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

[TartLemon]

What is the appeal process in SA? Are there different levels who must agree before the final verdict?

 

[whiterum]

And make sure if you are a neighbour who unfortunately happened to hear anything that may be beneficial to the police, keep your mouth shut and get on with you life.

 

[believe09]

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.

Which is not to say that those who believe he is guilty and that it was reasonably proved he was guilty were swayed by bias. It is also reasonable to conclude that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it isn't an ice cream sundae kwim?

 

[CHERIE.T]

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

Reeva's poor family.

 

[JudgeJudi]

The assessors may also be ready to throw up, although they knew what the decision was, of course. They may feel the way I do but could only challenge her on the law.

Colonel, you've got it the wrong way around. The assessors can overrule Masipa on facts, not the law.

 

[MeeBee]

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.

Even if that is the law, isn't that a flawed way of looking at things? If someone genuinely believes there is an intruder in their home but accidentally ends up killing someone who lives there or even ends killing an intruder who meant them harm, THEY should be convicted of murder, no questions asked? That doesn't seem right.

 

[soozieqtips]

She said the bathroom window was open, so it was not his imagination. But why did she assume it was already open, and that he didn't open it (to support his version) on one of his unsupervised trips upstairs?

 

[minor4th]

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.

Those lawyers are ignoring the fact that Masipa also said that she accepts OP's version as true and reliable that he thought his life was in danger. He believed he was acting lawfully - but he was mistaken. That does away with the argument that intending to kill an intruder can be murder.

 

[lisasalinger]

I am equally concerned with the safety of society. We have made it unbelievably easy for people to kill and get away with it. We bend over backwards to make excuses for people's reprehensibly bad decisions that cost lives. I will never understand this.

 

[DebinGA]

So far m'lady has labeled the shooting "unlawful", she rejected the GAD claim, noting the psych eval showed OP knew right from wrong at the time, and she rejected his "disability" gambit as the elderly, children, and millions of other disabled aren't responding to perceived fears with cocked pistols. Hoping she'll give him some jail time, because not doing so sets a terrible precedent.

 

[sorrell skye]

Judge Greenland quote from Channel 199 (paraphrasing) :"the judge appears to have applied the test (for eventualis) and in my mind it's a little bit problematical as to how it was resolved"

Did Judge Greenland explain why he believes it was problematical?

In my view, it appears Judge Masipa ruled out mens rea (guilty intention), which is necessary for murder.

I don't comprehend how intention can be ruled out when OP himself admitted his fired because he claimed he thought an intruder was coming out of the toilet to attack or kill him. IMO, his actions demonstrate intention to kill - firing 4 rounds through a door - regardless of what he may have stated in court (that he didn't intend to kill anyone).

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Those lawyers are ignoring the fact that Masipa also said that she accepts OP's version as true and reliable that he thought his life was in danger. He believed he was acting lawfully - but he was mistaken. That does away with the argument that intending to kill an intruder can be murder.

I hear what you're saying, I think she is mistaken. :sigh:

 

[geevee]

I guess it's not Only a Jury that ignores credible evidence and lets justice for the deceased slip through their fingers.

 

[DebinGA]

She said the bathroom window was open, so it was not his imagination. But why did she assume it was already open, and that he didn't open it (to support his version) on one of his unsupervised trips upstairs?

She seems to have rejected anything requiring speculation.

 

[sophiebelle]

Now this celebrity can move on with his life, and find another woman that he can take his anger out on. This made me sick. I am sick of his crying and snot. He's acting that way because he thought it would help. It did.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

"He prayed to god", that settles it.

 

[lisasalinger]

I hear what you are saying Minor, but she contradicted herself. She said earlier that his grouping of shots indicated he was thinking clearly. His mental evaluation indicated he could think clearly. All of his decisions that night showed, he was thinking clearly when he retrieved and readied his gun. She then states that he is a terrible witness... he was composed on direct but not on cross. So how then do you conclude that in the defining moment, 4 shots with a deadly weapon - that are in a good grouping - are just one big "oops". Her own argument does not make sense.

 

[MeeBee]

She seems to have rejected anything requiring speculation.

As she should!

 

[minor4th]

This is not the judge's fault. She is following the law and applying it precisely to the evidence. The State did not have enough evidence to prove their case, no matter what anyone believes really happened.

 

[DebinGA]

Those lawyers are ignoring the fact that Masipa also said that she accepts OP's version as true and reliable that he thought his life was in danger. He believed he was acting lawfully - but he was mistaken. That does away with the argument that intending to kill an intruder can be murder.

I don't remember the "true and reliable" part. I remember the "he's the only one left to tell the tale" part.