Reeva Steenkamp: To the living we owe respect but to the dead we owe only the truth

September 13, 2014

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Good afternoon:

The Guardian is reporting today:

The parents of Reeva Steenkamp expressed anger and disbelief on Friday after Oscar Pistorius was formally acquitted of their daughter’s murder, insisting: “Justice was not served.”

Amid growing discontent in South Africa at the verdict, the Steenkamps criticised judge Thokozile Masipa for being too lenient on the athlete, who was instead convicted of culpable homicide, the South African equivalent of manslaughter, and granted bail.

“This verdict is not justice for Reeva,” her mother, June Steenkamp, told NBC News. “I just want the truth.”

I agree.

Yesterday, I identified the core weakness in Judge Masipa’s decision acquitting Oscar Pistorius of murder and convicting him of culpable (manslaughter) homicide.

Under South African law, however, a judge cannot base a verdict on circumstantial evidence alone unless no inference except guilt can reasonably be drawn from it.

Her conclusion makes sense when viewed through the prism of the legal rules that she applied. However, it makes no sense to be forced into accepting a liar’s statement about his knowledge and intent when it is contrary to common experience and he has a powerful motive to lie.

I did not believe Oscar Pistorius because he lied during much of his testimony and I do not believe his story about shooting into the cubicle without making certain she was not there. He should not benefit because he killed the only witness who could contradict him.

1. The door to the cubicle was locked;

2. She had her phone with her;

3. Her bladder was empty;

4. There was no urine in the toilet bowl; and

5. Pistorius never mentioned hearing the toilet flush.

That’s all the circumstantial evidence that I need to confirm my belief that he lied.

“To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth.”

Voltaire


Pistorius guilty of Manslaughter and Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm in Public

September 12, 2014

Friday, September 12, 2014

Good morning:

Judge Masipa found Oscar Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide, which we call manslaughter, and guilty of unlawful discharge of a firearm in public for shooting a gun in a restaurant. She found him not guilty of unlawfully discharging a firearm through the sunroof of a vehicle and not guilty of unlawful possession of ammunition.

This case is more about the presumption of innocence and the absence of evidence, rather than the evidence that was presented at trial. When all is said and done, Pistorius fired 4 shots through a locked door into a toilet cubicle that was not much bigger than a stall in a public bathroom.
He testified that he believed that an intruder was in the cubicle and he fired his gun in self-defense believing he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

In other words, he admitting committing the acts that caused Reeva Steenkamp’s death. The disputed issues concerned his knowledge and intent.

Did he really believe an intruder was in the cubicle or did know she was in there?

Did he intend to kill the person when he fired the shots?

As Judge Masipa pointed out, there was no evidence that Pistorius had physically abused or threatened Steenkamp or any other woman in the past and there was no evidence that any serious problems existed in their relationship.

No direct evidence contradicted what he said about his knowledge and intent when he fired the shots, although the prosecutor caught him in many inconsistencies and lies during cross examination.

Even though he lied about other matters and his story about an intruder did not make any sense, Judge Masipa was unwilling to conclude that he knew she was in the cubicle and he intended to kill her when he fired the shots.

Notwithstanding his lame story and his strong motive to lie about the shooting, she concluded instead that the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence regarding his knowledge and intent by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is a legal presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts. However, this presumption cannot substitute for actual evidence and overcome the presumption of innocence.

Circumstantial evidence is a form of evidence that can be more powerful than direct evidence, depending on the circumstances.

Under South African law, however, a judge cannot base a verdict on circumstantial evidence alone unless no inference except guilt can reasonably be drawn from it.

Her conclusion makes sense when viewed through the prism of the legal rules that she applied. However, it makes no sense to be forced into accepting a liar’s statement about his knowledge and intent when it is contrary to common experience and he has a powerful motive to lie.

That’s the core weakness of her decision.

As I said yesterday,

Keep in mind that there is a difference between forming an opinion about what really happened and deciding whether the state overcame the presumption of innocence by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That difference is a key to understanding this verdict.

Also key to understanding her verdict is the South African rule that a verdict may not be based on circumstantial evidence alone unless the evidence is inconsistent with any other conclusion.

That used to be the rule in most jurisdictions in the US but has gradually been rejected as a comment on the evidence, which is forbidden by most state constitutions.

Instead, most instructions tell the jury that evidence is either direct or circumstantial and one is not necessarily better or more reliable than the other. It’s up to the jury to decide how much weight to assign to the evidence.

I think he probably is looking at a total sentence for the two offenses of somewhere between 8-12 years.


Whither thou goest Oscar Pistorius

September 10, 2014


3 dimensional walk-through of Pistorius bedroom/bathroom

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Good morning:

Crane-Station’s efforts to resuscitate her computer have been unsuccessful so I am subbing for her today.

Tomorrow morning at 3:30 am EDT, Judge Thokozile Masipa will announce her decision in the Oscar Pistorius case. He is the famous disabled South African paralympian known as the Blade Runner. An audience of millions will be watching.

Both legs were amputated below the knees when he was 11 months old because he was born with detached fibia and tibula bones. He competed by wearing a curved metal prosthesis that functioned like a spring permitting him to compete against the fastest sprinters in the world. He won a gold medal in the 100 meter sprint at the paralympics and barely missed qualifying for the 100 meter final in the Olympics.

Pistorius is accused of murdering his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, by shooting her to death through the locked door of the toilet cubicle that is next to the bathroom in his upstairs master bedroom suite.

His home was located in a gated community protected by a 24/7 security staff.

Steenkamp was a lawyer, model and actor who was on the verge of international fame and fortune with her role in a South African reality show.

They were a beautiful couple supposedly involved in a fairytale romance that ended with four gunshots through a locked toilet door on Valentine’s Day last year.

Pistorius testified at trial that after he and Steenkamp went to bed around 10 pm, he was awakened around 3:30 am by the sound of the bathroom window opening. He said he thought that an intruder had entered the bathroom by climbing a ladder. He grabbed his gun and without putting on his regular everyday prosthesis he proceeded down a short hallway on his stumps to the entrance to the bathroom. After hearing a sound like someone bumped the magazine rack in the toilet stall, he fired his gun four times through the door.

When he returned to the bedroom, he discovered that Steenkamp was not in bed and only then realized that she might have been in the toilet stall.

Steenkamp was hit three times. First, in the hip. Second in the arm and chest. Third, in the forehead. He was using an especially deadly form of ammunition that releases little metal hooks tucked into the side of the bullet that pop out as the bullet spins out of the muzzle of the gun.

She could not have survived the wounds to her hip and head.

The prosecution’s theory of the case was that she locked herself in the toilet stall with her cell phone during an argument with Pistorius. He lost his temper and shot her to death through the locked door.

Several neighbors, including a woman who lived next door, testified that they heard loud voices and a woman’s terrified screams followed by four shots. She said she awakened to the screams and looked out her bedroom window at Pistorius’s bathroom window and noticed that the light was on.

He testified that it was off when he fired the shots. Like George Zimmerman before him, he claimed that the neighbor heard him screaming, not Steencamp.

He claimed she never said anything and he admitted that he did not call out to her to make sure she was not in the toilet before he fired his gun.

The medical examiner testified that Steencamp had consumed a stir fry meal approximately an hour and a half before the shooting, based on an analysis of her stomach contents.

I will always remember this trial for the savage cross examination of Pistorius by the prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, and the sudden switch from self-defense by defense counsel, Barry Roux, to a pervasive state-of-anxiety-caused-by-my-disability made me overreact.

This mid-stream switch resulted in a 30-day commitment for a thorough mental health examination by three psychiatrists who unanimously concluded that he did not suffer from a general anxiety disorder.

Oh, well. The show must go on.

With the facts and law against him, Barry Roux reanimated the defense delivering an excellent poor-Oscar closing argument that just might carry the day.

But I wouldn’t advise betting the ranch that Pistorius will be acquitted.

The law of self-defense is clear. To justifiably use deadly force in self-defense, Pistorius must have reasonably believed himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

Self-defense will not fly, if Judge Masipa concludes that Pistorius knew Steencamp was in the toilet stall. If she rejects self-defense, she can find him guilty of premeditated murder, in which case he is looking at a minimum of 25 years in prison, or she can find him guilty of intentional murder (i.e., intentional but not premeditated) which has a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison.

Premeditation requires proof of intent to kill, reflection on the decision to kill, and an affirmation to go ahead and do it. Actual reflection on the decision to kill, rather than the passage of time, is what distinguishes premeditation from an intentional killing. So called heat-of-passion killings are usually intentional, but not premeditated, because the decision to kill merges with and is inseparable from the killing.

Even if Judge Masipa decides that he believed he was shooting at an intruder, self-defense is unlikely to fly because the intruder was behind a locked door. Like Theodore Wafer, Pistorius was not in any danger, unless the intruder opened the door.

She might find him guilty of culpable homicide, if she decides that he acted negligently in self-defense, but without intent to kill. She could then sentence him up to a maximum of 15 years in prison. This is probably the best outcome he can reasonably expect, since an acquittal is unlikely.

Last, but certainly not least, Pistorius is also charged with shooting a gun under the table in a crowded restaurant and shooting a gun out of the open sunroof of his vehicle while motoring down the roadway.

These shooting incidents and his refusal to accept responsibility for shooting the guns, as if they went off by themselves while he was holding them, evidence a reckless young man with a gun fetish who refuses to accept responsibility for his acts.

Those two acts form a menacing background for the Valentine’s Day shooting.

I am planning on staying up late tonight to watch Judge Masipa deliver her opinion.

The pool is open. See you in the comments.


%d bloggers like this: