The Oscar Pistorius Murder Trial II

Advocate Gerrie Nel Is probably a lot of people's favourite prosecutor in South Africa and the world at the moment. Max du Preez in a recent article, looks at a time when Nel made the news when he was arrested while he was still the head of Scorpions in Gauteng. Important as this may have been, it did not earn him his current status in social commentary.

Those who closely followed the legal proceedings in the prosecution of President Zuma and the unfortunate dismantling of the Scorpions would know a thing of two about this man who was described as the Pit Bull in The New York Times. The arrest of Nel is a 2008 incident.

It may be relevant to remind those of my generation, who were probably just starting to notice the beauty of the opposite sex, when Nel was involved in the prosecution of Janus Waluz and Clive Derby Lewis in the early 1990s. The two were eventually convicted of the murder of Chris Hani. Volatile as the times may have been, I do not think he made the news in the way he did in April 2014 (I stand to be corrected by my seniors). Twitter and Facebook were not there anyway.

Here is a prosecutor who is grilling an accused who keeps on breaking down as he relates the events of the night of the 14th February 2013. This is the prosecutor who was handling the levers of the gear that saw the accused alternate from defensive to sincere and apologetic responses in his relentless pursuit of the truth, a truth he was hell bent on revealing.

As the accused responded (through the sobs) with "I can't remember", "I am not sure", "I do not understand" in between the periodic break down, it did not seem like the State Prosecutor was buying it. At some point when the accused got emotional, a point where an average person would expect sympathy, Nel went on to ask why the accused was getting emotional.

This was not a question that was articulated out of sympathy but one that followed a number of provoking questions, some of which I would not even wish on an enemy. Alan Cowel did a better job at shedding light on Advocate Nel in the The New York Times article that is linked above, I will thus not spend a lot of time on him, but appreciate a job well done.

The trial of Oscar Pistorius is one that has got people who would not be interested to follow important national issues, like the former Minister Kasrils' advocacy for the spoiling of votes in protest against the ANC. The trial takes place at a time when political parties are campaigning vigorously towards the May 7th elections.

This being one of the most important elections in the history of the democratic South Africa, it would also make sense that the threatened integrity of the elections takes priority in the minds of South Africans. The recent utterances by the Multi-Party Forum (made up of UDM, AgangSA, the EFF among others) about the need for the Independent Electoral Commission's Pansy Tlakula to step down from her position as the chairperson of the commission have not earned the same amount of mental nor heart space among South Africans. This trial has effectively challenged or even won against a number of other issues in making the news. Whether it is viewed from a public interest or interest to the public lens is not clear.

Someone noted that it looks like every South African is currently a legal expert with a number of opinions of whether the accused is guilty or not. This is much like spectators at a lively soccer game where comments around what the referee or the coach should have done usually fly like rain drops. It's important to share that I do not find anything wrong with an opinionated and engaged public. It is in fact one of the important elements of an active citizenry which I am an advocate for.

And so, through the trial we may be looking at an increased intake of matriculants who decide to go into the legal discipline in the coming academic year. As one interested in issues of social and national relevance, I found myself wondering what exactly it is about some issues that allow them to make the news in ways that other events would only dream of. Philip had the hearts of South Africans just four years before Oscar and Nel. We then take a quick look at Philip's contribution.

Philip, is here

It's the 15th May 2004. South Africa is announced as the host of the 2010 Soccer World Cup. An opening of the flood gates of euphoria in South Africa. The years between 2004 and 2010 saw a lot of infrastructure investments, advertising companies made a lot of money, South African Tourism was the number one institution in the country in addition to the FIFA led Local Organising Committee. It was not very rare to hear people relating how the economic condition would change with the arrival of Philip. Philip is here is how some played around with the world cup theme; feel it, it's here.

One has to admit that the hopes of a number of South African's in anticipation of the arrival of Philip were justified. These South Africans range from those who traded in the ideas of Ubuntu, sculptors who would be selling their products in Dollars, Pounds and Marks, in the process ensuring maximum profit during the tournament. A number of entrepreneurs also popped up and sold anything from flags and scarves to beanies in South African colours. This was great, though I wish it was sustainable. The e-tolls is a story for another day.

Without getting side tracked, it is important to note how Philip relates to Oscar. They both had a similar effect; they got the nation talking, about the same thing. It is probably fair to argue that Philip brought with him a sense that South Africans gathered around the same goal and were proud to be South African.

This worked well with the perennial need for what it is that defines the South African Rainbow Nation in the face of its history and the socio-economic inequalities that still sees the economic status of South Africans linked to the race issue. We are yet to understand what Oscar's contribution will be, but I would like to share my wish on what we can take as his contribution.

The law unveiled

In addition to the fact that this is probably the biggest trial in South Africa's legal system, bigger than the prosecution of those who were accused and later found guilty in the murder of Chris Hani, a number of other things also stand out. Oscar is a relatively wealthy white Afrikaans man (Apologies to Martin Luther King's dream). He is accused of killing a white woman.

Defended by a white man. Prosecuted by a white State Prosecutor before a black female Judge. I would not like to imagine what the reaction to this piece would be If the author was to stop here. In as much as the individuals involved in this case are interesting, they are not the crux of what I consider to be the important lessons from the trial.

This view is not because I am blind to racial connotations in how the law is applied and whether the law is usually just to both the poor and the wealthy. I steer away from this issue because it is simply not the focus of this piece.

The opening of the legal system to the public, especially when a relatively wealthy individual is the accused, is what I think is the biggest contribution of this trial to South Africa. At some point as I listened to the cross examination of the witnesses (including the accused), I thought to myself; how some of our politicians could learn a thing or two about standing one's ground, what it takes to be a spin doctor and possibly how to "tailor evidence". What a lot of us may not be so clear about is the actual process that leads to conviction. What usually reaches the public is of course the analytical offering of commentators and the reports of journalists and media houses.

Here was a trial open to the whole world, which managed to get everyone talking. It was not only the summary or the important turns in the trial that were presented to us, but every point in the trial was broadcast and even when some may have held an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused, the actual trial may have actually enlightened us on why even when people are seen to be guilty in the public eye, they are sometimes acquitted on the basis of the presentation and use of the evidence or its lack thereof. It actually makes one think about the idea of mob justice.

It is in this context that we should expect higher downloads of the actual judgement when Judge Masipa finally delivers her judgement. It will also be this context which will help us understand why journalists may have to give a bit more for what they earn. It is not rocket nor gravity science that readers will not buy a paper to be fed what they saw.

Legal experts may also wonder to themselves what their legal training was in aid of, if anyone (almost everyone in this trial) will have a legal opinion, which they are convinced matters. We should probably be glad to see a higher intake of university students into the legal studies. Positive spin offs from a very unfortunate event in two people's lives.

May the law take its course and the accused be judged justly. May we learn a thing or two as it's always the case with cases that set precedents in addition to euphoria that treads somewhere between public interest and interest to the public.

Khomotso Ntuli is facilitator of Bush Dialogues and can be reached at [email protected]

Click to expand...

Oscar Pistorius has appeared emotionally distraught on several occasions in his murder trial. Now, the authenticity of the Olympian’s actions has come into question.

A new report is claiming that Pistorius, who is accused of murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, is taking acting lessons. According to South African columnist Jani Allan, the double-amputee was taught to act distressed in the courtroom.

“I have it from a reliable source that you are taking acting lessons for your days in court,” Allan wrote in an open letter to Pistorius. “Your coach has an impossible task.”

Throughout the proceedings, Pistorius has been an emotional wreck. A week into the start of the trial, Pistorius vomited in court, as pathologist Dr. Gert Saayman discussed the findings of Steenkamp’s autopsy. A few days later, the accused threw up again, when images of Steenkamp’s dead body were shown in court. Pistorius was so distraught that the pictures had to be removed from the slide show.

Several times, Pistorius has broken down into tears in court. When he took the stand, the Olympian couldn’t get through his testimony without crying. He had difficulty recounting the events of Valentine’s Day 2013, as he sobbed, until he left the stand.

Pistorius’s camp claims that all of his emotions have been genuine.

“We deny in the strongest terms the contents of her [Allan] letter in as far it relates to our client and further deny that our client has undergone any 'acting lessons' or any form of emotional coaching,” Pistorius family media manager, Anneliese Burgess, said in a statement on the sprinter’s website. “This type of comment makes a mockery of the enormous human tragedy involving the Steenkamp family and our client and his family.”

Burgess went on to say that Allan has never met Pistorius, describing the writer’s claims as “fictitious.”

Since Steenkamp’s death, Pistorius has never denied killing her. He claims he mistook his girlfriend for an intruder, when he shot her through the bathroom door.

The trial began at the start of March, but took a recent recess for the Easter holiday. It’s set to resume on May 5.

Click to expand...

PRETORIA, South Africa — The athlete wept through eyes pressed closed. He blocked his ears against grisly testimony. He wailed. A prosecutor accused him of hamming it up, of lying, of murder. His defense lawyer prompted him to read out a Valentine’s card to show that his victim loved him.

With all its operatic moments, the Oscar Pistorius trial is now in recess until May 5, far beyond its projected duration and likely to last much longer before Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa pronounces her verdict.

It has been called the trial of the century, a spectacle on the order of the O.J. Simpson trial.

Outside the courtroom, satellite vans and TV crews collide with young people — black and white — waving their smartphones to snap a photo of the 27-year-old “Blade Runner,” a nickname derived from the scythe-like prostheses that have propelled Mr. Pistorius to Paralympic Games triumph and the height of Olympic competition.

Since March 3, at a different pace, he has run a new gantlet of voyeuristic acclaim, so remote from the crowds that celebrated him on the track before he fired four hollow-point rounds into a locked bathroom door, on Feb. 14, 2013, killing his 29-year-old girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp — by accident, he says; by design, says the prosecution.
Photo
Oscar Pistorius held his ears as he sat in the dock during his trial in Pretoria on April 17th. Credit Pool photo by Alet Pretorius

But, less noticed in some ways — and overwhelmingly in others — another trial has been unfolding to test the way those inside the courtroom relay the twists and turns to the world outside.

Call it trial by Twitter. Or, perhaps, trial of Twitter.

There was a time, recalled by the graybeards of court reporting (full disclosure: count this reporter among them), when their craft depended on a certain facility with shorthand note-taking, an ability with the swiftly handwritten word and — to extend an adage — a plausible manner on the telephone to a distant newsroom.

But the Pistorius trial has offered a graphic display of newer skills. The hearings are, in any event, groundbreaking in South Africa for being televised. But they are not televised in full. Witnesses, including Mr. Pistorius, may choose to stay off-screen as they testify.

And that is where the banks of Twitter users come in. Sitting in the courtroom (and in an adjacent room marked “overflow,” where Judge Masipa has castigated some spectators for rowdiness), their laptops and tablets propped before them, power cables snaking through convoluted adapters, the Twitterati have sight of witnesses at all times — the troubadours, or perhaps the tricoteuses, of the digital revolution.

“Pistorius sitting in the dock, his head resting childlike on his aunt’s bag as she strokes his hair and neck,” Aislinn Laing of Britain’s Daily Telegraph tweeted on April 16. Seconds later, another message whizzed in from Nastasya Tay, a freelance journalist: “#OscarPistorius leans his head against his aunt’s handbag as she gently strokes his hair. It’s been a long day, week, month.”

In the avalanche of 140-character snippets and instant assessments, messages are tweeted and retweeted.

Sitting in court, it sometimes seems as if testimony and tweet are simultaneous.

But what — or who — is it for?

Many of the tweeters have tens of thousands of followers craving the latest update. Many of those who work for old-style newspapers are expected to tweet their way prolifically into the 21st century so as to broaden the cyberconversation and draw readers toward the websites and apps by which proprietors hope to offset the failing fortunes of print.

But are the tweeters giving away their stock in trade — the news — free? Who foots the bills for the tweeters’ days in court? Public service alone does not pay: Only advertisers and subscribers and sponsors do that. And do readers themselves look for something a little longer, more discursive, more brunch-size than byte-size?

If you are still reading this column, dear reader, then perhaps you have answered that question already. And, please, don’t forget to tweet it.

Click to expand...

PoisonedPawn said:

View attachment 114848

For those who has not yet figured out the layout from Google.

Click to expand...

Dave123 said:

That distance when shown must cast some doubt onto the veracity of the testimony of Johnson and Burger.

Click to expand...

Paul Hjul said:

Probative value not veracity
Johnson and Burger may well have heard screaming around that time but at that distance the relevance becomes fuzzy

Click to expand...

Paul Hjul said:

sorry my comment was a bit terse - it is a bit of a gut response to what could come across as suggestions of lay people lying in court when they are mistaken - and there was no intent to be condescending

but this really is the thing, I don't understand how the State elected to lead their testimony as evidence. From their distance they could have heard shouting from any one of a dozen other houses, they may have heard all sorts of things.

Click to expand...

PoisonedPawn said:

I have found a newer indictment for the case (August 2013) which includes the updated charge sheet, summary of facts and the witness list:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/redactor-docs/Oscar+indictment.pdf

I know the state is not bound by the substantial facts, but it really seems shoddy that they could not even get their investigation right, regarding paragraph 4. Not a single witnesses evidence reflects that paragraph.

Click to expand...