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

[turaj]

Again, please explain what you mean. How would the omnipotent and all powerful Uncle Arnold have arranged this verdict? Did he buy it, intimidate Masipa? How?

I tried to explain in other post..not going to go over it again...if you want to think that the family status in SA is a non factor then that is one opinion...influence is alot more subtle than outright buying a verdict.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Not pretending to be a lawyer....but I think you are mistaken.

The passage quoted is regarding a murder charge, so clearly there is a "deceased" - otherwise there would be no murder charge.

Changing it to "person" would make no difference.

Someone is dead, and that someone is the deceased. This has no bearing at all on whether the deceased died because of an intentional, deliberate act or a mistake.

Masipa's mistake is (according to the law professionals) that while she acknowledged that there was no transference of intent just because he didn't know it was Reeva, she did not take this into account when applying it to Eventualis. Who was behind the door is irrelevant to an Eventualis conviction, but she based her decision on the fact (to her) that he didn't know it was Reeva, and couldn't have foreseen that it was her, since he thought she was in bed.

This is nonsensical. Because even if he thought she was in bed, he knew someone was behind the door. So why didn't she address this? Does she think he didn't intend to kill the person behind the door, whoever that was?

My understanding of what the lawyers are saying, and it's bit nothing to do with confusion over "deceased" and "person".

ok, thanks for clarifying.

 

[LemonMousse]

But he wasn't charged with murdering Reeva, he was charged with murdering a person.

Yes.

And my understanding is that she considered it irrelevant, in terms of intent, whether he knew it was Reeva or not (which it would be as intention to kill is intention to kill, and there aren't degrees of it) - but that she then based her decision on whether it was Eventualis on whether he knew it was Reeva or not!

That makes no logical sense, let alone legal.

Nel will appeal. And I bet he told Milady in chambers that he would as soon as she'd finished delivering her judgement.

 

[Mr Fossil]

He actually was charged with murdering Reeva which is why he was acquitted of murder because the judge believed he didn't intend to kill her.

Where do you get that from? Please see my post #1237

 

[aa9511]

In coming to her decision on the murder charges, Judge Masipa earlier described the 27-year-old as a 'very poor' and 'evasive' witness.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...LTY-murder-Reeva-Steenkamp.html#ixzz3D13GzKIi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

What about the straight-up LIES that he told???? There is one thing to be a "poor" and "evasive" witness, it's another thing to be a LYING witness.

 

[Lyra500]

Anyone listening to the Oscar Channel. Did I just hear that Nel is appealing on a point of law and that was why they were all in chambers? I had only half an ear on what was being said as there was a discussion going on in the room. I may be completely wrong - did anyone else hear anything? If not, it is my mistake and I apologise in advance.

Surely he would not be able to appeal until a final verdict had been handed down.

Unless he raised the issue of the misinterpretation of dolus eventualis when they were in chambers after lunch - but in that case surely proceedings would have been adjourned before Judge Masipa came back for half an hour after lunch and started on her judgement regarding culpable homicide.....

 

[G.bng]

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.

I agree with you absolutely. In the UK we have some of the strictest gun laws in the world and I wish it were the same everywhere. But it could be you are confusing some like myself who enjoy reasoning and wrangling around laws and understanding how they work together and separately with an acceptance of guns merely because this incident involved a shooting.

 

[jay-jay]

Given the profile of this case no I doubt a direct bribe has been given not at all. I would say more of a general understanding of the situation and these decision makers are well aware of the Pistorius family involvement in so many important facets of SA economy. I should say money and power as this family has both are there and guess one can only speculate as to whether it influenced what seems to be unfolding as a very weak verdict. As I have mentioned it happens everywhere but I would have been more surprised here if he had been found of murder which is what I think it was.

Yes, and not only that but I think they are under huge pressure to keep their 'golden boy' golden .. not for his sake, but for SA's sake, because it looks so bad on them that their 'hero' has turned out to be such a deeply unpleasant person, and a vile murderer. Looks much better if you can get him off on a much lower charge, and just give him a suspended sentence .. and then hope that after a year or so, everyone will have forgotten about it all, instead of the constant reminder of what their golden boy has been reduced to, rotting away in a crappy old SA prison, being raped by other prisoners .. can you imagine .. it's not a good look for SA, is it, and it's one they want to avoid at all costs!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I love to travel to places with stunning landscapes, mainly on my own, just backpacking.
SA was one of the countries I wanted to discover and I went there.
It was the first and only trip where I felt insecure and stressed almost during the whole time.
The landscapes I was able to see and most of the people I met are unforgettable for me.
But when I was back home I felt sad, wondering wether I'll ever be able to go back there: I was so exhausted.
Now I know I could go back to this wonderful country; it'll be so easy to "defend" myself…

Are you white? Are you rich? Are you famous? Are you the national hero? Has the government a protective eye on you?
If you answer 5 x with "Yes", then you may go back to SA ..............

 

[MeeBee]

And this, folks, is why juries are a good thing.

I find this better in a lot of ways than jury trials.

 

[KarenUK]

And this, folks, is why juries are a good thing.

I have a feeling this kindof thing happens regardless of having a jury or not - Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and many others that have been mentioned on this thread today.

Edit - Although I do think you have a point, juries are a good thing

 

[aa9511]

'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.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...LTY-murder-Reeva-Steenkamp.html#ixzz3D14AZuL2
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Agggghh. I just want to SCREAM. So did she rule her way because there was no enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt, or did she rule b/c she frickin' believed his story that he thought she was sleeping?? I AM SO DISGUSTED.

 

[turaj]

OMGGGGGGG. Was this a case of "celebrity justice"? Could not believe my eyes when I saw the headline today..................

Yes that is the term "celebrity justice" and then throw in some serious involvement of the family in government contracts...development etc. and voila...Oscar will be free to "party on" only possibly without his guns but no matter all his friends have some he can use.

 

[KarenUK]

I agree with you absolutely. In the UK we have some of the strictest gun laws in the world and I wish it were the same everywhere. But it could be you are confusing some like myself who enjoy reasoning and wrangling around laws and understanding how they work together and separately with an acceptance of guns merely because this incident involved a shooting.

Don't forget the Tony Martin case a few years back though.... Found guilty of shooting an intruder who was fleeing the scene, but the outcry caused the sentence to be reduced to manslaughter. He didnt even have a gun licence.

 

[popsicle]

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.

Anyone that owns a gun should be knowledgeable on the laws of in THEIR state.

 

[fox1lady]

Poor Reeva, still invisible and silent. So sad

 

[turaj]

Yes, and not only that but I think they are under huge pressure to keep their 'golden boy' golden .. not for his sake, but for SA's sake, because it looks so bad on them that their 'hero' has turned out to be such a deeply unpleasant person, and a vile murderer. Looks much better if you can get him off on a much lower charge, and just give him a suspended sentence .. and then hope that after a year or so, everyone will have forgotten about it all, instead of the constant reminder of what their golden boy has been reduced to, rotting away in a crappy old SA prison, being raped by other prisoners .. can you imagine .. it's not a good look for SA, is it, and it's one they want to avoid at all costs!

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.

 

[Hatfield]

In coming to her decision on the murder charges, Judge Masipa earlier described the 27-year-old as a 'very poor' and 'evasive' witness.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...LTY-murder-Reeva-Steenkamp.html#ixzz3D13GzKIi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

What about the straight-up LIES that he told???? There is one thing to be a "poor" and "evasive" witness, it's another thing to be a LYING witness.

I struggled with that too. If she found him to be evasive and perhaps not credible then how can she then outright believe his story of the intruder. Especially with other witnesses regarding screaming. I dont understand her reasoning at all. It seems conflicting.

It seems most people would shake and waken their partner and say "Do you hear that?" The whole incident as described by OP seemed to be such a lie IMO because it seems most people would want to be sure their partner in bed next to them is awake with them.

 

[Exchange973]

Yes.

And my understanding is that she considered it irrelevant, in terms of intent, whether he knew it was Reeva or not (which it would be as intention to kill is intention to kill, and there aren't degrees of it) - but that she then based her decision on whether it was Eventualis on whether he knew it was Reeva or not!

That makes no logical sense, let alone legal.

Nel will appeal. And I bet he told Milady in chambers that he would as soon as she'd finished delivering her judgement.

Completely agree - stood out as a clear error of law

 

[aa9511]

Yes that is the term "celebrity justice" and then throw in some serious involvement of the family in government contracts...development etc. and voila...Oscar will be free to "party on" only possibly without his guns but no matter all his friends have some he can use.

I suspect he will be getting in trouble again very soon. Perhaps high-speed racing in his car, shooting guns, erratic behavior, etc..