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

[fox1lady]

Then there is no possible way he should have gotten off from a murder charge. Unless Judge believed firing 4 shots at close range, was not intent to kill, but she never addressed this anyway?

I'm baffled by that, it seems the size of the room was irrelevant! How could he NOT foresee the possibility that shooting into that tiny space 4 times would kill someone. It's not like it was only 1 bullet that hit her, it was 3 out of 4... that's a huge clue that it was a possibility and as a person used to firing, he would have foreseen it. I'm so disappointed that Masipa called that oh so wrong!

 

[aa9511]

So Confused....???

Judge totally disregards that 2 witnesses saw lights on in bathroom during 1st of bangs, & hears screaming from a woman???
Judge totally disregards that 4 witnesses heard woman screaming after 1st set of bangs & through 2nd set of bangs (until final shot delivered, then it stopped)???

Judge states OP was unreliable witness as far as his testimony, then states since HE said same story to every one ("thought it was an intruder") we must take it to be true (what else was he going to say? His lie was not exactly "rocket science", few options to pick from when girlfriend lying dead in your bathroom & noisy gunshots fired at 3:15am).
Judge disregards OP's gun law knowledge when determining dolus eventualis but then brings up when discussing CH???
Judge says OP didn't foresee shooting 4 bullets into tiny cubicle would kill the person inside when discussing dolus eventualis, but then brings it up as fact he should have known when discussing CH???

I am so confused (and disappointed. Reeva's patient family deserved better. . . as did Reeva!)

Still scratching my head on how she could totally disregard 4 witnesses hearing a woman's blood curdling screams & the timing of them.

???

bbm

Agree with everything you say. Regarding the bolded, I was thinking the same thing - that it was not some complicated excuse/answer that he gave. You shoot your girlfriend dead - of course you're going to say that you thought she was an intruder. What else POSSIBLE excuse could he have given which wouldn't have held him responsible for murder? Also, to shoot the "intruder," you need to first hear or see the intruder. So he had to say that he woke up sometime in the middle of the night.

 

[Hope4More]

I wonder why Masipa ended proceedings so quickly today, without actually stating OP is guilty of CH, and after such a protracted lunch adjournment in which Roux and Nel were summoned to her chambers. Perhaps she needs time to do a bit of rewriting (I write, hopefully)!? It certainly seems strange to argue everything for CH and then not pronounce on it. I feel there'll be another "however..." starting tomorrow's proceedings.

She didn't end them quickly IMO. There's a lot to digest in what she said today. Maybe she's giving all sides the chance to process her findings thus far before she hands down a complete verdict.

I'm deeply impressed with Mi Lady's dignity and her compassionate approach to running a courtroom. Bravo,,Judge Marsipa!

 

[fox1lady]

I'm deeply impressed with Mi Lady's dignity and her compassionate approach to running a courtroom. Bravo,,Judge Marsipa!

Me too. Very disappointed by her finding him not guilty of Eventualis though... I would have put my house on that being the correct outcome. I still believe it should have been especially with her reasoning for it not being... she really did contradict herself.

 

[4MrsB]

She will find him not guilty on the shooting through the sunroof, but guilty for the Tasha's incident. This will only carry a fine.
And apparently she will find him not guilty on the possession of illegal ammunition too because she mentioned today that "the caliber of ammunition that was used is irrelevant".

So shocking.

Re Ammunition:
I think Judge M meant that regardless of what ammunition was used (regular vs hollow point) to shoot into door, that it didn't enter in to her decision with regards to murder/CH/etc.

The ammunition charge is unrelated to using Black Talon bullets. It's related to storing boxes of 38 caliber bullets that OP didn't have a permit for, which is required by SA law

 

[ilovewings]

Celebrity justice is alive and well in South Africa-- Milady should be ashamed of herself!

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Re Ammunition:
I think Judge M meant that regardless of what ammunition was used (regular vs hollow point) to shoot into door, that it didn't enter in to her decision with regards to murder/CH/etc.

The ammunition charge is unrelated to using Black Talon bullets. It's related to storing boxes of 38 caliber bullets that OP didn't have a permit for, which is required by SA law

Thank you so much for the clarification! I still suspect that she might only give him a fine for the illegal bullets though.

 

[G.bng]

Where is the report post button nowadays, just out of curiosity?

Hi hope, nice to see you posting again. Button is the black triangle bottom left.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

OMG, I am still shuddering about Masipa saying that if a person wakes up with a silhouette hovering beside their bed, it would be excusable and reasonable if the person shot and killed the silhouette person!!!

 

[jacalyn]

I believed the noise I heard in the toilet was someone coming out to attack me or take my life.......

Noise called a FLUSH? and never known to cause a title wave and kill/attack someone. But sure the judge took that idea into consideration, but the water was too leaky and dismissed it.

Agree not pre-meditated, but in a fit of rage he gunned her down in the cage a/k/a toilet room. Expected the OJ opps Oscar trial. Bless her parents, to have no justice for her MURDER>

 

[eimajjjj]

Two things:

- Firstly, there seems to be hope that Masipa's judgement on murder being dismissed can be appealed on two reasons:

A) She erred on her test of Eventualis by implying OP would have to have known it was Reeva in there as opposed to just 'someone'.

B) She seems to contradict herself with the following two statements:

'Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door - let alone the deceased - as he thought she was in the bedroom,' she told the packed courtroom.

"The accused knew that there was a person behind the toilet door. He chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon. He was competent in the use of firearms as he had undergone some training"

Now, The Telegraph quotes a lawyer explaining 'B':

"In finding Pistorius to be negligent, Judge Masipa appeared to suggest that he foresaw consequences of firing shots though the door - which would contradict her earlier ruling against 'dolus eventualis', or murder without premeditation. The decision seems to rest on the difference between 'did' foresee the consequences of firing through the door, and 'should have' forseen the consequences. The prior would invovle a charge of murder and the second a charge of culpable homicide, which she will rule on tomorrow."

So I'll guess we'll find out if she has erred or not regarding 'A' in due course but doesn't seen likely regarding the contradiction part at least.

- Secondly, and even though this judgement goes against all of our common sense and is frustrating beyond belief, has anyone thought that maybe Masipa believes OP knew it was Reeva but knowing the evidence could break under appeal, thinks that going for a tough sentence on culpable homicide is far more watertight in terms of getting him to prison. Of course the evidence is there against him, but you can (if we are really objective about it) understand why you have to avoid anything remotely unreliable in a case of this nature. Perhaps a 15 year culpable homicide sentence with a judgement that SOUNDS like she believes OP would be impossible to appeal against and she's taken the moral path knowing her decision would be ripped to shreds but the result be the right one.

 

[IndianSummer]

Reeva's father leaning forward...I can only imagine his disbelief.
My father would be climbing the rows.
I honestly don't know how parents keep their compose....
That was their baby, a life they made....years, decades with that bright beautiful soul.
She didn't die in a car accident.
Oscar ended her life.
I was hoping his life would (at least) stand still for a while in prison.
Then maybe he would get a milla clue on the horror & finality of his actions.

 

[sleuth-d-]

OMG, I am still shuddering about Masipa saying that if a person wakes up with a silhouette hovering beside their bed, it would be excusable and reasonable if the person shot and killed the silhouette person!!!

yes, what a strange example for a judge to offer.

 

[beach]

2nd Warning:
Any more snarky, personal attacks and there will be a few members not posting for 3 days. I rarely issue TOs during verdict watches because I like to permit those following for months to be able to follow & post. However, you guys have options. Scroll & roll, use the ignore feature or sign off for a while. If you CHOOSE to continue to respond rudely, Time Outs will be issued starting now.

*This post falls at random*

 

[4MrsB]

Yep not good for the entire country...a bit surprised that so many are hung up on the actual law here because I see it more from this PR perspective...OP right now is plotting his next competition and his manager will be back in business.

I don't know turaj. . . . I think many who have followed this case & know the evidence (which will certainly include all OP's sponsors), will not want to have their brand associate with him again, ever.

He may train to compete, but he will likely have very few, if any, sponsors footing the bill. Paying for flights, training facilities, etc. And I truly believe he will get booed. On the track, in restaurants, while sunning on the beaches of Cape Town, etc.

But watch out, because instead of being grateful for "dodging this bullet" (sorry, pun NOT intended - well sort of), he will be one very bitter man!

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Two things:

- Firstly, there seems to be hope that Masipa's judgement on murder being dismissed can be appealed on two reasons:

A) She erred on her test of Eventualis by implying OP would have to have known it was Reeva in there as opposed to just 'someone'.

B) She seems to contradict herself with the following two statements:

'Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door - let alone the deceased - as he thought she was in the bedroom,' she told the packed courtroom.

"The accused knew that there was a person behind the toilet door. He chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon. He was competent in the use of firearms as he had undergone some training"

Now, The Telegraph quotes a lawyer explaining 'B':

"In finding Pistorius to be negligent, Judge Masipa appeared to suggest that he foresaw consequences of firing shots though the door - which would contradict her earlier ruling against 'dolus eventualis', or murder without premeditation. The decision seems to rest on the difference between 'did' foresee the consequences of firing through the door, and 'should have' forseen the consequences. The prior would invovle a charge of murder and the second a charge of culpable homicide, which she will rule on tomorrow."

So I'll guess we'll find out if she has erred or not regarding 'A' in due course but doesn't seen likely regarding the contradiction part at least.

- Secondly, and even though this judgement goes against all of our common sense and is frustrating beyond belief, has anyone thought that maybe Masipa believes OP knew it was Reeva but knowing the evidence could break under appeal, thinks that going for a tough sentence on culpable homicide is far more watertight in terms of getting him to prison. Of course the evidence is there against him, but you can (if we are really objective about it) understand why you have to avoid anything remotely unreliable in a case of this nature. Perhaps a 15 year culpable homicide sentence with a judgement that SOUNDS like she believes OP would be impossible to appeal against and she's taken the moral path knowing her decision would be ripped to shreds but the result be the right one.

Great post and very intriguing second thought!! We will have to wait to find out if she does indeed give him 15 years!!

 

[Chelly]

J: Crt must avoid attaching too much weight to such dishonest testimony...assuming it means guilt

Seriously? If OP is innocent, he needs not be dishonest.

 

[aa9511]

I understand that things in South Africa are different than in the US and other places. That there is heightened sense of fear because of high crime rate and violence.

And I understand that OP was paranoid about his, and I understand why he would be paranoid about this.

But the problem this line of thought runs into is when Oscar's story does not fit the way things would have unfolded if he had really thought it was an intruder.

If things happened for the reason he said they did, then why did he have to lie about which side of the bed that he slept on? Why did he have to offer changing stories about whether Reeva was sleeping or not sleeping? Why did he have to lie about where the comforter was? Etc., etc.. There would be no reason to lie about these thing if things had happened the way he said they happened.

 

[ShadyLady]

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-live-stream/

At about 11:00....I heard judge say that if defendant had woken up in the dark with a silhouetted figure above him, and shot, it would be an excusable and reasonable action.

I am seriously questioning this person's (the judge) reasoning ability!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Question....need a little help:

If Oscar gets prison time for CH and his defense team appeals it (instead of "jumping for joy"), could the Appellate Court review case & hand down an even stiffer sentence to OP?

I thought I had read that the SA appellate courts can do that, and have. (If so, that would be awesome. OP making matters worse instead of being grateful . . . and for getting away with murder!

I think the defence can appeal, almost forever. I like your idea of what could happen. The prosecution is restricted.