A Mother's Voice
The mother of Reeva Steenkamp must be pleased that the South African authorities have decided to appeal the 5 year culpable homicide prison sentence handed down to Oscar Pistorius.
Because since the trial ended June Steenkamp has let her true feelings be known towards the young man who killed her daughter with four 'zombie stopper' rounds from a high powered handgun, as she cowered behind a locked bathroom door.
Now June Steenkamp raises issues that any sensible person would raise, especially a mother or parent: How does it make any sense at all that Reeva would get up and get dressed in the middle of the night to use the toilet, carrying two mobile phones, and lock the door behind her, if there was not something terribly wrong?"
And in this report from The Times June Steenkamp explains what she really thinks of the former Blade Runner.
Steenkamp mother: 'Arrogant Pistorius was sure to kill'
Reeva Steenkamp's relationship was Pistorius was "coming to an end", her mother says
It was bad luck Reeva Steenkamp met Oscar Pistorius, her mother has said, as the "volatile" athlete "would have killed someone sooner or later".
Speaking to The Times, June Steenkamp calls Pistorius "pathetic", "moody", "gun-toting" and "possessive".
She rejects both his apology and his version of events, but admits: "He's the only one who knows the truth."
Pistorius is serving five years for the culpable homicide of girlfriend Reeva. He could be out in 10 months.
The South African athlete was cleared of murder.
'About to leave'
June Steenkamp told The Times, which is serialising her book, Reeva: A Mother's Story, which is to be published on 6 November, that Reeva had told her the couple had not yet entered a sexual relationship and had "nagging doubts about their compatibility".
She says: "She had confided to me that she hadn't slept with him. They'd shared a bed, but she was scared to take the relationship to that level.
"She wouldn't want to sleep with Oscar if she wasn't sure. I believe their relationship was coming to an end. In her heart of hearts, she didn't think it was making either of them happy."
Ms Steenkamp, 68, who was not called to testify at the trial, says this may have played a part in what happened on the night of the shooting, Valentine's Day last year.
She rejects his version of events, that there was no row and that he had thought there was an intruder in the toilet cubicle when he fired four shots through the door "without thinking".
"There is no doubt in our minds that something went horribly wrong, something upset her so terribly that she hid behind a locked door with two mobile phones," June writes.
June Steenkamp speaks after the sentencing
It was bad luck Reeva Steenkamp met Oscar Pistorius, her mother has said, as the "volatile" athlete "would have killed someone sooner or later".
Speaking to The Times, June Steenkamp calls Pistorius "pathetic", "moody", "gun-toting" and "possessive".
She rejects both his apology and his version of events, but admits: "He's the only one who knows the truth."
Pistorius is serving five years for the culpable homicide of girlfriend Reeva. He could be out in 10 months.
The South African athlete was cleared of murder.
'About to leave'
June Steenkamp told The Times, which is serialising her book, Reeva: A Mother's Story, which is to be published on 6 November, that Reeva had told her the couple had not yet entered a sexual relationship and had "nagging doubts about their compatibility".
She says: "She had confided to me that she hadn't slept with him. They'd shared a bed, but she was scared to take the relationship to that level.
"She wouldn't want to sleep with Oscar if she wasn't sure. I believe their relationship was coming to an end. In her heart of hearts, she didn't think it was making either of them happy."
Ms Steenkamp, 68, who was not called to testify at the trial, says this may have played a part in what happened on the night of the shooting, Valentine's Day last year.
She rejects his version of events, that there was no row and that he had thought there was an intruder in the toilet cubicle when he fired four shots through the door "without thinking".
"There is no doubt in our minds that something went horribly wrong, something upset her so terribly that she hid behind a locked door with two mobile phones," June writes.
June Steenkamp speaks after the sentencing
Other words she uses to describe Pistorius are "arrogant", "moody", "combustible", "trigger-happy", "vague", "evasive" and "shifty".
She believes Reeva, 29, was about to leave Pistorius, 27.
She says: "Her clothes were packed. There is no doubt in our minds: she had decided to leave Oscar that night."
In the excerpt of the book serialised in the paper, Ms Steenkamp refers to Pistorius's apology to them in court.
"Why decide to say sorry to me in a televised trial in front of the whole world? I was unmoved by his apology.
"I felt if I appeared to be sorry for him at this stage of his trial on the charge of premeditated murder, it would in the eyes of others lessen the awfulness of what he had done. He was in the box trying to save his own skin."
Nevertheless, the parents say they do want to meet Pistorius.
She believes Reeva, 29, was about to leave Pistorius, 27.
She says: "Her clothes were packed. There is no doubt in our minds: she had decided to leave Oscar that night."
In the excerpt of the book serialised in the paper, Ms Steenkamp refers to Pistorius's apology to them in court.
"Why decide to say sorry to me in a televised trial in front of the whole world? I was unmoved by his apology.
"I felt if I appeared to be sorry for him at this stage of his trial on the charge of premeditated murder, it would in the eyes of others lessen the awfulness of what he had done. He was in the box trying to save his own skin."
Nevertheless, the parents say they do want to meet Pistorius.
Oscar Pistorius holds the hands of family members as he is led away
Although she says "I am not entirely sure what I am going to say", father Barry, 71, says he wants an apology.
"I would like him to really, truthfully say, although he said it in court, 'I'm sorry.' I would like him just to say it to our faces."
Ms Steenkamp also talks about the "wrenching pain that you get in your heart" when thinking of her daughter's death.
"It's always there. The minute your eyes open in the morning, or if you wake up in the middle of the night, there it is."
Pistorius, an amputee sprinter, became the first athlete to compete in the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
He is serving his sentence in Pretoria's Kgosi Mampuru II jail.
Pistorius was also given a three-year suspended sentence for firing a gun in a restaurant.
The judge decided first of all that Pistorius was not guilty of premeditated murder which was no big surprise because there is no evidence that he planned, with malice aforethought, to kill his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, with a high powered handgun.
What's the connection between Oscar Pistorius and the 298 people killed by the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17?
Although she says "I am not entirely sure what I am going to say", father Barry, 71, says he wants an apology.
"I would like him to really, truthfully say, although he said it in court, 'I'm sorry.' I would like him just to say it to our faces."
Ms Steenkamp also talks about the "wrenching pain that you get in your heart" when thinking of her daughter's death.
"It's always there. The minute your eyes open in the morning, or if you wake up in the middle of the night, there it is."
Pistorius, an amputee sprinter, became the first athlete to compete in the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
He is serving his sentence in Pretoria's Kgosi Mampuru II jail.
Pistorius was also given a three-year suspended sentence for firing a gun in a restaurant.
The Wrong Call (14 September 2014)
If you ask me people have been far to kind about the judge presiding over the Oscar Pistorius trial, Thokozile Masipa.
Because her reasoning for deciding that Pistorius was 'not guilty' of second degree murder seems badly flawed to me, relying as it does on a 'subjective test' about what Pistorius said he believed to be true at the time of the shooting, i.e. that he believed he was firing his gun at and intruder and had no idea that the person cowering the toilet was his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.
Take another example, say someone banged on the former athlete's front door at 3 am in the morning. Would be entitled to go downstairs and fire four shots through the door because, he said, he felt vulnerable and was 'scared to death'.
Of course not, because he had other options and the only valid reason for firing four rounds from his powerful handgun would have been that he faced a real and obvious threat, which was clearly not the case when it came to the killing Reeva Steenkamp.
So the legal test cannot only be a subjective one of what Oscar Pistorius says he believed at the time, but must surely take in account how believable or reasonable his explanation was - after is taking all the circumstances into account.
Especially as the victim is not around to explain, for example, why she did not respond to Oscar's shouting at the alleged intruder from only eight feet or so away. It simply doesn't make sense.
Say there was an intruder behind the door, a black, unarmed 14-year-old boy, would Pistorius still have been justified in firing his weapon? I don't think so since there was no real and obvious threat.
What if the intruder was 30-years-old and armed with an assault rifle? Probably but he would only have been proved right after the event whereas in relation to Reeva Steenkamp he made absolutely the wrong call.
And, into the bargain, Oscar's story is riddled with riddles and lies such as his flat denial that he fired the same or a similar handgun in a crowded restaurant, a charge of which he was found guilty in the same trial.
So Judge Masipa doesn't really deserve all this fawning 'My Lady' guff and instead her terrible deserves to be criticised and called into question.
Twisted Logic (12 September 2014)
The judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial, Thokozile Masipa, may still send the 'Blade Runner to jail for culpable homicide, but if you ask me she has made the wrong call by not finding Pistorius guilty of murder.
The judge decided first of all that Pistorius was not guilty of premeditated murder which was no big surprise because there is no evidence that he planned, with malice aforethought, to kill his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, with a high powered handgun.
But on the lesser charge of 2nd degree murder, Masipa also concluded the former athlete had no case to answer because relevant test under the law was a subjective one - What did the accused believe at the time? - and she went on to explain her reasoning in more detail:
"Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door - let alone the deceased - as he thought she was in the bedroom."
Now I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that firing four 'dum dum' bullets at someone on the other side of a wooden door is not highly likely to lead to their death.
Because if the aim of the shooter was to frighten an alleged intruder into 'coming out with their hands up', then why not issue a warning and fire a warning shot into the ceiling since the discharge of a weapon is supposed to be a last resort - in the face of a real and present threat.
By judge Masipa's twisted logic the Russian separatists who shot down Flight MH17 could also get away with murder by arguing they had no idea that the deadly missile they fired could actually bring down a plane, let alone a civilian airliner with the loss of 298 innocent lives.
Some Mistake (31 July 2014)
What's the connection between Oscar Pistorius and the 298 people killed by the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17?
Well, it seems pretty clear that the pro-Russian separatists who shot the passenger plane out of the sky were not actually intending to kill 298 perfectly innocent civilians.
No, they thought they were killing fellow Ukrainians and that this act was justified because they regard themselves in a 'state of war' over their future or otherwise within Ukraine.
But if these people were ver brought before a court of law, would their defence stand up to legal scrutiny?
I think not, because it is essentially the exact same defence as Oscar Pistorius - I/we 'made a mistake'.
Which is some mistake if you ask me, because people who keep high powered weapons at home or even self-appointed Russian separatists both have a duty of care to other people - they are not at liberty to go around killing people and then blame their stupidity and failure to take sufficient care on a simple 'mistake'.
Oscar Pistorius realised there was a human being behind the bathroom door into which he shot four 'zombie stopper' bullets and he must have known that by pulling the trigger he was going to kill that person.
The key question is: "Did Oscar Pistorius have a good reason to discharge his weapon, was he in danger or was his life and safety at risk?"
In my view, the answer to that question is definitely No and therefore Oscar Pistorius is guilty of murder because he intended to kill the person behind the door, so even if he thought that was someone other than his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, it makes no difference.
Because he should not have discharged his weapon in the first place, just as the pro-Russian separatists should not have shot a passenger plane out of the sky - so their respective defence of making a terrible 'mistake' should not stand up in a court of law.
No, they thought they were killing fellow Ukrainians and that this act was justified because they regard themselves in a 'state of war' over their future or otherwise within Ukraine.
But if these people were ver brought before a court of law, would their defence stand up to legal scrutiny?
I think not, because it is essentially the exact same defence as Oscar Pistorius - I/we 'made a mistake'.
Which is some mistake if you ask me, because people who keep high powered weapons at home or even self-appointed Russian separatists both have a duty of care to other people - they are not at liberty to go around killing people and then blame their stupidity and failure to take sufficient care on a simple 'mistake'.
Oscar Pistorius realised there was a human being behind the bathroom door into which he shot four 'zombie stopper' bullets and he must have known that by pulling the trigger he was going to kill that person.
The key question is: "Did Oscar Pistorius have a good reason to discharge his weapon, was he in danger or was his life and safety at risk?"
In my view, the answer to that question is definitely No and therefore Oscar Pistorius is guilty of murder because he intended to kill the person behind the door, so even if he thought that was someone other than his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, it makes no difference.
Because he should not have discharged his weapon in the first place, just as the pro-Russian separatists should not have shot a passenger plane out of the sky - so their respective defence of making a terrible 'mistake' should not stand up in a court of law.
