Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[JuneBug67]

I fear you're right.

I'm late getting here today because I've been trying the condense the transcription of Judge Masipa's verdict down to an easy to print version... leaving out the verdict on gun/ammo charges and leaving out the space between lines in the murder verdict.

Here's a small excerpt that deals with gun and bat sounds... the underlining is by me:

It is common cause that on the morning of 14 February 2013, shortly after 3 o’clock various people heard gunshots, screams and other noises that sounded like gunshots emanating from the house of the accused. As stated before, various state witnesses heard screams that they interpreted as those of a woman in distress. They heard noises that sounded to them as gunshots.

The defence admitted that there were shots fired that morning, but added that there were also sounds of a cricket bat striking hard against the toilet door, and that the noises sounded similar and could easily have been mistaken for shots. This was not contradicted. During the course of the trial it became clear that some of the sounds that witnesses interpreted as gunshots were actually not gunshots, but sounds of a cricket bat striking against the toilet door. It was also not contradicted that the shots were fired first and that the striking of the door, using a cricket bat, followed thereafter.

That there was a misinterpretation of some of the sounds is clear from the following: It is common cause that only four gunshots were fired by the accused that morning, yet some witnesses stated that they heard more than four shorts while others heard less than four. This can only mean that some of the sounds that were heard and interpreted as shots could have been from the cricket bat striking against the door.

It could also mean that some of the witnesses missed some of the sounds that morning, either because they were asleep at the time or their focus was elsewhere. For example, a witness could have been on the phone at the time.

It shouldn't be feared Foxbluff. It should be embraced as evidence based and the right conclusion. Justice means the truth has risen to the top and it's a collective victory for us and our social systems when that happens. A lot of people mean vengeance when they say justice. Justice at it's best is blind and emotionless.

 

[JuneBug67]

Please explain how only CH flows from this to the exclusion of DE.

I don't think it does. As the judge explained that was a subjective test.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

It's definitely worth sending it to the NPA and letting them know that they have public support behind them if they decide to appeal.

I was just checking my email this morning and saw that I had a response from the Chief Director of Communications at the NPA regarding some information that I sent them about the Pistorius trial.

oh wonderful van, I only received an email confirming I had signed the petition. Did you personally send an email to NPA? Cool if you did, I probably should do the same, if I'm going to talk the talk, I should walk the walk.

 

[jimmy73]

We're discussing bat strikes on a door. But the timeline supports Pistorius' story as well. It would be nice to discuss the State's comprehensive timeline analysis and their theory of the crime that accounts for both sounds, but of course they didn't provide either of those things. Why? Because they couldn't.

Let's assume for a minute Pistorius is guilty of Reeva's murder. He can build a story that fits closely with the basic events and sounds people may have heard (gun, bat sounds, get the **** out of my house, help help help..)

The prosecution do not have that luxury so can only pursue lines of enquiry they are sure of.

IMO, beyond reason and common sense, the state had plenty of strong evidence a) Pistorius' version was a lie and b) their version was correct. They just didn't have enough to construct an exact timeline.

This of course doesn't make Pistorius' version true.

 

[aa9511]

When a full transcript of Masipa’s ruling became available I tried to follow her “reasoning” with respect to the dismissal of dolus eventualis.
Before doing so, I also went through the prosecution’s closing argument.
Some excerpts…

To even consider the accused’s defence the court will need to accept that:
- the deceased decided to relieve herself and did so without saying a word to the accused
- for no apparent reason she opened the bathroom window
- she took her cellphone with her to the bathroom
- she decided not to switch on any of the lights
- she did not utter a word whilst the accused was screaming, not even when he was in the bathroom
- the deceased got up from the toilet to close and lock the door
- the deceased dressed herself before she was shot
- the deceased did not hide as a result of all the screaming but stood upright facing the danger

Objectively viewed the accused shot and killed the deceased.
He elected to testify and furnish an explanation of why he did so.
The version furnished, however, was so far-fetched that it can never be found to be reasonably possibly true.

Why did the accused shoot?
During his evidence in chief he testified –“…I heard a noise from inside the toilet what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it I had fired four shots at the door.”
During the bail application the version was:-“I heard movement inside the toilet… I felt trapped…I fired shots at the toilet door…”

The accused’s version that he never intended to shoot anyone destroys any reliance or hope of success of a defence of putative self-defence.
We will mention just a few of the accused’s contradictory versions.
“…I never intended to shoot anyone…I got a fright from a noise”
“…I did not shoot at anyone. I did not intend to shoot at someone. I shot out of fear…”
“…I did not intend to shoot into or …I did not intend to shoot at anyone…”
“you never purposefully fired shots into the door?...no My Lady, I did not”
“…so you never wanted to shoot at robbers, intruders coming out of the toilet…that is correct…”
His evidence then changed to him having fired at “what I perceived as a intruder coming out to attack me…”

• Excerpts from Masipa’s judgement.

(My comments in blue.)

Nel did a good job outlining those statements by OP that were contradictory, untruthful and at least objectively, far-fetched.
While Masipa acknowledged at least some of this she quickly dismissed them with the statement, “These questions shall unfortunately remain a matter of conjecture.”

However, what we are dealing with here is the fact that the accused was, amongst other things, an evasive witness. In my view there are several reasons for this. He failed to listen properly to questions put to him under cross-examination, giving an impression that he was more worried by the impact that his answers might cause, rather than the questions asked.
Often a question requiring a straight forward answer turned into a point of debate about what another witness did or said. When contradictions were pointed out to him or when he was asked why certain propositions were not put to state witnesses, he often blamed his legal team for the oversight.
Although the untruthful evidence of an accused is of importance when a court determines the guilt or otherwise of an accused, caution must be exercised and courts ought to avoid attaching too much weight to such untruthfulness.
The conclusion, that because an accused is untruthful he is therefore probably guilty, must be guided against, as a false statement does not always justify the most extreme conclusion. In the present case the deceased was killed under very peculiar circumstances.
There are indeed a number of aspects in the case which do not make sense, such as:
- Why the accused did not ascertain from the deceased when he heard the window open, whether she too had heard anything.
- Why he did not ascertain whether the deceased had heard him since he did not get a response from the deceased before making his way to the bathroom.
- Why the deceased was in the toilet and only a few metres away from the accused, did not communicate with the accused, or phone the police as requested by the accused. This the deceased could have done, irrespective of whether she was in the bedroom or in the toilet, as she had her cell phone with her. It makes no sense to say she did not hear him scream, ‘get out’. It was the accused version that he screamed on top of his voice, when ordering the intruders to get out.
Another question is:
- Why the accused fired not one, one shot but four shots, before he ran back to the bedroom to try to find the deceased.
These questions shall unfortunately remain a matter of conjecture.
What is not conjecture, however, is that the accused armed himself with a loaded firearm when, on his own version, he suspected that an intruder might be coming in through the bathroom window. He was not truthful when asked about his intentions that morning, as he armed himself with a lethal weapon. The accused was clearly not candid with the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone, as he had a loaded firearm in his hand, ready to shoot.
However, as stated above, untruthful evidence does not always justify the conclusion that the accused is guilty. The weight to be attached thereto must be related to the circumstances of each case. (S v Mtswene 1985 (1) SA 590 (A)).

I am left to openly wonder how much more “evasive” and “untruthful” OP would have had to have been, how many more items of “conjecture” there would have to have been for Masipa to have rejected his story?
Indeed, at times, Masipa seems naïve and gullible. There is no better example of this than in her comments about OP’s behavior immediately following the shooting. (Those comments also form the foundation for her rejection of dolus directus.)
Perhaps Masipa would be well served to review the conduct and statements by Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias. The skill, speed, and intricacy of their lies was a thing to be marvelled at, and to think that OP could not have quickly fabricated his story when his freedom was at stake borders on delusional.
The spectre of prison is a great motivational tool for creativity in deception.

Counsel for the defence correctly argued that it was highly improbable that the accused would have made this up so quickly and be consistent in his version, even at the bail application before he had access to the police docket and before he was privy to the evidence on behalf of the state at the bail application.
[SNIP]
To find otherwise would be tantamount to saying that the accused’s reaction after he realised that he had shot the deceased was faked; that he was play acting merely to delude the onlookers at the time

Below, OP shamelessly attempts to dispel any doubt that he did not foresee that firing four rounds into the cubicle could kill anyone, attempting to persuade Masipa that he could not be guilty of dolus eventualis.

The accused stated that he never thought of the possibility that he could kill people in the toilet. He considered, however, that thinking back retrospectively it would be a probability that someone could be killed in the toilet. He stated that if he wanted to shoot the intruder he would have shot higher up and more in the direction where the opening of the door would be to the far right of the door and at chest height. I pause to state that this assertion is inconsistent with that of someone who shot without thinking.

Masipa does not believe any hint of a defence based on reduced or impaired criminal capacity.
More importantly, why didn’t Masipa find it disingenuous and suspicious that “there was a plethora of defences?” Again I ask, is there anything that would have shaken Masipa’s unswerving belief in OP’s story?

The above extracts and the submissions by defence counsel show without a doubt that we are here dealing with a plethora of defences. I proceed to deal with each of them in turn.
The first one is: Did the accused lack criminal capacity at the time that he killed the deceased?

Masipa’s conclusion: No. There can be no defence based on reduced or impaired criminal capacity.

Having regard to expert evidence and the evidence as a whole this court is satisfied that at the relevant time, the accused could distinguish between right and wrong and that he could act in accordance with that distinction. It is also clear that the defence of non- pathological insanity has no foundation.

The following should have been the end of the putative private defence argument for OP.

The second possible defence: Putative private defence.
He was asked: “You never purposefully fired into the door ?”
The answer was: “No M'Lady I did not.”
The question: “So you never wanted to shoot at robbers, intruders coming out of the toilet?”
The answer was: “That is correct.”

…but Masipa refuses to accept it. She is convinced that OP wanted to shoot at “the perceived danger,” and, furthermore, differentiates between the intent to shoot and the intent to kill.
Masipa is paving the way to show that the putative private defence is valid for OP.
What Nel thought was a nullification of PPD is cast aside unceremoniously by Masipa.

The essence of the accused’s defence is that he had no intention to shoot at anyone but if it was found that there was such an intention then he shot at what he: “...perceived as an intruder coming out to attack me.”
Counsel for the state, correctly in my view, submitted that if the accused never intended to shoot anyone, he cannot rely on a defence of putative self-defence.
[SNIP]
The accused clearly wanted to use the firearm and the only way he could have used it was to shoot at the perceived danger. The intention to shoot however does not necessarily include the intention to kill. Depending on the circumstances of each case an accused may be found guilty of dolus eventualis or culpable homicide. In this case there is only one essential point of dispute and it is this: Did the accused have the required mens rea to kill the deceased when he pulled the trigger? In other words, was there intention? The essential question is whether on the basis of all the evidence presented, there is a reasonable doubt concerning the accused’s guilt.

Masipa reiterates that she believes that OP had every intention to fire the gun despite his plain claim to the contrary.

What is not conjecture, however, is that the accused armed himself with a loaded firearm when, on his own version, he suspected that an intruder might be coming in through the bathroom window. He was not truthful when asked about his intentions that morning, as he armed himself with a lethal weapon. The accused was clearly not candid with the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone, as he had a loaded firearm in his hand, ready to shoot.
However, as stated above, untruthful evidence does not always justify the conclusion that the accused is guilty. The weight to be attached thereto must be related to the circumstances of each case.

Once again there is a reference dealing with PPD.

The starting point however, once more is whether the accused had the intention to kill the person behind the toilet door whom he mistook for an intruder.
The accused had intention to shoot at the person in the toilet but states that he never intended to kill that person. In other words he raised the defence of putative private defence.
[SNIP]
In the present case, on his own version the accused suspected that an intruder had entered his house through the bathroom window. His version was that he genuinely, though erroneously, believed that his life and that of the deceased was in danger.

Masipa now outlines the basis for accepting or rejecting DE.
However, as has been pointed out by many, Masipa is plainly wrong in the form of her questions. The identity of the person in the cubicle is irrelevant.
The question should be:
1. Did the accused foresee, the possibility of death ensuing for the person inside the toilet cubicle given that the bullets which were of a design intended to cause great harm had a trajectory likely to strike that person either directly or through the danger of ricocheting off the walls and ,
2. Notwithstanding the foresight, did he then fire the shots, thereby reconciling himself to the possibility of that event occurring?

I now deal with dolus eventualis or legal intent.
The question is:
1. Did the accused subjectively foresee that it could be the deceased behind the toilet door and
2. Notwithstanding the foresight did he then fire the shots, thereby reconciling himself to the possibility that it could be the deceased in the toilet?
The evidence before this court does not support the state’s contention that this could be a case of dolus eventualis.
On the contrary, the evidence shows that from the onset the accused believed that, at the time he fired shots into the toilet door, the deceased was in the bedroom while the intruders were in the toilet. This belief was communicated to a number of people shortly after the incident.

What follows is perhaps the most unambiguous statement by Masipa with regard to dismissing dolus eventualis.
It appears to be on the basis of putative private defense.

It follows that the accused’s erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus. The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder dolus eventualis.

In her look at culpable homicide Masipa finds the OP fails the “reasonable man” test. Her reasoning here is sound.

I now deal with negligence in culpable homicide cases.
[SNIP]
The accused knew that there was a person behind the toilet door and chose to use a firearm which was a legal weapon. He was competent in the use of firearms as he had undergone some training.
I now revert to the relevant questions.
First: Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused, have foreseen the reasonable possibility that, if he fired four shots at the door of the toilet, whoever was behind the door, might be struck by a bullet and die as a result?
The second question is: Would a reasonable person have taken steps to guard against that possibility?
The answer to both questions is yes.
The last question is: Did the accused fail to take steps which he should reasonably have taken to guard against the consequence?
Again the answer is, yes. He failed to take any step to avoid the resultant death I am of the view that the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force. In the circumstances it is clear that his conduct was negligent.

Later in her recap, Masipa appears to forget about PPD and speaks instead to the issue of foreseeability.

Count 1: In respect of count 1 the allegation was that the accused and the deceased had an argument. That the deceased ran and locked herself in the toilet and that the accused followed her there, and fired shots at her through the locked door. Three shots struck her and she died as a result.
Evidence led by the state in respect of this count was purely circumstantial. It was not strong circumstantial evidence. More over the evidence of various witnesses who gave evidence on what they heard, in what sequence and when, proved to be unreliable.
The accused denied the allegations. Notwithstanding that he was an unimpressive witness, the accused gave a version which could reasonably possibly be true. In criminal law that is all that is required for an acquittal as the onus to prove the guilt of an accused, beyond reasonable doubt, rests with the state throughout.
The version of the accused was that he fired shots at the toilet door, because he thought there was an intruder inside the toilet. The sequence of events namely the shots, the screams, the shouts of help, the sound of a cricket bat striking against the toilet door, the calls made by various witnesses to security to report screams and or shots, are more in line with the version of the accused.
Although it is not necessary for the state to prove motive, there is no basis on which this court could make inferences of why the accused would want to kill the deceased. In addition there is objective evidence in the form of phone records. This too supports the version of the accused. Furthermore the conduct of the accused shortly after the incident, was inconsistent with the conduct of someone who had intention to commit murder. He acted promptly in seeking help soon after the incident. He shouted for help. He called a friend, Stander. He called 911. He called security, although he could not speak as he was crying. He prayed to God to save the deceased’s life. He was seen trying to resuscitate the deceased and he pleaded with Dr Stipp to help and he was distraught.
From the above it cannot be said that the accused did not entertain a genuine belief that there was an intruder in the toilet, who posed a threat to him. Therefore he could not be found guilty of murder dolus directus.

Note that Masipa concentrates here on foreseeability.

This court has already found that the accused cannot be guilty of murder dolus eventualis either, on the basis that from his belief and his conduct, it could not be said that he foresaw that either the deceased or anyone else, for that matter, might be killed when he fired the shots at the toilet door. It also cannot be said that he accepted that possibility into the bargain.
I might just add that in respect of the first leg of the test in dolus eventualis, Burchell & Hunt: General Principles of Criminal Law, states the following on page 371 :
“The courts have warned against any tendency to draw the inference of subjective foresight too easily.”
For example in S v Bradshaw, 1977 (1) PH860 (A) Wessels JA stated :
“The court should guard against proceeding too readily from ‘ought to have foreseen’ to ‘must have foreseen’ and thence to ‘by necessary inference in fact foresaw’ the possible consequences of the conduct being enquired into. The several thought processes attributed to an accused must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. Having due regard to the particular circumstances which attended the conduct being enquired into.”
In S v Sigwatla, 1967 (4) SA 566 (A) Holmes JA expressed the degree of proof in the following terms:
“Subjective foresight like any other factual issue, may be proved by inference to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. The inference must be the only one which can reasonably be drawn. It cannot be so drawn if there is a reasonable possibility that subjectively the accused did not foresee, even if he ought reasonably to have done so and even if he probably did do so.”

It would appear that Masipa dismissed dolus eventualis because of a blend of two reasons.
1. Putative private defense:
“It follows that the accused’s erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus. The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder dolus eventualis.”
2. Lack of foreseeability and reconciliation:
“This court has already found that the accused cannot be guilty of murder dolus eventualis either, on the basis that from his belief and his conduct, it could not be said that he foresaw that either the deceased or anyone else, for that matter, might be killed when he fired the shots at the toilet door. It also cannot be said that he accepted that possibility into the bargain.”
Why did Masipa not believe that OP had the foresight to know that firing at the door carried with it the possibility of killing whoever was behind the door and reconciling himself to the possibility fired anyway?
I can see no other reason than the fact that OP said so.
“The accused stated that he never thought of the possibility that he could kill people in the toilet.”
There is unquestionably reversible error in her judgement, in my opinion, and I can only hope that any appeal court review would be as harsh as possible in their criticism of her verdict.
I am especially baffled by the extraordinary weight given to OP’s word by Masipa considering the extraordinary amount of discrepancies and problems with his story.
Masipa was clear that OP failed the “reasonable man” test, I think it’s also clear that Masipa failed the “reasonable judge” test.


Link to verdict transcript:
https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/pistorius-trial-judgement.pdf
Link to closing arguments by Nel (media copy)
http://www.enca.com/oscar-trial-states-heads-argument

Ok, read through all of your excellent post. Thank you for all the work that you did, it is very helpful.

For everything, Masipa seems to back down to "Oscar's version." His version was this, his version was that such-and-such happened, his version, his version, his version. I am thinking that the reason she kept going back to his version was that she really feels like the prosecution did not give her anything to doubt his version.(or at least enough to pass over reasonable doubt). That is what it sounds like to me.

It sounds to me like, again, prosecution did not give her enough. She keeps saying, State did not prove otherwise. She admits that there are questions and inconsistencies, but what I got from it is that she didn't think that, even with those questions and inconsistencies, that prosecution presented enough evidence to overcome Oscar's own version of the story.

I can understand Masipa's ^^^ above point-of-view if you take every piece of evidence and evaluate it separately. For example, Oscar work up to move the fans. I think Masipa's train of though is along the lines of, well there is nothing to prove otherwise or to prove him wrong. Yes, Nels did the thing with the fan cords, but is that enough to disprove Oscar (on this particular issue)? Or another example - Reeva got up to go to the bathroom without telling Oscar that she was going to the bathroom. Is there anything to prove otherwise? No, and it is always a chance that someone might do that, so therefore Masipa *had* to take Oscar's word for it.

So if she takes every single piece-by-piece, well of course there are not lots of things to disprove Oscar's version. BECAUSE ONLY OSCAR AND REEVA WERE IN THE APARTMENT. Why Masipa cannot get that point is beyond me!!

Anyway....so IMO, it sounds like she didn't look at this case as a whole!For example, like I pointed out above, if we take each thing piece by piece, then of course Oscar's version starts to make sense. But it is when we look at the case as a whole that his story falls apart! What kind of coincidences had to line up to where Oscar gets up, moves fans around even though the cords will not reach, Reeva gets up silently to go the bathroom even though she had just spoken to Oscar, Oscar gets his gun from the other side of the bed even though there is evidence that he actually slept on the side where he would have seen Reeva if he got goten his gun, Reeva goes to bathroom but doesn't turn on any lights, Oscar yells but she doesn't say anything nor does she call 911, etc., etc., etc., etc.. I am beyond words how Masipa can chalk all of those coincidences up to "conjecture"?????

On top of all the sets of coincidences, then we have rest of evidence in the apartment. Then we have Oscar's strange behavior afterwards, which Masipa IMO TOTALLY MISINTERPRETED.Oscar was very obviously putting on an act!!! Why does she think that is so strange and no one would do that?? He had just killed a person, of course he is going to come up with some excuse and of course he is going to act his way out of it. AS HE PROVED THIS ASPECT OF HIS BEHAVIOR IN COURT RIGHT IN FRONT OF MASIPA.He DOES act. He did NOT call right away, he only called after security had ALREADY CALLED HIM to ask if everything was alright, to which he replied that everything was fine. If security had called, Oscar knew that someone had heard the shots, etc., he knew he then HAD to call peole and start his act. Because people had already heard. And he knew that people going to come soon. Masipa did not understand any of this???

Ugh, ok I am going to end this now before I hyperventilate.

 

[JuneBug67]

That argument shows the fallacy in making assumptions as facts.

Like assuming a high pitched scream in the night is coming from a woman? It's not an assumption that at least one bat strike came after the bullet hole was in the door. It's not an assumption that the state never put forth a comprehensive, evidence supported theory of the crime that accounted for both sets of sounds, and the defense did.

 

[JuneBug67]

Let's assume for a minute Pistorius is guilty of Reeva's murder. He can build a story that fits closely with the basic events and sounds people may have heard (gun, bat sounds, get the **** out of my house, help help help..)

The prosecution do not have that luxury so can only pursue lines of enquiry they are sure of.

IMO, beyond reason and common sense, the state had plenty of strong evidence a) Pistorius' version was a lie and b) their version was correct. They just didn't have enough to construct an exact timeline.

This of course doesn't make Pistorius' version true.

I don't even know what to say to this. The state has the burden of proof for good reason and they didn't meet it. The objective evidence supports Pistorius' story. The state picked and chose subjective evidence to support the unsupportable conclusion that the shots were at 3:17 and the initial sounds didn't really matter. They deservedly fell right on their faces.

 

[JuneBug67]

Thanks and fair enough, but what immediate fear for his safety did he have with any intruder on the other side of a door that immediately necessitated four death-dealing shots? He has certainly created a precedent for someone to shoot someone in their bathroom and then claim fear and ignorance as their justification. Of course my take is diametrically opposed to your's as I believe he was fully aware of who was on the other side of the door since witnesses heard her screaming and any shock and devestation on his part after the shooting was largely because of the awareness of what he had done and the likely repercussions of his actions.

It didn't immediately necessitate 4 deadly shots, which is why he was convicted of a crime in the tragic death of Reeva.

 

[pandax81]

It was an important point of substance - and one that I'd failed to pick up from any of the numerous articles I'd looked at.

If Judge Masipa had found that OP had disqualified himself from PPD by using unreasonable force, and that he must have known that he would kill the intruder, do you think we'd be looking at dolus directus, even if she also found that it was reasonably possibly true that he feared for his life?

Yes, you're hitting the nail on the head now Sherbert.

I would clarify however that he needs to have had direct intention to use unreasonable force and kill the intruder. I think that's what you meant though.

 

[JuneBug67]

Why? What is it that persuades you that he is telling the truth?

I was not persuaded by anything Oscar did or didn't say. I was persuaded by the fact that objective evidence supported his basic story. None of this for me hinges on how credible Oscar was or wasn't. As I've said the door damage evidence supports that the bat strikes came after the shots. That all by itself explodes the state's case. The timeline and Oscar's behaviour just adds further weight.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

It shouldn't be feared Foxbluff. It should be embraced as evidence based and the right conclusion. Justice means the truth has risen to the top and it's a collective victory for us and our social systems when that happens. A lot of people mean vengeance when they say justice. Justice at it's best is blind and emotionless.

Who wants vengeance? Justice is what is needed, a young woman has lost her life, shot to death by her boyfriend. In all your posts you never mention Reeva. :thinking:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

It didn't immediately necessitate 4 deadly shots, which is why he was convicted of a crime in the tragic death of Reeva.

Thank you for acknowledging the victim, but it wasn't a tragic death, she didn't die from an illness or accident. She was murdered. :sigh:

 

[JuneBug67]

Thank you for acknowledging the victim, but it wasn't a tragic death, she didn't die from an illness or accident. She was murdered. :sigh:

It was tragic to me. Fateful, needless, heartbreaking and tragic. But not murder. A terrible, momentary misperception with sad and tragic precedents in the very country in which they lived.

 

[Pirate Doug]

Well, I personally think arguing points of law is a waste of time.

It's pretty obvious to me, from the fact that the judge is a woman, that the whole trial was a pantomime.

No doubt no male judge would take the case. There were powerful people determined to get OP off as lightly as possible, and the judge has been told what verdict to hand down.

I see misogynistic corruption at work here, not the failure of a judge. If this is what happened, she would have had absolutely no choice in the matter.

I even think OP himself might have confessed the truth, but he's been bullied into this, IMHO.

 

[Madeleine74]

You don't shoot FOUR hollow point bullets into a closed door of a 4' x 4' loo and logically claim you were "in fear for your life." What was he in fear of? The door? Bathroom noises? Toilet paper being thrown at him? At the time he shot, he was not being confronted by anything but "noises" that he mistook. That's if you believe his version. If you concede there was a female crying or screaming then it gets worse -- he knew someone was in fear and/or pain behind that door.

There are many ways to spin the case but no one can say there weren't 4 shots fired. There were. Into a 4' x 4' tiny room. OP was NOT being attacked, OP was NOT in danger, and OP had no reason to shoot FOUR times.

That shows intent to harm the person behind the door, regardless of who it is, knowing full well that 4 shots (which he clearly aimed) could end up killing the person.

That meets the test for Eventualis, IMO.

 

[jay-jay]

Junebug .. why do you think that Reeva's mother herself doesn't believe this was an accident? The reason is because she knew just how much Reeva and Op had been fighting in the run up to her being killed ... she said that Reeva said to her ".. mum .. we've been fighting .. we've been fighting a LOT .. ". (therefore those whatsapp messages were just an indicator of far more troubles in their relationship than Masipa gave credit for .. does she not know that not everything in a relationship ends up in a text message? .. although even that which did was a fairly massive indicator and should never have been dismissed in the way that Masipa did .. it was nothing less than disgusting). It is so freakin obvious that this was a domestic violence murder, it's just ridiculous for anyone to believe otherwise! Do you actually believe that OP didn't tell one single lie on that stand? He couldn't even promise that he would tell the truth .. the best he could summon up was that he would 'try' to ! He has just sworn on oath to tell the truth, for goodness sake!

 

[Lux et Veritas]

“What weighs with me very heavily is that the accused showed no remorse, therefore it is difficult to imagine he can be rehabilitated.”
- Judge Thokozile Masipa (sentencing a serial rapist to 252 years prison)

Ah ... appears that Roux did his homework on the judge.

Masipa requires remorse? By God, My Lady shall have “remorse”!!

Theatrics, dramatics and histrionics shall be the order of the day!
Bring in The Green Bucket!
Find me a rosary for Oz to clutch as he wails!
Organize ostentatious displays of courtroom family prayer sessions!
Crank up the righteous Bible-tweets!

Masipa’s judicial logic escapes me.

If psychopaths and murderers were capable of remorse, they wouldn’t be psychopaths and murderers.

And what makes Masipa think that SA prisons can “rehabilitate” hardcore criminals?! They’re filthy, deadly human warehouses. A 24/7/365 environment of brutality and crime does not cure brutality and crime. It breeds even worse monsters.

Apparently, though, public displays of wailing, puking and making grand bargains with God in front of witnesses are not only proof of innocence, but the magic key to redemption. Along the lines of St. Paul’s murderous-sinner to saint conversion, I fully expect Masipa to declare Oscar 100% redeemed at his (suspended) sentence hearing.

I think she should have stuck with social work.

 

[jay-jay]

What Masipa needs to ask herself is .. if someone murders their partner in a fit of pique, are they going to own up to it .. and the answer is, of coure they are not, not if they think they can get away with it .. and they will add into that various lies and theatrics, for as long as they can and for as long as it appears to be working .. she surely must know that is how it works .. I just cannot get my head around why she was so taken in by OP's wailing to god when Dr Stipp arrived.

 

[bajas]

I've read a lot of posts that appear to compare other countries' justice systems as being superior to South Africa's, particularly the US. If that were the case, how does one explain that a jury acquitted OJ Simpson?

 

[Marfa Lights]

I was not persuaded by anything Oscar did or didn't say. I was persuaded by the fact that objective evidence supported his basic story. None of this for me hinges on how credible Oscar was or wasn't. As I've said the door damage evidence supports that the bat strikes came after the shots. That all by itself explodes the state's case. The timeline and Oscar's behaviour just adds further weight.

What would preclude the possibility that Oscar broke through the section of the door panel with the bullet hole split in half either with his hands as he gained entry to the toilet cubicle after the shooting or that the sequence of events could have been BAT-GUN-BAT AGAIN?