Pistorius Trial Travesty – Would Judge Judy Have Done a Better Job?

‘I’m scared of you sometimes’

Let’s start with Reeva since all the talk is of how Oscar’s life will never be the same. He was the reason she lost hers. She’d only been dating him three months.

Admittedly, I don’t envy Judge Masipa. It can't be an easy job – a black female judge presiding over the murder trial of a celebrated white male who’s overcome incredible adversity to become a national hero. But someone has to do it and do it fairly.

This started off being a little facetious but I’ve been watching Judge Judy over the last couple of days and I’m convinced that, given five minutes with Oscar Pistorius, Judy Sheindlin would have totally dismantled his case, as I expected Gerrie Nel to do, and he would have admitted the truth. She’s so much sharper. Nel hesitated too often (sometimes overnight) before questioning something he should have jumped on straight away, losing momentum. Judy would have been constantly asking pertinent questions while all Judge Masipa usually asked in a whole day of evidence was ‘What time is it now?'

'If it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true.' (Judy Sheindlin)

Shame that Judge Masipa doesn't have Judge Judy's no-nonsense attitude. She sees through liars and fakers.

Or
'If you tell the truth, you don't have to have a good memory.'

		Dolus eventualis - dollars eventually?* The verdict I’m appalled at the verdict Judge Masipa has reached. That's culpable homicide if you missed it. Some people have speculated that she must have been paid off and others have told me that this is par for the course in South Africa. I kept hoping that justice would prevail but, having watched the trial and been struck by the general incompetence of the lawyers and the judge’s almost complete lack of interest in anything other than the tea break, I realised that it was a lot to ask. It seemed as if the whole outcome was predetermined. This culpable homicide verdict essentially amounts to a verdict of negligence. That’s South African law for you. You can shoot to kill someone and only be guilty of negligence. Negligence in my mind is forgetting to feed the goldfish or leaving the car unlocked. Not picking up a loaded gun, running into a bathroom and shooting at someone so terrifyingly dangerous that they’ve locked themselves in the toilet. The press The other thing that astonishes me is the press reaction to this miscarriage of justice. Is everyone too complacent or too stupid to understand what has happened here, what is at stake? Where’s the righteous indignation, the protests that followed the O. J. Simpson verdict? Doesn’t anyone care that a girl was murdered in cold blood? That Pistorius lied over and over, that the judge says she found him untruthful but still chose to believe enough of his tall tale to let him off? Instead, the reporters are all following the ‘Oh good, Oscar is innocent; we always thought so’ line. No one is asking any pertinent questions. And not only that, when they report adjectives the judge used they select 'evasive' and 'poor' and avoid repeating 'untruthful'. Why? Jeremy Thompson Jeremy Thompson of Sky News, perhaps not the brightest bulb in the box, asks Llewellyn Curlewis (Sky’s legal expert who ‘in no uncertain terms’ relies on a series of stock phrases ‘at the end of the day’ when discussing ‘the issues that come into play’ – just listen and you’ll hear them): ‘Why did it get to a much bigger thing with murder coming into the frame?’ Umm – because he murdered her. It wasn’t a trumped-up charge. Curlewis points out that the defence could have opted to plead guilty to culpable homicide and possibly there would have been no trial but Oscar Pistorius was so arrogant, he really believed that he would get off without a conviction of any kind. Thompson again: ‘A man who’s been a national sporting hero suddenly caught up in the most terrible domestic tragedy’. I object to this characterisation of events. There seems to be a tendency to downplay Reeva’s killing into an incident or an accident. A terrible domestic tragedy would be a bad chip-pan fire. Pistorius didn’t get ‘caught up in’ anything; he was the agent of her destruction. Let’s be clear about this; his actions caused her death. Thompson once more: ‘The murder charges against him were found not guilty’. I should think so – those murder charges had an alibi. He means Pistorius was found not guilty of the murder charges. Thompson: ‘The judge’s reasoning was on the money’. A Freudian slip perhaps.

The Sky Team

Curlewis: 'I do feel that we’ve seen justice done.’

He seems to think the judge has engaged with and understood the issues and based her ruling on the law. I'm not so sure.

Alex Crawford asserts: ‘The life of the man that killed her will never be the same’.
But already the International Paralympic Committee has said he can compete again if he wants to. When he left the court, he was greeted by the screams of female fans, as if he were Justin Bieber, not someone just convicted of manslaughter. His life will go on as before.

The reason Sky features so heavily in my criticisms is because they have covered the trial in more detail than the other channels. I’m not saying that their reporting is any more or less biased or that their journalists make more mistakes. Just to show I’m not biased, here’s what the BBC had to say of Oscar: ‘a potential person who’s going to walk free’.

Hmm. whatever we think of him, he’s still a person, not merely a potential person. She means he’s potentially going to walk free.

Channel 5 talks of Oscar making ‘a huge mistake’.
Again, this rather downplays a killing. A friend of Oscar’s reports that he hasn’t been able to have a conversation with Oscar since the night of the killing without Oscar breaking down in some way. Sister: 'He managed to go to a nightclub.' Me: 'And get a new girlfriend.'

Something to drink, guy

Pistorius’s uncle, whose opinions have been broadcast time and again by Alex Crawford, thanks the media for their interest in the trial. This seems like a strange thing to do but then he mounted a charm offensive with the press from the start, making sure they were comfortable, that they had something to drink, etc. Then mentions how ‘deeply grateful we are to Judge Masipa for finding Oscar not guilty of murder’.
I’ll bet. It's no surprise that people are wondering how they're going to express their gratitude. Was the extra long lunch break to allow the family time to sell some more property?



Nevertheless, I have to ask, given the emotion and controversy around this case: Was it really a good idea to broadcast the exact address where Oscar is staying to the world’s media?

Flaws and inconsistencies in Judge Masipa’s reasoning

I’m not an expert in SA law and glad of it – I’m only using logic.

1

First of all, I believe that Masipa was wrong to dismiss the Whatsapp messages, saying all relationships are unpredictable
BUT
These messages establish the tenor of the relationship and demonstrate a pattern that anyone familiar with domestic abuse should be able to discern immediately. Oscar criticises Reeva over minor missteps – chewing gum, using accents; she tries to placate and please him: ‘I do everything to make you happy … to not rock the boat’, even attempting to pre-empt trouble by checking with him beforehand about her outfit but nothing works: ‘I am trying my best to make you happy and I feel as though you sometimes never are no matter the effort I put in’; he apologises in one breath but in the next adds an excuse that typically blames her, along these lines ‘I’m sorry I upset you but it’s your fault because …’.

AND

I’m not sure why the judge, with her experience, failed to recognise the significance of these. They show how possessive and controlling Oscar was. This type of bullying can easily escalate into aggression as Sam Taylor can testify. Reeva was no pushover – she would stick up for herself but she probably had no idea what Oscar was capable of. We’ll never know what precipitated the row. Maybe he didn’t like her meeting her ex.  Maybe she accused him of cheating on her. Or it could just be that she promised to take the fans in and didn’t (if we believe him) and left her jeans on the floor. Who knows? What we do know is that she almost certainly wouldn’t stay quiet in the toilet if Oscar were threatening her with a gun.

2

Judge Masipa decides to believe part of Dr Stipp’s testimony – the part about Oscar’s so-called remorse, which she uses as a reason to dismiss the premeditated murder charge

BUT

She chooses not to believe the part where he heard female screams and gunfire.

 Judge Judy sees through liars and has no truck with fake snivelling

3

Judge Masipa says that Oscar was an untruthful (her word) witness (not to mention defensive and argumentative, my words)

BUT

She then takes his word as gospel: that he heard something, was afraid, thought there was an intruder and so armed himself

EVEN THOUGH

We know for a fact that there was no intruder so he probably heard nothing,

that he knew any sound was from Reeva, fleeing for her life

AND

He has to claim that he thought this otherwise he would have to admit that he deliberately killed his girlfriend.

‘If you lie about one thing, it makes me doubt the veracity of everything you say’ (Judy Sheindlin)

But not Judge Masipa.

Just because his is the only version available to us – because he killed the only witness and ensured that she was dead before calling for help – doesn’t mean we have to believe him. For more on his selective amnesia and the constant revision of his version, see ‘I Don’t Remember What I’ve Forgotten’ and ‘Who Put the Story in Pistorius?’.

4

She reiterates the court’s findings that Oscar was not judged to be suffering from any kind of anxiety disorder at the time of the commission of the offence (i.e. when he shot and killed Reeva)
BUT

She then mentions this as a mitigating factor that might have a bearing on his response to the imagined/invented intruder

EVEN THOUGH

This was simply a last-ditch, failed defence strategy

AND

I’ll say it again – there was no intruder.

See my blog on GAD.

Heartbreak for the family

5

In rejecting a verdict of premeditated murder, she takes into account his response after the killing once there were witnesses present. ‘He clearly did not intend to kill the deceased. To say otherwise would be to say he was playacting’.

BUT

Why can't we say that? Has anyone been convinced by his crocodile tears in court? And I’ll say it again, even if he deliberately killed her, he could still be traumatised after the event and horrified by what he’d done

AND

Why doesn’t Judge Masipa, with her working experience of domestic abuse, understand that it is possible for a guilty person to feel guilt, anguish and remorse after an egregious act? This doesn’t mean they’re not guilty. It isn’t necessarily a sign of innocence. Hasn’t she heard of a crime of passion?

6

She also says ‘It cannot be said that he did not genuinely believe that there was an intruder’. Again cites the reasons above.

BUT

If he genuinely believed there was an intruder, he genuinely believed he might kill that intruder and since the putative self-defence criteria have not been met, wouldn’t this be murder dolus eventualis?

Black Talon ammunition

7

In rejecting a verdict of murder dolus eventualis, she claims this: ‘He did not foresee that the deceased or anyone else for that matter would be killed when he fired into the toilet door’

BUT

This is almost exactly the opposite of what she uses as her reasoning for the culpable homicide verdict, when she says he could have reasonably foreseen that he would kill someone

AND

Why would he shoot unless he thought there was someone there? It’s his evidence that he thought there was an intruder in the toilet. He knows it’s a confined space and the odds of him killing someone when firing Black Talon-type ammunition at point-blank range through the door are fairly high.

Judge versus jury

This verdict is an indictment of the non-jury system. In another case documented on TV, the Michael Peterson case, I thought that the prosecution (like the one in the Pistorius trial) was ineffectual and that it failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt although anyone watching knew he was guilty. The jury was able to look beyond the letter of the law to the big picture and pronounce him guilty.

More than a mistake?

The sentence

A verdict of culpable homicide can lead to a sentence of up to fifteen years in jail. But there is no minimum sentence. This means that Oscar could go free, perhaps with a fine or community service or a suspended term. I hate to say it but I fear that he will be given a non-custodial sentence, i.e. get away with it. As usual.

My thoughts are with Reeva’s family and friends. I still pray that justice will be done.

* Image and facetious translation from clever people on Twitter.

Pistorius Verdict - What Will It Be?

'I just want to love and be loved'

This time I’m going to start with Reeva Steenkamp, an innocent girl, who was killed by her boyfriend, who only wanted to love and be loved. I hate the way in the trial, they’re only allowed to refer to her as ‘the deceased’. This seems pretty callous and also sounds strange when they say things like ‘the deceased was sitting up in bed’. Reeva existed; she has a name; she has an identity; she’s not just the person Oscar Pistorius killed.

Gerrie Nel/Barry Roux

Again, I’m extremely disappointed by both lawyers’ lack of clarity and their failure to summarise their main arguments or present any kind of cogent, credible narrative of what they believe happened. It’s like they’re intent on incoherence. I can only hope that a better mind than mine (the judge’s I hope though so far she hasn’t shown much sign that she’s listening and I’m not sure I blame her) can see some method in their madness. Perhaps she’s hoping that the written heads of argument will make more sense.

I want Gerrie Nel to be resolute, sure, convincing. He has a good case. He only needs to state it. We need him to speak for Reeva Steenkamp because she cannot speak for herself. Instead, he rambles on his peripatetic and seemingly aimless course. I don’t need to worry about him losing momentum or focus because he never shows any. Luckily for him, Barry Roux is just as prone to an excess of the type of verbiage that actually obfuscates meaning. Oh no, I’m doing it myself now!

Reeva's parents just want the truth

First of all, why does Nel even engage with any of the nonsense brought up by Roux – whether someone moved the gun a couple of inches or not? It doesn’t matter because no one is claiming that Oscar did not use the gun to kill Reeva. His job is not to prove that the police are beyond reproach. His job is to prove that Oscar is guilty. He gives Roux’s reasoning validity by responding to it.

What he should be doing now is not nit-picking but establishing what is salient, what he wants the judge to consider. I’m not clear why Milady isn’t asking any questions. Is she even listening?

Second, he needs to leave the metaphors at home. They’re neither clever nor beneficial to his case. In fact, they’re the opposite.

To call each piece of circumstantial evidence a feather implies that individually, even collectively, they carry little weight when in fact they do; they have enormous substance.

The dropping the baton analogy concentrates on Oscar’s evidence instead of his actions on the night/morning in question and I find it somewhat insensitive considering that Reeva died so horribly. But I would argue that, if Nel considers this the baton of truth, in giving evidence, Oscar never even picked it up. Unfortunately, in Nel’s final statement, it’s he who continually drops the baton, losing his place, leaving the book he needs at home, etc. Justice is at stake here. Get it together.

As for a snowball of lies – that implies that they’re gaining power and weight. They’re not.

‘In his attempt to prevent a domino effect on the mosaic pieces’. Let’s not go there. If you need to use an analogy, stick to one, easily relatable image not three or four. Shakespeare, he ain't.

Nel’s statement: ‘He has disqualified himself from his version being accepted by the court’ is a weak one. He killed her. Nel needs to emphasise this.

Third, the baker’s dozen. I’m at a loss as to why he settles on this particular set of points to highlight although it’s not a bad policy to point out a few flaws in the defence case (there are so many to choose from), such as the pledge that a witness would testify that Oscar screams like a woman so neighbours could have mistaken his screams for those of Reeva Steenkamp. The defence called a witness (note that it was a female not a male witness) to record an imitation of the scream they had heard but never played the recording in court. Nel is right to conclude that the only explanation must be that ‘it doesn't advance their case’. Roux still contends, somewhat pointlessly, that: ‘It’s not a female screaming. It’s a male in a high-pitched voice’. Even Oscar can't replicate it. Give it up now, Barry.

Oscar Pistorius

But Nel makes his point or rather fails to make it because he’s completely unable to express himself clearly. He says of the screams:‘He had to stop because she was dead’ and could no longer scream. But he’s implied here that Oscar ‘was’ screaming. He wasn’t and Nel doesn’t think he was but the fault is in how he’s put it. It was always Reeva and it was her who stopped when she was no longer able to.

Don’t forget this either: ‘The deceased was fully clothed when she was shot’. How did she manage to get dressed without Oscar noticing? And why did she get dressed and take her phone to the toilet?

Nel: ‘Equally devastating is the vagueness of his version as to how and when the police would have tampered with the scene.’ But who cares at this stage? It wasn’t relevant in the first place.

He does make this point though. In the unlikely event that your partner believes you are an intruder and he pursues you to the toilet with a gun, first shouting then silent, is it likely that you will stay completely quiet and not ask him not to shoot you? Why wouldn't Reeva have called out?

But at least the judge will be able to read through the whole thing at her leisure and see that there is a case there.

As for Roux, here’s his attempt to describe what happened. Apologies for the poor grammar – they’re his words, not mine.

‘Now you standing at the door. You vulnerable. You have the effect of the slow-burn over many years. You’re anxious. You’re trained as an athlete to react to sound.’

Sister: To run.

Me: Yeah – not to shoot and kill.

Trained to react to sound - to run not shoot

It is worth considering why everybody else in the same situation, including Oscar himself, would ask their partner whether they had heard anything. Sam Taylor confirmed that Oscar ‘went as far as waking her up on more than one occasion to ask her if she had heard something’. Why didn’t he do this with Reeva?

I don’t buy the ‘slow-burn’ theory or the domestic abuse line. I don't think the judge does either. Victims of long-term abuse sometimes do snap and attack someone but usually their abuser, not their innocent girlfriend. Of course Roux wants us to believe that Oscar thought there was an intruder, a threat although we know that there was no real break-in, no actual danger.

Layout of the upstairs

Again, I have to ask if Oscar would really feel that threatened by an intruder who broke in and then locked themselves in the toilet while he was standing outside the door holding a gun loaded with Black Talon ammunition. Come on.

Oscar: 'I felt trapped, as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.' Who locked the bedroom door? Him. Who had the key to the door? Him. How exactly is he trapped?

Roux asks: ‘Why would he call for help for her if he’d just tried to kill her?’

Oh Barry, don’t be so disingenuous. What else could he do? If he didn’t call for help, how would this fit with his ‘story’ that it was an ‘accident’? Of course he had to call for help. But notice that he didn’t do this earlier when, by his own admission: ‘She was struggling to breathe’ and ‘I sat over Reeva and I cried’/'I don't know how long I was there for’ (as I said in my previous blog – presumably until she was no longer breathing and couldn’t implicate him). He only called for help after he was absolutely certain that she was dead. She was his girlfriend so he has to act upset. But it might not even have been acting. He could easily have experienced immediate remorse for his reckless actions. It doesn’t mean that he didn’t deliberately kill her.

But even when he finally decided to call for help …

Mr Pieter Baba

Stop a minute here and reflect that this was after Mr Baba (presumably not a friend of Oscar’s) had seen there were lights on and rung to ask if everything was ok and he had answered (having shot Reeva or the imagined intruder) ‘Alles ist ok’.

Why? He’d just shot someone. How could it all be ok?

Why would he need to delay calling for help – if it really had been a terrible accident? He would only do this to stage a scene or cover up a crime.

Then the crucial question is: Who did he eventually decide to call? Emergency services? No – he called his friend, the estate manager, Johan Stander. Why did he call his friend and not emergency services? And why isn't this in Nel's baker's dozen?

Then, from my previous blog: Why didn’t Stander call emergency services as soon as he learned Reeva had been shot?

Because Oscar and he must have decided they needed to initiate damage control. I like to think that by this stage Reeva was dead rather than lying there dying as they pondered what to do to save Oscar’s neck.

 

But why oh why did no one ask Stander why he chose not to call for help?

These can only be a series of stalling tactics to ensure that there was no possibility of Reeva being revived and to remove any evidence that could damn Oscar. Phones were taken and messages wiped.

It's a hard rain's a gonna fall

Roux asks why Nel didn’t chase up Oscar’s father to question him on the ammunition in the safe. But Nel could have easily asked Roux the same thing. Pistorius senior could have corroborated Oscar’s story but he wasn’t asked so didn’t. And why weren’t the policemen from the altercation in the car or Martyn Rooney from the incident in the restaurant called?

Roux makes a big deal about a tiny point, again supremely poorly expressed:

‘After the lunch adjournment, he was then in a position to increase the emotion.'
What he means is that the witness in question altered the emphasis of his testimony a little. The fact that he’s harping on about these tiny details shows that his case is weak. Unlike Nel though, he doesn’t have much choice.

Roux states that Nel’s case is based on the couple going down to eat together later. That isn’t so. Nel has only said that Reeva ate later; no one has said they delayed eating their meal. Roux’s point: ‘It does not explain common sense’.

Again, he fails to express himself. He means he doesn’t think this is common sense. We don’t need to explain common sense.

Roux mentions: ‘an adjustment disorder that developed after the alleged incident’.

It’s not an alleged incident. No one can dispute that there was an actual incident. Does he mean an alleged adjustment disorder?

On the bedside table

Roux: ‘Led to an exaggerated fight response … he decided to fire indiscriminately’.

Interesting how he gets this in and the judge doesn’t call him on it. Is she in a coma? When did the shot grouping become ‘indiscriminate’? Evidence proved exactly the opposite.

Roux says Oscar ‘felt very much on the backfoot, relying on his disability’. Since when was he relying on his disability? Is this a Freudian slip perhaps? Does Roux mean that the defence case is now dependent on Oscar’s disability?

Roux: ‘Did he foresee the possibility that the deceased was in the toilet?’

No – he always knew she was in the toilet.

 

'The question is whether the accused foresaw that Reeva Steenkamp was in the lavatory when he shot, and whether he had reconciled himself with that before shooting (i.e. if he did foresee it as possibly the case, did he simply not care and shoot anyway?).' That’s only the question if you believe the whole intruder line. He's trying to lead the judge here. Away from the truth.

Toilet door

‘Would it be wrong to arm himself?’ 

If you’re credulous enough to believe Oscar was defending himself against an intruder, you might think it was justifiable that he armed himself BUT then to shoot them four times through a locked door, was that justifiable?

'The striking of the door by a cricket bat would not be as loud’

But that’s exactly what Roux tried to prove. That the witnesses who thought they heard shots had heard the cricket bat instead.

It appears that Oscar is going to change his plea on the other charges. Roux states that Oscar admitted in testimony that he was partly culpable. He didn’t. He said sorry to the restaurant owners, offered to pay for the damage but he said that his only error was to take the gun believing that Darren Fresco had made it safe, i.e. It was Darren’s fault but Oscar was man enough to offer reparation.

Also seems as if they've given up on the GAD angle.

Then he keeps talking about objective facts. What’s an objective fact? Facts don't have opinions. Does he mean undisputed fact?

Alex Crawford: objectivity out the window

Next a brief word on Alex Crawford who once again seems somewhat biased in her reporting, rather pro-Oscar. Of Oscar’s yawning throughout, she lets us know that people (those experts she relies on, i.e. the general public) have Tweeted her to say that yawning is sometimes a reaction to stress. This is what she chooses to convey. It’s also a sign of lack of interest or tiredness but as always Crawford wants Oscar to have the benefit of the doubt. Then she mentions that Arnold Pistorius (no relation – oh hang on, yes he is a relation, Oscar’s uncle) has said to the reporters he’s so friendly with that Nel can't have it both ways with his defence. Hmm. He’s totally objective of course. She comments that Roux is ‘in fine form’ and describes his summation as ‘a weighty tomb’. She meant ‘tome’. Conveys that her mate, Uncle Arnold says of Roux, that ‘he’s done more than enough’.

Here’s a Tweet from her: 'Roux disproving fairly convincingly some of the neighbours recollection of emerg calls, timings and who spoke when …'.

Again, this is her opinion, almost always pro-defence. I don't think Roux did anything convincingly.

What does the judge make of all this? She has to show impartiality of course during the course of the trial and can't display emotion. But which way is she leaning?

Judge Masipa - late for lunch?

'Judge Masipa has shown she is determined to complete the closing arguments by the end of today, telling Gerrie Nel to hasten his case yesterday, calling for a limited lunch break and ordering the court to stay later into the afternoon than at any other point during the trial.' 

Judge Masipa: ‘Unless, of course, you want to work on a Saturday and perhaps Sunday after church’.

Personally, I don’t care. It’ll take as long as it takes. Hmm. Her main worry now seems to be getting things done quickly rather than asking questions or making sure of facts. I don't think this case should be rushed. I don’t understand why they had to put a time limit on it at all. Her life has been lost and his future is at stake. It’s important. I wish that this wasn’t her primary concern, that she had shown as much interest in the arguments and the evidence.

Barry Roux says if Judge Masipa believes Oscar Pistorius meant to kill Reeva Steenkamp then she 'can take a red pen' and draw a line through his entire argument. Someone make sure she has a red pen.

Let’s not lose sight of this. One fact is not in dispute. Oscar Pistorius shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp. The only thing at issue is whether he knew it was her he was shooting at. Whatever, he deliberately shot and killed someone, someone so dangerous that they had locked themselves in the toilet.

We don't know whether the shots were fired rapidly or not. Either way, Oscar is in trouble. If he shot quickfire, he meant to kill whoever was behind the door. If there was a break between shots, he would have heard Reeva’s screaming and therefore known it was her before he went on to fire more shots. Each scenario indicates an intent to kill.

The commentators are saying that the judge only has to believe that one factor in the police investigation was flawed for this to cast a reasonable doubt over Oscar’s guilt but as I stated in another blog, this is not relevant to whether or not he shot and killed Reeva (we know he did this even if he is reluctant to admit culpability; he is not attempting to deny this) and has no bearing on his intent.

The judge is due to deliver her verdict on 11 September 2014. It has to be one of these three. Let's hope that she gets to the right one.

'Only God will judge me' (Reeva Steenkamp)

Oscar Pistorius Has GAD - GUILT Anxiety Disorder

Guilt and anxiety

(My first blog is ‘Who Put the Story in Pistorius?’; the second is ‘I Don’t Remember What I’ve Forgotten’).

So, for anyone out of the loop, who’s wondering whatever happened to the Pistorius trial, here’s an update.

The psychiatrist Dr/Ms Meryl Vorster (apologies if I have her name/title wrong – an internet search showed different spellings and a different title) testified for the defence that Pistorius has an anxiety disorder called GAD. Anyone heard of this before? Nope. It stands for Generalised Anxiety Disorder. Heard of it now? No. Hmm. My sister says ‘Guilt Anxiety Disorder more like’ (he’s guilty – he knows it, we know it, he knows we know it and now he’s a bit worried about it) and people on Twitter are saying it stands for ‘Get Another Defence’. Vorster claims he’s probably had it for years, that it might have stemmed from the amputation of his legs when he was so young, pre-language. Isn't it lucky that she’s been able to diagnose him with this just as he’s about to go down for murder? Anyway, it does exist (GAD is a long-term condition that causes you to feel anxious about a wide range of situations and issues, rather than one specific event – I’d call that long-term condition LIFE.) She didn’t even interview Pistorius until after he had been cross-examined and it was evident that nothing else the defence had tried had worked. She arrived at this conclusion by interviewing Pistorius and his family and friends. Great – they’re bound to be completely objective! They’re more likely to ask ‘So what can we do to get him out of this mess?’

As a toddler

Vorster doesn’t sound very credible to me. Asked to define ‘hyper-vigilant’ (I’m not sure why – isn’t it pretty obvious what it means?), she describes it as being over-vigilant (what a brilliant definition – that’s made it so much clearer – no, that’s not what hyper-vigilant means actually – it doesn’t mean that you’re more vigilant than the situation demands; it just means that you’re extra vigilant and it’s not necessarily a bad thing).

She’s asked about Oscar’s demeanour when she spoke to him and emphasises that he was crying and retching and that she believed his distress was genuine. I think Nel tried to get this dismissed as irrelevant – it is – and what’s more – it’s only her opinion. His distress might very well have been genuine – I just don’t think it has any bearing on his guilt. Anyone would be distressed after shooting in cold blood somebody they once professed to care about. You might assume that his distress was proof of his guilt.

She says that with a GAD sufferer, ‘if one is placed into an environment where one’s safety is at risk, levels of anxiety would increase’. Ok but wouldn’t that be true of anyone whether they had GAD or not? That’s not a symptom of a disorder; that’s a normal reaction to a situation, surely? I’m not convinced by her testimony simply because she comes out with nonsense like this.

Briefly happy

She says when facing danger, ‘we can either fight or flight’. ‘Flight’ isn’t a verb, love. It’s a noun. You mean ‘flee’. But I still don’t think that someone who was truly anxious would race towards the perceived danger but again this all presupposes a fact that hasn’t been established, that there was any danger at all to be anxious about. I hope that the judge does not lose sight of this. If you believe, like me, that Oscar heard nothing unusual, just chased his girlfriend into the bathroom to kill her, then whether he has GAD or not, is neither here nor there. We do not need then to question why, feeling anxious, he would go to confront the intruder because he knew all the time that there was no intruder. Let me stress again, for those of you who haven’t read my first two blogs, we only have Oscar’s word for it that he heard anything and that this led to him going for his gun. Given that there was no intruder, couldn’t we assume that he didn’t hear anything, that instead he cornered his girlfriend in the toilet in a moment of absolute fury?

I’m entertained once more by Sky’s reporting. Besides the use of words that don’t exist – my favourite is ‘negativate’ instead of ‘negate’ (yes, Llewellyn Curlewis, that was you) – now they say ‘Dr Meryl Vorster choosing to remain anonymous’. You just said her name – she’s not anonymous. She simply chose not to be shown on TV. What do they think it means?

Judge Masipa

Anyway, the doctor testifies that she’s seen Oscar’s anxiety increase over time – she’s only known him days so it must have been as his case disintegrated around him. Quite understandable. Vorster claims Pistorius’s ‘disorder’ does not constitute a mental illness that would require the judge to order a psychiatric examination so I’m at a loss as to why Nel would step in to insist that Oscar be referred for psychiatric assessment (particularly as his case is that Oscar murdered his girlfriend, not that he suffered from an illness that caused him to shoot an imaginary intruder; his case is that Oscar didn’t for a moment believe that there was an intruder); it seems to play right into Roux’s hands. And then I’m equally bemused as to why Roux would object, bleating that nothing in Vorster’s report suggested that Pistorius was ‘incapable of appreciating wrongfulness’. As usual, I completely disagreed with Sky’s experts who all maintained that this referral wasn’t Roux’s intention and that it was highly unlikely the judge would agree to it. I’m sure (and am right) that she will. And I’m pretty sure this was Roux’s intention. Then they said that this assessment would help the prosecution not the defence. I don’t get it. If it is proven that Oscar has any kind of mental health issue, he could get away with having killed Reeva. It could pave the way for an ‘insanity’ defence. He could be deemed ‘not criminally responsible’. (From judge’s decision: ‘The accused may not have raised the issue that he was not criminally responsible, but the issue raised on his behalf cannot be ignored’. Who raised it on his behalf? Nel.) People have said that Nel did this to avoid it being grounds for appeal later but I’m starting to believe my South African friend, starting to wonder if the whole trial is a farce, with a foregone conclusion, that there will be no justice for Reeva. He has said it’s simply a question of keeping the trial going so that everyone gets more money.

Roux and Nel truly adversaries?

As it stands, this is the equivalent of a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card for Oscar and a get-out clause for the rest of the court. It’s a win-win for the judge as it gets her out of her awkward position, between a rock and a hard place. Now she can pass the buck.

Nel is meanwhile becoming less and less articulate, saying things like ‘Oscar should not have been a firearm’ and ‘the psychiatric factors which is a mental illness’. Huh? And why is it that neither he nor the judge can pronounce psychiatric? In her decision, Masipa states ‘It is clear that Mr Pistorius has a psychiatric illness’ but this is almost the opposite of what Vorster said earlier (see above) unless we’re making some kind of esoteric distinction between mental and psychiatric. We only have a defence witness’s word for this. It isn’t clear at all. Doesn’t it seem incredibly convenient to her that this ‘illness’ should suddenly be diagnosed at this crucial point in his life and never really have been noticed before. And how many people with GAD have killed someone as a result of their illness?

Unsurprisingly, Oscar’s family is ‘comforted’ that the judge is being so ‘thorough’ and accepting as gospel the words of one psychiatrist. You betcha they’re comforted. I really feel for Reeva’s family; they must be despairing and starting to believe that justice will never be done with everyone abdicating their responsibility at the first opportunity. I pray that common sense and logic will prevail, that the lawyer with the best hand will win but it's starting to seem as if the cards have been marked, and that no one is acting as an advocate for Reeva.

Reeva Steenkamp deserves better

Oscar Pistorius: ‘I don’t remember what I’ve forgotten’

Oscar Pistorius

My first blog on the Pistorius trial, Who Put the Story in Pistorius? is here.

At this stage in the trial, we’re still left with more questions than answers. I pose some of these unanswered (and sometimes unasked) questions below. And I use quotes from the trial to try to investigate what’s really going on, what's really being said.

As Gerrie Nel has asked in many different ways: Why are there so many inconsistencies between what Oscar’s saying now and his bail application?

Oscar: ‘At certain times I didn’t feel I was in the wrong’/'Certain times I thought she was in the wrong’

Even when Oscar is trying to be even-handed about their disagreements, he still slips up and says that he wasn't in the wrong sometimes and Reeva was in the wrong sometimes. In other words, he was never wrong.

He won't ever admit that he lied, that he is telling a story. So he uses the word ‘whisper’ then denies he did even when it’s there in the trial transcript. (It’s a minor point to us but major to him because he believes a ‘soft tone’ would not require an answer but a whisper would – I’m not sure why.) He remains adamant. This tells us a lot about him. That he can lie and still swear he’s telling the truth to the court (remember he’s under oath for the duration of his testimony) over something so apparently insignificant might lead us to believe that he’s quite prepared to do the same on the bigger questions he’s asked.

If he ever owns to a fault, it’s always for something minor and he still manages to shift the real blame onto someone else. For instance, in the incident in the restaurant, his only error was to take a gun from a friend believing the friend would have ensured it was safe. In other words, it was the friend’s fault.

Reeva and Oscar

Misinformation 1

‘His alarm system wasn’t working properly’

This is an example of how lazy reporting can affect the actual content of the news. One Sky report actually began, rather misleadingly, with the words ‘His alarm system wasn’t working properly’ but this has never been established. It’s Oscar’s story that the last time painting was done, some sensors were removed temporarily but we have no evidence that this happened this time and only Oscar's word for it that he was worried – it’s just something the defence has brought up to support the intruder theory. So with the ladder. There was no ladder. How about Oscar’s dogs? Where were they? You would think that they’d bark if there was an intruder, if Reeva was screaming or when Oscar started shooting.

Misinformation 2

Alex Crawford about a witness: ‘She realised her balcony doors were open and she wanted to close them because there had been security concern among them’.

The witness actually said that said that she usually had these doors open ‘in the summer’ and closed the doors that particular night to stop her dogs getting out onto the balcony. Only after hearing someone calling for help did she worry about any danger to herself. Do you see what’s happened here? Alex Crawford has backed up the ‘story’, the perception that the estate was somehow unsafe, that Oscar was right to grab a gun.

Misinformation 3

Jeremy Thompson: ‘Oscar … described the moment when he discovered he’d shot and killed his girlfriend’

This statement unwittingly implies his innocence. He should have said Oscar ‘described the moment when he claims he discovered he’d shot and killed his girlfriend’.

Oscar: ‘I don’t remember what I’ve forgotten’

This sounds obvious but is in fact about what Oscar claims to have remembered and forgotten and not funny at all. He appears to have a particularly virulent case of selective amnesia. On the one hand, he’s a stickler for accuracy and can come across as pedantic when he continually corrects Nel and I wish the latter had capitalised on this more – at first I thought he was, by making deliberate, silly mistakes just to see if Oscar would pick up on them, which he inevitably did but Nel doesn't ask how Oscar can have such perfect, detailed recall of some things and be so incredibly vague about others.

Oscar needs to listen to Judge Judy (Sheindlin): 'If you tell the truth, you don't have to have a good memory.'

Oscar and Martyn Rooney

Why is it that Oscar can remember certain details of the time when he was shot at on the road, where he turned off, parked etc. but not who he called to pick him up when he was too scared to drive himself? If this had really happened, wouldn’t the defence have appealed to that person to come forward?

How is it that all the corroborating witnesses to the other gun charges back each other up on the basics and only Oscar remembers them differently? Why would Sam Taylor and Darren Fresco lie? The only other witness is Martyn Rooney. Will he be asked to testify?

‘Nothing was normal about that night’

This is Oscar’s fallback position when his ‘story’ doesn’t make sense. Every time it’s put to him that his behaviour isn’t rational or normal, he says this and it’s hard to dispute.

TMI

Alex Crawford: ‘Oscar’ was ‘clearly so tired. He didn’t sleep last night. When they did adjourn, he sat down on the floor of the dock and he was just sobbing and his family all surrounded him’ with a psychologist described as ‘trying to comfort him as a mother would a child’. Talk about editorialising.

This portrays Oscar as the helpless, blameless, tortured victim of circumstance, someone we should have sympathy with. And happens to be exactly the image he wants to convey.

Crime scene

The night of ‘the accident’ (as Oscar likes to call it, or occasionally ‘incident’)

The bedroom

Was the bedroom door still locked? Where was the key? Could Reeva even get out of the bedroom or was escape to the bathroom her only option?

When Oscar claims he heard a noise, why didn’t he ask Reeva whether she heard it too? 

Maybe it's just me but I'm sure I would have said to my partner 'Did you hear that?'

Why wasn’t he bothered by the fact that she never replied to him even though he’s sure she was awake?

Plan of bedroom/bathroom

The bathroom

If we assume that there were no sounds of a break-in and we can assume that since there was no break-in, why did Oscar arm himself? Well, Oscar claims he heard a noise but he has to say that otherwise there's no reason to do any of it.

Then, as there was no intruder, how did witnesses hear a woman’s bloodcurdling screams? Because Reeva was terrified for her life, so terrified that she ran and locked herself in the toilet with her cellphone. I’m not sure whether they have shown the results of the voice tests yet as I only see what they show on the TV. They've recently had witnesses (friends of Oscar's - see how easy it is to make an inference?) claim that they heard a high-pitched male voice cry out. Interestingly, they only asked the female witness to replicate this, not the male one. And why was Oscar never asked to do this? Then, I’m convinced that these defence witnesses probably did hear Oscar but this was after he’d shot Reeva, after he’d supposedly ‘discovered’ this and run back to the balcony to call for help. Nel needs to establish the exact timing.

Why would an intruder break in, then lock themselves in the toilet? They wouldn’t.

If an intruder did break in only to lock themselves in the toilet, would you be scared of them? How much of a danger could they pose? Especially if you’re the one with the weapon.

Why didn’t Oscar fire a warning shot? He had the presence of mind to consider the possibility of a ricochet hurting him, but not to fire a warning shot.

Why did Reeva not tell Oscar where she was when he came into the bathroom shouting with a gun?

Oscar: ‘That’s where the firearm was pointed’ (removes himself from the equation)

This is said as if he had no control over the gun. He was pointing it at the door.

Why did Reeva take her cellphone and lock herself into the toilet?

Detective Botha

Detective Botha: ‘If the shots were fired in rapid sequence ... I think it's highly unlikely that she would have been able to call out'

We don't know whether the shots were fired rapidly or not. Either way, Oscar is in trouble. If he shot quickfire, he meant to kill whoever was behind the door. If there was a break between shots, he would have heard Reeva’s screaming and therefore known it was her before he went on to fire more shots. Either way you could say there was intent to kill.

Oscar: ‘If that was after the first shooting’

This implies there was a gap between the shots, time for him to stop and think, make a decision, hear Reeva scream.

Why did the defence introduce the double-tap theory if they were going to discount it later? Because they thought it would help their case then realised it didn’t.

Why have they changed their position on Reeva’s screams? First, they claimed Oscar wouldn’t be able to hear them because his ears were ringing from firing the gun. Now they seem to be saying that the shots were so quickfire that Reeva would not have had time to scream. The story keeps changing.

Two-handed grip

How did Oscar fire four shots with the resulting bullet holes so close together? He claims he fired one-handed but the result suggests  a two-handed grip. With the former, you’d expect the bullet holes to be more scattered.

It seems from his own testimony that as soon as he went back into the bedroom, Oscar realised he had shot Reeva so why didn’t he call for an ambulance at this stage?

Oscar: ‘I sat over Reeva and I cried’/I don't know how long I was there for’

Presumably until she was no longer breathing and couldn’t implicate him.

So, in fact, I have three questions here. 1 Why did Oscar call Johan Stander (who he called 'uncle' so this implies they were pretty close) rather than emergency services? 2 When he rang Stander instead, why didn’t Stander call emergency services as soon as he learned Reeva had been shot? (This makes me think they had to get together to initiate a cover-up or begin damage control.) And 3 Why didn’t Nel ask Stander question 2? It seems to me that Nel is being distracted by detail a little and is not seeing the wood for the trees but it might be that he did ask this and it just wasn't shown on TV. I hope so.

Reasonable doubt

The commentators are saying that the judge only has to believe that one factor in the police investigation was flawed for this to cast a reasonable doubt over Oscar’s guilt but this is not relevant to whether or not he shot and killed Reeva (we know he did this even if he is reluctant to admit culpability; he is not attempting to deny this) and has no bearing on his intent. Whether the police moved a gun or a cricket bat an inch or so is of no matter to the question of guilt. I’m worried that the judge will drown in the sea of red herrings Roux has created – his tactic. I hope that Nel will make it clear what can safely, with impunity, be disregarded when he comes to his summing up.

Llewellyn Curlewis

Llewellyn Curlewis, Sky’s legal expert: ‘It clearly creates a possible mitigating argument regarding remorse … . After so many emotional outbursts, any human being - including the judge - might accept he was remorseful for what transpired’.

I don’t see what this has to do with whether he’s innocent or guilty. Remorse might indicate guilt but I don't think we can automatically assume that he’s upset because he’s remorseful although I’d like to believe that was the reason. It could well be that he’s upset about the very difficult situation he now finds himself in. And I’m sure he regrets the fact that he was responsible for Reeva’s death and feels grief for her but this doesn’t mean that he didn’t intend to kill her. I don't see how his remorse could have any influence on the judge's verdict. Maybe on sentencing.

Incidental

Oscar says that the weapon and ammunition are favoured by trail walkers in N. America as if it were common there. I’ve walked tons of trails in N. America and never even thought about taking a gun and I’ve never seen anyone else carrying one.

Is anyone else surprised by what is deemed as ‘evidence of an argument’ between Oscar and Reeva – blood and bullet holes? When I have an argument, the evidence might be an awkward silence or maybe a slammed door, not blood and bullet holes. I’d say it was a pretty major understatement to call this an argument.

Roger Dixon: ‘The instruments I used were my eyes’

I think the hapless Roger Dixon has been systematically dismantled as an ‘inexpert’ witness so will say no more except to highlight his quote above. A moment of light relief. It seems to me that he was trying to tell the truth, without realising that this would prejudice the defence case.

What we see is all filtered through the TV so the programme makers have a responsibility. It’s a matter of perception. If the presenters and experts perceive or choose to perceive a day in court a certain way, this is how it’s relayed to the public. Luckily, the judge will not be affected by any misrepresentation in the press.

Crime of passion

I think, like Sky’s legal expert, that Roux and Pistorius would have done much better to go for the crime of passion defence. Then, all Oscar’s previous reckless incidents with guns could actually be used to back up their case. They would reinforce that he was a trigger-happy hot-head who rushed headlong into trouble rather than trying to avoid it. With this in mind, they would do well to support the prosecution’s stand that he was so easily spooked that he was liable to go into ‘Code Red’ or combat mode over the noise of a washer-dryer.

So what really happened? I think that Oscar was annoyed that Reeva had met up with her ex a couple of days before Valentine’s Day. Maybe he discerned that she’d discussed their relationship with him. From all accounts, he was insecure, prone to jealousy, controlling and likely to fly off the handle. Perhaps she lost her desire to continually placate him, evident in texts like this ‘Please let me know when I can talk to you’ and decided at some point during the course of the night that their relationship would not work. Maybe this all built up into a terrible argument. As he admits, Reeva was not afraid to stand up for herself. But she didn’t expect that their quarrel would turn violent. I think he chased her in an uncontrollable rage.

What astounds me is that Oscar Pistorius wants to come out of this as a misguided hero who loved his girlfriend and only wanted to protect her from harm. And what might astound me more is that he might just get away with it.

You have to ask yourself why no one else’s version of events matches Oscar’s. And the answer could be that his is a completely manufactured scenario.

Reeva Steenkamp - Rest in Peace

Oscar’s neighbour on meeting Reeva Steenkamp for the first time: ‘I raised my hand to greet her and she just opened her arms’

Here's the full quote: ‘The thing that really struck me about her and I don't think I’ll ever forget that moment. I raised my hand to greet her and she just opened her arms. She just came and hugged me.’

I don't think I need to add anything to this – it’s a simple testament to how warm and open she was.