My previous books were written primarily for professional audiences (e.g., psychotherapists, psychoanalysts, psychologists, psychiatrists). Some other readers did find them appealing and informative. These were not the sorts of books that I could readily recommend to people outside the mental health field. I would have to caution them that although they were excellent books, someone outside the field might find parts of them a bit difficult to comprehend.
Recently I wanted to reach out to a much broader audience, to create the sort of book that not only my professional colleagues but also my family and friends might enjoy. While working on just such a manuscript, I had reason to look into the Oscar Pistorius trial to learn more about a certain matter relevant to the book I was creating (that was not about Oscar). Unexpectedly, a different aspect of that tragic South African case grabbed my attention.
At the trial's conclusion, just before passing sentence, Judge Masipa underscored that there were several aspects of the Pistorius case that made absolutely no sense. The issues she drew attention to were similar to matters that the Bail Magistrate had emphasized earlier as being totally baffling, beyond his capacity to comprehend. Despite the fact that the Court could not make sense of several key aspects of this case, Judge Masipa felt it was necessary to pass judgement. I applaud both the Judge and the Bail Magistrate for presenting these anomalies clearly and openly rather than minimizing or sweeping them under the rug. This act may have taken special courage and honesty on Judge Masipa's part because she had stated that the Court must make sense of all the evidence and, in these important instances, she could not comprehend these crucial matters.
Simply due to the fact that I have some specialized professional and scientific knowledge derived from decades of study and clinical practice, the issues that the Judge and Bail Magistrate emphasized as making absolutely no sense were not incomprehensible to me. If approached from the perspective of the science of sleep and dreaming and their disorders, all these mysteries seemed fully understandable. The more I looked into the situation, including many legal precedents, the more convinced I became that science could provide answers to all the hitherto unfathomable questions that the Bail Magistrate and Judge had so clearly articulated.
After the trial, Reeva Steenkamp's family and friends said Oscar had never shared why he killed Reeva. The Supreme Court of Appeal also lamented that he had not taken the court into his confidence by telling them why he killed Reeva. Although Oscar had repeatedly stated that he had mistakenly thought he was shooting at home invaders - an explanation that Judge Masipa found credible - they all clearly felt something very important was missing from his account. Although they did not focus on the enigmas that the Bail Magistrate and the Judge underscored, I imagine they may have been similarly dumbfounded, disturbed, and frustrated by those anomalies, leading them to sense something crucial was absent.
I agree that something essential was indeed missing, but I do not think Oscar was or is capable of providing it. Much evidence suggests to me that at the time of the horrific nocturnal event he was in a state of paradoxical sleep (parasomnia) in which parts of his brain were wide awake while other parts were still asleep. In such states of mixed consciousness and unconsciousness, there are inevitably gaps in one's awareness, memory, and functioning. In these peculiar conditions, one is simultaneously rational and irrational or, to a certain extent logical and to a considerable degree illogical.
Oscar himself, despite his explanation of what had transpired that terrible night, also continued to be profoundly perplexed, poignantly asking, "How did this possibly happen? How could this have happened?" Only the science of sleep and dreaming and their disorders enables us to provide plausible answers to these questions that so troubled not only Oscar but also Reeva's and Oscar's families and friends and everyone else who cared about their situation.
Because Oscar had been sentenced to prison, his reputation and psychological wellbeing in tatters, I felt I had to put aside the book I had been working on. So many people longed for a better, fuller, more convincing explanation. Furthermore, Oscar may inadvertently have been denied true justice. Not only for his sake but also for Reeva's family and friends and the millions of people around the world who were concerned about this tragedy, I wanted to contribute what I could toward elucidating the many profound anomalies pervading this case.
While a book would take a long time to compose, I thought it would be the best way to communicate all that needed to be said. I hoped this publication would stimulate wide discussion, that it might be reviewed in newspapers, magazines, journals, online sites, and talked about in other media and venues, contributing positively to a climate of informed public opinion. That widespread dialogue might lead both to greater understanding, to a feeling of mysteries being resolved, and perhaps an appeal to achieve the highest level of justice possible.
When I completed this manuscript, I sent it to three world-renowned experts to see if they would be interested in reading it. To my great delight, they were. After they had studied the manuscript, I was additionally thrilled that they concluded that its thesis was scientifically sound. They willingly endorsed this book as a contribution of substance that merited widespread attention. I had not known any of these prominent specialists before, neither personally nor professionally, except through their many fine contributions over many years to the scientific literature and to the courts. I was immensely gratified and grateful that they felt it was worthwhile to take time from their extremely busy schedules to read the manuscript and endorse it.
In a couple of weeks this book will be released for sale. I am hoping it will continue to be well received, but I know it is inevitable that some will not like it. They may not be open to the findings from decades of research on disorders of dreaming and sleep that I cite. Despite my best efforts, they may not believe such observations and conclusions are applicable in this case that has aroused extremely strong emotions in some quarters. As long as those readers debate the ideas in this book from a rational, rigorous, evidence-based, balanced perspective, rather than just trying to close down exploration of scientifically and judicially important matters, their alternative ideas may serve to generate productive dialogue that could ameliorate or at least clarify rather than exacerbate intergroup tensions.
Soon I will be able to return to the book I had been working on that had been my first one intended to appeal to and be readily comprehensible to both a professional and a general audience. I happily interrupted that project to write this volume that now becomes my first one designed for a general readership (and for the mental health and legal professions).
Thank you for your interest in these ideas and this important case.