cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,010
- Reaction score
- 31,033
I highly recommend this article.
"Judges are supposed to make decisions based on the law and its definitions, but sometimes their decisions are highly personal interpretations of those parts of the evidence that appeal to them".
http://www.health24.com/Mental-Health/News/Judge-Masipa-reads-Oscars-mind-20140916
Thanks JudgeJudi, Prof Simpson (Psychiatrist) from Health24 has given astute ( and amusing) commentaries all the way through the trial.
Just want to "cherry-pick" this from the article you linked as I realise we have had quite a few posts on this topic recently, ie. why posters aren't respecting the judge's decision, public consternation equals desire for vengeance etc etc etc :
"Those who predicted a "murder" verdict didn't misread the case or evidence, they just didn't foresee such a contentious and provocative decision at odds with a large body of expert legal opinion on crucial issues."
and
'I was surprised that Judge Masipas jaw-dropping decision, so scantily explained, seemed on re-reading to be an exercise in mind reading that most "shrinks" would hesitate to attempt. She told us that she had found what was transpiring in Oscar's mind at the time of the shooting, and was confident she was correct. Wow!"
and unfortunately, for those thinking Roux really is a Mercedes etc :
"As I have said repeatedly, it was seriously unwise for Nel not to have re-opened his case and called further expert witnesses to refute the wild claims of the defence. He seems to have been over-confident. Roux did not earn a positive outcome by technical skill or the brilliance of his witnesses, but by the weakness of the prosecution and the boundless misplaced sympathy of the court."