Aha! So a judicial opinion on Facebook
in support of Masipa's reasoning is acceptable, then?
But, seriously, I don't follow how a judge giving an opinion on another judge's verdict is detrimental to the impartiality of the judiciary. In fact, quite the reverse.
If you mean that the deference that the public
should feel for the judiciary must be preserved at all costs, IMO, that is essentially an argument for not televising trials in the first place. If judges aren't subjected to the intense scrutiny that Masipa received, then, when we hear a verdict that we didn't expect, we can all carry on as normal and continue to trust and say, as we usually do, 'Well, we didn't hear all the evidence, so the Judge probably got it right'.
I agree that it probably isn't very pleasant for Masipa to know that her reasoning has been criticised by a fellow judge, but I feel that improving the quality of the judiciary should be the priority. And the scrutiny of a fellow judge or judges would, undoubtedly, serve to assist this process.
IMO, given that the trial was televised, Judge Greenwood felt obliged to speak up, as he felt that the public had been let down by the reasoning in the verdict and, on behalf of his profession, found this embarrassing. As you know, it is essential to the retention of public confidence in the process that justice should not only be done, but should undoubtedly, and manifestly, be seen to be done.
As you point out, I am hopeful that the Appeal Court judges will be sound and will look at the facts again, given the complaint about Milady's questionable handling of circumstantial evidence.
And please remember that the existence of some of Masipa's errors is more than just a matter of interpretation. I'm referring not only to the incorrect factual detail pertaining to Reeva's injuries, but, also, to Milady's statement that gunshots first was common cause. These errors are not matters of opinion - unfortunately, they were real mistakes.
