commentary by Patrick Moore
Today marks the start of the second week of testimony in the Oscar Pistorius trial for the alleged murder of the double-amputee’s former girlfriend, South African model Reeva Steenkamp. It is reported that there are well over 100 witnesses which means the trial could continue for several more weeks. Of course, it’s hard to know how many of them will actually testify.
In recent months, the Western World has been treated to the spectacle of the latest episode in the never-ending Amanda Knox trial, which has been quite the spectacle from start to “finish”. In the opinion of many, evidence has been created out of whole cloth for the simple purpose of demonizing and convicting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of the murder of Meredith Kercher whether or not they are guilty. As a result of this possible fictionalizing of the evidence, many of us here in the States have been left with a bad taste in our mouths combined with a growing disrespect for the Italian judicial system.
The Pistorius trial, on the other hand, provides an entirely different kind of experience and one that it not likely to result in any loss of respect for South African jurisprudence. Although there are elements of the spectacle outside the courtroom, particularly when Pistorius is either arriving or departing at the end of the day, inside red-gowned Judge Thokozile Masipa’s courtroom, it is strictly business – a very serious business that could result in the former sprinter serving a minimum of 25 years in prison in the event he is found guilty.
What I find fascinating about this trial is the fact that because there are no “on the scene” witnesses, Judge Masipa, who also serves as one-woman jury under the South African system, will have to arrive at a verdict based largely on the testimony, much of it character-driven, of “witnesses” who were not there at the time of the shooting. Let’s review the evidence that was presented at the first week of the trial, according to the Associated Press:
Pistorius’ once-inspiring life story unraveled as witnesses testified about his history of anger, infidelity and recklessness with guns, and his suspicious behavior on the night prosecutors allege the Olympian murdered his girlfriend and tried to cover it up.
Pistorius’ murder trial — which is being shown on live television across the world — also shed more light on the events in the pre-dawn hours of Valentine’s Day last year, when he shot dead Reeva Steenkamp in a bathroom in his home. Pistorius claims it was an accident, but prosecutors have charged him with premeditated murder for the killing of the 29-year-old model.
The first witness, a neighbor named Michelle Burger, said she heard a woman’s “blood-curdling” screams coming from Pistorius’ house on the night he killed Steenkamp. Burger sobbed in court during her testimony and stated that she was haunted by what she heard.
Another neighbor, Johan Stipp, a radiologist, described in detail the grisly scene he was confronted with when he entered Pistorius’ home and found a fatally wounded Steenkamp lying on the floor. There was Pistorius kneeling next to her, weeping, praying and apparently trying to help his dying or dead girlfriend breathe even though she had a terrible gunshot wound in her head. During the doctor’s testimony, Pistorius, who is clearly grief-stricken over what has transpired, held his hands over his ears and hunched over as Dr. Stipp recounted how he could not find any signs of life on Steenkamp’s bloody body.
Pistorius, of course, claims that the reason he fired four bullets through the door to the toilet with a 9 mm pistol, hitting Steenkamp in the head, arm and hip area, is because he thought she was a dangerous intruder. At this point, there is apparently no explanation for why the dangerous intruder would have been in the toilet. The prosecutors, on the other hand, are claiming Pistorius killed Steenkamp intentionally after a loud fight. Fully three neighbors have testified to hearing a woman screaming and a man shouting before the gunfire.
Pistorius, who has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him, which include murder and three firearm-related offenses, is free on bail. Each day at the end of the proceedings, flanked by police and security guards, he runs the gauntlet of press of bystanders, and is bundled into an SUV with reflective windows prior to being driven away from the courthouse.
In an interview, former state prosecutor and now defense lawyer, Marius du Toit, stated, “I really thought the state started well, I really did. They are starting with a left hook. But, of course, the fight never lasts one round.”
A former girlfriend, who was only 17 when she started dating Pistorius in 2011, described a man quick to anger who carried a gun with him at all times and who once shot it out of a car after an altercation with police. (Hell, this could Florida or any other gun-toting US state.) Samantha Taylor talked about another incident when she said Pistorius once jumped out of a car with a gun in hand to threaten an unidentified person he thought was following them.
Taylor also testified that Pistorius cheated on her twice, the second time with Steenkamp, which, in my opinion is totally irrelevant.
Much more damning is the testimony of a friend who stated that Pistorius asked someone else to take the blame when a gun he was handling fired under a table in a busy restaurant.
Naturally, the Pistorius’s defense team has objected strenuously to what they call inadmissible evidence that amounts to character “assassination.” (It is noted that, to the best of my knowledge, much of the “character-related” evidence would generally be inadmissible in an American court of law.
Although the first five days of proceedings were dominated by doubts over Pistorius’ character and some of his actions on the night of Steenkamp’s death, the defense claims that it can prove that Steenkamp did not scream before the shots and could not have screamed during them, which contradicts what witnesses have said.
And, forthcoming forensic evidence could back Pistorius’ version of the events.
According to former prosecutor du Toit, who has over 20 years’ experience in South Africa’s criminal justice system, the prosecutors still must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pistorius, notwithstanding his history of previously anti-social actions, intentionally killed his girlfriend on Feb. 14, 2013.
“The ballistic and forensic evidence is going to be crucial in that regard,” said du Toit.
* * * * *
Although it may prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I possess a somewhat inexplicable but very real character flaw, I feel considerable compassion for Pistorius. I realize that he probably did shoot and kill the decedent with malice aforethought, but it is equally clear, based on his consistent displays of real emotion, that he feels the deepest remorse for his actions. This, of course, is not going to do him much good in the event that the judge finds him guilty.