On Monday the 13th of October the sentencing hearing of paralympian hero Oscar Pistorius commenced. Last month he was convicted on two charges which included the negligent use of a firearm in a public place and cuplable homicide, in that he was ruled to have been grossly negligent in causing the death of Reeva Steenkamp in what is considered by many to be a flawed judgement, and will in all probability be appealed.
It has been a week of high drama and emotion in the North Gauteng High Court as the defense and state led a total six witnesses through, what was at times, highly controversial testimony ruffling more than a few feathers.
Before the week concluded we would see the Department of Correctional Services “on trial” following the testimony of Annette Vergeer, a probation officer, in private practice who testified that the Department of corrections was ill equipped to house Pistorius. Furious about the contents of her report the Acting National Commissioner of the Department Mr. Zach Modise taking the stand to explain that DCS could accommodate Pistorius and that prison conditions were improving.
THE DEFENSE
The week kicked off with the defense calling Pistorius psychologist, Dr. Lore Hartzenburg to the stand. She is an educational psychologist trained in trauma counselling. Her Doctoral Thesis focused on Cross cultural trauma counselling within the context of domestic violence.
She explained that Oscar Pistorius had employed her as a grief counsellor shortly after he had killed Reeva Steenkamp. She consulted with Pistorius for the first time on the 23rd February 2013 and has been assisting him throughout the trial. She further revealed that she had had an agreement with Pistorius that she would not give evidence during the trial. She stated “My attitude from the outset was that I was Mr. Pistorius’s therapist and I was not going to get involved in the merits of the case.”
She was recently approached by the Defense and asked to write a report which she finally agreed to do after consultation with Pistorius in order to obtain his consent.
Hartzenburg told the court of her sessions with Pistorius who she saw on a daily, a weekly or a monthly basis as needed. These sessions varied in length between a few minutes to up to two hours at a time. “Initially it was very difficult… to have sessions with Mr Pistorius. He was very emotional. We couldn’t conduct some of the sessions – it was just him weeping and crying, and then [in] other sessions we could make progress.” she said.
She told the court of Pistorius distress and the guilt he felt after killing Steenkamp and explained to the court that in her opinion he is still extremely vulnerable psychologically. She referred to him as a broken man saying he had lost everything, his love, his reputation, his financial security and the friends that he had shared with Reeva Steenkamp. In her opinion Pistorius would require intensive therapy for an extended period of time.
It was fairly obvious from the outset that Dr. Hartzenburg had been called in order to establish that Pistorius was deeply remorseful for killing Reeva Steenkamp. What also stood out was that the doctor had established a bond of trust within the counselling relationship she had with Pistorius. One that she was loath to break and which resulted in fairly biased testimony which was attacked by State Prosecutor Gerrie Nel, highlighting the fact that a counselling psychologist should exercise caution in assuming forensic role.
The next witness to take the stand was social worker, Joel Maringa an employee of Correctional Services. His controversial testimony sparked a furore within the Department of Correctional Services. He placed on record that Pistorius was in his opinion a suitable candidate for correctional supervision for a period of three years. This is a non-incarcerative sentence that could be served in the community. He recommended that Pistorius be subject to house arrest and that he carry out 16 hours a month of community service as a cleaner at the Transvaal Museum in Pretoria.
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel described Maringa’s recommendation as “shockingly inappropriate”. He pushed the social worker on whether he had given any consideration to the seriousness of the crime. It emerged that Maringa had not read the judgment or had failed to understand it. Nel put it to Maringa that Pistorius fired four times through a closed door. “He fired into the ground,” Maringa replied. “You’re totally wrong,” Nel told him, indicating that Maringa was referring to the Tasha’s shooting.
It appeared that Maringa had given no consideration to the fact that the court had pronounced that Pistorius had been grossly negligent in causing the death of his girlfriend or that he had used a firearm negligently to cause her death which is always aggravating. Maringa indicated that it was his understanding that Pistorius had not intended to shoot! “How can you base your report on a misreading of the judgment? You’re wrong,” Nel enlightened him.
Reeva’s father sat with his head in his hands as Maringa spoke.
Mr. Maringa’s supervisor had not been aware of the contents of his report and had not approved it. The Department of Corrections reacted swiftly, damning the testimony.
Next to take the stand in Pistorius Defense was his manager Peet van Zyl who read out a detailed CV on Pistorius charity work and how much he had done for disabled people. Nel challenged this by putting forward that much of this work was simply Pistorius fulfilling contractual obligations to his sponsors. He put forward that Pistorius had taken very little out of his own pocket, for the most part donating sponsored goods as a marketing tool in order to promote his own public image and for financial gain. In court journalists were bored to tears by van Zyl’s the lengthy testimony and very biased opinions. He repeatedly blamed the media for Pistorius troubles. At one stage he told the court how he still received calls requesting that Oscar Pistorius address functions in order to tell his “inspirational story”. I couldn’t help but wonder about the veracity of this statement. Who would want to associate Pistorius with their brand at this point of the trial?
Annette Vergeer was the last witness to take the stand for the defense. She sported a very funky hairstyle with a black and white streaky fringe that stood straight up in the air reminding me of a porcupine, which sparked amusing debate on Twitter. She is a probation officer in private practice contracted and remunerated by the Defense to draw up a probation report. She was strongly of the view that prisons are unpleasant and dangerous placed and that Oscar Pistorius did not belong in one. She stated that South African prisons were infested with gangs and drugs and that many inmates were sodomised and often became victims o gang rape. She pointed out that prisons were very short staffed. She claimed that the prison was ill equipped to accommodate people with disabilities as there were no baths, the showers had no hand railings and the floors were covered with broken tiles and cement which could cause Pistorius to slip and injure himself. She went on to state that there was inadequate medical and psychological care available to inmates and this would be detrimental to the accused. In my opinion she raised may valid points applicable to inmates who find themselves in South African prisons today. However most of her observations would not be applicable to Pistorius in my opinion. Pistorius would be a very high profile prisoner if incarcerated and the Department of Corrections could ill afford the scandal of him sustaining so much as a scratch while in prison.
She like Maringa recommended a non incarcerative sentence of correctional supervision in terms of section 276h for three year period. She further suggested that conditions include possible house arrest and that be required to complete 16 hours of community service. At this point Roux asked if rather than working at the museum he couldn’t rather visit schools which was what he enjoyed doing.
I sat in court listening to this testimony, wondering where the punitive element of this sentence recommendation was to be found. She was essentially recommending that Pistorius go home to Uncle Arnolds house, which is a luxurious, fully staffed mansion, where he is waited on hand and foot and that for 16 hours a month he pop out to play with school children, an activity that he enjoys and where he is idolised and made to feel fantastic, feeding his narcissistic ego.
During a protracted cross examination Gerrie Nel tore into Vergeer accusing her of bias against prisons and exposing the fact that her report was poorly researched, containing ancient date with few current facts included. It turned out that she was unfamiliar with the Correctional Services Act, was unaware that prisoners could be housed in single cells, was unaware that there were even baths available in the medical ward. There were times I cringed how little Vergeer claimed to be aware of in the light that she claimed to have 28 years experience in the field. When Nel asked her if she had heard of the Dewani matter, and she replied she had not. I was very surprised. I found myself questioning her honesty. Surely everyone involved in the justice profession was aware of the extradition of Shrien Dewani for the murder of his wife Anni. Nel put as a fact to Vergeer that Dewani had been extradited because the British had found that the South African prisons where in a fit state to house him. This statement however was also inaccurate. Dewani was extradited on the condition that he remain in Valkenburg Psychiatric Clinic throughout the trial, in order that he be spared the SA Prison System which were considered unfit. There were additional promises made that Dewani, if convicted, would only be sent to prison if South Africa could bring the chosen facility in line with the standard of the top five prisons globally. With the short comings of her report exposed and her reputation in tatters Vergeer scuttled off the stand.
REEVA’S PARENTS ACCEPTED PAYMENT
Vergeer’s report also brought to light that Reeva’s parents had been accepting monthly payments of about R 6000.00 a month from Pistorius. On the sale of a vehicle, reportedly Pistorius final asset, he had offered them an additional R 375 000.00. Reportedly they had rejected this settlement labelling it blood money. Instead they had signed lucrative contracts to tell their story in the foreign media earning millions. They have undertaken to pay all monies received back to Pistorius. He claims the money was an unconditional gift and he does not want the money returned. It was also indicated that they will no longer be perusing a civil claim against Pistorius!
THE PROSECUTION
The first witness called by Gerrie Nel was Kim Martin, Reeva Steenkamp’s cousin. For the first time Reeva’s presence was felt strongly in the court. Kim Martin’s recounted how she held Reeva in her arms as a baby when she was twelve. She spoke of Reeva’s deep bond with her family and how, “family was everything to her”. She told us of Reeva’s great love for animals most especially her cat.
We learned about how she heard about Reeva’s death on the Radio Station. How, while in the car the reporter kept saying “Breaking News” but not elaborating and how she thought, “this must be big just get on with it”. When she heard him say, “Oscar Pistorius has shot and killed his girlfriend” she prayed that he was cheating on Reeva. She described the terrible state Reeva’s parents were in when she arrived at their home. She spoke at length about her families suffering and how they are all receiving ongoing therapy in order to try and process Reeva’s loss. She feels Pistorius should pay for’ “taking Reeva’s life”.
Her testimony was gut wrenching, bringing me and many other hardened journalists and attorneys to tears. Watching Martin sob through much of her testimony was difficult but when my heart really broke for her was during cross-examination when she told Pistorius defense council Barry Roux, that If prison conditions are inhumane she wouldn’t want Oscar Pistorius to go there. She stated that when she had believed this she had been concerned for his safety. Her compassion was admirable!
Next up for the prosecution was Acting Commissioner of Correctional Services Zack Modsise who flew back from parliament to testify for the state, after being angered by Vergeer’s allegations and feeling a need to put forward the true facts about South African Prison facilities. He painted a rosy picture of South African prisons disputing the claims of Vergeer. He put forward that all prisoners were subject to a health assessment within six hours of arrival at the prison. He explained how a risk and needs analysis was performed on each inmate within 21 days of arrival and that all prisoners were assigned a security classification. He indicated that Pistorius would probably be housed in a single cell in the medical facility. He explained that inmates were free to consult with their own physicians and psychologist if they did not want to make use of those on staff at the facilities, however this would be at their own cost. He put forward that prisons were equipped with sports fields and gyms that were available for the use of inmates. He explained that prison over crowding had been reduced from just over 60% to 31% and that correctional services were attempting to resolve many issues within the system
In truth the pictures placed before the court by both Vergeer and Modise were inaccurate and the reality of prisons in South Africa lies somewhere in the middle.
MIKEY SCHULTZ CLASHES WITH AIMEE PISTORIUS
Underworld figure Mikey Schultz, self-confessed killer of mining magnate Brett Kebble was accused of mouthing the words “F#$# you” to Pistorius’s sister in court on Thursday. Schultz then left the court and proceeded to give interviews to the press in which he stated, “She is a liar just like her brother”. It appears that on entering the courtroom, he and Mark Batchelor, there to support their friend Jarred Mortimer, who they thought may testify about the VIP room incident with Pistorius. The court was full and they were told to sit in the front row by police officials. This they did not knowing it was reserved for the Pistorius family. It Appears Aimee then told them to move or she would call the police as the Pistorius didn’t want to be associated with them. In response Mark Strydom mouthed the F%$# You response. After the fracas security was tightnened around the Pistorius family. I had to smile because if Schultz was going to act against Pistorius it certainly would not be at the North Gauteng High Court.
SKY NEWS FAUX PAS
In a rather amusing incident SKY News had a technical glitch which prompted this communication from an old friend of mine from high school Chris Coles who currently resides in New Zealand, “Sky News live from Oscar Pistorius trial, have forgotten to switch off camera and voice feed during the break. Makes good listening, reporters talking about a women’s, cheap slutty shoes. Eyewitness news, lol. Laurie Pieters-James ,you may wish to let them know!” I suspect the Sky crew were referring to EWN reporter Gia Nicolaides! These comments would have resulted in a few red faces!
Final arguments in mitigation and aggravation were argued on Friday. The defense argued for a correctional supervision sentence and Nel indicated that the state would not accept anything less than a ten year prison sentence. The court then adjourned until Tuesday the 21st October at 09h30 when sentence will be handed down.
I am available to assist in any criminal matters. Expert Profiling is contactable on Tel: 390 9957 email: – [email protected] or [email protected] or on Twitter @LauriePieters.
