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

[geevee]

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.

It seems to me she decided on a verdict and then worked it backwards to fit in evidence that went with it and toss out that which didn't.

 

[04009margaret]

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"

She formulated her finding on OP not foreseeing it was Reeva behind the door, Judge Greenland states the test should have been "a human being behind the door".

 

[Giles]

Crickey, all the Legal experts are confused by what's going on.

 

[akp]

Assuming there is no foul play involved (which is something I am finding hard to convince myself as I write), Masipa and the assessors may be good in applying the law but they should spend some serious time on websleuths or similar forums and learn to analyze all available evidence!

 

[MeeBee]

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.

That's not what she did. She found Stipp honest but some of the evidence he gave was contradictory or problematic when put up against certain facts, such as timelines, phone calls, etc. She simply believes he was mistaken. She has no reason to disbelieve him when he says he believes OP's emotion was genuine as that is his opinion and no one has said they feel otherwise. She also seen, first hand, his show of emotion for herself so accepts his opinion.

 

[DebinGA]

Yep. At no time she say that his version was "true or reliable".

She did say that the State had presented no evidence that disproved OP's [many] defences/versions beyond a reasonable doubt, though. She said the onus is on the State to prove their case, not the accused.

I remember her reading the "must be accepted if reasonably possibly true" statute, but not her characterizing OP's lie filled testimony as true or reliable.

 

[04009margaret]

Next shock for us all........she finds he acted reasonably grrrrrrrrrr

 

[geevee]

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?

I hope you're right, this seems quite the travesty.

 

[minor4th]

Yep. At no time she say that his version was "true or reliable".

She did say that the State had presented no evidence that disproved OP's [many] defences/versions beyond a reasonable doubt, though. She said the onus is on the State to prove their case, not the accused.

She did say that she accepted his version that he thought he was shooting at an intruder in the bathroom as "true and reliable"

 

[atthelake]

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.

Then wouldn't that also mean that culpable homicide would be out too?

 

[Interested Bystander]

If OP gets off with this I actually think his life might be in danger such is the apparent disgust in SA and we know this is a 'gun happy' state.

 

[DebinGA]

She did say that she accepted his version that he thought he was shooting at an intruder in the bathroom as "true and reliable"

I can imagine her saying that about that particular facet of his lie filled testimony.

 

[believe09]

I will step out of the discussion after this point, but I will be very curious to see how OP is received by the general population at the end of all of this. In the US we create pariahs-OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are good examples. They are shunned and we all sit waiting for their next crime to be committed. It is inevitable, as OJ proved.

What will happen when OP starts hitting the club scene and the performance circuit again? Will people start walking out of stadiums and venues?

 

[LemonMousse]

Well, for a start.... "accident"?

There was no accident here. She acknowledged that.

And secondly - are you honestly saying that it ought to be perfectly understandable for a man to think someone is in his toilet, ignore any means of escape and choose to blast them to death without giving them at least an option to surrender? Or even warn them that you have a gun?

Yes, I know that various posters are thinking "Well, I have said this all along....CH", and see this as some kind of vindication. It's not. I think you are wrong, and I think Masipa is wrong. She misunderstood the test for Eventualis.

And an awful lot of experts online are agreeing.

This whole things is a disgrace.

This post was aimed at MeeBee. Forgot to include the quote.

 

[sorrell skye]

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.

Based on the evidence, I agree with Judge Masipa that the State didn't prove dolus directus (premeditated murder) beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm surprised she rejected mens rea with regards to dolus eventualis - especially since she made a point of listing all the things OP did prior to shooting 4 rounds through the door.

 

[lisasalinger]

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.

I get that she doesn't believe the intent to kill Reeva was proven, and I will accept that (although I don't agree). What I disagree with is her statement that he could not have foreseen that the four shots through the door would kill the individual (regardless if it was Reeva or not). Reference the post above by BarnacleZA, who I totally agree with. I think the Judge's reasoning here is flawed. Of course he could foresee that those bullets, in a good group, that he consciously shot would kill.. regardless of who he killed. And the Sean Rens evidence proves that he KNEW that it was not lawful to kill an intruder who was not directly threatening his life.

 

[Trooper]

I had to snort a bit at the brother Carl being wheeled into the courtroom , both legs broken... the last 'car accident' he was in he killed a woman , and got off... I expect I 'll see Oscar wheeled into a court room some time in the future, .. some woman having taken a pop at him with Glock loaded up with black talons..

 

[zoran]

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.

Absolutely. This is the clearest explanation so far and people need to look at this and absorb it and not let emotion rule

 

[Forensics]

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.

I think that is the point.....he must have known that a black talon type bullet inflicts devastating injuries....(he was a gun enthusiast) what else would four shots have done but kill the person behind the door, irrespective of who it was.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

OP told SO many people he thought it was an intruder. He prayed to god. He's innocent.