If I put it to you, Milady/s, that Mr. Pistorius might walk out of the court rooms a free man, would you have a problem with it?
As all others who follow this court case, I have my particular opinions and questions.
Mr. Oscar Pistorius has been charged with premeditated murder of his girlfriend, Ms. Reeva Steenkamp, on Valentine’s night 14 February 2013. Mr Pistorius is better known as the Paralympic track star, the Blade Runner.
Mr. Pistorius shot Ms. Steenkamp through a locked bathroom door claiming he believed it was an intruder.
For those who are not aware, and might have wondered about the charge of premeditated murder, South Africa has only one category for murder (we still work mainly, according to Roman Dutch Law). Most people would possibly be more familiar to murder in the 1st, 2nd, or 3d degree, as watched on “LA Law” or “Law and Order” TV series.
The term Premeditation has worked its way into South African legal terminology due to Schedule 6 crimes (those which is considered most serious offences), and function mainly in the court rooms itself especially with regard to bail. Where the burden of proof normally rests upon the state to “prevent” or “limit” bail, the burden of proof why bail should be granted, now rests upon the accused (to protect societal interests).
Plenty South Africans follow the life court room procedures on TV (Carte Blanche Channel 199) and highly debates whether the state will be able to proof premeditation for sentencing.
Amongst others, 2 of the constitual elements required for murder per se, entails planning and intend. Directing a gun at a person and pulling the trigger, implies intend. Intend does not always involve planning. Planning however, always entails intent.
If Mr. Pistorius is found innocent of premeditated murder, the state can still find him guilty on lesser charges providing they can deliver proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt: “Presumption of innocence, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. In many nations, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial… burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence … who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible…, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
This is probably, what Mr. Barry Roux is going for. We know Mr. Pistorius pulled the trigger. We know Mr. Pistorius killed Ms. Steenkamp. So, would Mr. Roux be able to raise sufficient “reasonable doubt”, to get Mr. Pistorius “walking” on the main charge?
Mr. Roux, who by now almost reach fame-status for his repeated statement "If I put it to you ..." followed by a supposition; is also known for defending JCI chairman Mr. Roger Kebble, JCI chairman; on charges of tax evasion. The case was withdrawn in 2007 due to lack of evidence. During the 1990s, Mr Roux represented apartheid-era general Lothar Neethling.
South African courts do have something such as competent verdicts. That is, lesser verdicts if the main crime (in this case premeditated murder) cannot be proved, but the lesser one can.
For example, Culpable Homicide (also sometimes referred to as manslaughter in US terms).
In the latter, we refer to the unlawful, negligent killing of another human being. One of the deciding factors would be, whether Mr. Pistorius’s behavior can be correlated or is seen equal with or to that of another ordinary, reasonable person, in similar circumstances. If so, he very likely would be found not guilty of culpable homicide. If his behaviour is found to be below the standards of a reasonable person in the same situation, he should be found guilty.
One of the other serious legal questions in this case, is, at what standard of reasonable behaviour should Mr. Pistorius be measured?
That of a reasonable physically handicapped person? Providing of course, a direct correlation between physical handicap and “handicapped” cognitive functions, need to be proved. There are many physical handicapped people, for example, who function on a higher cognitive level than others without physical handicaps.
Or, I do not even know if this question has been asked, or answered yet; should he be measured against that of a handicapped person who himself requested and demanded, to be measured and judged against other non-handicapped persons at an Olympic game? Should that request itself, also, not possibly be thrown into the debate to set the bar?
As for the expert witnesses – I am not surprised as to the contradictions in testimonies. If the crime scene has been contaminated, as daily it becomes clearer … obviously each would deliver testimony as to the particular evidence they were working with?
I really have to salute prosecutor Gerrie Nel, who surely does not have an easy job here! Mr. Gerrie Nel is also known for conviction of former police Chief Jackie Selebi.
Quite obviously also, if premeditated, a mastermind was at work here. To put all those conflicting evidence there…. Interestingly enough, we have not seen any psychiatric reports or witnesses on Mr. Pistorius yet. Possibly, that, is also waiting for the week to come.
I have a vast lot of questions…. one of them is - What happened to the blood spatter in the bedroom and that on the duvet cover? How did it get there? Whose blood? Quite unlikely it would have jumped through the locked door to settle in the bedroom? High velocity or low velocity? Did it occur before, or after? Answers to such questions for example, might also change the chain of occurrences. But, who am I to ask these questions and obviously, with a contaminated crime scene such questions might stay unanswered.
Hopefully though, these and more questions might still be introduced into evidence the coming week.
My sincere condolences to the Steenkamp as well as to the Pistorius family, for this devastating loss of a beautiful loved person.
*Amongst others, Mr. Pistorius is also charged with recklessly discharging a weapon while driving, and another while in a restaurant; before the fatal killing of his girlfriend.
**During 2013, Mr. Pistorius was also fined by SARS for “less than a million”, due to unpaid taxes.
As all others who follow this court case, I have my particular opinions and questions.
Mr. Oscar Pistorius has been charged with premeditated murder of his girlfriend, Ms. Reeva Steenkamp, on Valentine’s night 14 February 2013. Mr Pistorius is better known as the Paralympic track star, the Blade Runner.
Mr. Pistorius shot Ms. Steenkamp through a locked bathroom door claiming he believed it was an intruder.
For those who are not aware, and might have wondered about the charge of premeditated murder, South Africa has only one category for murder (we still work mainly, according to Roman Dutch Law). Most people would possibly be more familiar to murder in the 1st, 2nd, or 3d degree, as watched on “LA Law” or “Law and Order” TV series.
The term Premeditation has worked its way into South African legal terminology due to Schedule 6 crimes (those which is considered most serious offences), and function mainly in the court rooms itself especially with regard to bail. Where the burden of proof normally rests upon the state to “prevent” or “limit” bail, the burden of proof why bail should be granted, now rests upon the accused (to protect societal interests).
Plenty South Africans follow the life court room procedures on TV (Carte Blanche Channel 199) and highly debates whether the state will be able to proof premeditation for sentencing.
Amongst others, 2 of the constitual elements required for murder per se, entails planning and intend. Directing a gun at a person and pulling the trigger, implies intend. Intend does not always involve planning. Planning however, always entails intent.
If Mr. Pistorius is found innocent of premeditated murder, the state can still find him guilty on lesser charges providing they can deliver proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt: “Presumption of innocence, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. In many nations, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial… burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence … who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible…, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
This is probably, what Mr. Barry Roux is going for. We know Mr. Pistorius pulled the trigger. We know Mr. Pistorius killed Ms. Steenkamp. So, would Mr. Roux be able to raise sufficient “reasonable doubt”, to get Mr. Pistorius “walking” on the main charge?
Mr. Roux, who by now almost reach fame-status for his repeated statement "If I put it to you ..." followed by a supposition; is also known for defending JCI chairman Mr. Roger Kebble, JCI chairman; on charges of tax evasion. The case was withdrawn in 2007 due to lack of evidence. During the 1990s, Mr Roux represented apartheid-era general Lothar Neethling.
South African courts do have something such as competent verdicts. That is, lesser verdicts if the main crime (in this case premeditated murder) cannot be proved, but the lesser one can.
For example, Culpable Homicide (also sometimes referred to as manslaughter in US terms).
In the latter, we refer to the unlawful, negligent killing of another human being. One of the deciding factors would be, whether Mr. Pistorius’s behavior can be correlated or is seen equal with or to that of another ordinary, reasonable person, in similar circumstances. If so, he very likely would be found not guilty of culpable homicide. If his behaviour is found to be below the standards of a reasonable person in the same situation, he should be found guilty.
One of the other serious legal questions in this case, is, at what standard of reasonable behaviour should Mr. Pistorius be measured?
That of a reasonable physically handicapped person? Providing of course, a direct correlation between physical handicap and “handicapped” cognitive functions, need to be proved. There are many physical handicapped people, for example, who function on a higher cognitive level than others without physical handicaps.
Or, I do not even know if this question has been asked, or answered yet; should he be measured against that of a handicapped person who himself requested and demanded, to be measured and judged against other non-handicapped persons at an Olympic game? Should that request itself, also, not possibly be thrown into the debate to set the bar?
As for the expert witnesses – I am not surprised as to the contradictions in testimonies. If the crime scene has been contaminated, as daily it becomes clearer … obviously each would deliver testimony as to the particular evidence they were working with?
I really have to salute prosecutor Gerrie Nel, who surely does not have an easy job here! Mr. Gerrie Nel is also known for conviction of former police Chief Jackie Selebi.
Quite obviously also, if premeditated, a mastermind was at work here. To put all those conflicting evidence there…. Interestingly enough, we have not seen any psychiatric reports or witnesses on Mr. Pistorius yet. Possibly, that, is also waiting for the week to come.
I have a vast lot of questions…. one of them is - What happened to the blood spatter in the bedroom and that on the duvet cover? How did it get there? Whose blood? Quite unlikely it would have jumped through the locked door to settle in the bedroom? High velocity or low velocity? Did it occur before, or after? Answers to such questions for example, might also change the chain of occurrences. But, who am I to ask these questions and obviously, with a contaminated crime scene such questions might stay unanswered.
Hopefully though, these and more questions might still be introduced into evidence the coming week.
My sincere condolences to the Steenkamp as well as to the Pistorius family, for this devastating loss of a beautiful loved person.
*Amongst others, Mr. Pistorius is also charged with recklessly discharging a weapon while driving, and another while in a restaurant; before the fatal killing of his girlfriend.
**During 2013, Mr. Pistorius was also fined by SARS for “less than a million”, due to unpaid taxes.
RSS Feed
