I think you are misinterpreting what Britlaws is saying.
He/she never used the words "direct intent" - merely intent.
Any murder conviction requires intent in some form or another, that's what separates it from negligence.
He/she also didn't say that Masipa made a finding of fact that he didn't intend to harm anybody - just that it hadn't been proven that he had the necessary intent required for eventualis. And that does seem to be what Masipa was trying to say.
He/she did not say that the Jub Jub finding was overturned because the judge didn't find direct intention....merely the necessary intention for eventualis.
I dont think so. Yes, Britslaw didnt
explicitly say direct intention to harm. But it is clearly implied, with bells on, if you care to read the whole post properly and carefully. Its the only way for the post to make any sense. According to your interpretation:
"few if any get in their cars to intentionally harm others"
- You would have to believe that few if any people foresee the possibility of a car accident when they get in their cars!
"Masipa wasn't satisfied that it had been proven BRD that OP had the requisite intent towards anyone, not necessarily of killing but there has to be some intent of causing harm, and therefore eventualis was not available to her."
- You would have to believe that if one lacks foresight of harming, one does not necessarily lack foresight of killing!
You can also see that Britslaw
does explicitly claim that the court found it was not proven OP intended to harm anybody and
on this ground excluded murder eventualis. The judgment still never said any such thing, it is a claim with no basis in fact, you don't need to be a legal expert to see that, and to see the whole post becomes rather redundant because of it.
Once it became obvious that direct intention to harm was implied, then everything in the post suddenly fits and makes perfect sense. This is how I understand the post.
