Trial Discussion Thread #51 - 14.11.9, Day 41 ~announcement of the verdict~

[sleuth-d-]

masipa logic:
1. accused lies on the stand, but this doesn't make him guilty.
2. accused said he didn't intend to kill anyone, so she believes him.

*rolls eyes*

 

[Susza]

Hmm, I should get som work done during this lunch break but I just keep sitting in front of my screen like paralized, reading your comments. At least, fortunately you are here.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I am genuinely sick at heart. There should have been absolute justice for Reeva and her family. Now there will never be.

 

[soozieqtips]

The Judge said she would go back to the grouping of the 4 shots later. Remember that she said the grouping indicated he did not fire without thinking (in his version.) I wonder what she's going to add to it.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Seems to me that because OP didn't know it was Reeva, he will get off. Obviously, J Masipa believes you can shoot to kill an intruder with no less than 4 shots.

 

[fox1lady]

If I was terrified for my life I certainly would be running AWAY from the danger NOT towards it!!! I'm baffled and glad I don't live in SA where people get away with blatant murder even when the evidence is right there in front of everyone to see!!!

 

[soozieqtips]

And make sure you claim immediately that you believed there was an intruder and make sure you say you had no intention to kill anyone - it was an accident.

Oh - and keep repeating "I was terrified for my life."

And add the occasional "it was dark".

 

[MeeBee]

Me too.

I also am assuming the "aghast" media commentators know the difference between a judge doing her job and weighing testimony and evidence in accordance with the law and the soundness of opinions of the case expressed by viewers.

IMO she's done an outstanding job of reasoning and of explaining her rationale.

I think anyone who made a conscious effort not to buy into incredible media bias against OP will not be too shocked at this outcome. Even up to a couple days ago I read an article that was so wildly slanted against him I just had to roll eyes.

Even the lawyers have to feign disbelief because it goes against what they've been predicting all along. It's also not lost on me that any professional can still be subject to the same biases as any of the rest of us. I've read several lawyers online who were of the opinion that OP could get CH or an acquittal and some who even thought he deserved it. Yet they were never trotted out on these shows to give their opinion.

 

[sleuth-d-]

masipa intruder reasoning:
"the window was open"

[at what point was it opened though]
[the accused also went upstairs twice unsupervised after the event]

where is the reasonable doubt regarding the window?

 

[DILLIGAF]

Says Oscar was a terrible witness but believes his evidence!! :facepalm:

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Of course he could foresee that he would kill the person behind the door!! Or did she disregard the evidence of Sean Rens as well?? Was any witness of use to her at this trial??

Totally agree Lisa. In fact, I will go further. No only has she discounted the ear testimony of some credible witnesses, she has actually stated that because BaBa DID NOT HEAR an argument as he did his rounds, then it casts doubt on the evidence there was one.

I'm not jumping on the Band Wagon of calling 'Foul' - but I think I will be getting on the Bus behind it.

Something is wrong.

 

[LaLaw2000]

And add the occasional "it was dark".

Be sure to take a substance to make yourself throw up in court, oh, and sob as if someone is pulling your nails out with pliers.

Ok, I know I am being tacky but I am so upset and angry.

 

[CHERIE.T]

He fired four shots into a closed toilet door....and she couldn't find intention to kill someone?

That is ridiculous & senseless.

What a shame Nel cannot appeal. This murderer is going to walk.

bbm
You're right and I'm shocked. wow

 

[JudgeJudi]

Well I must admit that not one person on here over the last few months envisaged the 'Prosecution' having to appeal the outcome lol.
Incredible.

I posted the following only a number of weeks ago:

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa forbids a retrial when there has already been an acquittal or a conviction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

However the State can appeal against the sentence.

 

[lisasalinger]

Yes I am listening. And I disagree.

 

[TartLemon]

Me too.

I also am assuming the "aghast" media commentators know the difference between a judge doing her job and weighing testimony and evidence in accordance with the law and the soundness of opinions of the case expressed by viewers. I assume their response is about playing to their viewers.

IMO she's done an outstanding job of reasoning and of explaining her rationale.

I agree and like the point by point explanation.

 

[Interested Bystander]

The question is whether he foresaw that he would kill Reeva by firing shots through the bathroom door - and the answer was a firm "no." Are you listening to her reading of the judgment?

Lawyers are saying she is wrong in law there. The law says a person (ie anyone) not a particular person. Whether naming a person matters or not, I have no idea. How on earth can somebody shoot four bullets through a door and not foresee that they could possibly kill them. Defies belief.

 

[BarnacleZA]

"How could the accused have reasonably foreseen the shot he fired would have killed the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this, that he would have killed the person behind the door, let alone the deceased," says Judge Masipa.

Completely incorrect test for dolus eventualis. Dolus eventualis is not direct intent and whether he knew whether it was the deceased or not is irrelevant! Only two tests apply here...

1. Was there a person (any person) behind the door?
2. Could you foresee the possibility of the death of that person? (When firing four shots into a small area, and the probability, let alone the possibility of killing someone with that specific ammunition is great)... Come on!

So, that finding is clearly an error in law...

And that, dear people, gives you the clear view of the "quality" of the South African judicial system...

 

[soozieqtips]

He will also not be found guilty of murder without premeditation (dolus eventualis), as Masipa says
it was not proved that he had foreseen that his actions could result in the death of the person behind the toilet door.

I find this statement absolutely remarkable. He used bullets that were designed to kill. He shot 4 times, not once. Why does the judge believe that OP, an experienced gun owner, wouldn't have foreseen that shooting 4 times into that tiny space would have killed the person behind the door?

 

[Sherbert]

Me too.

I also am assuming the "aghast" media commentators know the difference between a judge doing her job and weighing testimony and evidence in accordance with the law and the soundness of opinions of the case expressed by viewers. I assume their response is about playing to their viewers.

IMO she's done an outstanding job of reasoning and of explaining her rationale.

BBM Yes, because, having cherry-picked the evidence, she's had weeks to write up the Judgement. I was concerned by her notable failure to ask questions throughout. She seemed to be more concerned with admin issues.