一敗塗地的Oscar Pistorius

原來不少人在留意Oscar Pistorius的謀殺案審訊，有人沉迷到難以自拔，看到上癮，有這一篇I'm obsessed with the Oscar Pistorius trial為證。有人寫公開信給他，指可靠消息説他在審訊前上了演技課，好讓他在庭上七情上面，信是這一封：Letter to Oscar，其中兩段這樣講：

I have it from a reliable source that you are taking acting lessons for your days in court. Your coach has an impossible task.

Oscar, I look at you mewling and puking in the witness stand. You truly represent everything that the West loathes about white South Africans who live extravagant lives in their expensive laagers. Your constant and preposterously ridiculous statement that you thought it wasn’t Reeva trapped in the bathroom, but an intruder, opens yet another can of haricots. The implication of this is that it would have been more acceptable to shoot an intruder the way you did. Execution from behind a closed door.

也有專欄作家從歷史發展看盤問方法，見於英國獨立報的這一篇：Oscar Pistorius trial：Is it a court of law or bear pit評論，結尾兩段這樣寫：

It’s not a place for the faint-hearted, a court of law. And cross-examination is not a forum for an agreeable exchange of opinions about what happened on a certain day. It’s the closest humans come in public life to a bear pit or a bullfight. Whatever rules exist have always existed to be broken if the occasion demands.

Gerrie Nel may have appeared to us a shocking example of the phenomenon. But he was only the latest embodiment of what a search for the truth looks like: noisy, rasping, bloody, fighting to the death.

這篇評論值得檢控官一讀。

早幾日辯方專家證人給打垮了，這個在大學教地質學的前警務人員受到主控質疑，承認自己沒有彈導，血漬分佈等訓練的資歷，他對案件的分析也和被告自相矛盾。不過，我有點不明白，既然控方爭論辯方證人的專業資格，就應該在他上證人台的時候就提出，由法庭先裁定這資格才讓他作供，如果法庭一開始就不接納他可以專家身分作供，就把他譴走，還用花時間。可能有人覺得讓他自相矛盾，會進一步削弱辯方的講法，打擊被告的誠信，想深一層其實毫無幫助。如果那人不能確立專家身分，他作供的看法(opinion)就不應被接納，以這種看法對被告證供產生的矛盾，也不能確立了，這證人就浪費了法庭時間。

如果被告真的去學點演技好讓自己可以在證人台發揮一下，那就十分失敗了。自己哭哭啼啼旨在博取同情，做得過火，自己哭乾了眼淚兼嘔吐，也賺不到同情，反而換來鄙夷眼光。況且又不是jury trial，哭到上吊個官都無動於衷。一個人民英雄，一敗塗地，就是這副尊容，奮鬥不屈的拼搏精神消失於頃刻之間，他鎯鐺入獄也是須臾之事。