What happens to a person after he or she consumes any form of alcohol?
First, it gives the drinker the gift of the gab if he is not dumb. Then it gives him ‘Dutch courage’ also called ‘liquid courage’ or potvaliancy that makes him feel brave enough to become boisterous and violent.
Dutch courage may also be used as a synonym for Jenever, the juniper-flavored national and traditional liquor of the Netherlands and Belgium, from which Dutch gin evolved. Even now, Jenever is famous in Holland as an “old man’s drink”.
Jenever became popular in England during the time of King William III, better known as William of Orange (1650-1702), who also governed as Stadtholder over Holland, Zeeland, Gelderland, Utrecht, and Overijssel of the Dutch Republic.
A few entomologists claim that the term ‘Dutch courage’ was first referred to in Edmund Waller’s Instructions to a Painter (1666):
“The Dutch their wine and all their brandy lose, Disarm’d of that from which their courage grows.”
During the Thirty Years’ War, the English soldiers noted Jenever’s bravery-inducing effects on Dutch soldiers and dubbed it “Dutch Courage”. In turn, the English soldiers believing Jenever’s warming properties on the body in cold weather and its calming effect drank it before going into battle. English speakers knew the famous spirit as “Dutch gin”.
According to some other entomologists, the origin of the phrase “Dutch courage” dates to 1805-1815 almost two centuries after the relevant wars.
But no matter the level of intoxication that alcohol induces, most people would not dare to pick a fight with an elephant unless Dutch courage sets in.
The Kruger National Park is one of the largest game reserves in South Africa. The following video shot there shows a drunkard challenging a wild elephant with Dutch courage. Surprisingly, the tusker retreats.
But, this was not the case recently when a drunkard consumed by Dutch courage ignoring the pleas of the horrified onlookers infuriated an elephant in the Udawalawe National Park in Sri Lanka. That is pure Dutch courage. See what happened!
Some say that the United States is a country that tolerates other nationalities. Does it really?
Some states of the United States still incarcerate a high proportion of blacks than apartheid South Africa did. Today the black-white wealth gap in the United States is greater than what it was at the peak of apartheid in South Africa in 1970.
On rare occasions, individual citizens challenged public segregation in the United States, but their effirts had minimal impact on civil rights issues. In some locales, in addition to segregated seating in buses, it could be forbidden for stores or restaurants to serve different races and nationalities under the same roof.
In December 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of a bus for a white passenger. Parks’ civil disobedience sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott. This act of defiance by Rosa Parks became an important symbol of the modern Civil Rights Movement, and Parks became an international icon of resistance to racial segregation.
In Alabama, where the vestiges of segregation still linger on, Indian citizens have to be careful while walking on the streets. The case of the 57-year-old Sureshbhai Patel clearly illustrates the attitude of the white segregationists. And, sadly, it is the guardians of peace, who resort to brutality.
The following video includes a footage captured on the morning of February 6, 2015 by the dash cam of a car, shows an inglorious scene of two Alabama police officers using disproportionate force and slamming a frail Sureshbhai Patel to the ground. Sureshbhai Patel was out strolling near his son’s house in Madison, Alabama. He had arrived only the previous day from India to see his 17-month-old grandson. Sureshbhai Patel is now partially paralyzed and hospitalized in a city hospital.
The police officer Eric Parker, who assaulted Patel has been arrested for third-degree assault. Madison City Police chief Larry Muncey has offered apologies to Patel and his family and has said the Federal Bureau of Investigation will look into the incident.
The 29-year-old Reeva Steenkamp, the glamorous South African model shot dead by her lover, the 27-year-old Oscar Pistorius was a fervent tweeter. She regularly tweeted about the “amazing” Pistorius, the globally admired double-amputee, who competed against able-bodied athletes at the 2012 Olympics in London.
One of the last tweets Reeva made had a tinge of romance:
“What do you have up your sleeve for your love tomorrow??? #getexcited #ValentinesDay“.
A few hours later on February 14, 2013, just before dawn broke, Reeva was lying dead in the bathroom of the celebrated athlete’s home in Pretoria. Reeva was killed when Oscar Pistorius fired four times through a locked toilet door in his house. Oscar claimed he thought she was an intruder.
Born on August 19, 1983, in Cape Town, Reeva Steenkamp spent her early years on a farm near the city. Her father was a racehorse trainer.
Later on, when her family moved south to Port Elizabeth, Reeva attended a Catholic school.
As her parents did not have the means to pay the fees for her college, her studies at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University were covered by fellowships. Reeva graduated with a degree in law and dreamt of setting up a shelter for abused women.
Later, after her death Reeva’s parents said:
“Reeva, who held such a passion for women’s abuse issues and frequently spoke out against domestic violence, intended to one day open an establishment where abused women would be cared for.”
Reeva moved to Johannesburg after her graduation to pursue a career in modelling. She modelled in commercials for the Japanese car manufacturer Toyota, Italian fashion brand Zui and for the online jewelry retailer Sivana Diamonds. She was chosen to be the face of Avo Cosmetics. She also worked as a presenter for Fashion TV South Africa.
In 2011 and 2012, the FHM magazine named Reeva Steenkamp as one of the 100 Sexiest Women in the World.
Reeva’s last television appearance was on the South African celebrity reality show “Tropika Island of Treasure,” aired a few days after her death.
On September 12, 2014, Oscar Pistorius was convicted of culpable homicide.
‘Child abuse or maltreatment of a child constitutes all forms of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect or negligent treatment or commercial or other exploitation, resulting in real or potential harm to the child’s health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility, trust or power’
Child abuse in the world today exists in a variety of forms, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect and child labour.
One of the earliest recorded instances of child abuse appears in the story of a poor boy named Sopāka in the Buddhist Jataka Tales.
In Sāvatthi, the capital of Kosala kingdom in India, a poor woman while in labour fell into a coma. Her kinsfolk carried her to the cemetery for cremation. A kind spirit loitering there created a windy storm and prevented the fire from burning the woman’s body.
After the people who brought the woman’s body for cremation ran away fearing the storm, the woman gave birth to a boy. The cemetery watchman took the mother and the child under his wings. They called the child Sopāka meaning the “waif” because he was born in the cemetery.
The watchman was very wicked and unkind. He considered the innocent little boy a burden and often beat and scolded him. When Sopāka was seven years old the watchman decided to get rid of the boy.
One evening Sopāka accompanied the watchman to the far end of the cemetery where there were many half-burned rotting corpses. The watchman tied Sopāka to one of the stinking cadavers and returned home leaving the crying boy to the mercy of the nocturnal preying animals.
When the watchman returned home Sopāka’s mother asked him: “Where is my son?”
“I don’t know,” the watchman replied. “He came home before me.”
The mother worrying about her son was awake whole night.
Around midnight the jackals came. Sopāka paralyzed with fear started wailing.
The Buddha, sensing Sopāka’s destiny for arahantship (“perfected one”), sent a ray of glory towards him that proclaimed: “Sopāka, don’t cry. Don’t be afraid. I am here to help you.”
At that moment, the boy got unbound and found himself standing before the Buddha at the Jetavana monastery. The Buddha bathed him, clothed him, gave him food, consoled and comforted him.
Early next day Sopāka’s mother went to the Buddha seeking help.
“Why are you crying, sister?” asked the Buddha.
“O Lord,” replied the mother, “I have only one son and since last night he is missing.”
“Don’t worry, sister. Your son is safe. Here he is,” the Buddha said and showed her Sopāka.
After listening to the Buddha’s teachings she and her son Sopāka became followers of the Buddha.
The Buddhist scriptures also tell the story of a boy named Mattakundali whose miserly father severely neglects him and deprives him of medical care. Although “Sopāka” and “Mattakundali” are based in ancient India, both stories still resonate today in our modern society irrespective of which country we live in..
Child soldiers are “more obedient, do not question orders and are easier to manipulate than adult soldiers.”
The exploitation of children in the ranks of the world’s armies must end, says a new United Nations report. “One of the most alarming trends in armed conflict is the participation of children as soldiers,” declares the report, by Graça Machel, the Secretary-General’s Expert on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children.
The report says the use of child soldiers is a problem created by adults, to be eradicated by adults. It calls for a global campaign to demobilize all child soldiers and to “eradicate the use of children under the age of 18 years in the armed forces.” The report further calls upon governments to renounce the practice of forced recruitment, which has put increasing numbers of children under arms against their will.
“Children are dropping out of childhood,” commented Devaki Jain of India, one of Ms. Machel’s Eminent Persons’ Group of advisers. “We must envision a society free of conflict where children can grow up as children, not weapons of war.”
The use of child soldiers is hardly new. “Children serve armies in supporting roles as cooks, porters, messengers and spies,” the report notes. “Increasingly, however, adults are conscripting children as soldiers deliberately.” Children under 15 years of age are known to be serving in government or opposition forces in at least 25 conflict zones and it is estimated that some 200,000 child soldiers under 16 years of age saw armed combat in 1988. Generally, however, child soldiers are statistically invisible as governments and armed opposition groups deny or downplay their role.
The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child defines childhood as below the age of 18 years, although it currently recognizes 15 as the minimum age for voluntary or compulsory recruitment into the armed forces. However, momentum is building for an Optional Protocol to the Convention that would raise the minimum age to 18.
With new weapons that are lightweight and easy to fire, children are more easily armed, with less training than ever before. Moreover, as was stated in one background paper prepared for the Machel report, child soldiers are “more obedient, do not question orders and are easier to manipulate than adult soldiers.” And they usually don’t demand pay.
A series of 24 case-studies on child soldiers, covering conflicts over the past 30 years, makes it clear that tens of thousands of children — many under the age of 10 — have been recruited into armies around the world. In Liberia, children as young as seven have been found in combat, while in Cambodia, a survey of wounded soldiers found that 20 per cent of them were between the ages of 10 and 14 when recruited. In Sri Lanka, of 180 Tamil Tiger guerrillas killed in one government attack, more than half were still in their teens, and 128 were girls. Solid statistics are hard to come by, however, as most armies and militia do not want to admit to their use of child soldiers.
According to the report, children are often press-ganged from their own neighbourhoods where local militia or village leaders may be obliged to meet recruitment quotas. In the Sudan, children as young as 12 have been rounded up from buses and cars. In Guatemala, youngsters have been grabbed from streets, homes, parties, and even violently removed from churches. In the 1980s, the Ethiopian military practised a ‘vacuum cleaner’ approach, recruiting boys, sometimes at gunpoint, from football fields, markets, religious festivals or on the way to school.
The report deplores the fact that children are often deliberately brutalized in order to harden them into more ruthless soldiers. In some conflicts, children have been forced to commit atrocities against their own families. In Sierra Leone, for example, the Revolutionary United Front forced captured children to take part in the torture and execution of their own relatives, after which they were led to neighbouring villages to repeat the slaughter. Elsewhere, before battle young soldiers have been given amphetamines, tranquillizers and other drugs to “increase their courage” and to dull their sensitivity to pain.
Some children become soldiers simply to survive. In war-ravaged lands where schools have been closed, fields destroyed, and relatives arrested or killed, a gun is a meal ticket and a more attractive alternative to sitting home alone and afraid. Sometimes a minor soldier’s pay is given directly to the family.
For girls, recruitment may lead to sex slavery. The report notes that in Uganda, for instance, young girls abducted by rebel forces were commonly divided up and allocated to soldiers to serve as their ‘wives’. A case-study from Honduras, prepared for the Machel report, illustrates one child’s experience of joining armed groups:
“At the age of 13, I joined the student movement. I had a dream to contribute to make things change, so that children would not be hungry … later I joined the armed struggle. I had all the inexperience and fears of a little girl. I found out that girls were obliged to have sexual relations ‘to alleviate the sadness of the combatants. And who alleviated our sadness after going with someone we hardly knew? At my young age I experienced abortion … In spite of my commitment, they abused me, they trampled my human dignity. And above all, they did not understand that I was a child and that I had rights.”
It is difficult to reintegrate demobilized children after a peace settlement is reached. Many have been physically or sexually abused by the very forces for which they have been fighting, and have seen their parents killed, sometimes in the most brutal manner, in front of their eyes. Most have also been led into participating in murder, rape and other atrocities. These children have no skills for life in peacetime and they are accustomed to getting their way through violence.
The report urges that all future peace agreements include specific measures pertaining to the demobilization and reintegration of child soldiers, ranging from job creation and the rebuilding of schools, to the training of teachers who are sensitive to the special needs of child victims of war.
The report calls on governments to regularize recruitment procedures for their armed forces and to prosecute violators to ensure that under-age recruitment does not occur. The Machel report also illustrates how the recruitment of children can at least be minimized when parents and communities are better informed about existing national and international law.
While much remains to be done, there have been some successes. In Peru, for example, forced recruitment drives reportedly declined in areas where they were denounced by parish churches. And in Myanmar, protests from aid agencies led to the release of boys forcibly recruited from a refugee camp. In the Sudan, humanitarian organizations have negotiated agreements with opposition groups to prevent the recruitment of children.
Chief Magistrate Desmond Nair granted bail to Oscar Pistorius ahead of his trial for the alleged murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. The judge cited a number of problems with the police investigation into the death of the model. “I come to the conclusion that the accused has made a case to be released on bail,” he said.• He did not think Pistorius was a flight risk.
After the announcement, Pistorius remained quiet and reserved. Though his family hugged him quietly he did not seem to celebrate.
These are Judge Desmond Nair’s main reasons for granting bail:
• He did not think Pistorius was a flight risk.
• He did not think the prosecution had shown that Pistorius had a propensity for violence.
• He did not think the prosecution had shown there would be public outrage if released on bail.
• He did not think the prosecution’s case was so strong that Pistorius’ only reasonable reaction were he released would be to flee.
Judge Nair said the former lead investigator in the case, Hilton Botha had made “several errors and concessions” during his testimony during the bail hearing. However, the judge also pointed out the holes in the story narrated by Pistorius: However, the judge also pointed out the holes in the story narrated by Pistorius:
• Why did Pistorius not find out Reeva’s whereabouts?
• Why did Pistorius not verify who was in the toilet?
• Why did Reeva not scream back from the toilet?
• Why did the deceased (Reeva) and the accused (Pistorius) not escape through the bedroom door but venture into the toilet?
• Why would the accused (Pistorius) venture into danger knowing the intruder was in the toilet, leaving himself open to attack? He (Pistorius) returned to the dangerous area. What if the intruder was waiting for him (Pistorius)?
The judge also said he had difficulty in understanding with the version provided by the defense of why the accused (Pistorius) slept on the other side of the bed from usual that night.
Judge Desmond Nair set the bail at 1m Rand (US$111,370; £73,000; €84330) and ordered to release the Olympian after posting bail by March 1, and 10% of it is due immediately. He ordered Pistorius not to go back to the Silver Woods estate, where the shooting took place; give up his passport; refrain from going near an airport; and report to a police station on Mondays and Fridays.
In a fascinating new twist to the Oscar Pistorius murder case, South Africa’s National Commissioner Riah Phiyega has appointed Lt. Gen. Vinesh Moonoo, Pretoria’s top detective as the new lead investigator in lieu of Hilton Botha. This announcement comes ahead of a judge’s decision on whether to release Pistorius on bail. This comes as one more blow to the prosecution’s case against the Olympian.
Police made this sensational announcement as Pistorius arrived for a third day of the bail hearing over the Valentine’s Day shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, which prosecutors say was a premeditated killing while the defendants argue that it was an accident.
The decision to replace Hilton Botha with police Lt. Gen. Vinesh Moonoo in command came a day after he offered testimony damaging to the prosecution. Furthermore, word emerged that Hilton Botha, the first chief investigator himself is currently facing attempted murder charges in a 2011 shooting incident, when he and two other police officers allegedly fired shots at a minibus. Seven counts of attempted murder have been reinstated against them.
Bulewa Makeke, the spokeswoman for South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority, said the charge against Botha was initially dropped “because there was not enough evidence at the time.” However, after Botha testified in Pistorius’ bail hearing on Wednesday, the police reinstated attempted murder charges against Botha and two other police officers because of more gathered evidence.
National Commissioner Riah Phiyega says the Pistorius case “shall receive attention at the national level” and Vinesh Moonoo will “gather a team of highly skilled experienced detectives.”
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013, the Paralympic Olympian “Blade Runner” Oscar Pistorius charged with premeditated murder over the February 14 shooting death of his model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp appeared in the Pretoria courtroom for his bail hearing.
As Pistorius was too distraught to read out the statement himself his senior defense lawyer Barry Roux read the affidavit to the judge.
The affidavit of Oscar Pistorius reads as follows:
I, the undersigned, Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius, do hereby make oath and state:
I am an adult male and a South African citizen with identity number [identity number redacted].
I am the Applicant in this application in which I seek relief from this Honourable Court to be released on bail. I respectfully submit, as I will demonstrate herein, that the interests of justice permit my release on bail. In any event, the dictates of fairness and justice in view of the peculiar facts herein warrant that I should not be deprived of my liberty and that I should be released on bail.
I make this affidavit of my own free will and have not in any way been unduly influenced to depose thereto.
The facts herein contained, save where expressly indicated to the contrary, are within my personal knowledge and belief, and are both true and correct.
The purpose of this affidavit is to provide the above Honourable Court with my personal circumstances and to address the allegations levelled against me (in so far as they are known to me), as well as to address the factors to be considered by the above Honourable Court as contained in Sections 60(4) to 60(9) of the Act.
I have been advised and I understand that I bear the burden to show that the interests of justice permit my release and that I am obliged to initiate this application. I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated murder, as I had no intention to kill my girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp (“Reeva”). However, I will put factors before the Honourable Court to show that it is in the interests of justice to permit my release on bail.
I state that the State will not be able to present any objective facts that I committed a planned or premeditated murder. For this reason I will hereunder deal with the events which occurred that evening. The objective facts will not refute my version as it is the truth.
I am a professional athlete and reside at [address redacted].
I was born on 22 November 1986, at Johannesburg. I have resided in the Republic of South Africa (“the RSA”) all my life, and although I frequently travel abroad to participate in international sporting events, I regard South Africa as my permanent place of abode. I have no intention to relocate to any other country as I love my country.
I own immovable assets in South Africa, which consist of the following:
The immovable property in which I currently reside, at [address redacted] (“the residential premises”). This property is valued at approximately R5 million and is encumbered by a mortgage bond in the amount of approximately R2 million.
Two further immovable properties located within Weeping Willow Estates, Pretoria East, which properties have a combined value of approximately R1,6 million. Both properties are bonded to an aggregate value of approximately R1 million.
A vacant stand in Langebaan, Western Cape, which has a value of approximately R1,7 million. This property is not bonded.
I own movable assets comprised of household furniture and effects, motor vehicles and jewellery, which are valued in excess of R500 000,00.
My friends and family reside in the RSA, although I also have friends abroad.
My professional occupation currently provides me with an income of approximately R5,6 million per annum.
I have cash investments in excess of R1 million at various banks within the RSA.
I have never been convicted of any criminal offences either in the RSA or elsewhere. There are no outstanding cases, other than the present, being investigated against me by the South African Police Services (“SAPS”).
My legal representatives have explained the provisions of Section 60(11) of the Act to me. I respectfully make the following submissions in this regard:
I have been informed that I am accused of having committed the offence of murder. I deny the aforesaid allegation in the strongest terms.
I am advised that I do not have to deal with the merits of the case for purposes of the bail application. However, I believe that it is appropriate to deal with the merits in this application, particularly in view of the State’s contention that I planned to murder Reeva. Nothing can be further from the truth and I have no doubt that it is not possible for the State to present objective facts to substantiate such an allegation, as there is no substance in the allegation. I do not know on what different facts the allegation of a premeditated murder could be premised and I respectfully request the State to furnish me with such alleged facts in order to allow me to refute such allegations.
On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends. Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home. I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home. By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom. She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine’s Day but asked me only to open it the next day.
After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep.
I am acutely aware of violent crime being committed by intruders entering homes with a view to commit crime, including violent crime. I have received death threats before. I have also been a victim of violence and of burglaries before. For that reason I kept my firearm, a 9 mm Parabellum, underneath my bed when I went to bed at night.
During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.
I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.
I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.
I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.
I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.
It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding.
When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.
I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open. I think I must then have turned on the lights. I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive.
I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom. I phoned Johan Stander (“Stander”) who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance. I phoned Netcare and asked for help. I went downstairs to open the front door.
I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up as I had been told not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital. I carried her downstairs in order to take her to the hospital. On my way down Stander arrived. A doctor who lives in the complex also arrived. Downstairs, I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms.
I am absolutely mortified by the events and the devastating loss of my beloved Reeva. With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in. I cannot bear to think of the suffering I have caused her and her family, knowing how much she was loved. I also know that the events of that tragic night were as I have described them and that in due course I have no doubt the police and expert investigators will bear this out.
I will stand my trial should it proceed against me. I am a well-known international athlete and there is no possibility that I will even think of not standing my trial should there be one. I trust the South African legal system and that the facts will show that I did not murder Reeva.
In order to persuade the above Honourable Court that I should be released on bail, I provide the following additional facts and information in terms of Section 60 of the Act.
I do not know the identity of any witness upon whom the State will rely in order to attempt to prove a case against me. In any event, I have no intention to interfere with any witnesses as I have no cause to do so and I undertake not to do so.
I maintain good relationships with people and I bear no grudges against anyone.
As previously stated, I have no previous convictions and I have not been released on bail pending any charges.
I am not disposed to violence.
I respectfully submit that the facts set out above support my contention that I do not constitute a flight risk.
I have two South African passports, the one is full. I need my passport to compete overseas but I am willing to surrender the passports to the investigating officer should it be a condition of bail. I am not in possession of any other travel documents and undertake not to apply for such documentation pending the finalisation of these proceedings.
After the shooting I did not attempt to flee. Rather, I accepted Stander would contact the police, and I remained at the scene.
I will be able to raise an appropriate amount to post as bail.
I have no knowledge of any evidentiary material which may exist with regard to the allegations levelled against me. In any event, I believe that whatever such evidence may be, it is in the possession of the police; it is safely secured and I do not have access thereto. I undertake not to interfere with any further investigations.
I am not sure which witnesses the State will rely upon in order to attempt to prove its case against me. Nonetheless, I undertake not to communicate with any witness, whoever he or she may be, and any other persons whose names may appear on a list of “State witnesses”, to be provided by the State.
My continued incarceration can only prejudice me and creates no benefit to the State.
I respectfully submit that should I be released on bail, my release shall not disturb the public order or undermine the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.
I will comply with such conditions as the above Honourable Court may wish to impose.
I accordingly submit that the interests of justice, considerations of prejudice and the balancing of respective interestsfavour my release on bail.
The South African national icon “Blade Runner” Oscar Pistorius won the admiration of the people around the world for being the first double amputee to compete against able-bodied athletes in the 2012 Olympic Games. In a case that has gripped the world, the police arrested Pistorius Friday, February 15, charging him with the murder of his model girlfriend 29-year-old Reeva Steenkamp shot dead at his luxury Pretoria home. He spent the weekend in a police cell.
According to a local newspaper, after the Valentine’s Day murder the police found a bloodied cricket bat at the home of Pistorius.
Police sources close to the investigation told City Press the second-most quoted newspaper in South Africa that Steenkamp’s skull had been “crushed.” Another source said: “There was lots of blood on the bat.”
Police are investigating whether Reeva Steenkamp, shot four times in the early hours of Thursday, used the cricket bat to defend herself or whether Pistorius used it to hurt her. “The suspicion is that the first shot, in the bedroom, hit her in the hip. She then ran and hid herself in the toilet … He fired three more shots,” a police source told the City Press.
Oscar allegedly fires a 9mm pistol at Reeva. Reeva is hit in the hip. Reeva’s iPad is found on the floor.
A cricket bat with blood on it was found in the bedroom.
Crumpled sheets indicate that the bed had been slept in.
Holster for 9mm pistol is on the bedside table.
Reeva flees into the adjoining toilet, closing and hiding behind the door.
Oscar allegedly fires another few rounds at the bathroom door. Reeva is hit in the head, arm and hand.
Oscar carries the heavily wounded Reeva downstairs into the foyer.
Police have dismissed the first suggestions that Pistorius could have mistaken Reeva for an intruder. City Press reported she was wearing a nightie at the time of the killing.
The local media reported there had been a fight between Pistorius and Reeva that had spilled over from Wednesday night. The neighbors on hearing a loud argument inside Pistorius’ house called the Police to Pistorius’ home just past midnight. Two hours later, around 3:00 a.m., the neighbors called the Police again after the shooting.
According to the City Press, Pistorius consumed large doses of steroids that could have triggered his aggressive behavior. The paper described the case against him as “rock solid.”
On Friday, 15th February, South African prosecutors formally charged “Blade Runner” Oscar Pistorius, a double amputee and one of the world’s most admired South African Olympians with shooting and killing his girlfriend, fashion model Reeva Steenkamp, in the early hours of Valentine’s Day.
This gruesome incident has shocked the world, and it has cast a shadow over the sportsman fondly known as the “Blade Runner” for his achievements using prosthetic limbs. On Thursday, Nike removed an advertisement from its website featuring Pistorius taking off for a run with the slogan “I am the bullet in the chamber.” The company issued a statement expressing sympathy and condolences to the families concerned and added that it would not comment further, noting that the situation is a police matter.
The Afrikaans newspaper Die Beeldt reported that Pistorius shot Reeva four times through a bathroom door in the hand, the pelvis, the chest and the head.
At Pretoria Magistrates Court, prosecutors told chief magistrate Desmond Nair that they would argue that Oscar Pistorius committed “premeditated murder” on February 14 at his upscale home at the Silver Woods secure housing estate in Pretoria.
When formally charged with one count of murder, Pistorius buried his head in his hands and cried silently. His defense lawyer said that Pistorius was in an “extremely traumatized state of mind.”
Magistrate Nair postponed the application by the defense for bail until Tuesday and placed Pistorius in police custody.
Initial media reports said that Pistorius shot his girlfriend accidentally, thinking she was an intruder; however, on Thursday, a police spokeswoman discounted the media reports, and added that officers were investigating “previous allegations of a domestic nature.”
The police said when the shooting took place early Thursday in Pistorius’ home only the two of them were there. According to local media, the neighbors hearing a loud argument called the Police to Pistorius’ home just past midnight. Two hours later, around 3:00 a.m., the neighbors called the Police again after the shooting.
On Friday, Pistorius’ family and his management released a statement from London: “The alleged murder is disputed in the strongest terms,” and added that Pistorius “would like to send his deepest sympathies to the family of Reeva.”