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

[jay-jay]

No.

It's respectful when quoting to mention if you have Snipped the original post.

I though I had .. I usually do (I put ~rsbm~) apologies that I didn't do that on this occasion, I'm just recovery today from surgery I had yesterday and am not quite with it.

 

[Exchange973]

And that is the key here..."whole thing is so corrupt"...I followed the case somewhat (more than many) and always had this awful feeling that because of who that Pistorius family was with "Uncle Arnold" at the helm there would never be justice for Reeva. Well my fears came true today...frankly no point in even following up tomorrow. If I were the Steenkamps I would not even want to live in a country where this is so obviously happening. The eyes of the world were on this trial and this judge did just the same thing as always happens...let money talk. This pathetic creature OP will be in the news again and not for his running...he is a very sick man.

I'm curious - are you saying that someone has actually bribed Masipa. Or just that she was intimidated by OP's money. What do you mean "money talks"?

 

[Viper]

What is the subjective criteria for judging exactly what is an intruder in , say.. Texas, for example? is the tiniest sound of a window opening some 2 rooms away enough to blam thru with a gunfull of black talons ? or do even Texans, for example , have to have some sort of solid and unarguable grounds for assuming one is aiming at an ' burglar' or 'intruder'... what is the standard justification?

Oh Trooper, such an unjust reading of the facts of the case by Masipa. But as you know I am a Texan, and I'm certain that if I had done this I would be in prison for life. It was four shots fired until the woman's screams were silenced! Or, even if the jury gave weight to the arguments and the meal a couple of hours before the homicide (execution) I may be facing lethal injection. No jury would have given the two verdicts that Masipa gave, no it would take an incompetent judge to do that.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I agree. But I agree completely with the judge'd interpretation of their findings. If she cannot be sure what really happened then how can she convict him of murder?

your original quote highlighted the scope for [mis]interpretation within that law... so marsipa has been limited by a badly written law. if the law allowed for 'a person' rather than 'the deceased' in the paragraph you highlighted then she would have been able to convict eventualis.

a win for court legalese, a defeat for common sense.

which imo, doesn't get to the bottom of what actually happened, just to what has been judged/proven under sa law.

 

[G.bng]

Only the defence can appeal can't they?

Usually with bench trials either side can appeal, ergo Amanda Fox's on going appeals and counter appeals, but since prosecutors are certainly not meant to be persecutors I would doubt they would appeal unless she has clearly gone against clear evidence to the contrary or erred in law, but since the evidence doesn't get better with time, and any evidence the State did have for murder, premed or not, of Reeva, was really very flimsy once you have the correct times in place so I think they will be happy with CH.

 

[LemonMousse]

my response has nothing to do with the case ... but let me say .. depends on different factors .. firstly, are you living alone ? .. if so, then you can rule out a guest being in there ..

if they're not responding to commands then it becomes a hairy situation .. no one has any business being in your house in the middle of the night .. if they're in your house in the middle of the night, you have good reason to believe they're up to no good .. what if they shoot you through the door ? .. the chances of it being a wandering kid or person with dementia as opposed to an intruder are very very low .. the onus here is not on the resident to protect the life of a criminal .. that is a crazy line of thinking .. the onus is on the criminal not to break into someone's house ..

if you don't want to get shot, don't break into someone's house .. simple .. firearms have saved many people from intruders in cases where they would have most likely been raped and murdered

SA law does not agree with you.

 

[Fairynuff]

"All the accused had to do was use his cell phone to call security", she said, which may have taken less time than the firing of the shots."

Is it me or is this logic flawed?

I don't think you can only take one example of what judge masipa used. she also stated that he could have run to the balcony and screamed, which would have taken less time than running to the bathroom and firing 4 shots from a loaded weapon.

 

[mirage1]

If I am understanding this correctly, Masipa says OP is not guilty of Dolus Eventualis because he did not foresee that it was the deceased, e.g. Reeva (and not 'any person'), in the toilet. This is her view of the law. She will find him guilty of Culpable Homicide using the same criteria as Dolus Eventualis but applied to 'any person' and she has scope in sentencing to give as stiff a penalty as Dolus Eventualis.

However, OP wasn't charged with the murder of Reeva. He was charged with the murder of "a person, to wit, Reeva".

Can someone clarify 'transferable malice' relative to this case? Someone told me that it does not apply to SA law, so if he was charged with murdering reeva, he cannot be found guilty if he thought he was killing someone else. As you have explained its a critical point, and makes it slightly understandable how he got away without a murder charge.

 

[turaj]

Something is definitely wrong with Masipa…

She stated that the server phone logs were common cause evidence… but she ignored the times of Dr Stipp's phone call to security and Mike's phone call to security… instead she decided to rely on Johnson's 3:16 phone call and 58 seconds duration which are not from a server phone log.

This made the second set of shots occur moments after 3:17 instead of moments before 3:15:51

Also she decided that Help Help Help was shouted only once and by OP… therefore she aligned all the HHH testimony to a single point in time… there is however evidence that Reeva was also heard screaming HHH

She criticized Burger, Johnson, Stipp and Dr Stipp for being far from OP's house… but she fully relied on Carice's testimony which lives much further away than any other witness and was also facing the wrong way i.e. the front of OP's house instead of the back… Burger, Johnson, Stipp and Dr Stipp all faced the back of OP's house and had a clear line of sight to the bathroom window.

Also… what's the point… there are so many other problems in Masipa's verdict that it would just take too long…

This is a travesty of Justice… I'm not even questioning the interpretation of the Law… but it's more than obvious that Masipa is severely manipulating the facts of the case.

Good thing that the Trial was televised… because those who have followed it all attentively can know for sure what's what.

Hope Nel appeals.

An appeal by Nel is a waste of time...Judge Masipa was not in a position to do anything but let this well connected murder walk free...its just what she needed to do. Anyone who underestimates the power of the Pistorius family in SA is making a big mistake. Carl has already done the same...no consequences and caused a woman's death. Uncle Arnold must be so proud. Well SA has their "blade runner" back...good for them.

 

[MeeBee]

your original quote highlighted the scope for [mis]interpretation within that law... so marsipa has been limited by a badly written law. if the law allowed for 'a person' rather than 'the deceased' in the paragraph you highlighted then she would have been able to convict eventualis.

a win for court legalese, a defeat for common sense.

which imo, doesn't get to the bottom of what actually happened, just to what has been judged/proven under sa law.

But that is why I agree with Masipa. If she believes he believed an intruder was coming to attack him then I don't believe he should be convicted of murder because he believe he was only trying to protect himself. Perhaps she would has been able to convict and it would have been wrong.

It's hard to get to the heart of what really happened when the only person who knows is OP and he has testified. All she can go on are facts and what she knows to be true. She believes OP because of various circumstances, not just having taken his word at face value. There are other factors at play, as she outlined.

 

[jay-jay]

It seems that Masipa rejected dolus eventualis because she didn't believe mens rea was proven by the State.

After the testimony of Sean Rens (firearms expert who assessed OP for his firearms licenses), I don't understand how Masipa can conclude that OP didn't know that shooting through a closed door is unlawful.

Exactly, and this is just what I was about to say in reply to some of MeeBee's posts.

 

[K.T]

The circumstances were a little different there. In this case, which I followed, I was conflicted about the outcome. I am not sure if his conviction was deserved. I have to out myself in the shoes of someone alone at night with someone banging on their door and yelling. Surely, the better thing to do would be to call the police since she was not in his home. But he didn't.

But for every case like this there are many many more where the person is acquitted because their belief and fear found to be genuine and justified. There was the case of the man who was not charged with killing his own son lurking around a neighbor's home. It's not always right, but it's untestable. That man obviously would not have killed his son on purpose.

I made that post about Renisha Mcbride because I sincerely worry about the societal understanding on lethal force and defence. Case in point - this trial.

Plus, some people who have firearms may have little knowledge on how, when and why they should use them. I only hope anyone may be reading these posts thinks long and hard about self defence and reasonable action. Again, the statistics show that owning a gun is not a magic cursor of intelligence.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Once you literally get away with murder, what's to stop you from doing it again?

Indeed. Just like Joran van der Sloot.

 

[jay-jay]

Something is definitely wrong with Masipa…

She stated that the server phone logs were common cause evidence… but she ignored the times of Dr Stipp's phone call to security and Mike's phone call to security… instead she decided to rely on Johnson's 3:16 phone call and 58 seconds duration which are not from a server phone log.

This made the second set of shots occur moments after 3:17 instead of moments before 3:15:51

Also she decided that Help Help Help was shouted only once and by OP… therefore she aligned all the HHH testimony to a single point in time… there is however evidence that Reeva was also heard screaming HHH

She criticized Burger, Johnson, Stipp and Dr Stipp for being far from OP's house… but she fully relied on Carice's testimony which lives much further away than any other witness and was also facing the wrong way i.e. the front of OP's house instead of the back… Burger, Johnson, Stipp and Dr Stipp all faced the back of OP's house and had a clear line of sight to the bathroom window.

Also… what's the point… there are so many other problems in Masipa's verdict that it would just take too long…

This is a travesty of Justice… I'm not even questioning the interpretation of the Law… but it's more than obvious that Masipa is severely manipulating the facts of the case.

Good thing that the Trial was televised… because those who have followed it all attentively can know for sure what's what.

Hope Nel appeals.

:goodpost: .. agree with every word of that.

 

[mirage1]

But that is why I agree with Masipa. If she believes he believed an intruder was coming to attack him then I don't believe he should be convicted of murder because he believe he was only trying to protect himself. .

It still has to be lawful protection.

 

[Mr Fossil]

The Guardian has got it wrong IMO. They say OP was specifically put on trial for the murder of Reeva and, because he says he thought she was in the bedroom, he cannot have foreseen that she was in the toilet and therefore can't be guilty of Eventualis.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...fected-the-oscar-pistorius-trial-9726275.html

His indictment however reads "In that upon or about 14 February 2013 and at or near 286 Bushwillow Street. Silvberwoods Country Estate, Silver Lakes in the District of Pretoria the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill a person, to wit, REEVA STEENKAMP, a 29 year old person"

In the Heads of Argument Nel says "Even in the event that the court were to accept the accused’s version, it is submitted with respect that he cannot escape a finding that he acted with dolus eventualis by arming himself and, whilst approaching the “danger”, foresaw the possibility that he may shoot and kill someone but reconciled himself with this possibility by walking into the bathroom and then without objective or subjective cause, fired four shots into a small toilet cubicle whilst anticipating that someone was in the cubicle and likely to be killed."

ETA: Listen to Masipa here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs6_x-3Queg @ 50:50.

She says he undoubtedly acted unlawfully and then that her test for Dolus Eventulis is all about whether OP foresaw that it was the deceased in the toilet.

 

[MeeBee]

I made that post about Renisha Mcbride because I sincerely worry about the societal understanding on lethal force and defence. Case in point - this trial.

Plus, some people who have firearms may have little knowledge on how, when and why they should use them. I only hope anyone may be reading these posts thinks long and hard about self defence and reasonable action. Again, the statistics show that owning a gun is not a magic cursor of intelligence.

I completely agree.

 

[Jamtart]

Exactly, and this is just what I was about to say in reply to some of MeeBee's posts.

Yes, as I said in a previous post, SA law is very clear about this and OP had to demonstrate that he understood the law before being granted a gun license. He knew that his actions were unlawful, even if he did believe there was an intruder in the bathroom. As JM pointed out, there were other courses of action available that he could, and should, have taken instead of approaching the perceived (but unseen) threat and shooting at an unknown target through a closed door.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Can someone clarify 'transferable malice' relative to this case? Someone told me that it does not apply to SA law, so if he was charged with murdering reeva, he cannot be found guilty if he thought he was killing someone else. As you have explained its a critical point, and makes it slightly understandable how he got away without a murder charge.

Doesn't that mean he shot at the door, not at Reeva or the intruder?

Edit: shooting at a, causes the death of b.

But a firearms expert would know shooting black talon bullets through a flimsy door will kill the person on the other side. :doh:

Got it wrong. Shooting a person meaning to kill another, eg, shooting Reeva, meant to shoot intruder.

 

[jay-jay]

I would have thought this is when he is most likely to flee if he ever thought of doing so. Unless she does another turn CH seems the verdict and she was now coming on really strong about his behaviour and 15 years is a long time.

.. only 8 years would be served though, and that's really not a long time .. not if you have knowingly murdered your girlfriend in cold blood, even 8 years would be like getting off scott-free .. and no-one would ever have to know about his disgusting little secret about what really happened that night, he would get through those 8 years safe in the knowledge that no-one will ever really know.

Plus he could, of course, get off with just a suspended sentence if he gets CH .. he's not going to flee, believe me. He needs to PROVE to everyone that he did nothing wrong that night. The sick b'std.