The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: reeva steenkamp
Oscar Pistorius Convicted Of Negligent Killing, Could Face Jail Time

Oscar Pistorius Convicted Of Negligent Killing, Could Face Jail Time

By Robyn Dixon, Los Angeles Times

PRETORIA, South Africa — South African Olympian Oscar Pistorius, who was cleared of murder in the killing of his girlfriend, was convicted Friday on the lesser charge of culpable homicide.

Judge Thokozile Masipa accepted the athlete’s defense that he mistook Reeva Steenkamp for an intruder. But she found that he was negligent when he fired four shots into the door of a toilet cubicle where the 29-year-old model had locked herself in the early hours of Valentine’s Day last year.
The judge asked Pistorius to stand to hear the verdict.

“The accused is found not guilty and discharged,” she said of the murder charges. “Instead he is found guilty of culpable homicide.”

Pistorius, who repeatedly broke down in tears during months of testimony, stood straight, staring ahead without showing any emotion.

Prosecutors had contended that Pistorius, 27, wanted to kill Steenkamp after they had an argument. South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority expressed its disappointment over the verdict and said it would make a decision about whether to appeal after sentencing.

Pistorius could face significant prison time — or none at all — depending on how reckless he was in the judge’s view. A sentencing hearing is scheduled Oct. 13, when the defense and prosecution will make submissions to the court.

Pistorius, a double amputee, won fame and adulation for running in the 2012 Olympic Games in London on prosthetic legs, attracting sponsorships worth millions of dollars. Sponsors abruptly dropped him after the murder charges, and he appeared to lose public support after his poor performance on the witness stand.

His acquittal on the murder charges raises the possibility that he might resume a sporting career. But the emotional frailty he showed throughout the trial, weeping frequently and vomiting on hearing descriptions of Steenkamp’s wounds, may have irreparably damaged the Pistorius brand that sponsors once clamored for.

Although Masipa concluded there was insufficient evidence to convict the athlete of murder, she found him guilty of a negligent, although unintentional killing, known in South Africa as culpable homicide.

“The conduct of the accused shortly after the incident is inconsistent with the conduct of someone who intended to commit murder,” Masipa said.
Pistorius shouted for help, called an ambulance and security, tried to save Steenkamp’s life, and prayed to God to save her.

“From the above it cannot be said that the accused did not entertain a genuine belief that there was an intruder in the bathroom who posed a direct threat to his life,” Masipa said.

She also said there was no evidence that Pistorius foresaw the consequences of firing four bullets into the cubicle.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked Masipa not to extend the athlete’s bail because of the serious nature of the conviction. He noted that Pistorius was involved in “an incident” at a nightclub in July. He also argued that Pistorius was a flight risk, saying he had sold his two last properties, and that there was nothing to keep him in South Africa.

Defense lawyer Barry Roux conceded that Pistorius should not have been at the nightclub and knew that appearing in public “invites problems.” But he said Pistorius sold the property to cover his legal costs and that that move showed his respect for the legal system.

Masipa was not persuaded by Nel’s argument. Pistorius remained free on bail.

Masipa began Friday by acquitting Pistorius of an unrelated charge of recklessly firing a weapon out of the sunroof of a car. She said the prosecution witnesses, both former friends of Pistorius, contradicted each other and that one of them was dishonest.

The judge also acquitted Pistorius on a charge of illegal possession of ammunition.

However, Masipa convicted Pistorius of recklessly discharging a firearm in a public place, in connection with an incident at a crowded restaurant north of Johannesburg called Tashas. Pistorius said the gun went off in his hands. The judge said he should not have asked to handle a gun in a crowded place, and she accepted the evidence of witnesses that he was warned that the weapon was loaded.

Many South Africans were surprised that the judge, though she found that Pistorius was dishonest when he repeatedly insisted that he never intended to fire the fatal shots, still acquitted him of murder. Some legal analysts suggested that Masipa had made a mistake that could provide a basis for an appeal.

But Masipa cited a legal precedent cautioning a judge against a guilty conviction just because an accused person lied under oath.

After the court recessed for a short break Friday, Pistorius remained in his place for a few minutes, then stood up, alone, fiddling with notes, still showing no emotion. His sister, Aimee Pistorius, was the first to approach and comfort him. Other family members stood in their places, as though still digesting the news of Pistorius’ conviction.

His uncle, Arnold Pistorius, turned to journalists, saying the damage done to the athlete by the trial was “tragic” and could never be rectified.
Later, he delivered a brief statement to reporters expressing the family’s gratitude to the judge for acquitting Pistorius of murder and saying a huge burden had been lifted.

With his wife, Lois, beside him, he said the family never doubted his nephew’s account. He added that they were deeply affected by Steenkamp’s death and said their hearts went out to her family, friends and supporters.

The Steenkamp family sat talking quietly among themselves.

AFP Photo/Kim Ludbrook

Interested in world news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

What Was Oscar Pistorius Thinking When He Fired The Gun?

What Was Oscar Pistorius Thinking When He Fired The Gun?

By Robyn Dixon, Los Angeles Times

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — What was Oscar Pistorius thinking?

For all the minute testimony in the South African athlete’s murder trial — about dents in a door made by a cricket bat, positions of curtains, power cords, and duvets in his bedroom, the forensics of bullet wounds — Pistorius’ fate will largely be decided on how a judge views his state of mind.

Is he a volatile troublemaker who intended to kill his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp? Or was he a victim of extraordinary misfortune firing at a presumed intruder?

Pistorius, the first double amputee to compete in the Olympics, has said he thought a burglar had barricaded himself in a toilet cubicle, and fired four shots through the door, killing Steenkamp in the early hours of Valentine’s Day last year.

Judge Thokozile Masipa will hear final arguments Thursday, then resort to a complicated body of law. The simplest verdict would be to agree with the prosecution that Pistorius intentionally shot his girlfriend while in a rage after an argument — making it murder.

But under South African law, firing with intent to kill can be ruled murder even if the defendant was mistaken about his target.

Masipa also could consider “culpable homicide,” a criminal but unintentional killing in which Pistorius, a trained gun expert, did not foresee the consequences of firing Black Talon expanding bullets through a door and into the small cubicle.

A similar defense did not help hip-hop star Molemo “Jub Jub” Maarohanye. A judge in his case ruled that he must have foreseen that drag racing on a crowded street near a school could kill people. Four boys died and two others were left with brain damage when his car struck them. He was convicted of murder.

Pistorius’ advocate, Barry Roux, has aired several different defenses, each mutually exclusive, leaving even legal experts confused — and intrigued.

Although the circumstances of the case preclude a claim of self-defense under South African law, Pistorius could claim “putative private defense” — that he believed he was acting lawfully and reacting reasonably to a perceived threat to his life.

Most experts thought Roux had that defense in mind, until Pistorius took the stand. Many experts regarded Pistorius as a poor witness because of contradictions and inconsistencies under cross-examination. His story didn’t jibe with crime scene photographs showing the position of objects in the bedroom, including a fan and duvet.

Pistorius told the court he was so terrified that he acted unconsciously: He didn’t aim at the door, didn’t consciously pull the trigger, and never thought he would kill anyone. Believing there was a burglar in the home, he armed himself, and moved toward the door — all the time knowing exactly what he was doing. Yet, at the moment he pulled the trigger, intentional, conscious action evaporated, Pistorius testified.

“Before I knew it, I had fired four shots at the door,” Pistorius told the court.

Roux could use self-defense or several other arguments in framing his final argument on Pistorius’ behalf.

To convict Pistorius, “You need to be convinced that there’s no reasonable possibility that he could have been lingering under the mistake that there was an intruder in the house and that he had to kill this intruder,” said James Grant, a criminal law expert at Witwatersrand University.

Despite the apparent weight of evidence against him, Pistorius’ state of mind is “all important,” said Grant. “That’s why it’s so difficult to call.”

Pistorius’ final defense witness, sports medicine expert Wayne Derman, told the court that extreme anxiety and a diminished ability to defend himself left Pistorius with a hair-trigger startle reflex. His testimony raised a potentially precedent-setting question for South Africa, according to legal analysts: Did being disabled and unable to flee leave Pistorius so vulnerable and terrified that he lost control of his actions, and unintentionally pulled the trigger?

Derman testified that the startle responses of disabled athletes were exaggerated, compared with those of non-disabled people. Because Pistorius couldn’t flee, he had to confront danger, an option that may not have been reasonable for an able-bodied person who could have run away, Derman testified.

Legal analysts said it was the first time a South African court has been confronted with a defense of unconscious, involuntary action, based on an exaggerated startle response due to disability. Courts have tended to dismiss such a defense except in extraordinary cases involving sleep walking or epilepsy.

One more long shot defense is available, however. South African law recognizes temporary insanity (technically known as temporary non-pathological criminal incapacity) in cases in which a killer is so emotionally overwhelmed by terror, rage, or other emotions that he briefly loses control and acts unconsciously and involuntarily.

“The evidence of Derman is very much along the lines that his startle response made it impossible for him to understand that he was doing wrong or to control himself,” Grant said.

The last South African who tried the temporary insanity defense failed. Graeme Eadie, who beat a motorist to death with a hockey stick after the driver tailgated him at night, flashed his headlights, overtook and cut him off, argued that marital, financial, and work stress provoked his temporary non-pathological criminal incapacity. Eadie lost the case, and an appeal.

David Dadic, an attorney and criminal law expert, said the defense made a strong case Pistorius was extremely fearful and vulnerable. But the court might conclude that many other people have been similarly fearful, but did not react the same way, he added.

“I think the court will be wary of the precedent,” Dadic said. “We can’t create a precedent in this country where you can go and shoot down bathroom doors because you are scared.”

AFP Photo/Alon Skuy

Interested in world news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Judge Orders Oscar Pistorius To Undergo Psychiatric Evaluation

Judge Orders Oscar Pistorius To Undergo Psychiatric Evaluation

By Robyn Dixon, Los Angeles Times

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — The judge in the murder trial of South African Olympian Oscar Pistorius on Wednesday ordered the athlete to undergo a comprehensive mental health assessment by a panel of psychiatrists, after an allegation he suffered from an anxiety disorder.

Pistorius stood as Judge Thokozile Masipa handed down her judgment. The judge said the court had no choice but to refer him for investigation after psychiatrist Merryll Vorster testified he had “generalized anxiety disorder” that may have affected his actions the night he shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.

The aim, the judge said, was not to punish him twice, but to ensure that justice was done. She raised the possibility that Pistorius would not have to stay overnight in a state mental hospital for the entire 30-day assessment, but could be treated as an outpatient.

The judge’s decision was an apparent blow to defense advocate Barry Roux, who vigorously contested the move in court on Tuesday, calling it a ruse by the prosecution to get a second psychiatric opinion. Pistorius told the BBC Monday that the request he be referred for psychiatric evaluation was “a joke.”

But Judge Masipa defended the ruling and questioned the defense’s opposition to further psychiatric evaluation of Pistorius.

“The effect of the evidence is that a doubt has been created that the accused may have another defense, relating to his criminal responsibility,” Masipa said. Vorster’s testimony raised the possibility that Pistorius’ criminal responsibility might be lessened by his anxiety disorder, she added.

Under South Africa’s Criminal Procedures Act (Section 78), a court must refer an accused person for psychiatric evaluation if there is an allegation or reasonable possibility that a person did not know right from wrong because of a mental defect, or if a defect meant he or she couldn’t act in accordance with right or wrong.

Roux argued that Pistorius did not meet either test.

But Judge Masipa found, “The accused may not have raised the issue that he was criminally responsible at the time of the incident in so many words, but the evidence led on his behalf dearly raises the issue and, therefore, cannot be ignored.”

Pistorius’ lawyers appeared to initially call on the expert witness to show that, due to his anxiety disorder amid feelings of fear and vulnerability over what he thought was an intruder, it was reasonable for him to fire four shots through the toilet door in his bathroom.

The prosecution argues Pistorius was in a rage and intended to kill Steenkamp after a quarrel.

Arnold Pistorius, the athlete’s uncle and family spokesman, welcomed the ruling in a statement to journalists.

“As a family we are comforted by the thoroughness and commitment of this judgment. It’s about a fair trial,” Arnold Pistorius said. “It reaffirms our confidence in the South African justice system.” He took no questions.

The psychiatric panel could help Pistorius’ case or reduce his sentence if he is convicted if it finds the Olympic sprinter suffers from generalized anxiety disorder. But if the panel finds that he was fully functional, able to control himself and had full criminal liability, the findings could complicate his defense.

The judge noted that there was no definition of mental illness in the Criminal Procedures Act and that the court didn’t have the expertise to make a diagnosis, so a proper psychiatric investigation into Pistorius’ mental condition was required.

“This court, as a lay court, is ill-equipped to deal with the allegations (of generalized anxiety disorder) at this stage. They have substance and are in line with the accused’s evidence,” the judge said.

She added that expert psychiatric witness Vorster had seen Pistorius only twice and may not have had much time to write her report.

Roux’s call for Pistorius to be treated as an out-patient was supported by the judge, who said the aim was not to punish Pistorius. The prosecutor said this possibility would be investigated.

Pistorius’ advocate also called for psychologists to be included on the expert panel, not just psychiatrists.

Judge Masipa adjourned the trial until Tuesday, when she said she will issue her final order to refer Pistorius for a psychiatric evaluation after considering input from both sides.

AFP Photo/Bongiwe Mchunu

Defense In Oscar Pistorius Murder Trial Opposes Mental Evaluation

Defense In Oscar Pistorius Murder Trial Opposes Mental Evaluation

By Robyn Dixon, Los Angeles Times

JOHANNESBURG — The defense attorney for Oscar Pistorius on Tuesday strongly contested an application by the prosecution to send the athlete to a state mental hospital for 30 days of psychiatric tests after a psychiatrist diagnosed him with an anxiety disorder.

Barry Roux said there were no grounds to order a mental evaluation of the South African Olympian, who is on trial for murder in the death of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. The lawyer said Pistorius’ ability to distinguish right from wrong and to act accordingly wasn’t affected by the disorder.

The psychiatrist, Dr. Merryll Vorster, diagnosed Pistorius with generalized anxiety disorder, saying he had been anxious nearly his entire life, since the trauma of the amputation of both his legs at 11 months old. His mother sometimes abused alcohol, didn’t give him permission to appear disabled, and was unable to sooth anxiety in her children, making them more anxious, according to Vorster.

She testified the disorder — a chronic condition that involves intense anxiety, but not paranoia or delusions — may have played a role in his shooting of Steenkamp in the early hours of Valentine’s Day last year. But she said the disorder wasn’t a mental illness.

State prosecutor Gerrie Nel said the court had little option but to send Pistorius for evaluation, because only a full assessment by a panel of expert psychiatrists could determine whether Pistorius actually had a mental disorder and whether it played a role the night he fatally shot Steenkamp.

Pistorius does not dispute that he shot his girlfriend, but says he believed there was an intruder when he fired four shots through the toilet door in his bathroom, hitting her three times. He said he did not realize she was there.

Nel said the defense appeared to suggest that Pistorius’ responsibility was diminished because he responded abnormally due to his anxiety and disability. That issue, he said, must be properly investigated by psychiatric experts.

“Dr. Vorster has conceded that the accused is a danger to society and to himself and that he should not be allowed to possess a firearm,” he said. He warned of the danger that the case might be subject to appeal if the questions around the athlete’s mental disorder are not resolved.

Judge Thokozile Masipa is due to announce her judgment on the issue Wednesday. If she does refer him for psychiatric evaluation, the trial will be delayed for at least a month.

Pistorius only saw Vorster early this month — more than two months after the murder trial began, after his evidence and cross-examination, and more than a year after he killed Steenkamp.

The defense provided the state with its report Monday. Nel expressed concern about the late timing of Vorster’s examination of the athlete, saying it appeared the defense had called in a psychiatrist because Pistorius was a poor witness. He said the defense case that Pistorius had a mental disorder appeared to be a “fallback” position.

Pistorius was “not the most impressive witness,” he said, adding that the prosecution would argue his testimony should be rejected.

The prosecutor said the defense team changed its defense twice before, and that the court was entitled to know what Pistorius’ defense was.

He said the defense began by suggesting Pistorius killed Steenkamp in self-defense, later switching to a defense of “automatism” — meaning he acted unconsciously and without intent when he fired.

Roux, his voice rising with indignation, said there was no basis for Nel’s application.

“The factual basis does not support the state. It’s a ruse to get a second opinion,” he said, referring to the psychiatric diagnosis. “The state wants the second opinion through a strange procedure.”

Roux said he intended to call another witness on the matter of Pistorius’ feelings of vulnerability, and any application on referring the athlete for psychiatric assessment should follow that witness.

©afp.com / Alexander Joe