How forensic evidence threw Oscar Pistorius in cell - Part II
There was no doubt in the mind of the presiding judge during the trial of Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius in South Africa last year that there were contradictions in the evidence. Some of the witnesses thought they heard various sounds in the early hours of February 14, 2013, when Pistorius shot dead his girl friend, Reeva Rebecca Steenkamp, at the Silverwoods Country Estate. The cardinal issue was the interpretation of the sounds heard and what these sounds, thought to have been heard, actually were.
One witness told court that she heard what sounded like an argument to her, but under cross examination, she admitted she had no idea where the voices came from, what language was being spoken or what was being said. A guard near the house at about the same time could not corroborate hearing an argument.
Some of the witnesses also thought they heard the screams of a woman in distress. To the judge, there was no reason why the same guidelines used in identifying features of a suspect should not be applicable to voice identification. None of the witnesses had ever heard Pistorius or Steenkamp cry or scream and therefore had no prior knowledge against which they could compare what they heard that morning. To court, it was difficult for the witnesses to identify screams or a cry they had no prior knowledge of. An acoustic engineer told court that at a distance of 80 metres, it is difficult to differentiate between a man and a woman’s scream, especially if the screams were from a toilet with closed windows.
The postmortem report stated that Steenkamp sustained four injuries, including a head injury. The pathologist described the head injury as that which would have incapacitated Steenkamp immediately. A person sustaining that kind of head injury would be incapable of any kind of voluntary action and would probably also be immediately unconscious. There was minimal blood in the airway of the deceased, implying that Steenkamp probably did not breathe for more than a few seconds after sustaining this wound.
The shots were also fired in quick succession.
The screams were reported to have been heard just after the four shots were fired. The question to the judge then was who actually screamed? Screams heard after the shots were fired could not have been those of the deceased as she had suffered devastating injuries. If the deceased did not and could not scream, the only person who could have screamed was Pistorius.
His version is that he screamed after he had fired the first shots when he realised that the deceased was not in the bedroom. No evidence was brought by the prosecution to contradict or challenge this version of events. To the judge, the time of the screams and the reasons advanced thereof made sense when one regarded the chronology of events that morning.
The screams were heard just after four shots were fired and before the three sounds from a cricket bat were heard. Further, one of the first witnesses to arrive at the home of Pistorius after the shooting told court that he found Pistorius in a very distressed condition, attempting to resuscitate the deceased and his distress appeared to be genuine.
The prosecution put up a theory that Steenkamp and Pistorius had an argument in the early hours of that morning, an argument heard by some of the witnesses, following which Steenkamp fled to the toilet, and Pistorius followed her there and in the heat of further argument, Pistorius then shot and killed her. To support this, the prosecution contended that Steenkamp had a cell phone with her and had locked herself inside the toilet and the toilet was in darkness. The prosecution also noted that according to Pistorius, he found the body of Steenkamp slumped in a sitting position on the floor of the toilet with her head on the toilet bowl. However, one possible reason advanced by the judge was that Steenkamp needed to use her cell phone for lighting purposes, as the light in the toilet was not working.
Pistorius defence
In his defence, Pistorius told court that he shouted more than once to the intruder to get out. The bathroom lights were off. He then heard a movement inside the toilet and thought that whoever was in the toilet was coming to attack him. In his own words, Pistorius stated: “Before I knew it, I had fired from impulse at the door.” To Pistoruis, the shooting was accidental. He discharged the firearm as he got a fright. He further stated: “I fired before I could think, before I had a moment to comprehend what was happening; before thinking, out of fear, I fired the shot.” Pistorius stated that at no stage was he ready to discharge his firearm, although the firearm was in a ready mode.
However, under cross examination, he confirmed that he had released the safety mechanism on the firearm in case he needed to use the firearm to protect himself.
A doctor testified that Pistorius may have suffered from a General Anxiety Disorder, which may have affected his conduct at the time of the incidence. Another doctor testified that Pistorius discharged his firearm because of an increased startled response, which is reflexive. This meant that Pistorius could not be held accountable for his actions as he lacked capacity during the involuntary reflexive response. The State, however, pointed to court that there was a huge difference between a reflex action and an involuntary action.
To court, this defense raised a fundamental question; did Pistorius lack criminal capacity at the time he killed Steenkamp? This, in reality, was a defense of temporary non-pathological criminal incapacity. Three psychiatrists evaluated and concluded that at the time of the alleged offence, Pistorius did not suffer from a mental disorder or a mental defect that affected his ability to distinguish between rightful or wrongful nature of his actions.
Pistorius was not mad
The psychiatrists concluded that Pistorius did not suffer from a mental defect or illness at the time of the commission of the offence that would have rendered him not criminally responsible for the offence as charged. Pistorius was capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions. And to court, Pistorius suffered no lapse of memory or any confusion at any time. On the contrary, he acted consciously throughout. He knew where he kept his firearm and where his bathroom was.
Court was therefore satisfied that Pistorius could distinguish between right and wrong and he acted in accordance with that distinction. Furthermore, court noted that Pistorius armed himself with a loaded firearm and approached what he thought was danger with a firearm ready to shoot. He clearly wanted to use the firearm and the only way he could have used it was to shoot at the perceived danger. He was in a fight rather than a flight state.
Court, however, noted that the intention to shoot does not necessarily include the intention to kill. Court therefore threw out the argument that Pistorius acted out of self-defense and accordingly convicted him of manslaughter.
The State was not satisfied with this conviction and appealed the judgment.
To be continued.
