Search results

it is possible she is woefully naive, but I think she had a corrupt agenda. her judgement proves it. all nonsense.

1st reason is he knew it was reeva Even if you believe his story, he still pointed and deliberately shot at someone behind a door 4 times, if that is that intent to kill then what the hell is? 10 shots? His excuse about aiming lower is laughable because 4 shots at any height is highly likely to...

Just thinking back to one of Masipa's hilarious conclusions that the whatsapp messages of reeva saying she was scared of Oscar were just normal relationship dynamics and were not relevant to the crime. As soon as I heard her pull Nel up on this during cross examination I got worried, and...

I am shocked to see Reeva's parents on tv saying justice has been done. They are clearly mentally and emotionally drained. I hope the state does not allow this clear miscarriage of justice and appeals this farce.

If I understand correctly, This seems to explain how, or why Masipa almost comically concluded that Oscar had no intention to kill when he fired the shots. She misunderstood the law, so had to tailor her judgement to suit?? If she thought the test was merely intent to kill, then she was forced...

Are you sure? This all pretty confusing especially the part about if a reasonable person would have foreseen death, because I thought the accused already concedes intentionally killing under the mistaken impression his life was under threat, when he applies for PPD...

She said the court accepted OP when he claimed if he did intent to shoot to kill he would have aimed higher. laughable distinction there clearly which I doubt would have been given to some poor random person off the street.

Sadly even by common sense and evidence.

The judgement was farcical and I doubt any judge could really be so incompetent. It is laughable to suggest that shooting into that toilet was not intent to kill, but then to go further and say the shooter could not even possibly foresee death is beyond all bounds of logic and reason, even for a...

Would love to. Before we even get to the smashed door, we still need to explain the major discrepancy in Oscars version right at the beginning of his fair tale, if you are actually interested in a serious discussion and not just pick and chose the easier stuff that suits your position. Could...

Is the judge supposed to give a minimum sentence? Whats the point of just a maximum when the minimum is what really matters?

Good points but this is ultimately speculation, and does not really prove anything other than being suspicious. Oscar can just say he did not feel like screaming at that point and you can't really do much more with it.

If the state does appeal and it wins what happens? A retrial? Same legal teams?

Can it really be possible someone convicted of culpable homicide not even go to jail?

You claim to be good at reasoning, yet it is quite lacking here. I know you prefer to argue about uncertain debatable semantics like bullet holes, and bat strikes, noises, that can never be concluded 100%, and will remain questionable, but this issue is very black and while. We have clear photo...

He was convicted of intentionally killing a person though wasn't he?

surprised you are not aware of photo 55 considering you were so adamant there were no facts that contradicted op's story. looking forward to your explanation. This photo not only contradicts, it shatters the whole premise of his story.

good to see you back. still think he's innocent?

If he gets off without jail, we will know 100% the fix was in. So I guess after all the talk of masipa making legal errors, there will be no state appeal? Pathetic. Anyone else here that feels disgust when they look at Masipa's face? You just know that Nel is wasting his time up there, no matter...

It is quite scary for a judge to be so naive, to say the least...just amazing.