
Oscar Pistorius's new life in a millionaire's mansion with a lookalike girlfriend
There have been caretaking shifts volunteering at a local church and the launch of a new charity as he seeks a sense of purpose on parole. But Pistorius feels most like his old self when the blades are up and running again, pounding the track at his uncle's multi-million pound South African mansion.
'He's working hard physically at the moment – running, in the gym and trying to get his body back into shape,' explains Mark Williams-Thomas, a detective-turned-broadcaster who remains in regular contact with Pistorius. 'Exercise has always been so important to Oscar. He knows how important it is to keep fit and stay healthy. When he came out [of prison], he was a shadow of himself. In the first early days, I would speak to him and he was just profoundly exhausted, mentally and physically. He is much better now.'
It is 13 months since Pistorius's release on parole from Atteridgeville Correctional Centre and now exactly 12 years since he killed Reeva Steenkamp, who was his girlfriend of three months, at his house in Pretoria.
To this day, Pistorius claims the four hollow-point bullets he shot through a bathroom door in the early hours were aimed at a possible intruder. Nevertheless, an initial conviction of culpable homicide was overturned in favour of a verdict of murder by the Supreme Court in 2015.
Now there is plenty of time to reflect for Pistorius. There is volunteering work to be done sweeping floors at a nearby church but a vast amount of time is spent behind the 15ft walls of the luxurious home in Wakkerstroom owned by his uncle Albert. Pistorius Snr, a Donald Trump-supporting successful businessman, is fiercely protective, claiming before Pistorius's release that his nephew had 'matured'.
This Valentine's Day, there is said to be a new blonde girlfriend – Rita Greyling, a business management consultant from a millionaire family who live nearby Pistorius's base.
The relationship has been met with shock by the Steenkamp family. Older sister Simone Cowburn reportedly said: 'Is she nuts?' Steenkamp's mother June has consistently said she would be 'concerned for the safety of any woman' who comes into contact with him.
But Williams-Thomas, a former Surrey police detective who remains the only broadcaster to interrogate Pistorius on camera, refuses to condemn his 2016 interviewee. As the family attempt to map out his next move, Williams-Thomas offers the minority view that he deserves a chance at a 'second life'.
'He will forever live with what happened to him, and he's never shied away from that,' says Williams-Thomas. 'He's always accepted the responsibility for what he did. He took someone's life, and he'll live with that for the whole of his life. He remains at his uncle's house and he's trying to work and provide for society. I have got to know Oscar and his family and friends and he is kind and genuine. He is not this dangerous, arrogant man as painted by so many and I think we as a society have a duty to allow him to move on and try and live his second life as it were.'
'No South African prisons are easy – he had tough life'
Williams-Thomas had visited Pistorius multiple times at both Kgosi Mampuru II jail and Atteridgeville, where he spent the majority of his prison term.
'There were floods in one of the prisons he was at,' he adds. 'They weren't clean. You had to watch your back the whole time and look out for other people. There was a hierarchy system within jails and he was a part of all of that.
'He ended his sentence in a prison which was gentler than his original prison. The original one was really nasty. But no South African prisons are easy. People say, 'Oh, he had a cushy life because of who he was.' I saw first-hand he had a tough life in prison. There was no benefit for him because of who he was at all. He literally was a prisoner like everybody else.'
Others close to the case will argue this was the least Pistorius deserved. Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model and face of an anti-bullying campaign, was about to return to her old school to talk to girls about gender-based violence when she was killed. Pistorius, meanwhile, stood accused of having a history of controlling and abusing women. Text messages between the couple were particularly damning. One former girlfriend Samantha Taylor also said she feared he would kill her, saying in one interview that she once hid his gun after he flew into a rage at her.
Those who had previously cheered the sporting feats of disability sport's first millionaire celebrity felt betrayed. Six gold medals over three Paralympic Games, and his history-making appearance at the Olympics in London 2012 made him the second most talked about athlete that year behind Usain Bolt.
A picture painted in his trial of a volatile, hot-tempered and aggressive enigma with an appetite for fast cars, beautiful women and guns left only his inner circle still convinced Reeva's death was a mistake.
'I can still smell the blood'
In 2016, between jail stints and house arrest while awaiting a new sentence, he agreed to give Williams-Thomas his only television interview.
'I did take Reeva's life and I have to live with that,' Pistorius told Williams-Thomas as they sat down at the same property he now lives in under his five-year parole terms. 'I can smell the blood. I can feel the warmness of it on my hands. And to know that that's your fault, that that's what you've done.'
Williams-Thomas, who also fronted the ITV Exposure series that first named Jimmy Savile as a prolific paedophile, now says of his time with Pistorius: 'It was a mad time. We did it all covertly. I spent a lot of time with him and spent hours and hours sitting talking to him. He was really worried about the film going out and how it would come across, and how he would be portrayed. We just said, 'Look, just be yourself'.'
Pistorius pledged at the time: 'If I was afforded the opportunity of redemption I would like to help the less fortunate'. Over the past year, he has been given a chance to live up to that pledge. His parole terms have banned him from speaking to the press. Instead, his activities on LinkedIn offer the only available direct clues around his next moves. He appears to have attempted to launch a charity called ReAble, although it is unclear what has happened to the organisation after he stood down as chief executive in November.
He remains active on the site, however, and three weeks ago 'liked' a post from Greyling stating she was starting a new position as head of business development for the region at Dutch consultancy firm Inlumi.
Williams-Thomas, who maintains he still believes Pistorius's version of events, suggests the 'redemption' that Pistorius craved in his conversation with him eight years ago is now within sight. 'I would like to believe that if Reeva could look down on me then she would want me to live that life,' Pistorius had told him. There is much work to be done, however, before the Steenkamp family start believing him.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Times
14 hours ago
- Times
How drivers were sold a car finance compensation fantasy
Britain has narrowly avoided a costly car finance compensation free-for-all after a landmark court ruling derailed chances of a payout for millions of drivers. Claims lawyers had been bombarding consumers with adverts suggesting they may have been entitled to thousands of pounds in a scandal over hidden commission on car finance deals. The scandal had been expected to rival the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, which cost banks more than £38 billion. It was thought that nearly 15 million drivers could be entitled to payouts worth as much as £44 billion in total — although Friday's Supreme Court ruling means the numbers are set to be far smaller. Questions have now been raised over whether those using car finance really lost out and how many of them deserve compensation at all. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had tried to intervene ahead of the ruling — arguing that a colossal compensation bill for the industry would damage the economy and consumers. The Supreme Court ruled on three cases where consumers bought cars on finance and argued that they had been treated unfairly because they had not been told about commission involved in their deals — which ranged from £183 to £1,651. The court rejected two of the three cases, but upheld a complaint by Marcus Johnson, a factory worker from south Wales — because in his case the £1,651 commission in his loan was 55 per cent of the fee (including interest) on his loan over five years. 'The fact that the undisclosed commission was so high is a powerful indication that the relationship between Mr Johnson and the lender was unfair,' the court's judgment said. It leaves the door open to claims for compensation on deals that contained large amounts of commission, or where the commission model influenced what they paid. How much would be needed for a deal to be unfair is something that is likely to be decided by the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which said it would confirm if it would introduce a redress scheme before stock markets open on Monday morning. The FCA had been investigating finance deals that had used a model called discretionary commission, which incentivised dealers to give customers a worse interest rate on their loan. However, a judgment by the Court of Appeal last October opened the door to compensation claims by millions of motorists who had bought cars on finance, regardless of the commission model. Lenders appealed to the Supreme Court over the ruling. About nine in ten cars are bought on finance and £39.7 billion was borrowed on more than two million cars in the year to May, according to the Finance and Leasing Association, a trade body. The Court of Appeal had ruled in October that car dealers had a duty to make clear the nature and value of any commission paid to them to ensure that borrowers could give 'informed consent' before agreeing to a deal. Reeves was among those concerned about a claims free-for-all, with the Treasury reportedly drawing up contingency plans to shield lenders from having to pay out billions of pounds in compensation. The Treasury attempted to intervene in the Supreme Court case, arguing that a ruling had 'the potential to adversely affect the United Kingdom's reputation as a place to do business, with a consequent impact on economic growth'. In the meantime complaints about car loans to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), a body that solves disputes, have risen from 4,130 in the first three months of 2023-24 to 37,230 in the last three months of 2024-25. Most of these have been brought by claims companies and no-win, no-fee law firms that file complaints on behalf of consumers in return for up to 30 per cent of any compensation. These companies have swamped radio, social media and television with adverts that tell consumers they could be owed thousands of pounds. On Thursday the FCA said it had required 224 adverts from claims firms about car finance to either be taken down or changed. There had been highly speculative figures advertised for how much consumers could get back, it said, including compensation figures that did not make clear they covered multiple car loans and misleading claims that refunds were guaranteed. It said companies had been signing up consumers without their consent after they clicked on adverts. Philip Salter, a former FCA regulator now at the consultancy Sicsic Advisory, said: 'I haven't liked a lot of the claims company advertising. You've had a lot of companies arguing that time is running out, but the clock hasn't even started. It's been a bit of an unseemly scramble.' • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture If there is to be compensation for consumers, it is expected that the FCA will announce a free redress scheme where lenders will contact those eligible, meaning consumers should not need to use a claims company. Gary Greenwood from the investment bank Shore Capital said: 'It's one of those things where if you go by the letter of the law of the previous Court of Appeal judgment, you're almost coming to the conclusion that commission is bad. But the problem is that if you look at the reality of what had happened, there doesn't seem to have been a lot of consumer harm that's gone on. 'So any sort of redress has got to come down to: has there been any consumer harm here, or are people just trying to claim money back on a technicality?' Greenwood said. Charlie Nunn, the chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, which runs Britain's biggest car finance lender, Black Horse, has denied the scandal was on the same level as PPI. 'Some 80 per cent of people need finance to buy a new car, and a large number of second-hand car buyers do as well,' he told The Times in January. 'We need a well-functioning motor finance industry that supports consumers.' The National Franchised Dealers Association, a trade body, told the Supreme Court that 'nobody goes to a car dealer with a reasonable expectation that it is acting without self-interest in relation to any of the products it sells'. The Supreme Court's judgment could have been the difference between lenders facing a compensation bill of £11 billion — for complaints about a specific form of commission — and £29 billion, according to Royal Bank of Canada Capital Markets, an investment bank. It could also have led to compensation claims about the sale of other financial products such as insurance where commission was involved but not properly disclosed. Consumers in turn could have had to foot the bill. Stuart Masson, the editor of the advice website The Car Expert UK, said that if lenders have to pay compensation to millions of people, car finance could get more expensive in the future as the industry tries to 'claw back' that money. 'That's not money they're going to find down the back of the sofa,' he told the BBC. 'They're going to have to get that back from increasing the costs of future lending, which won't just be on car finance. It could be on credit cards, it could be on personal loans, it could be on mortgages.' In January Reeves told bankers at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: 'There is nothing pro-consumer about making it harder for people to buy an affordable car for their family.' Before the courts widened the scope of possible mis-selling, the FCA had been investigating a specific model of commission called discretionary commission. This is where the cut that lenders paid dealers was linked to the interest rate consumers were charged, incentivising dealers to charge borrowers more. This model was used in about 35 per cent of car finance deals, according to the FCA, before it banned the practice in January 2021. The FCA said consumers could have paid about £1,100 more in interest over a four-year £10,000 car finance deal because of this commission model — which is being used as the basis for many of the estimates around possible compensation. Salter, who worked on the ban when he was at the FCA, said: 'That previous Court of Appeal ruling surprised me. I think everyone knows that if they're buying a car the salesman's getting commission, don't they? But discretionary commission never felt right to me.' The FCA began its investigation in January last year on whether consumers had been properly told about the link between their repayments and the commission. The investigation was kicked off by two rulings by the ombudsman against Lloyds and Barclays last year, which ordered the banks to refund two consumers more than £1,000 each. The FCA is expected to set out its next steps, including whether there will be a redress scheme, within six weeks. Any scheme would be free and easy for consumers to use, it said, while the FOS is also free for consumers to appeal to. Rob Lilley-Jones from the consumer group Which? said: 'It's vital that finance firms are held accountable for mis-selling and if a large number of motorists are eligible for compensation consumers are likely to be bombarded with ads from claims firms offering to take on their case. 'Affected customers should be careful when enlisting the services of claims management companies as the wrong choice could lead to their case being poorly handled, losing a significant portion of the compensation in legal fees — or both.' Coby Benson from the law firm Bott & Co, which helped win the ombudsman's case against Lloyds, said the experience from PPI was that consumers could sometimes recover more money by going to court than through a redress scheme. He said: 'We would support a proactive redress scheme if it fairly compensated consumers. But we have doubts over the effective implementation of a scheme, because our data shows that about half of clients have a different address now to that which the lender had from the time of the agreement.'


The Independent
15 hours ago
- The Independent
DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase
In the final moments of a life defined by violence, 60-year-old Edward Zakrzewski thanked the people of Florida for killing him "in the most cold, calculated, clean, humane, efficient way possible," breathing deeply as a lethal drug cocktail coursed through his veins. With his last breath, strapped to a gurney inside a state prison's death chamber, Zakrzewski paid what Florida had deemed was his debt to society and became the 27th person put to death in the U.S. so far this year, the highest number in a decade. Under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida has executed nine people in 2025, more than than any other state, and set a new state record, with DeSantis overseeing more executions in a single year than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Across the country, more people have been put to death in the first seven months of this year than in all of 2024. Florida's increase is helping put the U.S. on track to surpass 2015's total of 28 executions. And the number of executions is expected to keep climbing. Nine more people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. Florida drives a national increase in executions After the Supreme Court lifted its ban on capital punishment in the '70s, executions steadily increased, peaking in 1999 at 98 deaths. Since then, they had been dropping — in part due to legal battles, a shortage of lethal injection drugs, and declining public support for capital punishment, which has prompted a majority of states to either pause or abolish it altogether. The ratcheting up after this yearslong decline comes as Republican President Donald Trump has urged prosecutors to aggressively seek the death penalty and as some GOP-controlled state legislatures have pushed to expand the category of crimes punishable by death and the methods used to carry out executions. John Blume, director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project, says the uptick in executions doesn't appear to be linked to a change in public support for the death penalty or an increase in the rate of death sentences, but is rather a function of the discretion of state governors. 'The most cynical view would be: It seems to matter to the president, so it matters to them,' Blume said of the governors. 'The only appropriate punishment' In response to questions from The Associated Press, a spokesperson for DeSantis pointed to statements the governor made at a press conference in May, saying he takes capital cases 'very seriously.' 'There are some crimes that are just so horrific, the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty,' DeSantis said, adding: 'these are the worst of the worst.' Julie Andrew expressed relief after witnessing the April execution of the man who killed her sister in the Florida Keys in 2000. 'It's done,' she said. 'My heart felt lighter and I can breathe again.' The governor's office did not respond to questions about why the governor is increasing the pace of executions now and whether Trump's policies are playing a role. Deciding who lives and who dies Little is publicly known about how the governor decides whose death warrant to sign and when, a process critics have called 'secretive' and 'arbitrary.' According to the Florida Department of Corrections, there are 266 people currently on death row, including two men in their 80s, both of whom have been awaiting their court-ordered fate for more than 40 years. Speaking at the press conference in May, DeSantis said it's his 'obligation' to oversee executions, which he hopes provide 'some closure' to victims' families. 'Any time we go forward, I'm convinced that not only was the verdict correct, but that this punishment is absolutely appropriate under the circumstances,' DeSantis said. US ranks alongside Iran and Saudi Arabia for executions For years, the U.S. has ranked alongside Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt as among the countries carrying out the highest number of confirmed executions. China is thought to execute more of its citizens than any other nation, although the exact totals are considered a state secret, according to the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center. Robin Maher, the center's executive director, says elected officials in the U.S. have long used the death penalty as a 'political tool,' adding it's 'a way of embellishing their own tough-on-crime credentials.' Florida executions vary year to year In 2024, DeSantis signed one death warrant. From 2020-2022, Florida didn't carry out a single execution. In 2023, DeSantis oversaw six — the highest number during his time in office until this year. 2023 was also the year the governor challenged Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. There are a number of reasons why the rate of executions may vary from one administration to the next, said Mark Schlakman, an attorney and Florida State University professor who advised then-governor Lawton Chiles on the death penalty. The availability of staff resources, the tempo of lengthy legal appeals, and court challenges against the death penalty itself can all play a role, Schlakman said, as well as a governor's 'sensibilities.' 'The one person who can stop this' One execution after another, opponents of the death penalty hold vigils in the Florida capitol, outside the governor's mansion, and near the state prison that houses the death chamber, as people of faith across the state pray for mercy, healing and justice. Suzanne Printy, a volunteer with the group Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, has hand-delivered thousands of petitions to DeSantis' office, but says they seem to have no effect. Recently, DeSantis signed death warrants for two more men scheduled to die later this month. Still, Printy keeps praying. 'He's the one person who can stop this,' she said. ___


Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Ghislaine Maxwell's bombshell televised testimony on Epstein's crimes indefinitely postponed
Ghislaine Maxwell 's testimony before Congress has been postponed pending her Supreme Court case, a top Republican has announced. Maxwell, the longtime friend of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, is currently serving a 20-year-sentence for sex trafficking and has been in talks with the Trump administration and Congress about dishing on the disgraced financier and his relationships. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer announced last week that Maxwell was set to testify before the panel on August 11 at the Tallahassee facility where she is serving her prison sentence. But now he says that planned sit-down interview is no longer happening. Comer said in a letter he would agree to delay their meeting so that Maxwell's pending Supreme Court petition regarding her case could move forward unswayed by her testimony to the oversight panel. 'On July 30, the U.S. Supreme Court noticed that your petition for writ of certiorari will be considered at its conference on September 29. In light of this notice, the Committee is willing to delay your deposition until a date following the Court's certiorari determination,' he wrote. The Supreme Court's new term begins in October. 'Your testimony is vital to the Committee's efforts regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Epstein's death,' the chairman wrote to Maxwell. Just days before, Comer denied the imprisoned woman's request for immunity should she speak to Congress. 'The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms. Maxwell's attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony,' a spokesperson for the panel told the Daily Mail this week. The letter from Maxwell attorney David Markus to the committee - which was obtained by the Daily Mail - contains a list of conditions for her to testify, including immunity. 'Public reports—including your own statements—indicate that the committee intends to question Ms. Maxwell in prison and without a grant of immunity. Those are non-starters,' the letter states. 'Ms. Maxwell cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity. Nor is a prison setting conducive to eliciting truthful and complete testimony. The potential for leaks from such a setting creates real security risks and undermines the integrity of the process.' Markus further requested that the committee provide Maxwell with their questions in advance of their sit-down. He also asked to push their meeting until after Maxwell's pending case before the Supreme Court in which she's alleging wrongful legal treatment and until after a subsequent secondary challenge so that her testimony does not sway those cases. Maxwell may want to talk, according to a source who told the Daily Mail last week 'she would be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell her story.' But there were always going to be strings attached to testimony from such a notorious target. The rush to hear from Epstein's protege comes as some lawmakers have raised concern about her protection. 'I requested that she be placed immediately into protective custody and monitored - by guards as well as working surveillance equipment - around the clock, so that our justice system does not again fail the survivors of this Epstein nightmare,' Republican Rep. Scott Perry posted on X. Trump's closest allies and rank-and-file members - including House Oversight Chairman James Comer, Anna Paulina Luna, Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene - backed the subpoena for Maxwell. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has met multiple times with Maxwell at the behest of Trump to discuss what she knows about the Epstein files. Blanche offered Maxwell a limited form of immunity during her two days of questioning over former lover and billionaire pedophile Epstein last week. She apparently requested what's known as 'proffer immunity' so that anything she revealed couldn't be used against her at a later date. This form of immunity is specifically provided to people under investigation or facing charges to determine the value of a possible witness. Maxwell has already been tried and convicted. However, Maxwell's lawyer David Oscar Markus said after her questioning: 'There have been no asks and no promises.'