Oscar Pistorius held a ‘private’ memorial for Reeva Steenkamp last night

I haven’t covered any Oscar Pistorius stuff in what feels like a while – I think I needed a breather after the magistrate let Oscar out on bail, and his team seemed to take that news as an opportunity to talk about how he was going to begin training again, I guess like nothing happened. Since being let out on bail, Oscar has been staying at his brother’s home because the police won’t let him enter his own home – it’s still an active crime scene. His brother, Carl Pistorius, is facing criminal charges as well, but they have nothing to do with the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. Carl Pistorius will soon be put on trial for culpable homicide from a 2008 accident in which a woman’s motocycle collided with Carl’s car. Don’t ask me to get into that criminal case – I don’t have the stomach for it.

Meanwhile, I think Oscar and his team are trying to do damage control. Oscar has hired some “image consultants” and they announced yesterday that Oscar planned a memorial service for Reeva:

Oscar Pistorius is planning a private memorial service to honor his girlfriend, whom he shot and killed on Valentine’s Day.

The memorial for 29-year-old Reeva Steenkamp is scheduled to take place tonight at the home of Oscar’s uncle, where the Olympic sprinter has been staying since he was released on bail last week.

Oscar’s rep released a statement, saying, “Oscar specifically requested the memorial service as he continues to grieve and remains in deep mourning for the loss of his partner Reeva.”

The rep adds, “Since it is such a sensitive issue, Oscar has asked for a private service with people who share his loss, including his family members who knew and loved Reeva as one of their own.”

Oscar — who stands accused of murdering Steenkamp — claims he shot her by accident, thinking she was an intruder.

[From TMZ]

The memorial took place last night, and the only attendees were Oscar’s family, no one from the Steenkamp family was included. In fact, several members of Reeva’s family publicly commented on how tasteless it was for Oscar to do this. So… does this make Oscar look good? Is this a strictly PR move, or does he genuinely feel remorse? I don’t know – I think it’s kind of tasteless.

Meanwhile, The New Yorker has a piece about how Oscar’s criminal case can and should end up with some kind of plea bargain. And The Mail (take with a grain of salt) claims Reeva was pregnant when Oscar killed her.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

118 Responses to “Oscar Pistorius held a ‘private’ memorial for Reeva Steenkamp last night”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Esmom says:

    Tasteless and empty gesture, purely for PR purposes, imo.

    • Artemis Rose says:

      I vote for a publicity stunt!

      If this memorial was genuinely private and kept confidential, then it would have been appropriate.

      The 20 friends and relatives who attended would have certainly agreed to keep it confidential to “protect” Pistorius from the possibility of media backlash.

      However, during Pistoruis’ supposed grieving period, he hired a PR company to protect his reputation who then “leaked” it to the press prior to the memorial.

      Why? Wasn’t Pistoruis suppose be grieving the death of Reeva, the woman he killed, the woman he loved?

  2. brin says:

    Well, let’s hope poor Oscar got some closure. *sarcasm*

  3. GiGi says:

    Have the memorial if you want, but the PR went too far by making it known publicly, IMO.

    Also, Reeva’s family has come out and said (via their attorney) that the autopsy showed no pregnancy.

  4. & says:

    This guy gives me such a full-of-sh!t sort of vibe. Definitely a tasteless, obvious pr move.

  5. Ms Kay says:

    This so wrong on so many levels… “Oh look, I loved Reeva, see the proof, I am holding a memorial for her!”

    … I can’t … I just … No.

  6. bea says:

    Classic abuser behavior on his part. While having a “memorial” for her, he’s making it all about him. I sincerely hope he doesn’t get OJ’d.

    I’m curious to know what part the cricket bat played bc it seems like it may tell the story (which might be they argued, he hit her with the bat, she ran to the bathroom and he shot thru the door)

    Domestic violence needs to be taken seriously.

  7. Eve says:

    “So… does this make Oscar look good?

    Not really.

    “Is this a strictly PR move, or does he genuinely feel remorse?”

    TOTALLY a PR move.

    “Carl Pistorius will soon be put on trial for culpable homicide from a 2008 accident in which a woman’s motocycle collided with Carl’s car.”

    During the bail hearings I was creeped out — disturbed, really — by his brother’s attitude. He always looked so laid-back, even smiling (broadly) sometimes.

    Then I saw on CNN that he himself was facing criminal charges…now they (Pistorius and his family) flat out scare the bejeezus out of me.

  8. Carolyn says:

    Um….Oscar killed Reeva and he’s putting PR out there that he had a private memorial service? What the hell? This guy becomes more distasteful and abhorrent the more we hear about him.

  9. capepopsie says:

    The more I read about this, the more he disgusts me! In my eyes this is looking more and more like cold blooded murder. As a South African I feel ashamed that this creep has been released on bail. They obviously had issues, and then he (conveniently) shot her dead by mistake?
    Through the bathroom door at an angle from above, without wearing his prothesis? I really just hope that the truth will be revealed and that justice will prevail.

    • Really? says:

      capepopsie, as an American, i can totally understand how it feels when something like this hits so close to home, it’s just so in your face brutal and surreal…and what about the reports that he beat her with a bat? I hope these findings will be enough to put him away for good. He and his brother have serious issues…and the way their sister clings to them is creepy…something’s not right with this family…and the way i see it, they’ve lost their rights to live and function in society.

  10. Bad Irene says:

    It was so private that his pr team announced it? Its so offensive to Reevas family to do this. Vile and self serving.

  11. Elceibeno says:

    That pretty boyish smile and a thousand memorial services will not save him from a long prison sentence.

  12. FiredTiredTeacher says:

    Ugh. How tasteless and self-serving. His whole family sound like a tribe of sociopaths. Scary.

  13. Gracie says:

    Damn Tink Tink, y u so crazy?

    I have a bad feeling he may get off, like that football guy, I forgot his name.

  14. anonymous fan says:

    I feel sick to my stomach that during the Olympics coverage last summer I actually rooted for him and defended him to people who thought he shouldn’t have been allowed to race with his blades.Now all I see is evil.

  15. Merritt says:

    Tasteless and selfish. To me it is just further proof that he intended to kill Reeva and not an intruder.

    He has made her death all about him. It is really sick. I don’t get why anyone would continue to believe or support this man.

  16. Cecada says:

    “Private Memorial Service”, huh?

    What does that translate to – a twenty-one gun salute and a cooler full of brewskis with his bros?

    I hope he rots in Hell.

  17. shewolf says:

    Everyone knows I’ve been one of the few who prefer to stick to facts rather than pass judgement in terms of this guy but this is just strange. Its strange, weird, publicly motivated and just plain off.

  18. Nicolette says:

    How sweet, meanwhile yesterday reports came out that her autopsy shows her skull was crushed before she was shot. So much for his BS intruder fantasy. And sadly the judge in his case has a cousin who just this past weekend murdered her two children and committed suicide.

  19. HK9 says:

    He had a memorial????WTF If he wants to do something, take responsibility, get his lawyer to negotiate jail time, say sorry to her family and then GO AWAY.

  20. L says:

    I thought he was staying at his Aunt and Uncle’s place.

    What really gets me, is the jerk is ALREADY trying to get his bail terms eased. Because as his lawyer says “He’d really just like to get on with his life”

    SERIOUSLY?! You know who would like to get on with life? Reeva. Reeva’s family. He’s horrible. http://deadspin.com/5986997/oscar-pistorius-wants-to-get-on-with-his-life-may-ask-for-relaxed-bail-conditions

  21. I Choose Me says:

    Poor Oscar. Grieving so hard. No one knows what he’s going through. Oh, except his PR team who’ll tell us every chance they get.

  22. Vivian says:

    I hope karma gets him good no matter how much he PR his way into minimizing his sentence and guilt.

  23. Cody says:

    I agree with Reeva’s family, it is tasteless. Does he think this will help him with his trial. I have read in some places and I don’t know if it is true, that his lawyers are trying for a plea bargain before the case goes to trial, which would shorten his prison term. Then the truth will never come out.

  24. nuzzybear says:

    … of course that “private memorial” was a weekend in Vegas with Drew Peterson, but Reeva would have wanted it that way.

  25. TheOriginalKitten says:

    Come on Pistorious trolls, where are you now?

    *crickets*

    No, REALLY. How are you gonna spin this one???

    Annie–any theories as to how this supports Pistorious’s innocence?

    • Mich says:

      I’m also wondering where they are. Given the fact that they can so blithely overlook Reeva’s murder, however, I’m not holding out hope that they will suddenly be put off by a tasteless, self-serving memorial service.

      “Look you h8ters! He is soooo saaaaaaad over this tragic accident! Let him get on with his life!”

    • Eve says:

      @ Kitten:

      Please…if she believed he was telling the truth in his affidavit, she probably believes the idea behind this memorial service was heartfelt.

    • shewolf says:

      There were only two that I know of that were saying he was innocent. One seemed like she was twelve years old and had a crush on Pistorius, Mich did a great impersonation, haha! Annie on the other hand made some great points but went off the deep end when she proclaimed his innocence. I think she just said that out of spite for all the backlash she was getting. I got a kick out of her though.

      • Eve says:

        I’m sorry, but I have to politely disagree with you here. In my opinion she sounded like a stone cold, biased, aggressive fan from the very beginning.

        That “I want to see/show me the receipts” crap was really annoying — and disrespectful (to anyone who was trying to have a civilized argument with her and to the case itself).

        The reason I didn’t reply to her is very simple: her diatribe was tiresome, she was trolling* and I try my best not to engage with trolls (*completely disregarding very good points that had been made by others — like when Auruor tried to argue with her about her generalization of the media).

        P.S.: The fact some other posters kept giving her “+ 1s”, or saying she could be a lawyer, blah blah blah, encouraged her to troll even more (and attract more trolls, like the girl who spoke like an illiterate 12-year-old).

      • shewolf says:

        Eve – I love hearing polite disagreement, especially in regards to Pistorius. I somehow became very engrossed in this case which is probably due to bored housewife syndrome. My career is in the field of forensics so I can’t help but get caught up in things like this since I am taking a brief hiatus from it to raise my two small daughters. Anyways, in my search for facts, evidence and information regarding what happened the night Reeva was shot I have come across some very interesting opinions on the matter. I appreciated Annie’s take on things because in a sea of misinformation and high running emotions (which is totally understandable) it reminded me to keep an objective view until more information is put forward. All that said, I also love hearing polite disagreements (such as yours! and I have been reading all your comments with interest!) because it keeps the pendulum in line so to speak. I can not wait for his actual trial and to hear what the prosecution has up their sleeves. It does seem like they were holding back for now but planned steamroll him when its important.

      • Eve says:

        @ Shewolf:

        I understand what you’re saying (although I disagree that Annie was an example of objectivity), and I’ve been trying to keep an objective stance on this myself, but I really don’t buy his affidavit — not because I’m ready to jump on his throat and mob-lynch him (I had NO particular feelings whatsoever towards him before this, I barely watched the Olympics games last year) — but because it sounded, at the very least, incoherent. Actually, some parts of it sounded outright ludicrous to me.

        I’m baffled by the piss-poor job the prosecution did during the bail hearings. I’m still hoping forensics will prove Pistorius was/is lying (although I don’t trust the investigation was done properly — I mean, the one at the time of his arrest) but I don’t know…I have this horrible feeling he’s going to get away with it.

        I wish they (prosecution) had done a better job because I don’t think he should have been granted bail — no, not because I think he’s a flight risk (he could try to run away, but I don’t think he’d be *that* stupid), but because him being free may compromise an ongoing investigation. His family seems to be well-connected too and that worries me.

      • shewolf says:

        No, she definitely wasn’t an example of objectivity. Her approach reminded me to keep my own.

        I share the same concerns about him being granted bail. One would think the severity of the crime he is accused of would have factored into the decision but I guess South African law does not work that way. I believe someone said that it is related to apartheid. Whatever the reason, the decision bothered me greatly.

      • Squiz says:

        @ Eve, I don’t think he will get fully away with it. He may get away with premeditated but I was reading an article by a guy from the South African gun owners association who was talking about the strict gun licencing they have in place since 2000; and that OP got a gun licence in 2010.

        Aparently he had to sit a test (legal test) and make sure he could use his weapon correctly. In the legal test it states that “South African legislation allows gun owners to use lethal force only if they believe they are facing an immediate, serious and direct attack or threat of attack that could either be deadly or cause grievous injury.” However OP by his own sworn statement does not meet this criteria as he went there to face the danger, he fired no warning shot to tell the person he was armed, and because he shot through a closed door there was no immediate or direct threat. At worst he is still guilty of culpable homicide (manslaughter)

      • Eve says:

        @ Squiz:

        I know. But “culpable homicide” still leaves a bad taste in my mouth — you know…it’s not completely getting away with it, but it means he’ll be able to avoid the punishment he actually deserves. I have no doubt this was a case of domestic violence.

        Anyway, time to back off from this thread — I’m getting depressed.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        That’s the thing, Shewolf-if Annie had been simply objective then I wouldn’t have called her out for trolling. That’s exactly why I took issue with her. I understand and respect objectivity but I DESPISE hypocrisy (like her claiming everyone else was biased except her) and I really REALLY dislike patronizing attitudes. She basically told those of us who think Oscar is guilty that we were all naive and predisposed to being manipulated by the media. I took personal offense to that because I know that myself and others on this board are critical thinkers, not sheep.

        Anyway, I don’t mind people who disagree with me but just be up-front about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was a PR troll from Pistorious’s camp.

      • Squiz says:

        @ Eve, I think it is a domestic violence situation too. One thing that just doesn’t sit right with me is all the she was my partner, We were so in love, all the talk of she was the one, and of marriage. For goodness sake they were dating all of 3 months and Reeva’s “Joburg Dad” said he seemed possessive and Reeva asked him to talk to him because she felt caged in and in less than 3 months later look what happened

      • Lucrezia says:

        I think shewolf and I have very similar takes on this. I also only saw a couple of people vehemently protesting his innocence. Most of us arguing against the “he’s guilty” majority actually seem to be fence-sitters: “not sure he’s innocent, but not sure he’s guilty either”.

        I hope we fence-sitters aren’t being confused for trolls/PR people. (That’s not directed at you OriginalKitten/Eve, it’s others that seem to be throwing it around at anyone who isn’t saying “obviously guilty”.)

        I think I’m maybe a little sensitive to the slur because I’ve been correcting false info a lot. I quite possibly sound like a PR shill. I’m not – I think he’s clearly guilty of culpable homicide, and possibly guilty of pre-meditated murder (and I only wish someone paid me to be opinionated on the internet). I’m simply motivated by horror at the idea of someone being judged on false info.

        If you’ve decided he’s guilty based on the facts, then I totally respect that. Actually, I don’t even care if you think he’s guilty just because he’s got a wonky grin. But the idea that people are believing false rumours (like the crushed skull thing, which seems to have re-surged?!) and then judging … that disturbs me greatly. I can’t help but correct them.

      • Eve says:

        @ Lucrezia:

        You don’t need to worry about that. You’ve never sounded like an unbiased fan/troll/PR person in any of the CB threads about the case, at least not to me (neither did Shewolf or GiGi, for that matter).

        Actually, the only one who was behaving like that was Annie — not even the girl who overused exclamation points was as annoying as she was (maybe because we could easily ignore her comments). And even I still think she (Annie) was a fan — or simply a troll trying to get us worked up — rather than a PR person.

        But it was interesting to notice that the moment she got called out on that (by OriginalKitten), she vanished from the threads. Telling.

      • Lucrezia says:

        @ Eve – thanks :) It’s hard to know how you’re coming across via text; if I sound like shewolf/GiGi, I’m happy – that’s the tone I was aiming for.

        Re fan/troll: Perhaps OriginalKitten scared them off (kitten has claws!), but there was also a weird bit in one thread where it looked like something (from Annie?) had been moderated/deleted. Not sure what went down there. (I’m in Oz, so I’m usually out of sync and showing up late to the conversation.)

        Re bail (so many interesting tangents I almost forgot to adress this!): I like the moral concepts behind the SA bail system. IMO, an accused crim should be free (because “innocent until proven guilty”) but restricted/monitered (because doing otherwise would be plain stupid).

        I agreed with the judge that OP wasn’t a real flight-risk. (He’s rich enough to sneak out of the country, but I think he’s just too noticeable to live a life on the run.) However, I do like Eve’s point about OP potentially interfering with the case. The judge didn’t seem to address that at all, and it’s one of the standard 3 bail questions. (Will they flee? Will they commit a crime while on bail? Will they interfere with the case?) Seems strange that the judge noted (and dismissed) the idea of OP’s bail leading to riots, but didn’t mention the possibility of him interfering with the case.

        I guess that’d be the prosecution’s fault. They were focused on the flight-risk, and failed to prove that (e.g., failed to provide enough evidence about the house in Italy or the foreign bank accounts.) I don’t think they brought the interference-risk up at all.

    • marie says:

      I don’t even begin to understand how this could be spinned to prove his innocence.

  26. aud says:

    This makes me feel slightly ill. He needs to go away. Hope he saved and invested well cause nobody will endorse this heartless prick

  27. Dani says:

    He freaks me out. The more I read about him the more mentally unstable he seems. Poor girl, he’s a monster.

  28. Gia says:

    I still think he is not guilty of pre-meditated murder, but this memorial service was a dumb thing to do. Really bad PR advice.

    • Guesto says:

      I’m on the fence re the pre-meditated aspect too, purely on the grounds that his story was so full of holes that it defied belief that it could have been made up.

      I’m still not sure, but what IS really clear now is that this is not a broken man or one in mourning, it’s someone on a tasteless and insensitive skin-saving exercise – which still of course allows for him being innocent of pre-meditated murder but does most definitely expose him – and his family – as desperately unlikeable people.

      • JanMa says:

        Here is a man who has confessed to culpable homicide in a sworn affidavit. Under South African law, culpable homicide is defined as unlawful, negligent killing. His version of events seems contrived and wholly implausible but, if it is true, he is guilty of a serious crime. By his own account, his actions that evening amounted to those of someone who was so reckless as to Reeva’s whereabouts or safety that he seemed to be indifferent about whether she lived or died. I don’t think it is a stretch to put it that way. His affidavit states that he fired 4 shots into a closed door without having at that time any reasonable basis to believe she wasn’t behind it. I say “reasonable basis” because you could only buy his story that he was so overwhelmed by panic that he failed to make any proper checks about who it was he was using lethal force on if he was someone who had just come back from (or was living in) a war zone. suffering from PTSD and dangerously trigger happy as a result. Anyone who says crime in South Africa is so high and so violent that it was reasonable to assume that it is the reason he was in this state of mind should be advising any reasonable people to get out of South Africa straight away because it is a scarily dangerous place if it is said to justify this type of behavior. I don’t believe it is that type of place nor do I believe it justifies this type of dangerous reaction to everything that goes bump in the night in a gated community. If South Africans really want us to believe it does, why would anyone in their right mind want to visit their beautiful game reserves and breathtaking natural scenery? It truly is a beautiful place as well (I have been there).

        Then he makes it worse by (one assumes) approving this PR strategy which paints him as someone who “wants to get on with his life”, is in a rush to get back to training and get back his sponsors, holds a private memorial which someone in his camp “leaks” to the press so they can then put out a statement about for privacy for him, claims his family’s twitter accounts were hacked when they inappropriately celebrate the bail outcome on twitter, and generally all around wants to get us to see him as the victim of a crime he committed. This is where they really lost me (and, yes, I still accept that he is innocent until proven guilty of premeditated murder but highly likely on his own confession to be guilty of culpable homicide). This is not the kind of PR strategy that would be signed off on by a genuinely remorseful, grief-stricken man who was taking any kind of responsibility for the pain and suffering he has caused.

      • Lucrezia says:

        If anything, this is so tacky that I think it wasn’t a PR stunt. At least, not one approved by the professional PR-guy.

        Or am I falling for some reverse-psychology? Perhaps I’m supposed to think it’s so tacky that it couldn’t be PR. (And if I find it horribly distasteful, but don’t think it’s PR, does that mean it’s a successful campaign, or not?)

  29. hannah says:

    Gross. Even is it is sincere, it’s still inappropriate and disrespectful. I can’t believe he has the audacity to do this and actually have his PR company ‘advertise’ it.

  30. Mich says:

    Ugh. That New Yorker article is ridiculously underscored by the notion that South African law mirrors American about when someone is “allowed” to shoot another person. And high profile cases often go to court in South Africa.

    Kaiser – read the SA press if you want a clear understanding of this case.

    ConstitutionalySpeaking.co.za ran an excellent article about the criminal law aspects and the comments section is extremely intelligent: http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

    Independent Newspapers (www.iol.co.za) recently ran a very informative piece explaining the differences between SA gun laws and those in more lax countries (ahem, the US). It also broadly explains why he is facing certain criminal charges (www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/pistorius-violated-gun-laws-experts-1.1477445#.US5HmFckQXA)

    Both the Mail & Guardian and The Daily Maverick are also excellent.

    • Mich says:

      Total non sequitor but has anyone else noticed that it is mainly women sticking up for this guy? Disturbing!

      • Eve says:

        Yes, I noticed that. Like when Chris Brown beat up Rihanna — the majority of online commenters defending him were women (curious fact: I saw a fan picture Brown took with two policewomen — and this picture, I believe, was taken AFTER the scandal).

        Disturbing indeed.

      • Erm says:

        I think of them as those prisoner tragics.. you know, the ones who write to prisoners they’ve heard/read about in the media, then end up marrying them.

      • Liv says:

        Ah, Erm, just saw your comment ;-)

        Didn’t you ever hear of these women who want to marry murderes in prison, Mitch? Those are not few. It’s an awful phenomenon.

        While I think we should wait for trial to judge him, because there are so many rumours and lies floating around right now, I find it very strange to want to fall in love with a convicted murderer. It’s probably because there’s publicity and I don’t know, somebody over here mentioned that the women were probably abused in childhood too. But still pretty crazy.

        So I guess there still will be women who are interested in him, even if he’ll be convicted. They might be a little bit crazy though, but if he’s guilty he’s obviously crazy too.

    • Amelia says:

      Thank you for the links, the Constitutionally Speaking article is a gem!

  31. vvvoid says:

    This seals it for me, the fvcker murdered her intentionally.
    So far what forensic evidence we know of suggests that’s the case, but if you look at the guy’s behavior since the murder, the forensics almost become superfluous [except in a court of law].

    All he can talk about is how he is ready to move on with his life. SO SOON. If he accidentally shot his beloved girlfriend to death, he’d be suffering from a temporary adjustment disorder like all normal people who go through something extremely, horribly traumatic. He’d be severely depressed for a while, he wouldn’t be staging events like this to repair his image, he’d be doing the bare minimum he had to do in order to fight for his innocence because he’d feel GUILTY for being so rash and stupid that he ended the life of the woman he loved.

    The “memorial service” is also just a transparently narcissistic and possessive move. He still wants Reeva to be his belonging.

    I believe, due to the unplanned nature of this murder [unplanned in the sense that he decided to kill her suddenly rather than days, weeks, months prior which would give him time to really stage a more perfect crime], that there will be too much forensic and circumstantial evidence for him to escape conviction. The height of the bullet holes in the door alone blows his claim of being on his stumps out of the water, unless he’s a good 7 feet tall and I just hadn’t heard. That one piece of evidence will prove he lied in his affidavit and he’ll have a hell of a time explaining that to a judge.

    • JanMa says:

      Is there any certainty about the height of entry into the doors yet? All I am aware of is the opinion offered by the discredited Investigating Officer on the stand that the bullets were fired from a height which suggested his prosthetics were on. I don’t know why the prosecution has rested (so far) their case on premeditation on the allegation that he must have first put his legs on. My view is that he put in a very carefully worded affidavit, so carefully worded that it seems “invented”, which attempts to explain away every question which will arise about why things happened the way he says they did. For example, he has explained why he was out of the bedroom (on the balcony getting a fan), why he couldn’t see well (he made it pitch dark by closing blinds and curtains), why he couldn’t’ detect that Reeva wasn’t in the bed when fetching the gun (for that night only they had swapped sides in the bed). He worked every sentence of that affidavit out with his defence lawyer. It is therefore highly likely that the forensic evidence will come back in support of his claim that he did not have his prosthetics on. I think he would only have said this if he was sure that would be the case. However, that doesn’t make any of the rest of his story true. It just means that, if he did follow her to the bathroom and shoot into the closed door knowing she was behind it, he did so without first putting them on. I never really could understand why it was alleged that he could only have committed premeditated murder if he had stopped to put on his pros. Isn’t it is possible to plan to murder someone, and to actually murder someone, even if on stumps? However, I guess we will have to wait and see what the trial reveals.

      • vvvoid says:

        I am just basing my opinion off of the notion that the height of the bullet holes was 5 ft. If that’s not the case, it still doesn’t matter, because his story makes no sense. I considered the idea he might have PTSD which would make him behave irrationally and overreact without thinking when his fear response kicked in, but his behavior throughout this process points to someone who has no remorse, not someone who had an episode, killed his girlfriend by accident, and is now in the depths of sorrow and guilt over a rash reaction. All we have so far in terms of evidence is what the prosecution offered, and we’ll see if it turns out to be valid, but his behavior speaks for itself. Also, the location of the gun holster deals a blow to the idea he had no idea Reeva wasn’t in bed…since it was on her side of the bed.

      • Mich says:

        @vvvoid

        My understanding of SA law around this case (see the link to the Constitutionally Speaking article in comment #31 above and make sure to read the a comment to the article made by “Anonymouse”) is that the State need only prove that he knew there was a human being behind that locked door and that he fired willingly – knowing that there was a high probability of a deadly outcome.

        In South Africa, the ONLY time you have a right to use lethal force is when your life is demonstrably in immediate danger. That simply isn’t the case here. And, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t matter whether he thought Reeva was behind that door or the fabled intruder. The intent to kill a human being is what is important, not motive.

        Now, if he had stated that he thought there was a wild animal using the loo behind the locked door, it would be a very different story. Then he would be able to argue that it was a terrible mistake.

      • vvvoid says:

        I didn’t realize he claimed they switched sides of the bed that night. How convenient. My fiance and I rarely if ever do that, but he’s epileptic so sleeping near the wall is important for his safety and mine if he has a seizure, plus we are the type who MUST be cuddling the whole night and he likes to sleep on his left side and put his right arm around me spooning so we can both watch tv [lol]. Still, even in past relationships, my exes and I never switched sides of the bed. Of course it’s possible, but it seems too convenient, along with his whole affidavit, like you said. Plus if it was so dark that NOTHING could be seen, why would Reeva not bump into something or turn a light on as she tried to make her way out of the room? He’d have to have foil over his windows to make it so dark that he couldn’t make out her figure moving across the room, or the lack of her presence in the bed when he retrieved his gun from beneath it. I assume he’d keep his gun on the side of the bed he normally sleeps on, which would allegedly be the side she was sleeping on, so he’d have been RIGHT near where she was supposed to be as he went under the bed to retrieve it.
        Another thing. How could he see anything well enough to retrieve his gun in that kind of total pitch black darkness?

      • Lucrezia says:

        Re location of the gun: Apparantly the gun/holster was on the left side of the bed. That is the side OP claimed to have slept on that particular night, due to the shoulder injury … he’d normally sleep on the right side. Left side of the bed also means he could get directly to the bathroom without passing Reeva’s side.

        It’s just another oddity about this case – why would you keep your gun on the other side of the bed? On the other hand, it doesn’t make any sense to lie about which side of the bed he normally slept on. His case would sound better if he’d simply said he always slept on the left. This way, he’s saying he normally slept on the right, but kept his gun on the left and happened to sleep on the left THAT night … far too complicated.

        Why would you even attempt that lie if the truth was simply “I always sleep on the left”?

        Either way you spin it, it’s weird. He’s either keeping his gun on the opposite side of the bed, or he’s made some bizarrely random, complicated and unhelpful lie about which side of the bed he normally sleeps on.

  32. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    He doesn’t act like someone who accidentally killed the love of his life. Just think about what your emotional state would be if you accidentally killed your spouse or significant other. The guilt and loneliness and grief and remorse that’s with you every minute of the day. Does he show ANY signs of that? Nope. Hope he rots in jail. And if he gets off, then I hope he rots in hell.

    • JanMa says:

      Precisely. I firmly believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty and I gave him the benefit of the doubt when the news first broke. After reading his affidavit, I had no doubt that he was lying. The word that comes to mind is “convenient”. Real life never fits together the way he he istrying to fit it together in his affidavit. He needed a story to overlay over what the forensic evidence would say and apparently the “I thought it was a burglar in the bathroom” story is plausible for some people. So he tells us it was an ordinary night in bed with his girlfriend in an upscale community, he goes onto the balcony for a short while and when he comes back in hears a noise in the bathroom and is “immediately” overcome with fear. Oh, really? Why would he be overcome with fear without having first established if his girlfriend had left the bedroom or not? Wasn’t it at least 99.99 percent likely she was using the bathroom rather than a viloent criminal? Likely enough at least that he souldnt have been completely reckless about this possibility? Without carrying out any proper checks whatsoever as to the whereabout sof his girlfriend, he sets out to annihilate whoever is sitting on the toilet behind a closed door. I find it hard to believe that this kind of behaviour couldn’t attract widespread condemnation, whether it is ever proved that he “intended” to kill her rather than whoever he alleges he thought was on the toilet.

      I also commented above that only someone with PTSD, and/or who has been in a war zone or is still living in one, could have had this reaction to a rustle on the toilet late at night knowing full well it was most likely to be his girlfriend in there.

    • JanMa says:

      Precisely. I firmly believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty and I gave him the benefit of the doubt when the news first broke. After reading his affidavit, I had no doubt that he was lying. The word that comes to mind is “convenient”. Real life never fits together the way he he is trying to fit it together in his affidavit. He needed a story to overlay over what the forensic evidence would say and apparently the “I thought it was a burglar in the bathroom” story is plausible for some people.

      So he will ask the court to believe that it was an ordinary night in bed with his girlfriend in an upscale community, he goes onto the balcony for a short while and when he comes back in hears a noise in the bathroom and is “immediately” overcome with fear. Oh, really? Why would that be his very first reaction? Why would he be overcome with fear without having first established if his girlfriend had left the bedroom or not? Wasn’t it at least 99.99 percent likely she was using the bathroom rather than a violent criminal? Likely enough at least that he shouldn’t have been completely reckless in using lethal force against an unidentified person behind his bathroom door? Without carrying out any proper checks whatsoever as to the whereabouts of his girlfriend, he sets out to annihilate whoever is sitting on the toilet behind a closed door. I find it hard to believe that this kind of behaviour wont attract widespread condemnation, whether or not it is ever proved that he “intended” to kill her rather than whoever he alleges he thought was on the toilet.

      I also commented above that only someone with PTSD, and/or who has been in a war zone or is still living in one, could have possibly have had this reaction to a rustle on the toilet late at night knowing full well it was most likely to be his girlfriend in there.

      I don’t believe his story could be true but, if it is, it seems to indicate he is suffering from some profound psychological disorder and should never have been allowed anywhere near a gun.

    • JanMa says:

      PS VVold, in the bail hearing it came out that he said he had a shoulder injury and that was the reason for sleeping on the opposite side. Cannot now recall if that was in his affidavit or was said by his lawyer on his behalf.

  33. skuddles says:

    I wonder if he displayed the murder gun at her “memorial”? You know, in lieu of her body. Scheming, lying POS. I get such a strong OJ vibe off him.

    Say, is there any truth to him having crushed her skull in with a bat? I keep hearing that but is there actual proof??

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      Skudz-I’ve read 4 or 5 conflicting stories about the crushed skull. I’m not sure if we’ll have a definitive answer on that until it goes to trial.

      He strikes me as a very VERY insecure individual who has been coddled by the media, his fanbase, his family and the “team” of people surrounding him for most of his life. As I said in the last post, there is a LOT of money riding on this guy’s career so you better believe the scumbags are going to do whatever they can to protect their precious “commodity”.

      • skuddles says:

        Sadly I know you are absolutely right OKit. And this is a guy who can sob on cue so we know he’ll also be working the sympathy angle HARD – even if it means removing his prosthetics and crawling around the court room if need be. How did it all become about this POS and not about the poor woman he terrorized and murdered??

    • Erm says:

      He shot her in the head, arm and hip–reports say that the shots shattered the bones in her arm and hip, so presumably the one to the head also caused damage to her skull. This could work both ways–covering up a previous head injury, or creating damage that looks like a head injury caused by a blunt object.
      I hope the guy’s career is over. Can’t believe he is hiring image consultants. If you’re sincerely sorry or grieving, you don’t need f*cking image consultants to prove it to the world. The guy lives or dies by his image, so maybe that is where justice will be served, even if he doesn’t go to prison.

  34. vvvoid says:

    I read an interesting article by an attorney who says he thinks Oscar’s affidavit is unusual and potentially harmful as it lays out in detail his entire defense, meaning if evidence comes to light contradicting his statements he will be in big trouble. He didn’t have to do that in his affidavit, it was a calculated decision designed to get him out on bail ASAP. The attorney said it was a case of short-term thinking. Let’s hope it bites him in the ass.

    • JanMa says:

      VVold, it very well could come back to haunt him.Ironically, the thing that convinced me that this wasn’t just a “tragic accident” is his own affidavit. It is transparently self serving and fictional. It is a tale told by a man covering his tracks. However, I still think he has tailored it to meet the evidence that will come out. He – and his top notch lawyer – shouldn’t be underestimated.

      The other thing that worries me about this case is that the Investigating Officer said on the stand that OP’s lawyer and family members arrived on the crime scene just after the IO did and were allowed to walk around it, open safes, remove a memory stick and, most incredibly of all, OP’s cellphone!! Who knows what crucial evidence may have been “lost”.

      I remember now where the shoulder injury story was first mentioned. His lawyer put it to the Investigating Officer when cross examining him.

    • Lucrezia says:

      Yep, he didn’t have to provide an affidavit, and if he’s caught lying in it, it ruins his defense.

      That is actually my main reason for doubting a couple of the theories/rumours (the crushed-skull thing and the height-of-the-bullets thing). There’s short-sighted and then there’s absolutely stupid.

      His lawyer would have made it clear that forensic/ballistic reports would be able to prove/disprove those points, so I doubt he’s going to be caught lying on something so obvious.

  35. Peanut says:

    Shoulder injuries could probably happen after beating the shit out of someone. Just saying.

  36. LahdidahBaby says:

    I can just see Pistorius’s PR team sitting around earnestly brainstorming about what an “innocent” man’s responses and actions would/should be–and, lacking an innocent man to TURN to for that particular info, they could only speculate. Thus, after much brainstorming and quite a few brewskis, these cynical arse-h*les managed to reach some sort of consensus that an innocent, non-murderous man would DEFINITELY hold his own memorial service for the deceased lover, since he would be grieving so profusely. And the beauty thing would be that in addition to providing evidence of their client’s massive grief (and thus his complete & utter “innocence”), this memorial service would also provide a kind of ceremonial public closure for poor Oscar, thus making it more palatable that he is returning to training and “getting on with his life.” His fabulous life. Which had been interrupted. By the inconvenience of her murder.

    • Eve says:

      “…this memorial service would also provide a kind of ceremonial public closure for poor Oscar, thus making it more palatable that he is returning to training and “getting on with his life.” His fabulous life. Which had been interrupted. By the inconvenience of her murder.”

      You’ve summarized their (Pistorious, his family and lawyers) attitude perfectly.

    • JanMa says:

      LadidahBaby you are spot on! This is just how it went down. The same crack PR team who, every time there is public outrage at another one of their stunts, says “oh, cr*p! people didn’t go for that like we thought they would. let’s just say it was a leak, or we were hacked, it was an accident! Or aliens have taken over our bodies – that’s a good one!”

  37. Carolyn says:

    With you all in thinking it would be incomprehensible for someone who had accidentally murdered their partner to be ready NOW to get on with their own life. And to put PR out there that he had a private memorial. That would be so far down the priority list.

    Dodgy as hell. I sincerely hope justice prevails.

  38. Andy says:

    For inside information into Oscar Pistorius, check out “The Write Guy” Handwriting Analyst’s website. He has performed an analysis and insight into the man.
    Interesting reading,
    http://analysishandwriting.com/FAMOUS_PEOPLE_ANALYSED.php