Trial Discussion Thread #52 - 14.11.9, Day 41 ~announcement of the verdict~

[Emz73]

I meant I was starting to buy into the view that Masipa had misunderstood the test for Dolus Eventualis and that Nel would appeal... I'm not so sure now after reading the comparisons after reading a link a couple pages back

Most are saying she got it wrong though. OR are we and the rest of the world are going to have a Arrrrr that's what she meant moment tomorrow.

 

[Figuring]

I have to share this. I am laughing here, but I guess it is not funny. But it is. In researching this judge earlier, Wikipedia came up on a google search, so I clicked onto the article. Lo and behold, I learned the judge's middle name is "Pistorius". How strange, I thought.

I read the article and when it came to the part about what her peers think of her, the article stated she is "considered to be a loose cannon", is becoming senile, etc. And this was footnoted by two articles. So I go to each article and read them. Neither has a bad thing to say about the judge. Quite the opposite, she is said to be highly respected by her peers within these articles.

So I then go back to the Wikipedia article. No more derogatory statements. I am beginning to wonder if I am really, really sleep deprived here. Then I glance up and there is no "Pistorius" as the judge's middle name.

Upon checking the history of the Wikipedia article, it was hacked. Cleverly hacked. And with some humor. As in "Pistorius" was her middle name.... Oi Vey! I can't believe I fell for it!

------------------------
Here is what I fell for:

"The State vs Oscar Pistorius

Masipa is the presiding judge in the trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp and several gun-related charges which commenced in the High Court in Pretoria on 3 March 2014.[8][22] She appointed two assessors to assist her in the trial.[23] According to the spokesperson for the South African judiciary, she was not specially assigned to the case because of her gender.[24][25] Following her assignment to the high-profile case, her colleagues reportedly described her as senile, loose canon, incompetent, eloquent-but-misguided and needs to be removed from her post.[8][26]"

I don't blame you for falling for this... it makes more sense than what happened today!

 

[Viper]

I got back from work all ready to watch a further few hours of the verdict, when for no apparent reason, she just adjourned till tomorrow. It was weird. Maybe she suddenly had a lightbulb moment and realised her decision to acquit him of Dolus Eventualis was made in error!

LOL!!! Lightbulb moment indeed...

Quote:
“If the accused woke in night and in darkness saw a silhouette hovering next to his bed and then fired a shot, only to discover he had shot the deceased. In that case his conduct would have been understandable and perhaps even excusable. In that situation he would have been faced with a real emergency.”


But in the situation the court was dealing with, Pistorius would have had a reasonable amount of time “to think and act and conduct himself reasonably”.


“I am not persuaded that a reasonable person in his circumstances would have fired four shots into that small toilet cubicle,” she said.


-snipped-


She said a reasonable person would have foreseen the possibility that firing four shots into a small toilet cubicle could result in any person behind the door being shot and dying.


The reasonable person, she said, would have taken steps to prevent that from happening.


http://www.enca.com/oscar-trial-pistorius-guilty-negligence

 

[Susza]

The only reference I have in all my notes is Johnson :

He said that he woke up to a woman's terrible scream at an estimated time of 3:12.

He never heard the first set of bangs… they could have occurred much earlier than the screaming that eventually woke him up

Plus, the 3:12AM is a personal estimation… on what is that estimation based on ?… we simply don't know

… and Masipa does not care… she disregards everything expect what helps her find OP not guilty !!!!

Talk about monkey Justice !!!!

I fully agree. ***Thank you, AJ***

 

[IndianSummer]

There is something very strange about the way Masipa stopped so suddenly today, she seemed right on the verge of her decision regarding Culpable Homicide and pretty much just got up and left.

Bone thrown
Who knows

 

[Figuring]

Well guys my senses are in utter disbelief. I feel so terrible for Reeva and her family. It is another violation of her -- this time by a woman, no less. And you can bet this judgment is going to bolster domestic abusers, who only need claim they were frightened by a sound in the dark, like a child would be. If you're that much of a man-child, you don't deserve a gun! Or a woman!

HOW, HOW can the judge say she cannot be "sure" of his "intent" when he fired 4 shots into a 4x4 pen!!! A person inside there takes up how much of the cubic volume? 4 bullets cover how much linear space???? How much does that increase your odds of hitting your target?? There's already an expression already for this type of occurance: "shooting fish in a barrel." That's what he did, and sorry but anyone who isn't cognitively impaired can see it plain as day.

<modsnip>

 

[foxbluff]

I second this. I am also sure there were other witnesses in Silverwoods who didn't want to get involved, and I don't just mean Frank, in my opinion.
I also think that if Oscar had only fired one shot this Judge would have acquitted him. She can't now because he fired 4 shots, as she would come under a lot of criticism as to her professional Judgement, it would be too obvious. I didn't want to be cynical about the Judge's Ruling, as I thought she was quiet, calm and collected and had taken it all in , and would do the right thing for Reeva. It has sadly gone completely the other way today, and I am so very disappointed in her , the Assessors and sad for Reeva's family.

Also, Dr Vorster and Professor Derman, the Defence witnesses, conceded to Nel during Cross examination that Oscar fired shots at the door to kill the Intruder , (or words to that effect) I don't know why the Judge didn't just take Oscar out for Coffee and got him to sign on the dotted line to say he's free , get his lunch from Court, and go off home.

BBM... I totally agree.

I'll take that a step further: imho had OP killed her with only one shot, he would never have been charged... everybody would assume it was a tragic accident.

 

[soozieqtips]

LOL!!! Lightbulb moment indeed...

Quote:
“If the accused woke in night and in darkness saw a silhouette hovering next to his bed and then fired a shot, only to discover he had shot the deceased. In that case his conduct would have been understandable and perhaps even excusable. In that situation he would have been faced with a real emergency.”


But in the situation the court was dealing with, Pistorius would have had a reasonable amount of time “to think and act and conduct himself reasonably”.


“I am not persuaded that a reasonable person in his circumstances would have fired four shots into that small toilet cubicle,” she said.


-snipped-


She said a reasonable person would have foreseen the possibility that firing four shots into a small toilet cubicle could result in any person behind the door being shot and dying.


The reasonable person, she said, would have taken steps to prevent that from happening.


http://www.enca.com/oscar-trial-pistorius-guilty-negligence

The reasonable person would not have done what OP did, so hopefully she'll bear that in mind when she delivers the verdict tomorrow. One thing I learned today was that I can legitimately kill someone if they're hovering over my bed, so any guests who forget to put the toilet seat down had better watch out!

Perhaps most controversially, Masipa ruled that Pistorius could not foresee that he would kill the person behind the door when he shot four times. Therefore he could not be found guilty of a lesser charge of murder. "How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased?" she asked. "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 at the time."

I was very surprised that she automatically believed OP thought Reeva was still in bed (just because he said she was, how many lies did he tell on the stand???) and even more surprised that she said he couldn't have foreseen the possibility that he might kill the person behind the door. Exactly what did OP think each of those four bullets would do?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/oscar-pistorius-trial-steenkamp-drama

 

[mister happy]

Here is what I fear:

OP is only found guilty of CH.

OP remains free on bail during his appeal.

Even if the verdict stands, OP gets special consideration due to his disability (and his celebrity status, and his family pulling strings, etc).

As a result, OP skates on prison time.

Instead, OP will "solemnly & dutifully" preform many hours of wimpy celebrity service to the community.

And he will weep (when cameras are on him) for the memory of Reeva, and that awful mistake he made.

Projectile vomiting (me)

The above quote is what I posted in the Theory Thread awhile back. My hope now is that I don't reach the projectile vomiting stage.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Masipa said a reasonable person would have foreseen the possibility that firing four shots into a small toilet cubicle could result in any person behind the door being shot and dying. That's Dolus Eventualis!!!! FFS

 

[DebinGA]

Was I absent the day Roux produced test results indicating bat whacks can be mistaken for gun shots? The judge declared that's what the ear witnesses did, so she must have been guided by something.

 

[Hope4More]

About Dr. Grant, who seems to be the pied piper of discntent dissenters today. He has commented very publically and prolifically about this case from day one, just after OP was arrested.

From day one Dr. Grant has said he believed OP was guilty and that a verdict of guilty was most likely, or even inevitable.

He was just proven wrong. Perhaps he is protesting loudly to save his public image of Dr. Right about OP?

 

[Lyra500]

Was I absent the day Roux produced test results indicating bat whacks can be mistaken for gun shots? The judge declared that's what the ear witnesses did, so she must have been guided by something.

I do not think they ever produced that evidence any more than they produced evidence that OP screams like a woman. However it appears that in this case we can just assume that whatever the DT team say is fact whilst completely dissing the witnesses appearing for the prosecution.

 

[Figuring]

So he fired 4 shots 'without' thinking - but he didn't fire a warning shot... because he was thinking.

Thinking about he might get injured.

Yes remember Nel asked him, "why did you shoot from that corner, just beside the bathroom" (at least, as he claimed) -- and he said he was worried about the bullet ricocheting off the marble. THAT's why he couldn't have fired a warning shot. He THOUGHT about that! Not that he would have fired a warning shot, because I think the only thing that mattered to him at that moment was to silence a woman who dared to scream in order to protect his precious stage-managed reputation.

 

[james83]

About Dr. Grant, who seems to be the pied piper of discntent dissenters today. He has commented very publically and prolifically about this case from day one, just after OP was arrested.

From day one Dr. Grant has said he believed OP was guilty and that a verdict of guilty was most likely, or even inevitable.

He was just proven wrong. Perhaps he is protesting loudly to save his public image of Dr. Right about OP?

Total garbage, Grant has done nothing of the sort, from day one he has been very balanced, you must have the wrong guy.

 

[soozieqtips]

Yes remember Nel asked him, "why did you shoot from that corner, just beside the bathroom" (at least, as he claimed) -- and he said he was worried about the bullet ricocheting off the marble. THAT's why he couldn't have fired a warning shot. He THOUGHT about that! Not that he would have fired a warning shot, because I think the only thing that mattered to him at that moment was to silence a woman who dared to scream in order to protect his precious stage-managed reputation.

Yes I remember that.

I also remember him saying "I had many thoughts" shortly after he said he wasn't thinking!

 

[Hope4More]

Total garbage, Grant has done nothing of the sort, from day one he has been very balanced, you must have the wrong guy.

No, actually I don't have the wrong guy. I can't post links from my phone but google his name with OP's and its all there.

 

[Carol70]

Masipa said a reasonable person would have foreseen the possibility that firing four shots into a small toilet cubicle could result in any person behind the door being shot and dying. That's Dolus Eventualis!!!! FFS

I could be wrong but I'm sure Masipa ruled OP was NOT a reasonable man??? Will quickly go check

 

[james83]

No, actually I don't have the wrong guy. I can't post links from my phone but google his name with OP's and its all there.

He is a professor of law, if he believe's a mistake of law has been made today than he is entitled to that opinion.
I take issue with your comment that he said from day one that Oscar was guilty because that is simply not true at all, i seriously have no idea where you have got that from.

 

[Carol70]

Yep, so could that explain why she rejected dolus eventualis??

14:24 OP had time to think and consider actions. I'm satisfied his actions weren't that of a reasonable person - TM

Share