Confirmation Bias .......The Oscar Pistorius Case. The term confirmation bias is a theoretical explanation for the tendency or practice to only accept information that coincides with our initial view or hypnosis. There are many examples of this in our human history and more recently demonstrated to perfection by many of those following the Oscar Pistorius Trial. Thus having listened to the immediate police press conference in the wake of the death of Reeva Steenkamp they concluded she was murdered. Before the bail hearing was even concluded, it was considered by many including the State this was domestic violence. It seemed irrelevant to many that evidence was presented that was stronger, more reliable, more credible than evidence that supported the domestic violence perception. It appeared that many on social media sites devoted their attention to protecting the memory of Reeva saw the only way of achieving this was to promote the view that sadly she was yet another victim of murder by an intimate partner. It would seem that in preserving her memory the facts and reliable evidence that was later established in the trial was either rewritten, selectively interpreted, wholly rejected, or simply discarded in favour of inventing their own version of events devoid of any sense of reality. The bail hearing introduced evidence that neighbours heard a woman scream, it later transpired that these neighbours were either 300m or perhaps 600m away. Apparently Botha had some difficultly interpreting distance. Later leaks in the media claiming that neighbours nearer Oscar’s house heard a woman screaming reinforced this view. Strangely the police never leaked that neighbours who lived nearer heard a man not a woman scream. The States case relied on piecing together various pieces of what it termed circumstantial evidence to produce the view that Reeva was killed following an argument and this view despite the lack of evidence supporting it remains constant in the minds of many. Sadly her parents seem to continue to believe this and despite having sat through the majority of the trial, her family like many, seem to conveniently forget any of the credible evidence including the results of a 30 day psychological and psychiatric evaluation that discounts this view. I can’t help but wonder whether the rumours are true and that Nel did in fact tell Reeva’s family Oscar knew it was Reeva. It may explain their rejection of any evidence, which was in fact stronger than the States that suggested he did not. What Court would ever accept as credible evidence that a person heard a woman’s raised voice 177m away, speaking in a language they could not identify in a location that was unknown. Yet the State maintained that the only explanation was this came from an argument emanating from Oscar’s house. Yet a security guard outside the house and walking in the vicinity heard absolutely nothing. The State attempted to bolster this by claiming that the couple ate two hours before. Yet to believe this, one needs to reject experts who say that the timing of the last meal from examining the contents of the stomach is not an exact science, they would need to accept that Reeva cooked a meal when she arrived but somehow for an unknown reason chose to wait 7 hours before eating and a person who normally rises at 5am would get up at 2am to eat. The blood curling screams that witnesses testified to, were heard both during and after the shots so therefore it could not have been Reeva and if those screams weren’t Reeva, then the bangs were not gun shots so the timing or spacing of those bangs have no relevance to gunshots. Although State witnesses testified to hearing earlier bangs, the State chose to ignore this. What is disturbing is the social media sites that have gone unchecked effectively making up their own version of events which is then accepted as fact by a mindless mob who believe it is acceptable to incite violence, make death threats while at the same time claiming to detest violence. Reeva became the symbol of the campaign against VAW despite there being no credible evidence that this had anything to do with the case. This incited what could only be described as a hate campaign played out in various social media sites. This hatred was fuelled by political parties such as the ANCWL, yet it remains unclear why or what they are campaigning for. I do question how a political party can think it is acceptable to interfere in a trial, to fail to accept the verdict of a Judge who is known for her hard line against Domestic Abuse. Surely if there was any credible evidence this was the case the Judge given her track record would made a finding on it. I also find it strange that despite the rumoured payouts her parents received from their many interviews, the ANCWL paid June Steenkemp’s expenses, yet many children in schools continue to have no toilets, books etc, surely a greater campaign would have been to promote education among girls in poorer areas to perhaps address some of the inequalities inherent in society or use the money to fund domestic violence programs for both survivors and perpetrators. Throughout the trial it was repeated time and time again how the voice of Reeva was not heard. Sadly that is often the reality of trials. Yet Reeva’s voice was in a sense heard. Perhaps the last words that were ever written by Reeva were read out, yet were totally ignored by her family and those that claimed they were there to support and remember Reeva. The belief that she went to Oscar’s that night, that an argument ensued when she told Oscar that she was leaving which led to her being shot. This belief seems to permeate around those very people who claim to support, love Reeva the most, while simultaneously ignoring the words that she wrote to Oscar telling him, that today was a good day to tell him that she loved him. I think it’s sad that many, in an attempt to remember her, chose to forget what she wrote preferring instead to create their own version of events, to portray her as a person who would tell a person they loved them, the same time as ending the relationship. Personally I prefer to believe what Reeva wrote to be her true feelings. What is equally sad and ironic, is that many of those very people who claim to want to remember Reeva, to support and love her memory, are those very people that created Facebook pages that incite hatred to the very person Reeva, using her own words loved, who have called for the person she wrote that card to ,to be killed, raped, beheaded, hanged. I really do question how that can in any way be respectful to the memory of the person they claim to love. - Dee
Posted on: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 06:15:49 +0000