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

[DILLIGAF]

Sorry, what?

No-one questioned this judge during the trial. People here were gleeful thinking of how this tough, fair judge would come down hard on OP. Now she hasn't suddenly she has been bought, or is biased? Please...

Rubbish. Plenty of posters questioned her competence and referred to her sympathy towards OP when he was on the stand.

You need to go back and read the threads PLEASE...

 

[whiterum]

Its not her fault that Uncle Arnold didnt finish typing them up until this morning.

LOL nice one James !

 

[vanatos]

Only the defence can appeal can't they?

From what i hear from the legal commentators, gerrie nel can appeal on her interpretation of law (not facts) so her ruling of whether its eventualis or culpable homicide sounds to me, totally on the table.

Still very dissapointed this is the result of this much celebrated live trial, the perception by the public is that if you are rich, famous, white and male, you have a version of justice that is very flexible.

If you are female, black, not rich, not famous, then justice is swift and brutal.

 

[fox1lady]

She is keeping her 'however' until tomorrow lol

She's giving him time to pack and skip the country!

 

[sorrell skye]

It shocks me that the judge disregarded the type of ammo that hit Reeva 4 times. There was no doubt whatsoever that even one black talon/ranger "could have conceivably injured or killed" someone in that tiny cubicle, must less 4.

Yep - it's not as if OP was unaware of the "zombie stopper" type bullets that he loaded his gun with. He knew what kind of damage they could cause, and he fired 4 rounds through the door anyway.

 

[sleuth-d-]

"The South African Court of Appeal held that mens rea in the form of dolus eventualis is an elastic concept. It can range from bordering on negligence (culpa) on the one hand to dolus directus on the other. However, the test always remains whether the accused person subjectively foresaw the possibility of the death of the deceased and associated himself therewith.1

Dolus eventualis is sometimes said to be the criminal law equivalent to the tort concept of gross negligence."

The deceased is Reeva Steenkamp.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DolusEventualis.aspx

i see what you are saying. absolutely the letter of the law, no doubt.
replace 'the deceased' with 'a person' and we have a different outcome.

the law really is an *advertiser censored*.

 

[MeeBee]

I am not sure you should risk quoting stuff you don't entirely understand.

The "deceased" in this paragraph is the dead human being. It's making no allusions as to whether the killer knew the identity of the person, or was trying to kill them specifically.

Pistorius knew there was a person behind that door, he just (supposedly) didn't know who. But did he intend to kill the person behind the door....whoever it might have been?

Did Pistorius subjectively forsee that the person behind the door would die from his actions?

No one could possibly suggest he didn't. No one.

Again, if the law is so open for interpretation that so many legal experts to interpret the same law in different ways, then it need to be made clearer.

 

[Forensics]

Well at least everyone in SA knows now how to kill their partner and get off Scott Free: shoot them near your bed and say that you awoke to a startle of a shadowy figure near your bed. Thanks Masipa! Going to off that ***** tonight! :smile:

Yes, I thought that was an odd thing to say........gosh, my partner is constantly up and about during the night (insomnia) and I frequently wake to a shadowy figure hovering over the bed..... fortunately I don't have a gun!!

 

[Exchange973]

Nope, I remember it being 'many'.

People see what they want to see. No doubt if OP had been found guilty you would have still questioned her competence. :laughing:

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Masipa was obviously briber. Is that a caTAGORY??

 

[LemonMousse]

I am genuinely appalled at those people (and I won't name names) who genuinely think that, because he wasn't specifically trying to kill Reeva, it was OK for him to have killed a person who was hiding in his toilet.

This is why guns should be outlawed everywhere. Not only are their use subject to a abuse, but it's unfortunate that that there are so many people who think it's OK to use them when something goes bump in the night.

Extraordinary.

 

[Exchange973]

Rubbish. Plenty of posters questioned her competence and referred to her sympathy towards OP when he was on the stand.

You need to go back and read the threads PLEASE...

No. People said she was being sympathetic in order to appeal-proof her verdict. No one said she was being sympathetic because she lacked competence. Anyway, one can be a sympathetic yet competent judge.

I knew this would happen - people questioning Masipa's competence just because they didn't get the verdict they wanted/expected. Sign:facepalm:

 

[MeeBee]

The fact is that there was NO intruder and even if there was he didn't need to go towards the danger - he was the one who put himself in direct danger by approaching the bathroom... he could have even if there was a danger to him, go out through the bedroom door and out to safety with Reeva.

What if the "intruder" was a little lost kid who had snuck in through a door left opened... what if it was some innocent lost dementia elderly person who was no harm to anyone. If someone just felt like it they could shoot that person dead and just say it was an intruder in there home.

I'm probably not making much sense because I'm so angry.

And what if "the intruder" was someone who wanted to kill you and your whole family? Many people in the US are acquitted of killing intruders or people they thought were intruders because of the finding they genuinely believed it. You can say it's a fact he did not believe it was an intruder but that's is not a fact. It's a belief and the only person who knows if this is true or not is OP. All of us, including the judge, looked at the facts, the evidence, and the believability of his story and some of us, most importantly the judge, decided that it is quite reasonable that he thought and intruder had entered his home. There's certainly no proof he didn't.

And as I said before, if the judge rejects the state's version, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. That's what happened here.

 

[DebinGA]

OP claimed he heard the wc door slam and proceeded down the passage screaming for the intruder to get the f out. Then he claims a noise he thought was the wc door opening caused him to fire in fear. Can anyone imagine a situation in which RS would have made a noise in the wc but wouldn't have yelled out to OP standing right outside?

 

[K.T]

Pistorius was a evasive and untruthful witness because he was a bad actor, which disastrously Judge Masipa and the assessors believed.

I think he was following three scripts, firstly his version coverup of intentional murder. Second script was the defence lines he had to use to craft this version to fit in with putative or involuntary, thirdly the one where he tried to outplay and second guess the cross examination. That was the reason for the mind fogs, the evasiveness, the contradictions and untruths, the long tear-breaks and confusion.

 

[jay-jay]

People see what they want to see. No doubt if OP had been found guilty you would have still questioned her competence. :laughing:

Well, there has already been quite a few people disagree with you on this thread alone just now because they have been the ones who have been questionning her competence for months now! Yet you still choose to ignore that :thinking: .. you sure it's not just you seeing what you want to see? ;-)

 

[MeeBee]

i see what you are saying. absolutely the letter of the law, no doubt.
replace 'the deceased' with 'a person' and we have a different outcome.

the law really is an *advertiser censored*.

That's all I was saying, sleuth. That the way it's worded, it's not totally clear and can have different outcomes depending on the circumstances.

 

[vanatos]

And what if "the intruder" was someone who wanted to kill you and your whole family? Many people in the US are acquitted of killing intruders or people they thought were intruders because of the finding they genuinely believed it. You can say it's a fact he did not believe it was an intruder but that's is not a fact. It's a belief and the only person who knows if this is true or not is OP. All of us, including the judge, looked at the facts, the evidence, and the believability of his story and some of us, most importantly the judge, decided that it is quite reasonable that he thought and intruder had entered his home. There's certainly no proof he didn't.

And as I said before, if the judge rejects the state's version, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. That's what happened here.

Bump in the night is zero reasonable motivation to gun someone down in your house.

Pistorius had the intention to kill, when you get your gun, walk down a hallway, take the safety off, unload 4 bullets with timegap between, thats intention to kill.

When you have been trained professionally how to respond in said situations and the rules of using a gun, there is less reason to believe Pistorius just accidentally did everything.

As has already been highlighted, Pistorius has multiple versions, to say we give him the benefit of the doubt is ambiguous because what version do we default to? they all contradict.

 

[LemonMousse]

And what if "the intruder" was someone who wanted to kill you and your whole family? Many people in the US are acquitted of killing intruders or people they thought were intruders because of the finding they genuinely believed it. You can say it's a fact he did not believe it was an intruder but that's is not a fact. It's a belief and the only person who knows if this is true or not is OP. All of us, including the judge, looked at the facts, the evidence, and the believability of his story and some of us, most importantly the judge, decided that it is quite reasonable that he thought and intruder had entered his home. There's certainly no proof he didn't.

And as I said before, if the judge rejects the state's version, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. That's what happened here.

There WASN'T an intruder, though. "What if there was?" is totally irrelevant....there was not.

The law is clear....you have to have no other option available to you in order to justify shooting someone.

Even you can surely not suggest he had no other option.

 

[Hope4More]

If this judge were to bring any bias into her reasoning it would have been her abhorrence of domestic violence. It's all the more telling then that she clearly stated she did not believe OP abused Reeva or that theirs was anything other than a normal relationship. Good for her.