You are not alone, the following are some of the many comments by legal experts after her ruling. I have yet to find experts of a similar standing who agree with Masipa
Johann Engelbrecht SC said Masipa's application of the dolus eventualis test was wrong. 'I'm shocked. She is off the track. A human being was shot, regardless of who he thought it was.'
Professor Pierre de Vos said Masipa had got it wrong. 'If you meant to kill X, but you make a mistake and killed Y, it doesn't automatically exclude murder.'
Martin Hood said he was shocked by the ruling, 'I think she's going to get quite a lot of criticism from the judiciary and the legal system,' said the Johannesburg-based lawyer. 'The consensus is that she hasn't got it right
Llewelyn Curlewis , Law Society of the Northern Provinces president, said there were many inconsistencies in Masipa's argument
Ulrich Roux, Criminal Defence lawyer, said Masipa's ruling meant that 'Pistorius subjectively did not foresee (dolus eventualis) that the shooting would lead to the death of someone. Obviously the judgment needs to be studied but it is surprising
Stephen Tuson, law professor at Wits university, said: 'I think the verdict on premeditated murder is acceptable however her reasoning on dolus eventualis is flawed and I think the state would arguably be able to appeal
Jan Henning SC, former NPA deputy head said, ‘It is very strange. I don't know what to say, because it is so far from the bus. It doesn't make sense'
Professor James Grant, of the Wits School of Law, said 'the problem is that Masipa has found that he did not intend to kill, but that is not the question and it was not his defence, it seems as if she arrived at the conclusion by making a mistake of law relating to whether it matters who was behind the door’