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

[mirage1]

Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door -

She said this but did not explain why it was so clear did she?

How can a judge believe that firing 4 bullets and close range at someone behind a toilet door, could not subjectively been seen as a possibility let alone intent to kill? This is not reasonable at all, its insane.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Does someone know where I can listen to the recordings of the after lunch session again?

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-archive/

 

[ShadyLady]

Precisely...if you think he was "cocky" before just wait.

After seeing the photos of OP walking into court, I thought he looked pretty relaxed and had almost a smile on his face. Very relaxed forehead.

 

[jacalyn]

Early on, Reeva's sister said she wouldn't come to court any more because she knew very quickly that he was a "disgusting liar."

Sad to read that, and must be hard to be in the same room as a lying killer. However, family/friends presence's I've seen as just a representative for the loved one they lost and they mattered. Coupled with, wanting to know exactly how/why/what really happened.

 

[4MrsB]

respectfully snipped for space....

- 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.

I would speculate...NO (although I hope you're right!!!)

She seemed to sound pretty wimpy about all she's holding OP accountable for.
We must believe OP because he told same story to everyone.
Can't have foreseen shooting into toilet would kill someone, etc etc

I just hope & pray she gives him some prison time (at least 5 yrs or more) but I'm not so sure after how she's been talking up until now. This is so sad!

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Because the post I was responding to was discussing both the legality of killing an intruder and OP. So I addressed both points and tied them together. Obviously, Reeva was not an intruder. But if OP believed it was then I understand his actions.

And no, I don't think it's ok to shoot children, execute, blah blah

What I am saying is if you make a genuine mistake and it is found to be a genuine mistake then you should not be punished to the full extent of the law. If a child sneaks into your home and you believe that it was an intruder then it is absolutely understandable. It would be sad if that happened but how could you know it was a child? It's unfair and punishes everyone for their base human instincts to protect theirs and their loved ones.

BBM- This I absolutely disagreed with and is really disturbing reading it. You as a gun owner have a responsibility to lawfully discharge. I don't care if you made a mistake, you chose to fire the weapon and kill someone so suffer the consequences. Why do gun owners feel they have the right to shoot first and ask questions later... it's beyond me.

 

[Lyra500]

Sad to read that, and must be hard to be in the same room as a lying killer. However, family/friends presence's I've seen as just a representative for the loved one they lost and they mattered. Coupled with, wanting to know exactly how/why/what really happened.

Sadly I am not sure a court case can ever find out what really happened.

Certainly in this case it appears to have been a masterclass in obfuscation and the one person who knows exactly what happened has been shown to be a hugely unreliable witness,even by the judge (though apparently that does not matter when reaching a verdict - who knew?)

 

[DebinGA]

The judge believed OP's tale of running out on the balcony in the pitch dark to call for help, after previously running around the pitch black bedroom feeling all around the bed for Reeva and returning to the dark bathroom to futilely try to shoulder-butt open the wc door, .... despite the pic showing the duvet/fans blocking the way to the balcony and the bedside electrical items upright and totally undisturbed.

 

[turaj]

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!

She had over a month to figure this out....just likes drama

 

[pandax81]

Judge Masipa: "Clearly, he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs6_x-3Queg&list=UU8yH-uI81UUtEMDsowQyx1g 53min 57sec

I'm sorry to say, we are into cuckoo territory with this judgement.

 

[ShadyLady]

We're not talking about Reeva we're talking about intruders and how you should be allowed to deal with them. Yes, if there is an intruder in your home you should be able to shoot to defend. If you genuinely made a mistake then you deserve leniency. Pretty clear.

I completely agree that we should be able to protect our properties and ourselves in our homes, BUT and this is a big "but", in this case I was completely convinced it was premeditated murder and OP was in a rage against Reeva.

If this stands, it will a free season on murders in homes. IMO

 

[MeeBee]

BBM- This I absolutely disagreed with and is really disturbing reading it. You as a gun owner have a responsibility to lawfully discharge. I don't care if you made a mistake, you chose to fire the weapon and kill someone so suffer the consequences. Why do gun owners feel they have the right to shoot first and ask questions later... it's beyond me.

Just to be clear, I don't own a gun.

 

[MeeBee]

I completely agree that we should be able to protect our properties and ourselves in our homes, BUT and this is a big "but", in this case I was completely convinced it was premeditated murder and OP was in a rage against Reeva.

If this stands, it will a free season on murders in homes. IMO

It's understandable if you felt that way.

 

[turaj]

Thank you so much for the clarification! I still suspect that she might only give him a fine for the illegal bullets though.

the rest will be a slap on the wrist (which to me is anything less than prison) and some fine which will be speedily taken care of by uncle Arnold and off and "running"

 

[DebinGA]

Didn't OP under oath say he didn't fire a warning shot because he "foresaw" the "possibility" it might ricochet and hit him?

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

I'm sorry to say, we are into cuckoo territory with this judgement.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[akp]

Does someone know where I can listen to the recordings of the after lunch session again?

Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGYHmnWgkjs

 

[Sherbert]

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.

We have been giving Milady the benefit of the doubt throughout. Perhaps, it is time to prepare for the worst.

In any case, to downgrade the killing to a case of accidental killing by mistaken identity is tantamount to removing Reeva from the equation.

We are now left with some nameless, faceless intruder, who was negligently killed by accident, but who never existed in the first place.

 

[turaj]

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!

i hope you are right...here is US seems like these guys always seem to come back stronger...we will see.

 

[4MrsB]

I can think of no other reason for a person knowledgable of SA laws & of normal or higher intelligence ....to offer this conclusion, other than immense political pressure (or money - which I do NOT believe is a factor in this case).

And here I thought having a judge rule on the case (vs jury system) would finally make a difference & justice would be served, regardless of his celebrity & financial status.

Boy was I wrong! (I also screwed up on OJ...thought that was a "slam dunk". Wrong again! )