A TRULY radical idea occurred to me this morning:
Masipa intentionally sabotaged the verdict knowing that it would guarantee it’s appeal.
Here’s my case:
I believe that, even if she is a judge, as a black (woman) in SA in 2014, Masipa is particularly vulnerable on every level imaginable. I don't think it would have take much to “influence” her, and I don't mean money. All it would have taken would be certain look directed her way by the "right" person at the "right" time — JUST as abusers do in cases of domestic violence.
Based on her reading last night of the first part of the verdict, I personally believe “something” has gone on here. It just doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t make sense. We’ll see tonight, but my guess is that "they" decided — for the sake of OPs (imagined) future... sponsorships, etc., ...that the public would be more forgiving of him if he gets a CH verdict (with their “guaranteed” slap on the wrist sentence - Masipa decides) than if he “walked". I mean, he did shoot and kill her, that's not in dispute.
Had this trial not be televised, I think something like that might actually have worked. Who would have known any different? Not me. But this WAS televised and that will make all the difference in the world. I personally believe his imagine future is just that - imagined. No matter what happens I think his future -- personally, professionally, and socially is toast.
After hearing all the evidence and testimony, a huge number of people in the world (not all) following this trial believed - and still believe - he is guilty of murdering Reeva in cold blood. Based on that belief, what was read out last night was inexplicable - to many here (not all) and, apparently, also to many legal experts in the larger world.
Adding to my personal shock in all of this, has been my belief in the opinions of many experts "in the know" who have, throughout the trial, consistently commended Masipa's abilities as a judge. "Don't underestimate her." "She's fair, she's meticulous, she always follows the letter of the law."
So what happened? Both things might be true at the same time.
I think she “got the look". I also think she's proud, intelligent, woman, and a skilled barrister who has had to fight for every gain she has ever made in her life. It's entirely possible - and it would hardly be for the first time in her life in white dominated SA - that she would have had to suck it up, swallow her pride, and Kow-tow (bow down) to those in power.
She might have had to do it, but she would resent it to the very core of her being. What better way to follow the letter of the law (of the jungle) by handing down the verdict you were "suggested" to deliver but at the same time standing up for the spirit of the law (actual law), than by playing dumb -- "dumb like a fox."
The only option she would have had with any chance of getting away with it would be to OVERPLAY her hand. She put on her OWN show - sounding serious and measured and thoughtful and thorough while at the same time saying things that were so contradictory and, frankly, inexplicable, that, with intention, she sabotage the case so that it would HAVE TO BE appealed.
One example of the dynamic I'm describing would be the long-known practice among US blacks - slaves and domestic workers - forever cast in the role of cooks in white families, who regularly spit into the food before they served it.
I know my idea is absurd (in Roux-speak "abzuuurd") but, to me, all things taken into consideration, at this point, absolutely nothing else that I can think of makes any sense.
