The Sunday Times article published yesterday with the lead of " OSCAR IS A LIAR" immediately drew our attention to what was being stated by the tabloid newspaper. After glancing through the article I realised that the article itslef was based on false infomation..ie that Oscar is a proven liar... once agin... it is irresponsible journalism that sells newspapers. In the article it states that because he didnt report someone assaulting him...he is a liar. It also alludes- as does Nel that he is a liar because the evidence was moved. In any court of law anywhere in the world- if the evidence scene has been tampered with by the police ; it cannot be used by the court to disprove anything the accused says. That a watch was stolen from the crime scene by one of the police officers discredits anything that Nel wants to say to prove Oscar is a liar. This is quite obvious and the judge should not allow anything of that nature to be adduced to discredit Oscars character. Furthermore, the judge and the SAHRC should rebuke nel for calling Oscar a liar without conclusively proving it. It is quite apparent that a person in shock cannot recall where everything is exactly at the crime scene. It is quite possible also that in this shock Oscar could have shifted thejeans or forgot where he placed the duvet. How can he be asked to remember where exactly everything was? If you tell one person a sentence and ask them to apss it on ... ( chinese whispers) - it will change by the time you get to person number 20 - why? because our capability to recall every detail is not 100% accurate. Thereis always a margin of error. But that doesnt mean Oscar is a liar. The fact hat the evidence was tampered with means that there is reasonable doubt and nothing can be adduced from it. In fact the judge should not use it in her summing up at allto make a decision on his guilt. - or innocence.
One of the policies of the AUP is to encourage repsonsible journalism. We believe there should be a watchdog that governs what claims the media makes and if they can be made - simply to sell the newspapers- especially in sensitive issues like a mans life being put on trial. To damge a mans reputation is so easy . If Oscars version of the events is true and the court decides they are true...then he should be 100% vindicated and newspapers that have libelled his name should pay up. It is obvious to me that he shot her without knowing it was her behind the door. He was in a state of total paranoid psychosis...even hiding in a cupboard... this is a common psychological condition created by a shocking event or a perceived event. In psychosis a personactually believes his or her life is in danger - even if its not and this person becomes totaly irrational. In the case of Oscar - it was the fear of the unknown- darkness...pure darkness that petrified him after his belief that someopne had entered the house... he was in a state of paranoid psychosis. I am convinced whilst his version may have holes in it ... through memeory lapases ... the body of his evidence is accurate and that it was an accident.He didnt mean to shoot Reeva and therefore it was not premeditated murder. It was a tragic accident.... reasonable doubt proved.