In considering the original charge that the NPA brought against Oscar that of pre meditated murder which was based on Bothas original investigation, it would seem both necessary and essential in the pursuit of justice that he be a witness for the state. Therefore his not being called as a witness was not only prejudice against the accused but also unethical as it was on his investigation or lack of it the pre med charge was formed. To then proceed to trial knowing that you were not going to call lead witnesses but also would not drop the pre med charge seemed indicative of an investigation where the central motive was to gain a conviction at any cost as opposed to uphold the values of justice. This was further highlighted in a failure to call the investigator VanAard who took witness statements especially when it became apparent the discrepancies between witnesses initial and subsequent statements. These discrepancies were further compounded by the apparent botched up investigation of the scene which was subsequently confirmed by state witnesses regarding the lost extension lead, pictures removed from the album and of course the missing watch or watches. The initial testimony of Bootha at the bail hearing indicated that the central reason for the view that it was premeditated murder was because Oscar was on his prosthesis. The NPA however apparently view the fact that he was not on his prosthesis as nothing but inconsequential it would seem as it did not deter them from continuing with the charge of premeditated murder. To omit Botha prevented the defence from cross examining to determine how this charge was reached. The purpose of the pre med charge was simply to provide a stronger case for the murder charge as were the addition of the other charges. This was further reinforced by both a failure and acknowledgement of the omission to consider and investigate the version of events presented by Oscar. It would seem his version was completely ignored as not being the role of the police. This again highlights a practice of gaining a conviction at any cost rather that looking for truth of what happened. In other CH charges where family members have been killed the legal principal of Dolus Eventualis was not considered. The father who shot his wife was not charged with the murder of who ever was in the house, similarly the police man who shot the 2 of clothes police with a volley of 8 bullets was charged with Ch n not murder yet the number of bullets used was far more excessive. The sentence that Oscar received was more excessive than most other sentences of CH. In Humphreys he was sentenced to less time as was Jub Jub both CH cases for negligently killing in the former 12 children and in the latter 4. It therefore needs to be questioned why the NPA are insisting in a far harsher sentence for Oscar and a verdict that had not been considered in other cases. The decision to televise the trial not only encroached exponentially on his privacy but in fact it is questionable whether he in fact was treated equally to other suspects in cases. The NPA obligingly answered this in their decision that televising the Dewani trial was not in the interests of Justice. Therefore it had to be assumed using the standard of equality and justice that televising the Oscar Pistorius trial was also not in the interest of justice and therefore deprived Oscar of a fair trial. In other democratic judiciaries this could have resulted in a mistrial but such is not possible in SA. Instead what we witness is not only have the NPA failed in providing Oscar with the same rights as other suspects but now intend to appeal the verdict and sentence for the seemly no other reasons than they did not achieve their initial goal of conviction at any cost and simply because they can. If this means that the Court of Appeal needs to be over turned, they intend to do. This ruling has been in place for 32 years. It therefore is another example of how Oscar is not being treated equally and discriminated against by the NPA. The question which needs to be asked is why if it has been in place for 32 years you are looking to appeal it now. That coupled with other previously mentioned peculiarities that the NPA have applied to this case is indicative of a person being singled out for unequal treatment. It is also worth mentioning that the website of one of the legal experts behind this appeal would seem to be allowing its use for the posting of comments which have rewritten the established facts of the case and could be interpreted as inciting hate thus another example of the miscarriage of justice being played out here.
Posted on: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:30:50 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015