GERRIE NEL DID HIS BEST
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
I never reply to abuse I receive because I believe it’s your right to express whatever opinion you want. But, as much as I love you guys, in this case, as with Julia Gillard and her attendance at the Royal Commission, many posters missed the point.
Julia Gillard was not in court and was never going to be tripped up in examination. She was never going to leave the Commission in cuffs, she hasn’t been charged and was merely responding to a subpoena to supply a statement that could be examined. She was not likely to admit fraud.
Fraud must be proved in a court of law and that is only likely to happen if the Commission’s findings and current Vicpol evidence is sufficient for the DPP to decide to charge her and/or others.
Gillard will eventually need to explain much more than what she offered up to the Commission. There were glaring omissions in her testimony and both the Commission and Vicpol knew it.
Stoljar was setting in stone her evidence that can be dismantled at a later date.
But I grossly underestimated the polarisation surrounding the Pistorius trial and the white hot anger over Judge Masipa’s decision. I did suggest that many would disagree, but golly, all of you?
Look, it came down to a decision that was based essentially on Westminster law.
Under Sharia law Reeva would have been found guilty of going to the toilet without Oscar’s permission but we rely on a fallible Westminster system that has at least, albeit shakily, stood the test of time.
I hear the anger but in the end there was really only one finding Judge Masipa could make. That is not her fault, it’s the fault of the State and it’s preoccupation with a murder 1 conviction when that was never a possibility.
The State underestimated Judge Masipa and overestimated its ability to emotionally force a confession of intent from Pistorius.
Murder 1 requires both premeditation and intent, and without a witness the court must rely heavily on the evidence of the accused.
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel, a renowned pit-bull bully, tried desperately to break Pistorius with every method fair and foul. But Pistorius’s story had never altered from the time he had killed her.
And the fact that he had killed her was never in doubt.
Nel needed this admission of intent as his case was circumstantial. He never got that admission. Culpable homicide then became the only possible finding any reasonable judge could make.
Whether you or I think there was intent or not is an entirely subjective opinion, it came down to what the State could prove... and it failed to prove anything other than what the defence had already admitted to.
I believe the prosecution arrogantly felt that a little black lady could be emotionally manipulated by an army of whites. But she proved better than that.
Is Pistorius a first grade, gun-wielding, gung-ho, negligent prick? Of course he is and deserves time in jail. But he will not spend time in jail because he is wealthy, privileged and can afford the best of counsel. Surprise surprise, it’s the same case as here in Oz.
Both our systems are based on Westminster justice and you can’t have it both ways, the decision was legally right. Whether it was fair or not should be taken up with our founding fathers.
Justice of any sort is never fair, not even Westminster justice, just ask Lindy Chamberlain, Pauline Hanson or hundreds of others... but it’s all we’ve got.