Discussion between the verdict and sentencing

[pandax81]

Does anyone know Masipa's experience with criminal vs civil cases?

In a civil dispute, parties' behaviour is usually very telling and can help decide matters. Where the claim is he said this and this was agreed, then what they actually did after said event can help settle it. A judge can often rely on their actions being honest and straightforward as they never foresaw a legal case arising.

In a criminal case, that all goes out the window as desperate times call for desperate measures - especially when you've literally been caught red-handed or you planned it. I still can't get over the finding that is "highly improbable" someone could be capable of inventing a simple intruder excuse within 6 minutes - it's hardly solving a Rubik's cube...

 

[mrjitty]

Does anyone know Masipa's experience with criminal vs civil cases?

In a civil dispute, parties' behaviour is usually very telling and can help decide matters. Where the claim is he said this and this was agreed, then what they actually did after said event can help settle it. A judge can often rely on their actions being honest and straightforward as they never foresaw a legal case arising.

In a criminal case, that goes all out the window as desperate times call for desperate measures - especially when you've literally been caught red-handed. I still can't get over the finding that is "highly improbable" someone could be capable of inventing a simple intruder excuse within 6 minutes - it's hardly solving a Rubik's cube...

Especially since he was probably aware of the recent similar case.

And according to the prosecution case, he had more likely 20 mins to think about it.

 

[Sherbert]

That's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. You either have to accept that the witnesses were mistaken, or believe that it's perfectly possible for someone to scream after they are effectively dead. As we have nothing in the records of history to show any such phenomenon the judge really had no alternative.

I agree that it would be quite a leap to suggest that the witnesses didn't hear screams, if indeed it could only have been one person, but that's never been the claim of the defence in this trial. It's far more reasonable and sensible for Masipa to believe that the witnesses mistook OP's screams for that of a woman than for her to set a new legal precedent by making a judgment based on a scientific miracle.

'Logical' is not an adjective I would use to describe Masipa J's conclusion that it was OP screaming, not Reeva. The sound of a woman screaming in terror is as distinctive a sound as any. Would you find it logical if Carice Stander had said she was awoken by the noise of her dogs barking, but, on reflection, it can only have been the cat mewing, as she found the cat awake, but the dogs asleep?

I have to confess that I am not familiar with the quality of Masipa J's previous judgements - I did do a google search, but found nothing. I'm not sure if you've read any, but I really don't think we can safely assume that she is the best that S Africa had to offer.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Reeva Steenkamp’s cousin says the reason Reeva stuck with Oscar was because “she saw a broken soul in him and wanted to care for it”.

Talking to You magazine this week, Kim [Martin] says that her cousin was amazing and that she remembers the time she first met Oscar. “I expected him to be more confident and he wasn’t. I still thought to myself, ‘Reeva, why is he just standing there and not talking to anyone”, she says.

Only a few months later, she met the couple again for lunch when she asked Reeva if she was happy. The cryptic response she receives, she says, haunts her to this day.

The three were having lunch when Oscar got up to take a phone call. “I turned to Reeva and asked, ‘Are you really happy?’ And she shrugged and said ‘Yes, well, we’ll have to talk. We’ll talk,” Kim remembers.

“I’ve wished now about a thousand times that I’d asked her, ‘What?’ or insisted she tell me,” Kim says, “Or let her go away with him and phoned the next day and asked, ‘What did you mean by that?”

http://thejuice.co.za/top-stories/reevas-cousin-reeva-saw-a-broken-soul-in-oscar/

Reeva had no idea how broken OP was.

Besides prison, he needs intensive psychological treatment, up to and including hospitalization (and even then, narcissism / sociopathy doesn't lend itself to being cured).

He is clearly a serious danger to society. (What will Uncle Arnie say when OP assaults / kills again?)

The angel of mercy's loving care cost her life.

 

[foxbluff]

"punish him twice"!!!

She's definitely biased! That was before the verdict...was she anticipating to find him guilty? So what other punishment she was referring to? To stand trial?

It was indeed imo a strange and confusing remark for her to have made!

The only way I could make any sense of it was if she meant because the defense was opposed to any testing being done at all, and she going against their wishes, then making him be an inpatient to boot would be a second punishment. ??

 

[AW2B]

I know what you mean about Frank, however, I don't think it was a mistake by the Judge as it was common cause that there were only two people in the house that night.

1-There were only two people in the house..Reeva + Oscar = A fact in the trial

2-There were THREE people in the house ..Reeva + Oscar + Chiziweni = A fact in REAL LIFE.

"1" should be the same as "2"..they shouldn't be different.. whose fault it was?

 

[akp]

Does anyone know Masipa's experience with criminal vs civil cases?

In a civil dispute, parties' behaviour is usually very telling and can help decide matters. Where the claim is he said this and this was agreed, then what they actually did after said event can help settle it. A judge can often rely on their actions being honest and straightforward as they never foresaw a legal case arising.

In a criminal case, that all goes out the window as desperate times call for desperate measures - especially when you've literally been caught red-handed or you planned it. I still can't get over the finding that is "highly improbable" someone could be capable of inventing a simple intruder excuse within 6 minutes - it's hardly solving a Rubik's cube...

I have been meaning to ask the same question myself.
Also, she does not seem capable of digesting and drawing logical conclusions from a complex set of data as a typical criminal case might present, if the present trial as any evidence to go by (assuming there is no foul play involved anywhere).

 

[mrjitty]

Well, not only was Frank on the premises .. but Reeva herself was still actually alive before she was shot, so quite how Masipa can say that 'at the time of the incident there was no-one else in the accused's house except for the accused and the deceased. Therefore it could only have been one of them who screamed or cried out loud.' What an absolute load of nonsense .. Reeva was alive in that house, and she was also more than capable of screaming, at the time of the incident. What planet is that judge on, for god's sake?

Agree.

It's a startling conclusion because she assumes as proven, the very thing that was in contention.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I know what you mean about Frank, however, I don't think it was a mistake by the Judge as it was common cause that there were only two people in the house that night.

Can you explain please foxbluff. :thinking: Can I just answer what I think you mean, that the PT and DT did not prove to J Masipa that there was another person on the premises, so it's not her mistake? Hmmm, yes, I agree.

Common cause - what is agreed

http://www.paralegaladvice.org.za/docs/dictionary.html

 

[AW2B]

It was indeed imo a strange and confusing remark for her to have made!

The only way I could make any sense of it was if she meant because the defense was opposed to any testing being done at all, and she going against their wishes, then making him be an inpatient to boot would be a second punishment. ??

I don't think so. One would ask..by that definition of "punishment"..how many times did she punish the prosecution or the defense for that matter?? I think it was a slip on her part..

I have a feeling she thought that Pistorius was being punished by subjecting him to stand trial..IMO..she's totally biased!

 

[jilly]

Hi

You can see the list here - click on the names for their profiles - I had a look over all the ones appointed in recent years.

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/high/judges/

You've got silks, former deputy solicitor general, law society presidents, former prosecutors. Generally 20yrs experience at least. Usually a partner in their firm.

A Judge career track amongst the partners I knew was to have the big successful career at the firm, then maybe jump out as a barrister, try to get your silk and then angle for the bench

Of course it depends a bit if you were commercial, criminal etc.

This guy I knew - check out his CV - it is epic.

His career as a partner at RMac alone was legendary - so that is what you are up against to become a High Court Judge.

Justice SK graduated LLB (Hons) from Victoria University in 1981 (winning the Chapman Tripp Centenary Prize for his graduating year) and LLM from Cambridge University in 1985. He was a junior lecturer in law at Victoria University 1980-82, a partner in the Wellington firm Perry Wylie Pope & Page 1985-88, and a litigation partner at Russell McVeagh 1988-2005. He was chairman of partners of that firm 2003-05. Justice K joined the independent bar in 2005, and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2007. He was one of the founding members of Stout Street Chambers in Wellington. He had a wide trial and appellate practice in commercial, contract, equity, competition, environmental and public law litigation. At the time of his appointment Justice K was also the Pro-Chancellor of Massey University, Honorary Lecturer in Law at Victoria University and Chairman of the New Zealand Markets Disciplinary Tribunal, the stock exchange disciplinary tribunal. He was appointed to the High Court in April 2011 and sits in Wellington.

Very impressive, as it should be to get to the High Court imo.

It appears Masipa was only a lawyer for 7 yrs before they gave her that appt.

.......The announcement of her appointment as the second black woman in South African history to the bench in 1998 was accompanied by a note of her hobbies: dancing, gardening, yoga. "It was part of a breakthrough. In a sense, she is a pioneer," said Albie Sachs, a former constitutional court justice. Masipa herself jokes that she is probably the "youngest" ever appointed to the high court, after only seven years at the bar, a part of South Africa's racial and political transformation.........

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2014/aug/10/thokozile-masipa-world-awaits-her-verdict

 

[mrjitty]

I know what you mean about Frank, however, I don't think it was a mistake by the Judge as it was common cause that there were only two people in the house that night.

She does not list it amongst the common cause facts.

She states it as a fact once she is considering the evidence of who screamed.

It's clearly an embarrassing error.

More embarrassing than failing to get the law of intention to possess correct.

 

[mrjitty]

Very impressive, as it should be to get to the High Court imo.

It appears Masipa was only a lawyer for 7 yrs before they gave her that appt.

.......The announcement of her appointment as the second black woman in South African history to the bench in 1998 was accompanied by a note of her hobbies: dancing, gardening, yoga. "It was part of a breakthrough. In a sense, she is a pioneer," said Albie Sachs, a former constitutional court justice. Masipa herself jokes that she is probably the "youngest" ever appointed to the high court, after only seven years at the bar, a part of South Africa's racial and political transformation.........

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2014/aug/10/thokozile-masipa-world-awaits-her-verdict

I was stunned to find this out.

I read the judgement and was so alarmed at the poor quality of legal reasoning and evidential analysis that I checked her CV. I thought maybe she might have a commercial or other background and was somewhat new to criminal.

But it turns out she is just wildly under-qualified.

I presume this is a just a result of the massive changes in South Africa.

NZ in the 2010s is able to promote top talent from year groups in the 1980s. People I graduated with in the mid 90s are still some way off Judge.

SA does not have that luxury (yet).

But surely surprising she would be considered for this case.

 

[lithgow1]

I was stunned to find this out.

I read the judgement and was so alarmed at the poor quality of legal reasoning and evidential analysis that I checked her CV. I thought maybe she might have a commercial or other background and was somewhat new to criminal.

But it turns out she is just wildly under-qualified.

I presume this is a just a result of the massive changes in South Africa.

NZ in the 2010s is able to promote top talent from year groups in the 1980s. People I graduated with in the mid 90s are still some way off Judge.

SA does not have that luxury (yet).

But surely surprising she would be considered for this case.

Re bit in bold - it's my understanding that judge assignments in SA are on a rotating roster basis so it was just timing that his case and her name came up together. Guess though that he was lucky to get a 'hugging' as opposed to a 'hanging' judge, neither of which are desirable IMO.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Originally Posted by akp

EVDM was one of the most crucial State witnesses for the State, and in rejecting her testimony, the judge cites three reasons:

1. she could not understand what was being said or in what language was the `female voice' speaking,
2. she was not sure about the source of the voice,
3. her husband confirmed the loud cry after the bangs as OP's voice.

About point (1), I really do not know what to say. Surely this can not by itself be a valid reason for ignoring what she did hear. But let us go to points 2 and 3. As some people have pointed out, it is debatable whether what EVDM's husband said should be acceptable or hearsay, but as you argue and in any case fact is that judge did accept her husband's confirmation. Now that implies, post facto, that EVDM did in fact know that the sound was indeed from OP's house, because all the sounds starting from 1:56 emanated from the same place.

Second, her husband only identified the loud cry after the bangs as OP's, not the argument that EVDM heard since 1:56. But again, let us assume even that voice was male voice. The source now being identified to be OP's house, male voice could only have been OP himself. Isn't it much more damning for OP's version then that he was wide awake and involved in an argument for an hour prior to the incident?

Among Masipa’s endless, utterly confounding explanations, (1) above is surely among the most bizarre.

One does NOT need to know the specific language nor what is being said to know that an ARGUMENT is taking place. Such rationale is nonsensical in the extreme. Human fighting is unmistakable in all languages. Further, WHAT was being argued was really irrelevant (although it sure would have been great for the State's case) - the simple fact that a vicious, lengthy argument took place immediately prior to the murder was key!

This was nothing but a contrived reason to ditch EVDM’s testimony.

In light of the trial as a whole (and specifically Masipa’s actions and deferential behavior towards OP), she clearly had a pre-determined agenda with this verdict and it was not truth or justice.

 

[delilah]

I've just finished reading Patricia Taylor's book 'Oscar: an accident waiting to happen' (available to download from amazon for £7.18).

It's a bit cheesy and I suppose you have to aim off for some hype and embellishment. However, having watched OP's performance in court, it rings very true (and this was written before the trial started). It documents his controlling and immature behaviour towards Samantha Taylor, and there are some quite telling incidents in there; I can't believe they've all been made up. Here's one:

"while he was travelling he would often insist that Sammy skyped him in her pyjamas, to show him she wasn't planning to go out anywhere".

Massive DV alert.

 

[foxbluff]

By international standards Masipa is quite inexperienced for a High Court Judge - let alone one handling a case of this complexity.

Indeed in NZ, it would be Nel & Roux who have the experience level to be appointed to the High Court bench.

She has only 7 years experience as an advocate. No decent experience as a prosecutor. Certainly never attained QC level.

In NZ she would not even be appointed to the District Court so soon.

BBM - I'm not meaning to be snarky... where did you get this info?

The only info I have on the Judge is a profile of her by The Observer in Aug. 2014. It has her as practicing law soon after graduating law school in 1990 and being appointed to the bench in 1998 which would mean she has been a judge for (16) years.

[I have a notation on my printout of the profile as the link being in the Theory Thread at pg. 56 - Post#1393. If anyone wants, I'm willing to go find it and post the link here.

ETA: Never mind... jilly not only beat me to it but provided link to boot.

 

[delilah]

That's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. You either have to accept that the witnesses were mistaken, or believe that it's perfectly possible for someone to scream after they are effectively dead. As we have nothing in the records of history to show any such phenomenon the judge really had no alternative.

I agree that it would be quite a leap to suggest that the witnesses didn't hear screams, if indeed it could only have been one person, but that's never been the claim of the defence in this trial. It's far more reasonable and sensible for Masipa to believe that the witnesses mistook OP's screams for that of a woman than for her to set a new legal precedent by making a judgment based on a scientific miracle.

It is the only logical conclusion to draw if you decide it was shots - screams - bat, as Masipa did. She said that was common cause.

IT WAS NOT.

This was a clear, fundamental, error that she made, and everything flowed from it. But if course the verdict cannot be challenged on that basis.

 

[delilah]

BBM - I'm not meaning to be snarky... where did you get this info?

The only info I have on the Judge is a profile of her by The Observer in Aug. 2014. It has her as practicing law soon after graduating law school in 1990 and being appointed to the bench in 1998 which would mean she has been a judge for (16) years.

[I have a notation on my printout of the profile as the link being in the Theory Thread at pg. 56 - Post#1393. If anyone wants, I'm willing to go find it and post the link here.

ETA: Never mind... jilly not only beat me to it but provided link to boot.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between an advocate and a judge?

 

[Cherwell]

Especially since he was probably aware of the recent similar case.

And according to the prosecution case, he had more likely 20 mins to think about it.

AND he didn't need to say anything more than the half-dozen words "I thought she was an intruder".
Nor did he until he had his lawyers helping to write his script.