Regardless as to whether you’ve wanted to
know what has been happening in South Africa this week with the bail hearing of
Oscar Pistorius or not, it’s been hard not to know. The hearing has dominated
the news, and the newspapers – both hard copies and online. Also for anyone
living in London, had you managed to remain oblivious to the news (an
impressive feat – you must have stopped listening to the radio and watching the
television) you’ve had to contend with the boards at the major stations displaying
updates on the hearing on your commute.
The coverage of the “alleged” murder of
Reeva Steenkamp by Pistorius has dominated the news since it happened, and it
doesn’t look likely to ease until the trial is over. The bail hearing though, I
fear is only just the beginning. I think that we’re likely to find that whether
we like it or not, the sensationalism storm that is already underway has only
been a minor blizzard in light of what we can expect to see once the trail is
in full swing.
To me, it is all starting to feel a
little bit like OJ Simpson’s trial – not that I’m in anyway drawing comparisons
between the cases (before anyone makes that comment). Although, you’ve got to
wonder if OJ didn’t have the better defence to Pistorius! OJ’s whole there was
another person angle, and the glove didn’t fit sounded far more reasonable than
what we’ve heard from Pistorius so far. I’m not sure I’m persuaded by what
we’ve read of his “I thought Reeva was still in bed... I thought it was an
intruder... I thought... I thought...” Is it just me, or does it all sound a
little bit like tweety bird? “I thought I saw a pussy cat... I did, I did!”
Granted, it’s only been the bail hearing,
and yes a lot of what we’re reading is speculation from the media. I’m
certainly not reading the court transcripts! But I can’t say I’m convinced, not
with the whole cricket bat and shots through the closed bathroom door. Although
that that said, the prosecution doesn’t exactly look like it’s got its act
together either. Their evidence is reliant upon a witness who heard screaming from
400 metres away. Er hello! Who exactly hears screaming from that far away, you
know, aside from superman? Also, not particularly great for them that the lead
detective on the case has just been arrested for seven counts of murder!
All in all, the facts, the scandal, the
whole thing, it looks a mess. One thing is for sure though, it looks set to
make for great reading, and even if you want to avoid reading about it you
won’t be able to. A part of me really wants to rise above it. I know that it’s
sensationalist nonsense. We shouldn’t speculate. Pistorius should have the
right to fair trial, and we should feel genuinely sorry for Reeva and her
family.
The thing is I do want Pistorius to have a
fair trial, but I think we all know that he faces two trials – one in the
courts and one in the public eye. The one in the public eye though will be
marred entirely by the Press. I think I’d fear the press trial more. As for
Reeva Steenkamp it is a tragedy, and for her family I feel unbelievably sorry.
They are not only having to deal with their grief, but the momentous question
of why did this happen?
Sadly they may never get an answer to
this question regardless as to the outcome of either of Pistorius’s trials.
They must also live their grief out in the public eye, and endure what could be
months of what will be a worldwide public spectacle to try and find an answer
to this question.
Moving on slightly from sensationalism,
but sticking with the issue of the law, I must touch upon the Pryce trial. It
really does beggar belief that a case of such simplicity saw a re-trail, and a
jury dismissed. I think it is best summed up by the trail judge himself – Mr Justice
Sweeney, who said: "In 30 years of criminal trials I have never come
across this..., never."
The trail may also have re-raised the
issue of whether jury’s are the best way in which to try cases. One of the main
issues of concern in the Pryce case was whether the Jury had the sufficient intelligence
to be able to understand what was required of them in order to be able to reach
an outcome.
Of the ten questions that they asked one
of them was: "Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not
presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the
prosecution or defence?"
I honestly would have hoped that had that
question been put to children aged eleven and above, they would have known the
answer. It does seriously concern me therefore that a jury, of adults, had to
ask this question. Let’s not forget that there were twelve of them in the room,
surely one of them had the sufficient intellect to say, “er no, I think we’re
dependent on facts.”
Perhaps the sensationalism of the
Pistorius trial may do us all some good. Perhaps everyone, as we may all – if we
are on the electoral roll, be called upon to do jury service could stand to
learn something. The press should therefore take it upon themselves not only to
sensationalise but also to educate. Yes the South African system may differ
slightly to ours, but if its stops juries asking such ridiculous questions as
got asked in the Pryce trial then at least we’ll have learnt something in
addition to the fact that Pistorius wears blades to run in!
