Thursday, September 11, 2014

Oscar Pistorius found not guilty of murder....'Really'?...Didn't We Predict That ?

Judge finds Oscar Pistorius not guilty of murder but calls athlete 'negligent' in shooting Reeva Steenkamp and will rule on 'manslaughter' charge tomorrow 


Oscar Pistorius sits in the Pretoria High Court
 
Oscar Pistorius cries while the verdict is being read by Judge Thokozile Masipa 
Perhaps they 're tears of joy because he got away with murder


When court proceedings resume tomorrow, Judge Masipa will rule on whether Pistorius is guilty of culpable homicide, which is roughly equivalent to manslaughter in UK and North American law.
If she finds him guilty, he could be handed down - at a later date - anything from a suspended sentence to 15 years in prison. 

 Oscar PistoriusJudge Thokozile Masipa

 Key quotes from Judge Masipa

 A selection of key quotes from the judge:
• On the state's case
"The state clearly has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder."
"Viewed in its totality, the evidence failed to establish that the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased, let alone with premeditation."
"The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder."
• On Pistorius's actions
"He took a conscious decision, he knew where he kept his firearm and he knew where his bathroom was. This is inconsistent with lack of criminal capacity."
"The intention to shoot however does not necessarily include the intention to kill."
"Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
• On Pistorius's own testimony
"The accused was a very poor witness."
"The accused was, amongst other things an evasive witness."
"He failed to listen properly to questions put to him under cross-examination, giving the impression that he was more worried by the impact his answers might cause rather than the questions asked."
• On testimony from neighbours
"Most witnesses had their facts wrong."
"I am of the view that they failed to separate what they knew personally or what they heard from other people or what they gathered from the media."
On the relevance of documented rows and expressions of love between Pistorius and Steenkamp:
"Neither the evidence of the loving relationship or a relationship turned sour can assist this court to determine whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased."

 Pistorius leaves court 

Pistorius left court, after speaking on his phone and huddling with family members following the adjournment. He was met with a media scrum outside and bustled through by security guards.

Oscar Pistorius
Pistorius stands to hear verdict 
Oscar Pistorius
Is that a slightly gloating expression?
Oscar Pistorius
Bodyguards escort Pistorius out of the court
Carl Pistorious
Pistorius' brother arrives in wheelchair for dramatic trial conclusion

 Confusion over verdict

In finding Pistorius to be negligent, Judge Masipa appeared to suggest that he foresaw consequences of firing shots though the door - which would contradict her earlier ruling against 'dolus eventualis', or murder without premeditation. The decision seems to rest on the difference between 'did' foresee the consequences of firing through the door, and 'should have' forseen the consequences.
The prior would involve a charge of murder and the second a charge of culpable homicide, which she will rule on tomorrow.
 
June and Barry Steenkamp
Reeva's family leaves court

 Court adjourns - Pistorius 'negligent'

Judge Masipa said Pistorius "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and was "negligent". She didn't, however, find him guilty of culpable homicide. She adjourned until tomorrow, when she will deliver a verdict. 

 Pistorius's background as mitigation

Judge Masipa acknowledged Pistorius's upbringing around violence - with a mother who carried a gun - as mitigation for his actions. But, she added, many people in South Africa grew up around violence and do not sleep with a gun under their bed.
She also said that had he woken up and seen an intruder hovering next to the bed and fired immediately, that would be understandable.
However, Pistorius had time to evaluate the situation, she said.

 Pistorius 'had many other options' - judge

Judge Masipa acknowledged the psychiatirc evaluation that Pistorius is a 'fight' rather than 'flight' character, but said he had many other options rather than fire: to call security or the police, or to scream from the balcony "as he screamed after the incident".

Court resumes

Judge Masipa began immiediately with a discourse on the verdict of culpable homicide. She cited case law, but added that it is right to assume that the reasonable man evolves with the time. "What was reasonable in 1933 is not neccessarily reasonable now". 

 Families react to murder acquittal

The families of both Pistorius and Steenkamp have endured a rollercoaster of emotion during the trial and summation. Here they are reacting to the judge clearing Pistorius of the murder charges.
 
 
The father of Oscar Pistorius, Henke, right, kisses the hand of his daughter (Phill Magakoe/AFP)
 
The parents of victim Reeva Steenkamp, June and Barry (Phill Magakoe/AFP)

 Court still out for lunch

After an unusually long lunch break, more than an hour and a half,  Prosecutor Gerrie Nel and Barry Roux went into judge's chambers. 

 Complex decision on 'dolus eventualis' 

Judge Masipa's ability to clear Pistorius of murder rests on her decision to restrict the finding of 'dolus eventualis' or murder without premeditation - meaning that Pistorius could have foreseen that the shots he fired through the door would kill someone 
Masipa concluded that the evidence failed to conclude that Pistorius foresaw he would kill someone in firing through the door, ruling out the lesser murder charge.
Some legal expects are suggesting that her decision applies dolus eventualis solely to the scenario that it was Steenkamp behind the door and not an intruder.
This could conceivably be subject to an appeal by the state following the verdict.

Was this a miscarriage of justice ? Personally, I think it was a politically safe verdict for the judge. Pistorius' father is a powerful presence in the political and legal annals of South Africa and Oscar is a national hero. Let's wait and see what the sentence is before we decide if the judge is just interested in protecting her judicial ass.

Oscar Pistorius

The media circus continues....as it has for the last six months

Court Proceedings as They Occurred From Last to First:

 1.15pm: Judge Masipa is back in court after a lunch break and is looking at the charge of culpable homicide. The question is whether or not Pistorius acted as a "reasonable" person would in the same situation. In the "reasonableness" test, the court must take into account the accused's background, level of education and gender. The defence has argued that Pistorius's disability should be taken into account when judging if he acted "reasonably".
Masipa says there were other paths that Pistorius could have taken rather than reaching for his firearm, such as calling security or the police, or screaming from his balcony for help. Masipa agrees that Pistorius's conduct might be better understood by looking at his background, but she says this serves only as an explanation not an excuse. Many people in South Africa have been victims of violent crime, she says, but they have not resorted to "sleeping with firearms under their pillows".
The judge says she is "not persuaded" that a reasonable person with the accused's disabilities would have fired four shots into that small toilet cubicle and says they would have foreseen that whoever was behind the door might have been struck by a bullet and die. Pistorius knew there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm and was competent in the use of firearms as he had undergone some training, she says. The judge says it is her view that Pistorius acted "too hastily" and used "excessive force". It is clear that Pistorius was negligent, she says.
11.30am: Masipa looks at whether Pistorius could have subjectively foreseen that Steenkamp was behind the closed door when he fired the shots. She says the evidence does not support the state's contention that he did. From the onset, the accused believed at the time that the deceased was in the bedroom, she says. Masipa notes that he immediately told the first witnesses at the crime scene that he had thought Steenkamp was an intruder and was genuinely distraught. She adds that Pistorius "did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased". Judge Masipa says Pistorius cannot be found guilty of murder dolus eventualis, a legal term for the accused being aware of the outcome of his or her action.
11.15am: Masipa says the essential question is whether or not there is reasonable doubt that Pistorius intended to kill on 14 February 2013. On the count of premeditated murder, the judge says the evidence is "purely circumstantial" and that the state has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Pistorius is guilty of premeditated murder.
Masipa says Pistorius was a "very poor witness". He was composed and logical in evidence in chief, but lost his composure under cross-examination. She says it does not make sense to argue this was because he was suffering from emotional distress because his initial evidence could not be faulted. He was an "evasive witness", she says, and appeared to be more worried about the impact of his answers than the answers themselves. However, she says, untruthfulness in a testimony does not necessarily prove guilt.
Masipa says Steenkamp was killed under "peculiar" circumstances and some aspects "do not make sense". Why did Pistorius not ascertain if Steenkamp had heard the perceived burglar or his own calls for her to phone the police, asks Masipa. She points out that Steenkamp had her phone with her in the toilet, yet never called the police.
10.50am: Judge Masipa says that "without a doubt" the court is "dealing with a plethora of defences". First, she says, is whether Pistorius lacked criminal capacity at the time he killed the deceased. The judge points to his mental health evaluation which found that he "did not suffer from a mental illness or defect that would have rendered him criminally not responsible for the offence charged". She disagrees with the defence's claim that a reflex reaction is similar to lacking capacity. Pistorius, by his own admission, decided to arm himself and go to the bathroom, she says. This was a "conscious" decision and inconsistent with the lack of criminal capacity defence. Masipa says she is satisfied that the accused could distinguish between right and wrong and act in accordance with that distinction at the time of the killing.
Masipa turns to the defence of putative self-defence, where the accused uses reasonable means to defend himself against a genuinely held fear of attack. She notes that Pistorius's testimony was "contradictory". Masipa also points out that Pistorius is not unique in being more vulnerable to danger. She says it would not be reasonable to say that women, children and others with limited mobility should arm themselves.
10.00am: Masipa says the next question is: can the version of the accused be "reasonably, possibly true"? She dismisses some of the arguments put forward by the state. First, she rejects the prosecution's argument that Steenkamp would have simply taken her phone to the toilet in the night. Masipa says Steenkamp might have done so for a number of reasons.
The judge also dismisses both the loving and angry WhatsApp messages between Pistorius and Steenkamp in the lead up to her death. Human beings are "fickle", she says, and normal relationships are "dynamic and unpredictable" sometimes. The court has therefore refrained from making inferences one way or another from any of the messages.
The court has also decided not to make any inferences from the fact that Steenkamp may have had food in her stomach at the time of her death. Masipa says that even the experts note that the evidence is inconclusive so it is not certain that Steenkamp ate two hours before her death, as the prosecution claimed. The state claimed that Steenkamp went down to eat amid an argument with Pistorius overheard by neighbour Estelle van der Merwe. Masipa says that Van der Merwe did not know where the argument came from or even what language it was in, so there was no proof that this was linked to the events in Pistorius's home.
Masipa turns to the testimony of Pistorius and says it is not quite clear whether he intended to shoot or not. She reads several quotes in which the athlete describes the exact moments that he fired the gun. Over the course of the trial, he has claimed it was "an accident", that he "never intended to kill anyone" and that he "did not have time to think before firing". However, Masipa says part of the evidence is "inconsistent with someone who shot without thinking". Pistorius released the safety mechanism on the gun and shot into the door, although told the court that if he wanted to shoot someone he would have "aimed" higher. At one point in the trial, Pistorius said: "The accident was that I discharged my firearm in the belief an intruder was coming out to attack me."
9.45am: The judge says she accepts the defence's timeline of events, in which they argue the shots were fired at around 3.12am. The screams, heard in the following minutes, were then likely to be Pistorius rather than Steenkamp. The noises heard at 3.17am were then likely to be the sound of Pistorius knocking down the door with a cricket bat rather than gunshots. Judge Masipa uses the timeline of objective facts to test witness statements. She shows that some witnesses got their times wrong or mistakenly believed the cricket bat to be gunshots.
9.30am: Judge Masipa suggests that the screams neighbours believed came from a woman, could have in fact come from Pistorius. She notes that none of the witnesses – even Pistorius's former girlfriend Samantha Taylor – had heard the athlete scream when faced with a life-threatening situation. The shots were fired in quick succession and Steenkamp probably did not breathe for more than a few seconds after being shot in the head, suggesting that Steenkamp was not the one screaming, she says.
The judge discusses the reliability of witness statements, noting that many "got their facts wrong" with some neighbours "genuinely mistaken" in what they heard. She says that the evidence of Michelle Burger and her husband was "unreliable", but says they were not dishonest. Other witnesses were "disadvantaged" by the huge media attention as they had researched the case, she says. The "probability" is that some witnesses failed to separate what they knew personally, what they had heard from other people and what they had gathered from the media, she says.
"Human beings are fallible and depend on memories which fail over time," says Masipa. But she says that the court is in the "fortunate position" that it can rely on evidence from technology, such as phone records, which is more reliable than human perception and memory. The judge says it would be unwise to rely on any evidence by any of the witnesses without testing them against the objective facts.
9.00am: Judge Thokozile Masipa outlines the charges against Pistorius. He is accused of murdering Steenkamp, as well as two counts of discharging firearms in public and one count of illegal possession of ammunition. She then outlines the defence, which is that the athlete denies shooting Steenkamp intentionally and believed there was an intruder in his bathroom who posed a threat to him and the deceased.
Masipa states the facts related to the murder charge on which both sides agree. On 14 February 2013, shortly after 3am, screams were heard from the accused's house. While on stumps, Pistorius fired four shots into the toilet door. The deceased was inside the toilet, which was locked from the inside. Three of the four struck the deceased. She sustained wounds on her side, arm, head and web of her fingers. Steenkamp died of multiple gunshot wounds. Soon after the shots were fired, the accused called for help and used a cricket bat to break down the door. He took Steenkamp downstairs, was very emotional and was seen trying to resuscitate the deceased.
The judge notes that it would be "fruitless" to rehash all the detailed evidence, which goes into "thousands of pages", but says it had all been taken into consideration. She adds that some issues had taken up a lot of the court's time – which was correct to do so – but which now "pale into insignificance" in the context of all the evidence as a whole. This included whether or not police contaminated the scene, the length of an extension cord that went missing from the crime scene and the authenticity of items in various police exhibits.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Through this ever open gate
None come too early
None too late
Thanks for dropping in ... the PICs