Oscar Pistorius Trial 3: Gerrie Nel and Prosecutorial Hubris

This is the third article, also published on News24, on the Pistorius trial:

In an article, “Oscar Pistorius's Cross-Examination” written by Jeralyn  and reported on  www.talkleft.com, written at the time when Gerrie Nel was cross examining OP during the trial shows that, far from judicial error, this case was lost by a prosecutor who thought he was bigger than the law. It was this prosecutorial failure that led to the judge acquitting OP of murder. 

I often wondered why Barry Roux didn't object to Gerrie Nel's cross of OP. Now I realize that Barry Roux just gave Gerrie Nel rope to hang himself. And the gullible press and public who were effusive in their praise of the prosecution now are left to consider the outcome of a prosecutor who believed in his own hype. In the end he failed Reeva and her family.

The mainstream press was effusive in its praise of Gerrie Nel at the time and in awe of his “bulldog” approach to in his cross-examination of Oscar Pistorius. Remember Judge Masipa warned Nel, “You possibly think this is entertainment. It is not. Please restrain yourself.”

As the article points out, “It's not the prosecutor's job to tell a defendant to accept responsibility for the crime for which he's on trial and denies committing. It's his job to ask questions and test his version of the facts. Unless a defendant's story is so rehearsed it never changes, there are obviously going to be minor discrepancies. It's not surprising that Oscar's memory is better on what led up to the shooting than during the moments of trauma afterwards when he realized Reeva was dead … Mis-remembering some details does not make one a liar. It makes one human."

And then, written in April 2014, the writer of the article makes a prediction: “I don't see a premeditated murder case here. As to the lesser offense of [common law] murder, that's a tougher call. But it seems to me the prosecutor overcharged the case and the testimony of most of his witnesses (particularly the neighbors) were inconsistent with each other. The media's praise of him and his bombastic style is misplaced. He's just substituting theatrics for his lack of proof, and throwing everything he can think of against the wall, hoping something sticks.

The judge has not hesitated to rein in the prosecutor. His approach may sell with the public, but it remains to be seen whether it helps or hurts his case with the judge -- the only person whose opinion matters in the end.”

In the end the judge was not impressed, the state failed to prove its case and accused acquitted of murder. Directing anger at the judge and calling her names is misplaced. The failure here was on the prosecution's side: prosecutorial hubris: a prosecutor who came to the table with nothing in his hand, went all in and lost. 

Oscar Pistorius Trial 2: Did Judge Masipa Really Err?

This is the second article, which was posted on News24 and questions whether Masipa J, in her judgment finding Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide but not of murder, did make an error:

The Sunday Time proclaims, “Oscar Judge Under Fire “ (Sunday 14thSeptember 2014). It is so interesting that so much of the mainstream media who backed the wrong horse right the way through the trial now have to grasp at straws to cover up their bias. The focus of attack in the media now shifts to a judge who, just last week, was being hailed as a competent jurist, a champion for justice and women’s rights. Now she is criticized by every armchair expert as well as in certain legal circles. Yet, we are justified in asking whether the judge did err in any way in her application of the law of intent.

 In an article written by HJ Van Der Merwe in “Law, Democracy and Development” (Vol 17 2013 at p 64ff) the author makes it clear that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) clarified the application of dolus eventualis in criminal matters in the Humphreys’ case on appeal. Dolus is a mental element of the crime of murder that is comprised of two parts: (1) that the accused foresaw as a real and substantial possibility that death would occur and (2) that the accused reconciled himself / was reckless or indifferent to that outcome. First, the accused must have foreseen the real and substantial possibility of death occurring and in the Humphreys’ case, the accused foresaw that outcome, but did not reconcile himself to that outcome and, therefore, was not guilty of murder. In Humphreys, the Appellate Division clarified this second aspect of dolus and I suspect that it was this second element that Judge Masipa found lacking - the accused in the Pistorius case was not indifferent / had not reconciled himself / was not reckless as to that outcome. Therefore, far from making a mistake of law, it shows that the judge has read and applied the Humphreys’ test for dolus correctly and that this is a clearer understanding and application of the law relating to this second aspect of dolus eventualis than the "experts" who have been so critical of the judge.

The verdict also points to the prosecutorial failure in the Pistorius case where the prosecution tried to establish "pre-meditated" murder despite the challenges of proving this where there were no reliable witnesses – an enterprise that was doomed before it began. Strangely enough, it was probably Gerrie Nel's bullying tactics that convinced the court that the accused did not reconcile himself / was not reckless or indifferent to the outcome that he had foreseen - he was clearly devastated by the outcome and showed remorse when attacked by the prosecution in the witness box. The prosecution also made a meal of the accused’s proficiency with firearms and, interestingly, in terms of the Humphreys’ judgment, it could well have been the accused’s proficiency with firearms that also convinced the judge that he had not fulfilled the recklessness aspect of dolus – it was because of the accused’s knowledge of firearms that he thought that he could shoot into that enclosed space without causing death.

 Clearly the judge has understood the law and applied it correctly and I suspect that there will not be an appeal by the prosecution. If there is one, it is doomed.  

Osar Pistorius Trial 1: A Toxic Relationship?

For those of you who have followed the trial I thought I would post a series of issues that I addressed during the course of the trial. This was a letter to the Sunday Times that was published in their letters page on the 13th April 2014:

Oscar and Reeva: A Toxic and Abusive Relationship?

I refer to Redi Tlhabi's piece "When pain and cruelty wear loves's sweet smile" (6 April). In Redi's article, echoing similar sentiments expressed on the letters page of various newspapers as well as social media platforms, the conclusion is reached that Oscar and Reeva were in a toxic and abusive relationship. Redi, drawing lines from the conviction of Thato Kutumela for the horrific and brutal murder and rape of Zanele Khumalo, to the relationship between Oscar and Reeva, concludes that "... this was not love." This is a staggering and bold conclusion given that it is reached on the basis of only 4 out of almost 1800 messages between Oscar and Reeva over the span of their three month relationship.

The real problem with this conclusion is that it is based on messages in which there is neither tone nor context. As in any indirect form of communication (letter, journal entry, email, SMS, WhatsApp and so on), unless we have other information, we must imagine context and insert tone into the messages, but who is to say that our imagined context (which we must determine from our own context) and our inserted tone (which we must colour in our own voices) are correct? The attendant danger is that, listening to these messages, we assume that we have access to every communication that passed between these two people. Of course, we do not. We do not know what transpired between these two when they were not communicating indirectly, but directly: when they spoke to one another face-to-face to address the issues she raised in her messages. Perhaps these WhatsApp messages functioned as conversation starters that led to a frank and open conversation about their respective expectations from their relationship and from one another. This is how healthy relationships function: each party feeling able to express his / her own expectations from the other and assessing whether the other is able to meet those expectations.

In addition, It would be very unusual if Reeva truly felt in danger that she would not have confided in someone: her mother or a friend perhaps, but not one of these people were called to testify that she said something of this sort to them. Why? Because she never did. In contrast, the relationship between Thato and Zanele was characterized by violence and abuse that was apparent to her parents and friends, so much so that her father forbade him access to the house. When this father read from his daughter's journal we do not have to imagine context or insert tone. The toxic and abusive nature of this relationship that went before this journal entry is clearly obvious. In the case of Oscar and Reeva, this is not so.

We must be very cautious about reading our own preconceptions (inserting our own contexts and colouring the discourse in our own tone) into the lives of others. What relationship is completely devoid of any trace of anger, frustration, irritation or misunderstanding? No relationship that I know.

This Sunday we will look at the church – what are some of the Biblical pictures of the church? 

In Matthew 16:13-18 we read, “13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.”

The New Testament gives us a number of pictures of the church and each one tells us something different about the church, the values we should maintain, the things we should do and what we should expect of leaders.

Think of the church as a …

FELLOWSHIP

 

FAMILY

BODY

 CITY

 FLOCK

BUILDING

FIELD

.
 

What do these images, these metaphors say to us about the church?

John 3:1-18 - Are there limits to the love of God?

This Sunday as we consider what is perhaps one of the best known - and most quoted - Scriptural passages of all time, give some thought to this written by David Lose:

Hell seems to be all the rage these days. The renewed interest results, in part, because of Rob Bell's new book Love Wins. But even more, the furor stems from the reaction of many Evangelical Christians to a promotional video that Bell prepared in advance of the book in which he seems to advocate a position many call "universalism," the belief that God will ultimately redeem all people, leaving none to suffer the fires of hell.

Ironically, this same week preachers from all around the world who follow the Common Lectionary (including Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, UCC and others) will be preparing sermons on the world's most famous Bible verse, John 3:16. In case you don't have it memorized, this verse -- which might be summarized "Love wins!" -- reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Interestingly, the word for "world" (kosmos in Greek) everywhere else in the Gospel of John describes that entity that is at complete enmity with God. Typical is this prayer by Jesus just before his crucifixion: "I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world" (John 17:14-16).

This gives John 3:16 a bit more punch: "For God so loved the God-hating world that he sent his only Son ... ," we might accurately translate. Apparently, at least according to Jesus, God really, really, really loves the world.

This doesn't, of course, by itself address the question of universalism, as the verse continues, "all who believe will not perish but have eternal life." But the force of God's love as articulated by Jesus does raise the question of why hell is so incredibly important to so many Christians? As a theological concept, "hell" is almost entirely missing from the Old Testament and surfaces as a minor concern in the New, showing up most frequently in Jesus' parables (which, let's not forget, regularly defy a literal reading). In contrast, topics like proper treatment of the poor, good use of money, and the imperative to care for neighbor and creation all capture a strikingly disproportionate amount of the attention of the biblical authors.

So why can't a prominent Christian author even question how to reconcile Jesus' description of God's incredible, even incomprehensible love with the notion of condemning souls to eternal torment without being condemned as a heretic? I suspect there are several reasons. Certainly the threat of hell provides a motivational system par excellence. During the Middle Ages, for instance -- when doctrines of hell were most fully developed -- the desire to avoid eternal punishment motivated Christians to all kinds of supposedly pious acts, everything from donating money to build the Sistine Chapel to enlisting in countless Crusades.
But I think the importance we attach to hell today has more to do with the allure of certainty than fear of punishment. A clear sense of the rewards and punishments for having or lacking faith in Christ offers a compelling logic regarding our eternal destiny that reduces ambiguity from the life of faith. After all, and as many Evangelical Christians have argued, if you can go to heaven without believing in Christ, what's the point of faith in the first place? This certainty, in turn, lends believers a sense of authority, even power, as they have a clear standard by which to judge "who's in" and "who's out." Talk about seductive!

But as Bell notes in his video, our notions of hell don't only witness to our beliefs about the afterlife, they also speak volumes about how we imagine God. Is God primarily loving or angry, forgiving or vengeful?

Conservative Evangelicals like John Piper (one of Bell's critics) seem to want it both ways: God is loving, but also just. Therefore, while God desires that all people be saved through faith in Christ out of love, God nevertheless must punish sinners by condemning them to hell or God's justice would be moot. The trouble is, when that's spelled out in plain English -- "God loves you very much, but if you don't believe the right way you're going to suffer eternal torment" -- there's an inescapable contradiction. Karl Barth, arguably the greatest theologian of the twentieth-century, after listening to just such a message by a noted American evangelist, is said to have commented that such logic sounded like the gospel, all right, but at gunpoint.

To be fair, I can understand why classic universalism leaves many Christians -- including myself -- underwhelmed. The idea that whatever religious path you choose is as good as any other seems detached, generic, and rather anemic, hardly representative of the passionate faith of those who follow Jesus. But to assume that God cannot in God's infinite power, love, and wisdom save all persons if God desires? ... Or to assert that there must be a hell if heaven is to be meaningful? ... Such sentiments seem at the very least to underestimate the God of biblical faith.
If Rob Bell advocates that the God revealed in Jesus will not stop until all God's creation is redeemed and recreated -- and I suppose we'll know soon! -- he will not stand alone. Theologians as diverse as Clement and Origin in the third century, Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Paul Tillich in the twentieth, and countless in between also chose not to limit just how far Christ's redemptive love can reach. So doesn't the possibility that God's love will eventually win at least deserve a hearing and civil discussion in our own day? This is, after all, the God who loves the God-hating world so very much we're talking about.

Jeremiah 29 (NIV)

A Letter to the Exiles

29 This is the text of the letter that the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the surviving elders among the exiles and to the priests, the prophets and all the other people Nebuchadnezzar had carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. 2 (This was after King Jehoiachin and the queen mother, the court officials and the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the skilled workers and the artisans had gone into exile from Jerusalem.) 3 He entrusted the letter to Elasah son of Shaphan and to Gemariah son of Hilkiah, whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent to King Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon. It said:

4 This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6 Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. 7 Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” 8 Yes, this is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: “Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have. 9 They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them,” declares the Lord.

10 This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back from captivity. I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.”

As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the building of our sanctuary, I have been thinking about how the world has changed in 40 years. We live in a very different world to the world that existed in 1973.

Fashions have changed, cars have changed, money has devalued and the Christian faith is not the dominant force that it used to be. Tolerance has become the god of this age. As the late Chuck Colson put it in his book, The Faith:

Tolerance once meant listening respectfully to all points of view, freely discussed in our common search for the truth.  But the creed for the new god of tolerance is that knowing truth is impossible.  So everyone is free to think and act as he likes, with one exception: those who have the audacity to believe that they know the truth, particularly if they think God has revealed it to them, are not tolerated.  The result is that those who crowned the new god of tolerance have become the absolute arbiters of culture.  The new god of tolerance becomes, in the guise of tolerance, an absolute tyrant.  (p.  68).

Many are suggesting that the church in the West is a church in exile. As we read Jeremiah's advice to the Jews in exile in Babylon, what lessons can we learn as we come to terms with living as Christians in a new and different world?

Do you agree that the church in the West is a church in exile?  Why or why not?  If you agree, what does it mean for us at DPC and each one of us as we minister as a member of it?

The Parable of the Crafty Trade Union Leader

Luke 16:1-13 (NIV)

The Parable of the Shrewd Manager

16 Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. ² So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’

³ “The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— ⁴ I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’

⁵ “So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’

⁶ “‘Nine hundred gallons of olive oil,’ he replied.

“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’

⁷ “Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’

“‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied.

“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’

⁸ “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. ⁹ I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

¹⁰ “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. ¹¹ So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?¹² And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

¹³ “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

This parable must have sounded impossible to the first hearers of it. I am sure they were not sure what Jesus was telling them. I remember telling my mother this story once and she did not believe that it was actually in the Bible. If we were to update the parable, perhaps it might sound a little like this:

Jesus said to the disciples, ‘There was an extremely powerful trade union official who held the highest office in a major trade union federation. He was well known and widely respected of in the world of politics and and exercised influence in the whole country.  But charges were brought against him that he had appointed a junior staff member in an manner that was contrary to the rules of his organization and that he had engaged in an inappropriate sexual encounter with this person outside his marriage.  So he said to himself, “What will I do, now that they may take my position away from me?  I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg.  I have decided what to do so that they won’t be able to take my position away from me, I will call together the best of my friends and all those who owe their own high office to my power, and I will say to them, “With great care and subtlety of language I intend to refute this accusations whether what I say is true or not, and you will stick by me, no matter what is said, for I know everything about everyone one of you, and all that I know will go into the public domain if you don’t give me your undivided support.  If I fall you will fall too, so you’d better stand by me.’  And all the office bearers and friends did exactly that.

And Jesus said, ‘So I tell you, take full advantage of the power given into your hands so that you may be able to stand against the accusations of your enemies.  For it is better that you wield power, even with dishonesty, than others take that power from you.’

What do you think?