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

[MeeBee]

This is interesting to me-there are a plethora of legal experts reporting that she misunderstood the law or misapplied it. They are not laypersons. They heard the same evidence and know the same law.

Of course they will say that. They have to defend the opinion they'd held all along. We don't know what biases they hold or if they're being paid to play it up. Like I said, there have been lawyers out there writing about this case who though culpable homicide or even acquittal would have been just or likely. The law is sometimes up for interpretation and discussion. Yet, they're never the ones trotted out on these shows. Why do these shows never seem to feature anyone with adverse opinions? They're out there!

 

[LemonMousse]

You, a layman, think an experienced and educated South African judge misunderstood a point of South African law? OK then!

Lots of people are not laymen are saying the same. A former high court judge being one. Sorry about that.

 

[Trooper]

Did anyone hear on whoop who it was who has just said verdict so far reflects badly on SA legal system? Was it someone important or high profile?

that is Judge Greenland who was speaking then about that, Zwi

 

[Huna]

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

Is it possible this is where she's heading and he gets off completely?? No joke?

Is it me or her body language has been a bit nervous, the way she keeps drinking water? She even misread the word toilet 'bowl' for 'bowel'. Could it be possible just as some people here predicted all along that her verdict has been paid for? This is crazy.

 

[zwiebel]

We're late back, aren't we?

 

[james83]

Who was it who use to say "This one run's deep"?.

 

[MeeBee]

Why not? Judges make errors all the time. That is precisely why a Defendant has a right of appeal.

Sure they do. But I think it's ignorant to think we know more than an experienced judge, who just weeks ago, this board was praising for her firm and tough decisions with confidence she'd do the same to OP. Maybe people should actually listen to what she's saying instead of cherry picking.

 

[zwiebel]

that is Judge Greenland who was speaking then about that, Zwi

Ah, thanks.

 

[MeeBee]

Lots of people are not laymen are saying the same. A former high court judge being one. Sorry about that.

I've already responded to this point.

You're forgiven.

 

[zwiebel]

Gosh, 144 guests. Think about joining guys, you're welcome!

 

[sleuth-d-]

"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...

omg. and ****!

 

[revampz]

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.

I totally agree with all the above...well put and believe me we are in the majority from what I have seen on social media. Also my uncle is a judge here in Australia, my brother and father policemen, and two of my cousins are lawyers and ALL can not believe this ruling and think it is a disgrace........especially since she recently gave a sentence of 250 something years to a black man that killed his wife.

So what this is telling the world: if you kill someone in a fit of rage, or even not in a rage......make sure there aren't any witnesses, make up a story, and if there is any little bit of DOUBT, forget the reasonable part, then a good lawyer will get you off......if not just cry and tug at the heart strings of the freakin do gooder brigade....................I am disguisted.................shoots 4 times at someone through a door and gets away with it!!!!!!!!!! absolutely ridiculous....

 

[LemonMousse]

Of course they will say that. They have to defend the opinion they'd held all along. We don't know what biases they hold or if they're being paid to play it up. Like I said, there have been lawyers out there writing about this case who though culpable homicide or even acquittal would have been just or likely. The law is sometimes up for interpretation and discussion. Yet, they're never the ones trotted out on these shows. Why do these shows never seem to feature anyone with adverse opinions? They're out there!

Seriously? Umpteen legal experts, speaking publicly and therefore putting their reputations on the line are flat out wrong? Only saying what they are saying to save face?

Desperate straw clutching there.

She was clearly wrong.

 

[Susza]

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.

Thank you, LM, I agree.

BBM: But how can Masipa misunderstand the test of Eventualis? It's impossible!

 

[DebinGA]

IIRC Judge Greenland was the main proponent of televising this trial - the first time in SA. No wonder he's aghast so far. I think culpable homicide is still on the table + the gun charges. Keep hope alive ...

 

[MeeBee]

Seriously? Umpteen legal experts, speaking publicly and therefore putting their reputations on the line are flat out wrong? Only saying what they are saying to save face?

Desperate straw clutching there.

She was clearly wrong.

I didn't say they were flat out wrong. Read my post again

 

[zwiebel]

So, when we go back the question of culpable homicide is next?

 

[MeeBee]

So, when we go back the question of culpable homicide is next?

I believe so.

 

[zwiebel]

Reporter just said ppl are walking round court saying 'I told you so'.

 

[Jim Kirk]

Will sentencing happen immediately following the verdict, if guilty of CH and/or gun charges?