The Truth about the Pistorius Trial: Why Oscar's in Limbo

Oscar and Reeva

What is undisputed

Every eight hours a woman is killed by her partner in South Africa. This is a terrifying statistic. They do it because they know they can get away with it.

Reeva had only been seeing Oscar for three months when he shot and killed her.

Judge Masipa's ruling

I did try to guess which way the Judge would go in my blog, 'Pistorius Verdict - What Will It Be?'. I couldn't have predicted the illogical conclusions she somehow reached.

Masipa said the charge of premeditated murder was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was purely circumstantial: 'There are just not enough facts to support such a finding.'

(She ignores the main and most relevant fact, that Reeva was shot and killed by Oscar.)

I don't agree with her as anyone who's read my blog will know. I believe this was murder, not premeditated because I don't think he's a cold-blooded killer but a crime of passion, committed on the spur of the moment but committed with deliberate intent.

Reeva Steenkamp

Masipa also ruled out a lesser murder charge, saying

'Clearly [Pistorius] did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom.' (I'll ignore her poor grammar)

How can she rule this out? What does she think he thought would happen if he repeatedly shot at someone, confined to such a small space, with Black Talon ammunition? Isn't it probable that death would result? Couldn’t he have foreseen this? Not according to Masipa. Her statement presupposes that Pistorius is telling the truth (although she says she finds him 'untruthful'), that he actually believed an intruder had taken the trouble to break in and lock themselves in the toilet, that he was shouting at Reeva, who he believed to be in the bedroom to call the police, that for some reason, she didn’t respond to this to say ‘It’s only me, Oscar’. If he really did kill Reeva in cold blood, he'd be perfectly capable of lying about it. Does she believe that white, famous people don't lie? Not even to save their skins?

Oscar's gun wishlist

But then she also said this, which is surely a direct contradiction.

'A reasonable person, with a similar disability, would have foreseen that the person behind the door would be killed, and the accused failed to take action to avoid this.'

So what does she mean, how did she come to her judgment when she holds these conflicting opinions of exactly the same event?

Then, having conceded he's untruthful, she  claims this is irrelevant. How can this be irrelevant? It goes to the very heart of the case. If she's aware that he's lying, why does she take his word for so many things? Her reasoning is at fault.

In choosing what to consider or reject in the testimony, she’s almost overwhelmingly discounted the inconsistencies in Oscar’s story and any proof of his extreme volatility and tendency to violence and continually given him the benefit of the doubt, which leads her to a verdict of culpable homicide, essentially negligence:

'Pistorius was "negligent" when he killed Steenkamp.'

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Negligence 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. 

Schedule: I've commented in another blog that the judge's primary concern seemed to be when they would break for tea and a desire not to see proceedings go on too long. It worried me that everyone seemed to believe the trial should only take a couple of weeks and that it would be a failing if it were to run over. Surely it takes as long as it takes.

Judge Judy: 'If it doesn't make sense, it usually isn't true'

Discounted evidence: Also, because the police investigation didn't follow proper protocol, evidence has been discounted which could shed light on what happened. For instance, the medication and the needles. Weren't these even photographed in position? Don't they have CSI in South Africa? You only have to watch one show to know this. Oscar's team has claimed that this was a herbal remedy and no one has investigated it further. I don't know of any herbal remedy that you inject. Why hasn't anyone asked what it was? It really struck me that the judge didn't ask any questions at all. Judge Judy would have systematically dismantled Oscar's story - see my 'Would Judge Judy Have Done a Better Job?' blog.

Oscar's story: Masipa deems it highly improbable that he could have made all this up so quickly. Why is it improbable? He didn't really have a choice. It's not as if it's a particularly credible story. And she  believes the screams came from Oscar even though there’s no evidence to back this up.

Reeva: A Mother's Story by June Steenkamp

Reeva: A Mother's Story: I've just finished June Steenkamp's book about Reeva. It's horrible to think how afraid Reeva was and how much she suffered. I'm not sure that I could forgive the person who caused all that pain. She said that she hoped the trial would help to unearth the truth of what happened the 'night of the accident' as Oscar and his press cronies like to call it. She's disappointed but I don't think she should be. Any reasonable person watching the case unfold knows what happened. It simply wasn’t reflected in the verdict.

Below I've tried to provide answers (however unpalatable) to some of the unanswered (and often unasked) questions that concerned me watching the trial. For myself. For June and Barry.

Question: Why would an intruder break in, then lock themselves in the toilet? This makes no sense. We all know what Judge Judy would say, say it with me: 'If it doesn't make sense, it usually isn't true.'

Answer: There was no intruder. Reeva ran from Oscar and locked herself in the toilet, afraid for her life.

[More on ‘If it doesn’t make sense, it usually isn’t true.’
Here’s an example from Barry Roux. He purports that a neighbour would not have been able to hear shots from Pistorius’s house and then suggests to the same woman’s husband that the sounds he heard were Pistorius trying to break the toilet door down with a cricket bat. If his case is that she wouldn’t be able to hear gunfire, how does he think that her husband could have heard a cricket bat hitting a door? Why doesn't Nel question any of this?]

Early photo shoot

Question: If an intruder did break in only to lock themselves in the toilet, would you be scared of them, especially if you're the one with the weapon?

Answer: It would be highly unlikely. Let’s first remember that Masipa has confirmed that Oscar was not suffering from GAD (but she doesn't seem sure of this, or anything, see below and my blog, Oscar Pistorius Has GAD). He was the one with the power, with the firearm. In an absolute rage, he chased and shot Reeva when she was utterly defenceless.

Question: Although the court found that Pistorius did not have GAD, why does Masipa say:

‘It is clear that Mr Pistorius has a psychiatric illness’.

Answer: I'm really not sure. It shows that she hasn't really understood the result of his psychiatric evaluation. Or is she just looking for another excuse to let him go?

Question: 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.

Answer: He didn’t intend to scare an intruder away –  he knew there was no intruder and that Reeva was trapped in the toilet. He intended to kill whoever was behind the door. And he knew he was firing at Reeva.

Loving-hearted

Question: At this stage, having trapped ‘the intruder’ and having the upper hand, why didn’t he attempt to call for help, either from security or the police?

Answer: Because he knew that he was in no actual danger, that it was Reeva behind the door and that she was unarmed and scared to death.

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

Answer: She must have called to him and was probably screaming in fear and pleading for her life. 

Question: Once Oscar (claims he finally) realised that he had shot Reeva, why didn’t he call emergency services? Instead, his story has him breaking the door down with a cricket bat, then he says: 'I sat over Reeva and I cried'. ‘I don't know how long I was there for'.

Answer: He couldn’t run the risk of calling for help until she was dead and could no longer implicate him because he would be charged with attempted murder. There could be no witnesses. This is the only thing that makes sense.

Three months earlier

Question: Why did Oscar call ‘Uncle’ Johan Stander rather than the emergency services?

Answer: See above. Part of the answer is in the question. He knew that his friend would begin damage limitation for him.

Question: Why didn't Stander call the emergency services as soon as he learned Reeva had been shot?

Answer: See above. He needed time to orchestrate the cover-up. 

Question: Which of these statements is true? ‘She wasn’t breathing’ as he found Reeva in the toilet or ‘She was struggling to breathe’. And, if the latter is true, why didn't he call for help?

Answer: He had to let her die but he still wants to be seen as a hero for trying to revive her.

Question: There was another phone that was never investigated. Why didn't Pistorius give this phone to the police?

Answer: There must have been something on the phone he didn't want them to see.

I'm glad that June Steenkamp points out some of the inconsistencies in Oscar's 'story' (see my blog 'Who Put the Story in Pistorius?'). Plus I discovered several facts that were new to me from reading the book, discussed below.

Oscar had insisted Reeva stay alone in his house over Christmas and New Year. This means that he didn't feel it was dangerous for a lone woman to look after his property while he was away. We have to assume that he wouldn't have done this if he thought there were any actual risk to Reeva. This rather belies his so-called GAD as does the next point.

There was a broken window he didn't think was worth fixing. Surely, if he really were concerned about security, he would have arranged for someone to repair this.

There might have been a stray ladder in his garden. See above.

 

Reeva took two cell phones to the bathroom. We're supposed to believe that she took a phone to light the way because a bulb was out but why would she take two? The probable reason is she wanted to call for help. Or that one of the phones was Oscar's?

Det. Hilton Botha

[Botha said that two iPhones and two BlackBerrys had been found at the scene and none had been used to call the police or paramedics. This implies Reeva didn't have a chance to call anyone before Oscar chased and shot her.]

Masipa said that Reeva could have had her phone with her for a number of reasons but to pick one was to delve into the realm of speculation. It's all speculation, isn't it? Because if Oscar deliberately killed her, he's not going to tell us and he made sure that Reeva can't say anything.

[Roux said that Botha had not asked to look at another of Pistorius's phones - the one Oscar did use to call for medical help. 'That call was made at 3.20am', according to Roux. Botha replied that Pistorius had not told him about this other phone.]

Reeva's valentine to Oscar

Oscar had not bought Reeva a Valentine. Although everyone knows about Reeva’s Valentine for Oscar, he had not got her anything. Why?

Reeva was OCD about tidiness. It's extremely unlikely that she would have left her jeans on the floor so why were they there? Is this evidence of a cover-up?

Reeva intended to leave and had packed her clothes. This implies that she might have broken up with him. Perhaps he could not bear to be rejected.

[Roux said that Steenkamp might have locked the toilet door to protect herself when she heard Pistorius shouting that there was a burglar.

He also said there were two dogs in the yard outside.

If there was an intruder (and we know there wasn’t so this very fact makes Oscar’s story very suspect), wouldn’t the dogs have barked? Why hasn't anyone asked about this?]

A kiss goodbye

For more on the media's response to the trial, which I feel has been singularly biased, see my blog, Oscar Pistorius: ‘I don’t remember what I’ve forgotten’.

Now it seems that Oscar is in limbo while the powers that be in South African justice decide his fate. Some might say that he's halfway to his ultimate destination.