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

[kaos]

Llewelyn Curlewis saying that Judge Masipa is going to weigh up the 'reasonable person' and that an expert wouldn't be held to the same standard as a reasonable person. I can only hope she considers OP to be an expert with a gun rather than a reasonable person with a gun.

 

[sweetcaro]

I am going to hold onto the hope she will rule CH. And give him time. Decent time.

The below I have just copied from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-potential-verdicts

"Guilty on firearm and ammunition charges, not guilty of premeditated murder but guilty of culpable homicide

In this scenario, Pistorius could face a fine or up to five years in prison for the firearm charges but Judge Masipa could find that the prosecution had not proved premeditated murder beyond reasonable doubt. She could then still find Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide (manslaughter) which is a lesser charge than premeditated murder and focuses on negligence rather than intent. There is no prescribed sentence for culpable homicide in South African law and the sentence can be decided at the discretion of the judge based on the weight of evidence and circumstances surrounding the incident."

 

[ColonelMustard]

This is just me but I wonder whether any analyst will have the guts to challenge on air what happened here.

Again... he knew it was black talon, tiny bathroom, ricochet, and he was a trained shooter.

This is just wrong. She bought his nonsense hook line and sinker. I really thought she was being quiet but "got it". I don't think so now.

 

[leda]

how is it not murder if you fire four 'black talon' bullets into a room less than 5ft square knowing there is a human being in there? I don't get it

 

[MeeBee]

So this is pretty much what I thought would happen. That she would reject the state's version so have little choice but to believe OP's version. The burden of proof is on the state, of course. And there are factors working in his favor: the timeline supports his version, the state did not even get into it, which seems to suggest they could not explain it. He began telling people right away he thought it was an intruder. That is awfully quick to come up with a story and have it remain consistent before he even knew what the evidence was. And, his show of what seems to be genuine emotion throughout, even to those who didn't know him. Sure, there could be other explanations, but the judge cannot entertain anything that is mere speculation, so she has to go on what she knows to be true. So far, everything she has said I agree with. Wow.

 

[TartLemon]

Okay, I'm braced for the firestorm..... I never thought he was guilty as accused. It was an accident.

 

[kaydono]

I thought it was a spider on the wall behind the door..... did not mean to kill anyone but the spider. Ridiculous

 

[K.T]

Of course he could foresee that he would kill the person behind the door!! Or did she disregard the evidence of Sean Rens as well?? Was any witness of use to her at this trial??

I know, this is an awful precedent. She disregarded independent witness testimony as "mistaken." Than cherry picks one Stipp statement which supports the accused, though she claims Pistorius himself was a bad witness.

 

[Sherbert]

I feel she spent the trial cherry-picking the evidence that supports her preferred verdict.

 

[DebinGA]

If m'lady is right, the lesson for future SA murderers is make sure there are no other witnesses still alive who actually saw you do it, because if you're alone then you must be believed.

 

[aussiegirl]

If they judge believes he didn't mean to fire (it was a reaction from fear / anxiety disorder), then it's not murder.

 

[HauntsForHope]

excited utterance - Legal Definition
n

An exclamation made at the moment of an accident or other unexpected and disturbing event, considered under the rules of evidence to be likely to be truthful because of the urgency of the surrounding circumstances and, therefore, an exception to the hearsay rule.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/excited-utterance

 

[sorrell skye]

I'm not sure judge will find OP guilty of culpable homicide either.

I'm mystified that she found him a very poor, inconsistent and dishonest witness, but totally accepts his version of events?

It makes no sense to me at all that she found him to be a poor witness - even listed his contradictory testimony (that sometimes occurred in the same breath), but has determined that his version is true.

I think it all boils down to the State not having disproved OP's version beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[rachael123]

I don't get it either.

 

[DILLIGAF]

Does the double jeopardy rule apply in SA? If so, he's got away with it!!

 

[Giles]

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"

 

[Trooper]

how odd that Dr Stipps testimony in regard to the quality of Oscar's regret in the murder of Reeva has been embraced in the verdict, yet Dr Stipps testimony as to the voices argumentative, the lights on etc have all been apparently dismissed... baffling.

 

[kaydono]

Okay, I'm braced for the firestorm..... I never thought he was guilty as accused. It was an accident.

I enjoy listening to different view points, nothing like a healthy debate to get the juices flowing.

 

[east2west]

Firing 4 shots with a hand cannon into a room the size of a closet doesn't show intent to kill?

Mind boggling really.

 

[minor4th]

Of course he could foresee that he would kill the person behind the door!! Or did she disregard the evidence of Sean Rens as well?? Was any witness of use to her at this trial??

The question is whether he foresaw that he would kill Reeva by firing shots through the bathroom door - and the answer was a firm "no." Are you listening to her reading of the judgment?