Thanks for the link, it is a good find. There are some intelligent observations and comments here. I think his explanation is balanced and fair.
This is why we need the appeal, we need to fully understand the reasoning behind the decision. If Masipa had reasoned her judgement like this guy, I for one, would have felt a lot better about it.
It's a shame the video is put together in such a 'user unfriendly' way. It's like someone was experimenting with some new video editing software and tried to be a little too clever... Anyhow, a minor detail, the content is really interesting.
Thanks again.
I agree he makes some intelligent comments & observations. He also sounds knowledgable about both SA law and English law, and he applies detailed explanations that are somewhat easy to follow. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the technical explanations he offered. And I totally agree....this appeal is much needed and will give us clarity.
However, I have a problem with him reaching "culpable homicide" as the correct judgement based on the reasoning he uses. After his detailed explanation on the differences between CH vs DE and then seems to (a) contradict himself when choosing CH, throwing out some key points that support DE that he just mentioned, and (b) selects OP's versions of events in which to base this judgement on, due to a very weak point that is not supported by anything.
1st: he doesn't seem to know (or at least he doesn't mention them) much of the nitty gritty facts of the case, which are obviously important before weighing in on what you believe the verdict should be. He stated a few times, I think he said this or did that. He also never touches on any of the ear witness testimony or evidence that supports OP's version not holding any water (i.e. - Reeva's stomach contents, neighbor hears arguing for an hour+, ear witnesses - even testifying to pause after 1st bullet and that later being supported by ballistics expert, ear witnesses hearing woman's screams up to last set of shots, 1:48am phone data/activity, photos taken of crime scene and bedroom that contradict OP's version, duvet/jeans and blood pattern contradicting OP, and more. I'm not even mentioning the weak & embarrassing testimony offered up by defense witnesses & Oscar's mess on the bench). As Col.M points out up thread, the commentator mentions that it's improbable OP would kill Reeva as it would damage his career, therefore more likely OP's version is the scenario to accept. Col.M highly disagrees with this reasoning, as do I. It's a bit of a shortcut in arriving at CH isn't it?
(Personally, I think OP went into one of his rages/crazy fits of anger - demonstrating his power/control over the situation - and went too far. Once he realized the situation had escalated to Reeva phoning or eventually involving police or the public, he knew his choices were either: killing Reeva or killing his career. He chose to save his career. Thinking Oscar Pistorius could fast talk his way out of this, just as he's been able to do in the past.)
2nd: he states that D.E. can be (with regards to "intent" and the possibility of knowing you might kill the individual behind the closed door) an "appreciation at a preconscious level of a realistic possibility" . . . but significant enough to affect conscious thought and action.
I would think the fact that OP testified that the reason he didn't fire a warning shot into the shower, for fear it might ricochet, proof enough that OP clearly understood and had a conscious appreciation of the damage 4 bullets would do, fired into the small toilet area. Highly probable any single shot would kill person locked behind door. Couple that with OP's gun exam and the testimony proving he clearly knew & understood SA gun laws. I think these two points alone, prove beyond a reasonable doubt, "intent"and therefore DE.
3rd: this guy sounded like he was following in Judge M footsteps. Throwing out all the important testimony that collaborated one another and that contradicted OP's version , all for what reason? Because OP said so? Or because OP would never throw away his position held high up on that SA pedestal away, in a fit of anger? Domestic violence comes in all shapes & sizes, rich/poor, professional athletes (that's a common reoccurrence replayed in newspapers all around the globe), celebrities, powerful politicians, old/young, etc.
However, once this person concludes OP's version must be only version to be considered, he still IMO, is incorrect in concluding CH, due to the points of law (re DE) he brings up that I've already mentioned under #2.
Seems so strange IMO, that all this discussion is hashed and rehashed over CH vs DE.
WE KNOW he knew SA guns laws inside & out.
WE KNOW he knew there was a living person behind the closed, locked door.
WE KNOW he knew how small this tiny toilet area was.
WE KNOW he fired (4) shots into this tiny toilet area, through a closed, locked door.
WE KNOW he chose not to fire a warning shot into the bathroom's shower stall as he feared it might ricochet and hit him.
Therefore...
WE KNOW there was INTENT to kill the person behind this door.