Pistorius 'was drunk, insulted Zuma family' said businessman

 

Johannesburg - Murder accused paralympian Oscar Pistorius allegedly insulted President Jacob Zuma's family while at a nightclub in Sandton on Saturday night, The Star reported on Tuesday.

Johannesburg businessman Jared Mortimer was quoted in the paper claiming that Pistorius insulted Zuma's family and his own friends, resulting in an altercation.

"I took that personally because I am very good friends with a member of the Zuma family," he said.

Intoxicated

Mortimer claimed Pistorius was intoxicated and started to poke him in the chest while they were talking. He then pushed Pistorius away from him and the paralympian fell over a chair.

The club's bouncers helped Pistorius up, but were asked to remove him after he "had a confrontation with another man", Mortimer said.

Beeld newspaper carried a picture of Mortimer shaking hands with former president Nelson Mandela on its front page on Tuesday.

Sapa reported on Monday that the athlete was at the club and that Pistorius family spokesperson Anneliese Burgess gave a different version of events.

Aggressive

She said her client was at the VIP section of the club when he was approached by a man who had since been identified as Mortimer.

"The individual, according to my client, started to aggressively interrogate him on matters relating to the trial," said Burgess.

Pistorius is charged with murdering his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year. He claims he mistook her for an intruder when he shot her dead through a locked toilet door at his Pretoria home.

The State, however, claims he shot her following an argument.

Officials from the club - the VIP Room - which is at the Michelangelo Towers in Sandton, have denied the incident.

Spokesperson Perry Mermigas admitted that Pistorius was at the club, but denied that anything out of the ordinary happened.

"We are not aware of this," Mermigas told Sapa.

Lawyer: Oscar video unlawful, breaches agreement

Oscar Pistorius looks on during his murder trial at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria. (Daniel Born, AFP)

Johannesburg - A video of murder-accused paralympian Oscar Pistorius re-enacting the night he shot dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp was intended for trial purposes and its broadcast breached an agreement, his lawyer said on Sunday.

Sunday Night executive producer Mark Llewellyn has denied footage of Oscar Pistorius re-enacting the night he killed his girlfriend was obtained illegally.

"We wish to make it very clear that the material that has been aired was obtained illegally and in breach of the non-disclosure agreement with The Evidence Room," Brian Webber said in a statement.

"Its usage also constitutes a breach of privilege as this material was produced for trial purposes on the instructions of a commissioner, and the ownership of the copyright vests in the commissioner. No permission for the disclosure thereof has been given."

Webber explained that in October last year, the defence team engaged the services of The Evidence Room, a United States-based company specialising in forensic animation.

"The company was engaged to visually map the events on the night of the accident. As part of this process, certain video footage was filmed.

"The visual mapping was for trial preparation only and was not intended to be used for any other purpose."

The promotional video by Australia's Channel 7 programme Sunday Night shows Pistorius walking on his stumps with an imaginary gun in his hand. In another scene, Pistorius is seen carrying a woman, reportedly his sister, out of a bathroom.

The website for the show said the video was "never before seen footage ofOscar Pistorius re-enacting the night he killed Reeva that convinced a top forensic expert he is innocent".

The video aired in Australia on Sunday.

Webber said Channel 7 had purchased the footage unlawfully.

"In addition, during our engagement with Channel 7, we received an undertaking that they would not air any of the material before the end of the trial.

"Whilst we cannot imagine how any of the footage would not support Oscar’s version, we will only be in a position to comment further once we have had the opportunity to study what has been aired."

Webber noted that the broadcast constituted a "staggering breach of trust" and an invasion of the family’s privacy.

Pistorius faces a charge of murder. He claims he shot Steenkamp by accident through the locked door of his toilet in his Pretoria home on 14 February 2013, thinking she was an intruder. The State argues he killed her during an argument.

Pistorius testified that he was on his stumps when he shot though the toilet door. However, he said he put on his prostheses before breaking down the door to get to Steenkamp.

'Oscar's disability doesn't justify killing'

Oscar Pistorius arrives at the North Gauteng High Court for his murder trial. (Werner Beukes, Sapa, Pool)

Cape Town - A physician’s argument that Oscar Pistorius would have more “exaggerated fight or flight” responses because of his disabilities, thus resulting in him killing Reeva Steenkamp, has been rejected by US disability rights groups, it has been reported.  

Testifying for the defence, Wayne Derman, said Pistorius had a deep sense of vulnerability and it was a factor in what he has described as a mistaken shooting. 

But the National Organisation on Disabilities in the US told Yahoo! Newsthat the reasoning is an “exploitation” of the athlete’s “physical disability to say that it’s linked to some mental health issue that would cause him to commit murder”. 

The group’s president Carol Glazer said if someone is able to win an able-bodied track medal in a world athletics race, then one has “figured out how to adapt his disability”.

Glazer said it was unlikely that the same disability would trigger hyper-vigilance in the same person. 

The executive vice president of the American Association of People with Disabilities, Henry Claypoll, said 
He doesn’t believe that Pistorius’s disability can justify the killing of Steenkamp.

Pistorius is a paradox, says physician

 

Pretoria - Oscar Pistorius is a "paradox" whose past triumphs as a sprinter crossing the finish line with raised arms contrasted sharply with the daily, severe limitations that he endured because of his disability, a physician testified on Thursday at the runner's murder trial.

Wayne Derman, a professor of sport and exercise medicine at the University of Cape Town, said in court that the contrast likely contributed to stress and anxiety for Pistorius, who fatally shot girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp through a closed toilet door in his home.

 

Anxiety

He testified for the defence, which wants to show that the athlete had a deep sense of vulnerability and it was a factor in what he has described as a mistaken shooting.

"You've got a paradox of an individual who is supremely able, and you've got an individual who is significantly disabled," said Derman, who has worked with South African Olympic and Paralympic teams and has treated Pistorius over half a dozen years.

He noted that Pistorius's anxieties included concern about flying.

"He has a specific fear of being trapped somewhere without being able to move very rapidly," Derman said.

Referring to Pistorius's decision to confront a perceived threat on the night he killed Steenkamp, Derman said "fleeing was not an option" because the runner has no lower legs.

Pistorius, 27, says he killed Steenkamp on 14 February 2013 by mistake, thinking there was a dangerous intruder in his home. He shot her while on his stumps. The prosecution says he intentionally killed the 29-year-old model after the couple had an argument.

Pistorius, who is free on bail, faces 25 years to life in prison if found guilty of premeditated murder, but he could also be sentenced to a shorter prison term if convicted of murder without premeditation or negligent killing. Additionally, he faces separate gun-related charges.

 

'Character evidence'

During cross-examination, prosecutor Gerrie Nel said Derman was giving "character evidence" rather than "expert evidence" and questioned whether the witness was capable of giving testimony that would work against Pistorius's defence.

"The truth would come before my patient," Derman said.

Nel countered: "You cannot give evidence against your patient, sir

Wheels come off on 'Drive a new car for R699' - What will happen next?

Cape Town - Motorists who drive a car displaying advertising that states ‘Drive a new car from R699’ are up in arms after the company behind the alleged scam, the Satinsky Group, said in a statement on its website that it dissolved its management agreement with media platform company, Blue Lakes Trading and Promotions Ltd.

This means they will not get paid according to the two options they signed up for.

An aggrieved Fin24 user wrote that "hundreds of people have been cheated out of their money" by Satinsky Group of Companies, which runs the Drive Car Sales business.

In a plea to warn people “thinking of taking these cars” to be careful, the user, currently a client of Satinsky, said the only thing she can do now is to help stop the false advertising.

“They are crooks and the more we drive with this false advertising the more people get trapped like us,” she wrote.

The two options bandied on Satinsky websites Drive a New Car and New Cars from R699 a Month for motorists to act as advertising service providers are Earn While You Drive and Earn While You Own.



The Earn While You Drive option is where the client is rewarded on a kilometre exposure rate. “You have to submit five photos every month as well as your kilometres [covered] on their site and you get paid for the more kilometres you do,” the user said.

She added: “The more kilometres you do in the month, the more they pay you out. Clients who drive more than 2000km per month will receive the full advertising fee.

The second option is Earn While You Own, where clients receive R570 for a minimum mileage of 500km if they provide two pictures as proof. Clients also receive R3000 on every car sold on the unique code of the car.

It was first suspected Satinsky changed Earn While You Drive contracts to Earn While You Own contracts without consent from clients. The user claimed at the end of March she only received R570, associated with the Earn While You Own contract, instead of the R1021 she was supposed to get.



Furthermore, with the announcement that the agreement with Blue Lakes Trading and Promotions Ltd is terminated, clients were not paid for July.

She wrote: “None of us agreed to the change as they are supposed to call you and have a voice telephone agreement. So they are on(sic) breach of contract.”

According to a recent statement on Satinsky's website, Blue Lakes Trading and Promotions Ltd will be replaced by Accelerator Rewards PTY (ltd)(sic). This is a more “suitable alternative offering” for their “valued customer".

The use of the Accelerator Rewards App offers a system of rewards for successful referrals. This means a word-of-mouth referral sent by client that becomes a successful sale will link the reward back to the client.

The website further stated clients no longer have to drive a required amount of kilometres for advertising or load monthly photos, enabling clients to “save substantially every month”.

However, more than 500 aggrieved clients have voiced their concerns on the Facebook group, ‘I have been done in by Drive a New Car from R699 per month'.

Clients have complained that they have not been paid and are taking steps to remove stickers from their cars to stop the false advertising.



There are also numerous complaints on the Hello Peter website ranging from a breach of contract, poor billing systems, false advertising and poor service.

The user also complained about not receiving responses after contacting the Satinsky Help Desk.

This has ended up being a greater expense for clients than they expected. “I am now paying the bank more for the car every month as they are cheating me out of money,” wrote the user. “We are now left with debt that we didn’t budget for”.

Clients fear they will lose their cars because they cannot afford to pay for them. Satinsky did not provide clients with copies of their signed contracts. Satinsky made applications to the bank on behalf of the clients, raising questions of possible misrepresentation in contracts.

Numerous calls for comment from the Satinsky CEO Albert Venter and other Satinsky Group representatives went unanswered.

Agent: I only saw Oscar lose his temper twice

Oscar Pistorius is photographed during his murder trial in the North Gauteng High Court. (Mike Hutchings, Pool, AP)

Pretoria - Murder-accused Oscar Pistorius only lost his temper twice in the eight years his agent Petrus Van Zyl worked with him, the North Gauteng High Court heard on Tuesday.

In one case Pistorius arrived in Barcelona, Spain for a meeting after he had raced against able-bodied athletes at the London Olympic Games in 2012.

Called a cheat

"They stuck a camera in his face and called him a cheat," Van Zyl told the court.

He was being questioned by Barry Roux, for Pistorius, during the athlete's trial on the charge of the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

There had been allegations that Pistorius had been at an advantage because of his running blades.

The double amputee was selected for South Africa in the individual 400m race.

Van Zyl said the second incident was during an interview shortly before the London Olympics.

Van Zyl said the tone of the questioning was "don't you think it's an embarrassment by running against able-bodied athletes".

He said he lost his temper as well on both occasions.

Van Zyl said he and Pistorius began working together in 2006.

High speed

While testifying, Van Zyl said Pistorius had a heightened sense of awareness. On one occasion when the two were travelling in Pistorius's car to the airport he said the athlete drove at a high speed.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked Van Zyl why Pistorius felt the need to drive at high speed.

"Why did you allow him to drive at high speed?" Nel asked.

Van Zyl said others had also noticed Pistorius's fast driving and none of them had complained.

"There were reports that Oscar drove at high speed. I was informed by some of the athletes that used to drive with him.

"No one ever complained to me about it," Van Zyl told the court.

Roommate

Nel asked Van Zyl whether he had heard about Pistorius's roommate's request to be moved to another room in the athletes' village at the London Olympics in 2012. The roommate apparently complained Pistorius spent hours shouting at people on his phone.

Van Zyl said he was not informed why the athletes were separated, just that it was dealt with by the South African team at the village.

"I wasn't in London at the time... team management dealt with the issue then and there."

Van Zyl said he never discussed with Pistorius what happened on 14 February 2013, when he shot and killed Steenkamp in his Pretoria home. He merely sent his condolences.

"We did not discuss specifics of the incident at all. Not once."

Love for guns

Van Zyl told the court he was not aware of Pistorius's love for guns until November 2012.

"I'd never seen him carry a gun or take part in shooting ranges before that. He said he carried it because he feared for his own safety."

An article in the United Kingdom's Daily Mail newspaper, published in August 2011, depicted the athlete as a gun-loving bachelor who kept guns in his Pretoria home.

Nel asked Van Zyl if he discussed the article with the athlete.

"At that stage I didn't see it as negative," he replied.

When asked if he would describe Pistorius as paranoid, Van Zyl said he was not qualified to comment.

He said he knew Pistorius as kind and courteous, not aggressive.

The trial was adjourned to 09:30 on Wednesday.

Pistorius shot Steenkamp through the locked door of the toilet in his Pretoria home, having testified that he thought she was an intruder about to open the door and attack him. She was struck in the hip, arm, and head.

After firing the shots, Pistorius used a cricket bat to break open the door to get to a dying Steenkamp.

He has pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder as well as not guilty to three firearm-related charges.

The State argues he killed her during an argument.