeted and murdered.
My opinion is: Bought and paid for by the family.

Snifferdog wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Culpable homicide = Manslaughter
Max 15 years

He has extenuating circumstances that the judge has already hinted at.

She said he really believed there was an intruder and was merely negligent in his response to that.

Also.. many people in SA think intruders in your home are fair game for a bullet if you feel you are in danger.

I will be amazed if he gets anything more than the barest minimum.

BlueBag, because of our huge crime and murder statistics, many incidents happening in peoples houses, most of us would most definitely shoot at intruders, (but NOT through a locked door), because we know that it could lead to one and ones family being tortured and murdered, but this is against South African law, especially shooting through a closed locked door. One needs to first be shot at, or similar, or be able to prove that ones life was in danger, before one is allowed to defend oneself with a gun. These coward gangs almost always attack in  gangs of six, and NOT just one intruder). Just to add that such attacks hardly ever happen on these secure estates, but rather on farms, where mostly old defenceless people are targeted and murdered.
My opinion is: Bought and paid for by the family.

Well congrats to your country.

I understand SA is more than a bit Wild West.

I've read the horror stories over the years.

I would shoot of I was an isolated farmer.

parapono wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Culpable homicide = Manslaughter
Max 15 years

He has extenuating circumstances that the judge has already hinted at.

She said he really believed there was an intruder and was merely negligent in his response to that.

Also.. many people in SA think intruders in your home are fair game for a bullet if you feel you are in danger.

I will be amazed if he gets anything more than the barest minimum.

BlueBag, because of our huge crime and murder statistics, many incidents happening in peoples houses, most of us would most definitely shoot at intruders, (but NOT through a locked door), because we know that it could lead to one and ones family being tortured and murdered, but this is against South African law, especially shooting through a closed locked door. One needs to first be shot at, or similar, or be able to prove that ones life was in danger, before one is allowed to defend oneself with a gun. These coward gangs almost always attack in  gangs of six, and NOT just one intruder). Just to add that such attacks hardly ever happen on these secure estates, but rather on farms, where mostly old defenceless people are targeted and murdered.
My opinion is: Bought and paid for by the family.

Well congrats to your country.

For what exactly Parapono?

I am disappointed with the Verdict.
Having watched the trial I thought Gerrie Nel did a very thorough, meticulous and very good job at proving his case.
A SA law expert says the judge has made an 'error of law' and that allows Prosecutor to use it for appeal.
We shall see.....what will happen next.

If the judge is sympathetic to OP he might get off with a very light sentence since there is no minimum term for manslaughter.

Anyone interested in taking a guess on the sentence?

I'm plumping for a 5-8 year suspended sentence - no incarceration - followed by some sort of sports programme work to inspire/encourage those in SA jails.

That sounds about right Aquila

aquila wrote:Anyone interested in taking a guess on the sentence?

I'm plumping for a 5-8 year suspended sentence - no incarceration - followed by some sort of sports programme work to inspire/encourage those in SA jails.

I think so too, but that will face strenuous objection from Prosecutor.

aquila wrote:Anyone interested in taking a guess on the sentence?

I'm plumping for a 5-8 year suspended sentence - no incarceration - followed by some sort of sports programme work to inspire/encourage those in SA jails.

Would not surprise me especially as news reported last night that the Olympic Committee said he would be able to compete in future Olympic Games.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

OP's brother CP may have deleted OP's phone records before handing it over to Police 12 days after the killing.

OP has penned a book, the publishing of it or not would depend whether he gets jail sentence.
Regardless, I think it is only a question of time (when timing is right) this book will appear in the market.  There can be no doubt about it that family member's name can be used as writer to get around the "criminal cannot profit from crime" law.

Oscar Pistorius will find out his sentencing today.

What will the Judge decide ?  She has let down Reeva Steenkemp and her parents with her verdict?   Will she disappoint them in her sentencing ?

Will she take up the State's recommendation of 10 years ?  Which to me isn't sufficient for the severity of the crime, which after parole he will he out in less than half the time, totally inadequate anyway.

If she adopts Defence's recommendation of house arrest with some community work that will invoke public outrage and invoke the State to appeal not only the sentencing but also the "not guilty of murder" verdict.   

I'm guessing she will melt 7 years in total for the 2 offences to run concurrently.

Imo. One law for the wealthy.
Another for the rest.
I just have to ask:
Bribes anyone?
Because -
one is NOT ALLOWED TO SHOOT AT AN INTRUDER IN ONES HOUSE IN SOUTH AFRICA WITHOUT SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS, AND ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM. sorry, not meaning to shout, but this whole thing makes me sick, and Reeva's parents, who have suffered enough, are NOT going to get justice on this earth for the MURDER of their unselfish lovely daughter.

Sky - 5 years imprisonment.

PeterMac wrote:Sky - 5 years imprisonment.

I bet he'll be out after 8 months for "correctional supervision".

So Reevas life was worth 5 years.................

3 years suspended sentence for the other charge.

He won't appeal so it is stated. The Court let him off very lightly, but the world believes he's guilty so he can't escape the taint, but he will make millions soon from books etc.

Money wins again.

He will only make millions from books and films if people buy them.   I wouldn't but no doubt there are many thousands who will.   Shouldn't be allowed to profit from crime imo.

If he does make millions from his story he should donate the whole lot to good causes (and Reeva's family if they wanted any).  Weren't we told of his great works for charity in his defence?

3 years for discharging a firearm which hurt nobody
5 years for discharging a firearm which ripped a young woman to pieces
¿ Que ?

Compare this to the sentence for this footballer over here.
Five years, out in 2,5.

Jule

Not allowed to compete until 2019

Good!