The OSCAR PISTORIUS case : A diatribe of egotism and arrogance. While I accept that the role of an advocate or prosecutor in any case relies on the ability to develop an eloquent presentation of rhetoric. This should never be at the expense of the pursuit of justice and the pursuit of justice should essentially be a search for truth. The Oscar Pistorius case somehow became a display of egotistical arrogance which saw the art of winning override any desire to obtain the truth. Nel in his closing statement at the end of his cross examination theoretically expounded what the Court would make findings on. These included that Reeva ate within 2 hours and that while eating at around 1 or 2 am that an argument was heard , that blood curling screams were heard emanating from Reeva as she fled from Oscar. That Oscar armed himself with the sole purpose of killing Reeva. One might consider that the state was justified in presenting these inferences based on the statements it had. But the state also had on it’s witness list the surrounding neighbours and security guard. The state and more importantly Nel knew, having interviewed and obtained statements from these witnesses that there were two sets of bangs. That Oscar screamed after firing the shots having realised it was Reeva. Even the evidence of the witnesses it presented stated the screams they heard stopped AFTER the last shot, the last shot was fired but the screaming was still heard, thus rendering it an impossibility that it could have been Reeva producing those blood curling screams. Furthermore the state were fully aware that at the same time the argument was heard in the language the witness could not identify, in an unknown location, a security guard was outside Oscar’s house and in the immediate vicinity and heard nothing. Yet Nel insisted that in the name of Justice, the Court should ignore all of this and accept that the dead can scream, that an argument was taking place in a house that a security guard outside couldn’t hear but a woman 100 meters away could. Did the state demonstrate a pursuit of the truth or a sad display of arrogance insisting it was right because it simply said so? Was this act of arrogance further displayed in the state’s desire for appeal. Is the motivation a desire to win at any cost, or if a family member is telling the truth and Nel did in fact tell them that he believed Oscar knew it was Reeva behind the door an inability on Nel’s part to accept he may have been wrong. The state maintains that all of Oscars testimony should be rejected, that the acceptance of the circumstantial evidence by the Judge was wrong. Yet as previously stated that circumstantial evidence as presented by the the State seeks to defy the laws of nature, Reeva could never have screamed as testified after the last shot. Does the States arrogance extend to attempts to preempt the decision of the Court where in it’s appeal it mentions ‘the sentence was shockingly light for the murder of Reeva’. Yet Oscar was not found guilty of murder and the use of the word can not be excused as it is attempted to be as a typo. There have been many cases of CH yet this seems to one of the very few if not the only one where the state not only is telling a very Learned and experienced Judge that she got it wrong in her interpretation of DE, but in the numerous cases of CH involving intruders or family members killed mistaken for intruders, no emphasis seems to be placed on DE. In the case of the police man who suffocated a woman having beaten her up DE was not considered in the verdict of CH, no appeal on the grounds of Dolus Eventualis was considered and the ANCWL were strangely silent in their chanting of VAW. Nel seemed very diligent in his pursuit of this case but seemed indifferent to the appearance in his court of the self confessed murderer whom he arranged to have charges dropped against. I wonder what explanation he gave the family members of his victims. The States case IMO displays an arrogant and sadly loose interpretation of the search for Justice. It tailor picked only the witnesses that would testify to the States version rejecting all the statements and evidence to the contrary. It failed to call the lead investigator, the officer who took the statements despite the discrepancies that was raised in these statements. It seeks a sentence of 15 years imprisonment for an offence he was acquitted of that the State failed to provide a statement or lead any testimony on namely having his fathers ammo. It sought to show a missing cord was irrelevant despite having called Oscar a liar when he said the cord would fit. But crucially it attempted to show this was premeditated murder based on the view of a lead investigator that Oscar had his prosthesis on and then failed to call him as a witness. As well as this case against Oscar being heard in Court, I also feel there is a need for the arrogance, egos and display of injustice to be held to account. - Dee
Posted on: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:30:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015