The riddle that is Masipa is going to trouble us for a long time.
One main reason that I find it difficult to subscribe to the view - that her sympathy for OP is the reason behind her verdicts - is the utter disrespect for Reeva and now Barry Steenkamp that comes out in her judgement. I simply do not see any reason whatsoever why Masipa would be or would have to be so disrespectful to them, even if she wanted to save OP.
For the same reason, I have now ruled out her being paid off as a possible reason too. If she was corrupt, or sympathetic to OP, she could do what she wanted to do without being so disrespectful to the victim and her family. On both occasions, the original trial and this time, the disrespect is so very prominent in the verdicts that she wrote or read out. Add to this, the observation that both documents are devoid of any coherent logical reasoning, forget sound legal principles. One can be incompetent, but can one be incompetent to this extent? Remember that she had been a social worker, a crime reporter and an advocate prior to being appointed as a judge. That leaves me with the following as a strong possibility. That someone else wrote the script for her, and somehow, she was pressurised to go with it.
How? Of course we don't know, we can only speculate. But there are just so many ways possible. We all are human beings, have our weaknesses. Blackmail, threat - these are all very distinct possibilities. If you have money, and have no morals, there are just so many avenues open to you to abuse a system. And by our experience so far, the Pistorius family is very well qualified in this respect.
Two more points that kind of supports this line of thinking:
1.
the script, the verdict both times is based roughly on whatever Roux said in the court, or wrote in the HOA. This was the case in the trial. This is the case this time also, if you look closely. On the other hand, it could not be Roux himself. Or anyone legally sound. A person like him would not make so many elementary mistakes MrJitty has been repeatedly pointing out here. Forget legally sound, the person has to be pretty dim - his errors are evident to even me, with no legal background, because there are just so many internal inconsistencies, total absence of coherent logic. If it was someone like Roux, for example, he would have written the original verdict in a much better way, that would have made it appeal proof. Even Masipa should have done a better job of it. So this could be some close confidante, with some rudimentary legal knowledge, but no real understanding, picked up for the job.
2.
Not just Masipa, I do not see why would anyone be disrespectful to Reeva or her father in this whole matter; unless - unless he or she perhaps believes, or better still, knows that there was indeed an argument that led to the killing and holds Reeva responsible for that argument. For them, the entire blame is on her, and then the disrespect does not seem unnatural any more. Once again, points to the Pistorius family.
