Search results

The jury are going to be feeling fleeced today. Child-free was one of the only pieces of evidence so far that promoted the to a murdering and now it's gone. The prosecution have been knocked back down the ladder and have to start climbing all over again. He's an even more loving...

Masipa mentioned both aggravating and mitigating factors in her sentencing.

The prosecution can threaten the court with an appeal but that doesn't mean it has any legal veracity. The court needed to sentence on the facts found by the courts which remain from the original judgement.

But how did she ignore the SCA? She sentenced for the same incident but for DE rather than CH. The previous sentence was for CH bordering on DE and now it's DE. Why would we expect a big change in the jail time? The 15 years is a minimum unless there are particular circumstances in...

Masipa made it clear this is not a DV case as there is no evidence for it. In fact she went out of her way to make that clear.

BIB Two courts found there was no evidence of domestic abuse or an argument. What do you mean by "domestic context"?

I quoted Masipa from today. I agree with it. ETA I must apologise here -sorry wrong poster.

Do you think your experiences may have coloured your objectivity wrt this case?

The "oddity" is the circumstances of the incident not the decision. No precedent here.

Maybe because the "public" have spent years on it?

That was the one who swore that something couldn't have occurred when she was asleep wasn't it?

I agree wrt conviction DE but my post was wrt sentencing.

From the SCA judgement: "Thus not only did he not know who was behind the door, he did not know whether that person in fact constituted any threat to him." So you are not correct. The SCA determined that he did not know it was Reeva behind the door.

Yes the jail door will open and the little man will escape :facepalm:

I did see it as a list of points and had a scenario in mind at one point but now I'm not sure. No one heard an argument and the prosecution had no evidence of one. The screaming of a woman had me convinced for a while that it could only have been DV murder. I had dismissed EVDM's evidence...

BIB ..and a finding of the SCA.

BIB Including the one about not knowing it was Reeva of course.

I don't think he said that Reeva knew what was happening. From his version he assumed that. His version was that it happened very quickly and he was fixated on the passageway.

His testimony was that it was obvious to "them" that a person was breaking into the house. Why would they need to discuss it. I suppose much as it would be obvious if a car were coming toward them in the street that they didn't need a conversation other than maybe "Look out!"

Once Masipa accepts he believed there was an intruder we have witnesses hearing OP screaming in terror. Hardly consistent with someone driven with anything but self preservation. Masipa will sentence on this basis.