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

[mister happy]

When is court back in session?

 

[believe09]

She seems to have rejected anything requiring speculation.

But, she also rejected contradictory evidence and went so far as to say people did not hear what they heard. In her "opinion" (which is not evidence) the hip shot disabled her immediately to the point that she couldn't scream. In her interpretation (again, not evidence) of the facts as presented, OP didn't intend to murder Reeva specifically. Stating that Nel didn't prove it to her sufficiently is one thing, making a statement that it didn't happen is another imo.

 

[MeeBee]

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.

She seems pretty clear that while he intended to shoot (not kill) whoever was behind the door, she believes he did not intend to shoot/kill Reeva. There's a difference.

 

[DebinGA]

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.

I take comfort in the belief that uber-narcissist OP will find life without constant adulation/affirmation a living hell.

 

[Giles]

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).

Yes, he explained it much as Barnacle did above in the thread. They are still discussing it.

 

[minor4th]

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.

He was a terrible witness and he was not candid about certain parts of his defense - but in the main there was nothing to disprove that he thought there was an intruder in the bathroom was coming out to harm him, even if he did shoot intentionally and should have known that shooting 4 times through a bathroom door could kill someone. It comes down to he didn't intend to kill Reeva and he really believed there was an intruder in the toilet.

 

[Trooper]

that's quite enough for me, now.. extremely thankful I am not South African... or Texan, which has the same disparity of the quality of justice depending on the chequebook...

 

[Sherbert]

She seems to have rejected anything requiring speculation.

Except where it supports her verdict.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Geezus, this judge is ALL over the freakin place!

Seems to be little method to her judicial madness.

Like she's picking one from Column A (hold the logic), one from Column B (he was so evasive he could only be telling mostly the truth), three from Column C (the poor dear was crying so hard and telling everyone who would listen It Was An INTRUDER!!!! over and over and over that no way did he commit murder) ... all served up with a side order of WTF.

And at the end of her verdict, she'll bust open a fortune cookie that reads "Your Lucky Day, Oz - Get Out of Jail Free Card!"

Unless she quickly proves otherwise, she's as bad or worse loose cannon than OP.

This is certainly NOT the judge I've been reading about.

Ditch dolus directus, fine, I'll go with that - the State could not prove premeditation.

But how the F can she so blithely and quickly discard dolus eventualis?!! It is beyond stunning.

This is simply BIZARRE and DISTURBING.

 

[MeeBee]

But, she also rejected contradictory evidence and went so far as to say people did not hear what they heard. In her "opinion" (which is not evidence) the hip shot disabled her immediately to the point that she couldn't scream. In her interpretation (again, not evidence) of the facts as presented, OP didn't intend to murder Reeva specifically. Stating that Nel didn't prove it to her sufficiently is one thing, making a statement that it didn't happen is another imo.

Again, that's not what she said. She said that she has come to the conclusion that it was not Reeva's screams the witnesses heard (not that she never screamed at all) because the defense proved their timeline in that it was the gunshots that came first. It could not have been Reeva screaming as she was shot in the head.

 

[minor4th]

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

She specifically said she accepted it as true and reliable.

 

[MeeBee]

He was a terrible witness and he was not candid about certain parts of his defense - but in the main there was nothing to disprove that he thought there was an intruder in the bathroom was coming out to harm him, even if he did shoot intentionally and should have known that shooting 4 times through a bathroom door could kill someone. It comes down to he didn't intend to kill Reeva and he really believed there was an intruder in the toilet.

Didn't she also say there are factors that she understands may affect a witness giving evidence, i.e. Nerves, fear, etc.?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Interesting discussion on WhoopWhoop Radio with Judge Greenland et al

whoopwhoop radio

http://whoopwhoop.tv/pistoriusradio.htm

 

[minor4th]

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

She could be mistaken, but the State didn't present evidence to prove that OP didn't believe there was an intruder coming out to harm him.

 

[believe09]

Where she has lost, again imo, is stating that OP is a liar on the stand (which should alone carry some kind of consequence) but that she accepts his version of the events of that night.

Huh?

A version that changed repeatedly depending on his understanding of discovery.

She did not acknowledge that in any way. That is a cornerstone of the states case in my interpretation. Did the state prove that his version of the events that night repeatedly changed in a documented way over and over again? Yes. So what version of the events of that night is she choosing to believe? Her statements are pretty unclear except that she accepts he didn't mean to specifically kill Reeva and she felt an open window is proof of an intruder.

 

[fox1lady]

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.

The judge had more than enough evidence to convict him of murder... she just chose to ignore it. It's clear that she used parts of Dr Stipps evidence that supported the verdict that she wanted to hand out but rejected other parts as unreliable. Right from the beginning it seemed that she "didn't want him to be punished twice" because as far as she's concerned he has already been punished by losing the love of his life. I don't think she was ever going to convict him of anything.

 

[minor4th]

Didn't she also say there are factors that she understands may affect a witness giving evidence, i.e. Nerves, fear, etc.?

Yes, but she kind of discounted all of that concerning Oscar because he wasn't a bad witness on direct exam - he only got confusing and vague on cross exam

 

[leda]

I'm convinced the reaction to this (rightly-dubbed) travesty is going to be difficult to ignore. For what seems like the vast majority of people equipped with a discretionary intelligence, brain, and heart to match (who are not vigilantes, who are not biased, who are not uninformed as to the circumstances of this horrific case) this refutation of murder is grotesque and, frankly, deeply frightening. A preternaturally physically powerful man guns down an unarmed woman in an enclosed space at the same time as numerous uninterested earwitnesses testify to hearing conflict, argument, and a woman experiencing deep, mortal, fear. These witnesses heard this evidence before they knew what happened. And what happened was a violent, ugly death. That is not disputed.

I dunno what happened to Judge Masipa. And I don't see how this can go away.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Geezus, this judge is ALL over the freakin place!

Seems to be little method to her judicial madness.

Like she's picking one from Column A (hold the logic), one from Column B (he was so evasive he could only be telling mostly the truth), three from Column C (the poor dear was crying so hard and telling everyone who would listen It Was An INTRUDER!!!! over and over and over that no way did he commit murder) ... all served up with a side order of WTF.

And at the end of her verdict, she'll bust open a fortune cookie that reads "Your Lucky Day, Oz - Get Out of Jail Free Card!"

Unless she quickly proves otherwise, she's as bad or worse loose cannon than OP.

This is certainly NOT the judge I've been reading about.

Ditch dolus directus, fine, I'll go with that - the State could not prove premeditation.

But how the F can she so blithely and quickly discard dolus eventualis?!! It is beyond stunning.

This is simply BIZARRE and DISTURBING.

OP's a living legend, I think we underestimated this. :shame:

 

[Mr Fossil]

It will be interesting to see if Nel appeals the verdict. His basis for appeal has to be a point of law as I understand it and maybe he doesn't agree with Masipa and her assessors interpretation of the law?