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!
Trial Discussion Thread #51 - 14.11.9, Day 41 ~announcement of the verdict~
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
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!
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.
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!
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.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,264
- Reaction score
- 70,801
Celebrity justice is alive and well in South Africa-- Milady should be ashamed of herself!
ApplesInMyBra
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 92
Thank you so much for the clarification! I still suspect that she might only give him a fine for the illegal bullets though.
Hi hope, nice to see you posting again. Button is the black triangle bottom left.
ApplesInMyBra
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 92
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
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 142
- Reaction score
- 0
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
New Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
- 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
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2014
- Messages
- 345
- Reaction score
- 2
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.
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.
yes, what a strange example for a judge to offer.
beach
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 18,370
- Reaction score
- 4,473
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*
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*
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
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 92
Great post and very intriguing second thought!! We will have to wait to find out if she does indeed give him 15 years!!
Chelly
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 18,805
- Reaction score
- 66,929
Seriously? If OP is innocent, he needs not be dishonest.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2013
- Messages
- 3,771
- Reaction score
- 5,745
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!
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
I think the defence can appeal, almost forever. I like your idea of what could happen. The prosecution is restricted.
- Status