Are They Taking the Pistorius? Thoughts on the Sentencing

Oscar with gun

First of all, I'd like to say to all the Pistorius supporters out there, that I didn't want to believe someone who had overcome so much to achieve so much, could do something so evil but the facts speak for themselves. In my previous blogs, I've looked at some of the questions that have not been answered, for instance why Reeva was fully clothed, why she took two phones to the bathroom with her, why Oscar told security that there was nothing wrong after he'd shot and killed her. If we accept Oscar's account, there are no satisfactory answers to these questions. Now for my thoughts on the sentencing hearing.

1 So-called remorse
Whether Pistorius has remorse or not is moot and should not affect his sentence. He should be sentenced for what he’s convicted of: murder. June and Barry Steenkamps’ forgiveness is no indicator of Oscar Pistorius’s remorse but rather a reflection of their religious beliefs and should not impact on his sentence. It does not absolve or exonerate him. He still has to be punished appropriately. He attempted to contact Reeva’s family once, right at the start of the trial when they were in no mood to consider it. He has neither admitted to, nor apologised for, killing Reeva. See the words he uses to downplay the murder. We’re expected to consider the fact that Oscar has paid 6,500 rand per month for 17 months to the Steenkamps as part of a civil lawsuit evidence of remorse and are told that he doesn’t want it back. Wow. What a hero.

Feeling very sorry for yourself is not the same as remorse.

Nel and Roux

2 Mental fitness/expert witness
The expert witness, Jonathan Scholtz, who the press for some reason (I don't know why, ask Sky) are assuming is independent is a witness for the Defence, supplied and briefed by Barry Roux. He's about as independent as Arnold Pistorius, or Uncle Arnold as Alex Crawford calls him. This is why Gerrie Nel had to cross-examine him, which he did rather ham-fistedly. His testimony is that Oscar is a 'broken man' not fit to testify. This is the man who was seen partying while out on bail and is rumoured to have a pregnant girlfriend. Despite the court proving the contrary after Oscar was evaluated by professionals, he asserts that Oscar is suffering from PTSD and other anxiety disorders. See my blog on General Anxiety Disorder or what I like to call Guilt Anxiety Disorder. He might be stressed, even a bit depressed. That would be a natural reaction to his situation. If he's mentally fit enough to put on a display for the court and to appear in a TV interview, he's fit enough to be questioned.

3 Press bias
At least the press have finally started to call the killing of Reeva a murder rather than an incident. Despite the court's findings, the ‘expert’ still refers to the killing as ‘the incident’. He’s been convicted of ‘murder’. The only reason you wouldn’t call it this is if you were biased. And I know that the court didn't find that Oscar intended to kill Reeva in particular, just whoever was behind the door (although I believe he did intend to kill her - see Who Put the ‘Story’ in Pistorius?). Barry Roux goes even further, calling it an 'alleged incident'. Surely no one doubts that it actually took place?  See my previous blogs. But Alex Crawford of Sky News still shows much more sympathy for Oscar and his family than for the Steenkamps, criticising June Steenkamp for 'harbouring a lot of anger over many years' and being surprised that 'she is a woman who's been very affected by her daughter's death'. Crawford makes it sound as if June were completely unreasonable. She comments on the nasty people glaring at poor Oscar.

Barry Steenkamp's pain

4 Barry and June Steenkamp
Barry Steenkamp's testimony had me in tears. I always cry when I think about what Reeva went through, how much pain and fear she was in. He said: 'I want the world to see. I want the world to see the photos of the wounds inflicted on her. To know my daughter’s pain. To know what her last few seconds were like, so that this is stopped - so that others do not have to go through this ever', adding 'Oscar has to pay for what he did'.

5 Oscar's disability
Making Oscar walk on his stumps is a shameless attempt by the Defence to elicit sympathy in the hope of convincing Judge Masipa to deliver a lighter sentence. But if Oscar is really this unstable on his stumps, how was he able to race to the bathroom and hold the gun steady enough to fire the fatal shots? There's talk of 'restorative justice', 'time served', etc. But, listening to the evidence, in prison, Oscar had access to what amounts to a personal gym, supplements on demand and so forth. Unfortunately, we know that Masipa is easily swayed and can't distinguish lies from truth. Anyway, didn't his Mum tell him he could do anything an able-bodied person could do? That includes accepting his punishment.

6 Judge Masipa
I'm really not sure why it falls to the judge who got the original verdict wrong to decide and pronounce the sentence. She's already shown that she doesn't have a good grasp of what the trial is about, let alone what has been proved and what hasn't. See my blog comparing her to Judge Judy. Is this typical of SA justice?

Oscar in TV interview

7 TV interview - some observations
I'm not sure that a convicted murderer should be allowed to do a TV interview to get his story across. This proves another exercise in 'poor me'-ism (Oscar is well practised by now), in which Oscar continually seesaws between accepting and denying responsibility. The frequent inclusion of 'at this point', 'at that point' is telling as it is commonly used by people who are lying (a giveaway) as they need to continually remind themselves of the order in which the events they're fabricating happened and need to establish a credible narrative for the listener but as Judge Judy always says, 'If you tell the truth, you don't need to have a good memory'. See ‘I don’t remember what I’ve forgotten’. Oscar says 'at that/this point' at least six times in his description of what happened.

It becomes apparent in the course of the interview that he's still hopeful that he can come across as a hero who put himself in harm's way to protect Reeva.

Crime scene photos of Reeva

He contradicts himself as he's done throughout: 'I knew (at that point) I had killed her'. 'I knew (at that point) she was dead'. Then: 'I thought that she was breathing'. Which is it?

There's a degree of self-absorption when he talks about 'the pain that it's caused my family' before adding 'the pain that it's caused Reeva's family'. Oscar is still alive and Reeva is dead. Which family is suffering more?

The tears he tries to squeeze out are about as convincing as a child feigning illness to get off school. His Defence team advised against the interview but Oscar always thinks he knows best. See NPD below.

Of the incident in Tasha's, he says 'I took responsibility for that'. In fact, he never did. He said: 'I didn't pull the trigger.'

As so many times before, he tries to eliminate his own agency in Reeva's death, saying 'How can this have happened?' It didn't just happen. He made it happen. Then: 'I'd only contributed positively to people's lives before this tragedy happened.' His reversion to his old habit of distancing himself from his actions with his language has crept back in. Back to remorse - he can't really feel remorse for something that he thinks 'just happened'.

He says 'I don't want to go to jail'. Newsflash: No one wants to go to jail.

Reeva as a child

Oscar places a strange emphasis on something that doesn't seem relevant. He tells us he asked Reeva to close the doors and switch off the telly. Then he reminds us: 'The sliding doors were still open. She'd forgotten to close them.' Later, he says: 'Why didn't I close the door?' then 'Why didn't Reeva close the door?' Why is he so obsessed with this? Is he trying to say that an intruder came into the bedroom through the sliding doors, but then got taken short so had to cut through the bedroom to use the toilet before proceeding with the burglary? It's interesting how many times Oscar mentions Reeva's failure to do what she was asked. Then he says: 'Why didn't she shout at me?' Now that is a valid question. Why? I'll say it again - of course she was shouting at him, pleading with him for her life, petrified. It makes my blood run cold to think about it.

Black Talon ammunition

Unbelievably, he expects sympathy because a lady made a scene and he had to leave a supermarket. It doesn't really equate to being shot four times with Black Talon ammunition. Get some perspective.

Oscar says: 'If I was afforded the opportunity of redemption I would like to help the less fortunate like I had in my past. I would like to believe that if Reeva could look down upon me, that she would want me to live that life'.

I believe that Reeva would want to ensure that someone as volatile as Oscar was put somewhere where he couldn't harm anyone else. After all, she was a passionate activist for women's causes. She would want the sentence to serve as a deterrent to Oscar himself and to any other men who kill their partners (an average of three a day in South Africa).

Before this, he has deliberately used words that fail to convey the enormity of what he did: 'I made a mistake', 'I fired my gun. It was an accident.' He fails to see the contradiction here.

I do think it's possible that Oscar has either an antisocial personality disorder (i.e. a sociopath) or  a narcissistic personality disorder. See what you think.

Sociopaths are often popular as they can be charismatic but they have little or no empathy and are very self-involved. They tend to blame others when things go wrong. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly but seldom feel guilt or learn from punishment.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Young Reeva

Conclusion - Please read this, Judge Masipa
Imagine. Imagine Reeva and Oscar had argued (not because of her ex but because of the call he made to his ex, on the phone that disappeared and was returned, wiped, after two weeks), that he was furious (probably because she was about to walk out on him). She ran from him, perhaps not realising she was running for her life, locked herself in the toilet to call for help, heard him charging after her, shouting 'Get the fuck out of my house!', possibly with the intention that a neighbour would hear this line and be persuaded that there actually was an intruder. Imagine, like her parents do, although they must wish they couldn't, the fear, the absolute terror she must have felt. And then the dreadful pain as the Black Talon bullets tore through her body. Did she live to see him break down the door? Did she understand that he would not call for help till she was dead?

Reeva was robbed of the chance to fulfil her potential, to do good in society as she planned. She wasn't a hero. But she still could be. If the judge can pass a sentence that reflects the heinous nature of this terrible crime, one that discourages other trigger-happy control freaks from attempting the same thing, that demonstrates that even the rich and famous cannot get away with it, then she will have achieved something great and her death won't have been in vain. Please, Judge Masipa, do the right thing.

She was just a sweet-natured, kind-hearted girl who fell for the wrong guy. Rest in Peace, Reeva.

'Carefree, bubbly - she'd just walk into a room and light it up' Reeva Steenkamp RIP

For my blog on another murder, see JonBenet Ramsey – The Ramseys 'In Their Own Words'.

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.

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)