Trial Discussion Thread #53 - 14.12.9, Day 42 ~ final verdict~

[Cherwell]

I doubt that she had much say in the matter.

"I always win"
"We piss on Zuma"

Looks like money and power pissed on justice.

 

[Sherbert]

Masipa has found that, although the imaginary intruder was behind a locked door, OP perceived the threat to be sufficiently imminent to warrant approaching the bathroom and firing four shots at that locked door. Essentially, this is an acceptance of his claim that he was acting in putative private defence. PPD negates intention, so there is no need to go into intention, other than for the purpose of confirming that OP shot without the intention to kill unlawfully because he shot in the belief that his life was in danger. However, she then proceeds to muddy the waters by mentioning that he intended to shoot, but not to kill. She also mixes in his remorse and his attempts to resuscitate Reeva as further evidence that he lacked intent to kill. She then proceeds to find that he did not foresee the possibility that his shots would kill the intruder.

And so, in this manner, her judgement loses focus and becomes extremely messy and confusing for everyone. At least, that is how it appears to me.

 

[pandax81]

We could well be heading for a very light or no custodial sentence for culpable homicide, as many have remarked.

Amazingly, at least so far, Masipa has not ruled he was negligent in his belief that it must be an intruder and for not considering or checking it was Reeva using the ensuite. She also has not ruled he was negligent in believing he was under attack or in not taking steps to warn the intruder or give him a chance. For almost everyone, these are the most obvious and shocking aspects of recklessness in this case even on his own version.

Instead, her reasons for negligence were restricted to hastiness going to the bathroom and excessive force. In other words, she may well be treating his negligence just the same as someone living alone who heard the window smash open, and who in the bathroom shouted 'stay where you are or I'll shoot' but then heard and saw the toilet door start to open...

 

[IndianSummer]

Still several pages back, so apologies if already posted ... Sam Taylor to be on 48 Hours (CBS), on now.

Thanks...on @ 8pm here in CA



Karma is patient

 

[04009margaret]

Martin Hood explaining why some of the legal fraternity in SA disagree with the verdict.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-13/south-african-society-disappointed-over-pistorious/5741406

 

[Cloen]

Martin Hood explaining why some of the legal fraternity in SA disagree with the verdict.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-13/south-african-society-disappointed-over-pistorious/5741406

Oh,he's great, really like this guy's views- he's always been spot on !
I hope the Prosecution Appeal, but if Oscar gets a reasonable prison term, they may not feel they need to.
But as Martin Hood says , Lawyers/Attorneys were hopeful that this case would set a precedent for intimate partner violence and are very disappointed with the Verdict by the Judge. I understand that - in SA this Ruling could make their jobs much more difficult as a result of such a high profile case - and SA Justice system and gun related deaths.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Will sentencing really take a whole week, from 13 to 17 October?

It's sort of like a mini-trial. The defence team will argue mitigation, i.e. why he should get a lesser sentence. The State will argue aggravation, i.e. why he should get a longer sentence. These are the factors that will take up nearly all the time, not the handing down of the actual sentences themselves.

 

[turaj]

It's sort of like a mini-trial. The defence team will argue mitigation, i.e. why he should get a lesser sentence. The State will argue aggravation, i.e. why he should get a longer sentence. These are the factors that will take up nearly all the time, not the handing down of the actual sentences themselves.

will the judge need time to consider these mitigators and aggravtors and the witnesses and then we will have to wait again? I doubt that anything said will make any difference to her...just more people on the state's side to not believe but wondering on the timing.

 

[turaj]

I think Sam Taylor will be on 20/20 tonight 10Eastern

 

[Hope4More]

and life goes on.........

 

[K.T]

It's sort of like a mini-trial. The defence team will argue mitigation, i.e. why he should get a lesser sentence. The State will argue aggravation, i.e. why he should get a longer sentence. These are the factors that will take up nearly all the time, not the handing down of the actual sentences themselves.

Oh, how I detest mitigation phase from previous trials. There can be just the worst defense statements, fuzzy logic, pyschobabble ...and the violin backstories of 'poor me' backgrounds. *shudder*

Plus, if you have a popular, well-supported defendent, the aggravating circumstances from the prosecution like victim statements, family testimony etc. can be where the most callous attitudes, victimblame and family/friend criticism bubble out from the defendent's supporters.

 

[turaj]

20/20 now with Sam Taylor

 

[JudgeJudi]

I’m still speechless and reeling from the verdict. The eyes of the world were on this trial for more than one reason.

1. Yet another celebrity trial where the world’s perception is that the rich and famous can get away with murder.

2. The fact that everyone believes that white people are treated very differently in the judicial system to blacks.

3. A judge who stands up for the rights of abused women.

4. A judge known for very harsh sentencing of men who kill their intimate partners.

5. SA wanting to show the world how good their judicial system is.

Masipa by her verdicts has proven that:

1. Is correct.

2. Is correct.

3. Nah, not if the killer is white and comes from a very rich family with government connections.

4. Nah, not if all of the above are true.

5. Shown the world how very poor and prejudiced their judicial system is.

This was a case of toss the coin. Heads you win, tails you lose. Guess whose head was on the coin ... OP’s ... and to quote his own words “I always win”.

 

[zoran]

Martin Hood explaining why some of the legal fraternity in SA disagree with the verdict.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-13/south-african-society-disappointed-over-pistorious/5741406

This is excellent. Its interesting that he says that premeditated murder was never going to be upheld.

Also it does look like there is going to be an appeal. This trial may go on for years..

 

[Viper]

Oh well, screw it! Hi Trooper, AJ, and Soozie!!! Hope that you are all healthy, well fed, and have ample supplies of beer, wine, Whisky, love, and friendship!!! :smile:

 

[IndianSummer]

Concerning Reeva's scream
I read something on another board months ago....
How did he know where to aim?
(She could of been flat on the floor, curled in a ball, up against the opposite wall)
Because she screamed.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Roux had the worst kind of client you could ever wish for. Nel had to make a case out of virtually nothing.

I think Nel did a brilliant cross-examination of all the defence’s witnesses and totally destroyed OP and all his versions.

Where I think the State came unstuck was running with the shots came first version.

IMO Roux’s Heads of Argument were ludicrous in part. However it was a really clever manoeuvre to put the timeline together, and it was, according to Masipa, this timeline that swayed her to disbelieve all the ear witnesses. All the experts stated that the ear witnesses were crucial to the State’s case.

For my part, I was very disappointed in Nel’s Heads of Argument. The baker’s dozen didn’t do it for me. A couple of posters here did a better job. He should have pointed out every inconsistency in OP’s testimony by dot point not scattered throughout the entire document, rammed home the poor quality of the defence’s witnesses and torn to shreds every piece of the defence’s evidence. I truly believe he could have done a lot more to show the strength of his case.

Having said all that, it probably wouldn’t have made an iota of difference from what we’ve just seen. I could just weep.

 

[mister happy]

This is excellent. Its interesting that he says that premeditated murder was never going to be upheld.

Also it does look like there is going to be an appeal. This trial may go on for years..

Yes. I enjoy listening to Martin Hood speak. He has a clear and precise way of explaining the issues. Very articulate.

 

[screecher]

...I doubt very much that public opinion about her verdict means much to her.

snipped by me

I don't doubt she gives a crap about how the world thinks she erred in her judgement. She made that blatantly clear.

Shame on her.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Here is a very good article (sorry, it is in Afrikaans)
http://www.beeld.com/nuus/2014-09-12-haar-regsdwaling-skok

This is an excellent article. I've translated it but there one or two tricky bits so I left them as is.

Shocked and surprised

This is how lawyers and academics responded on Thursday to the alleged "miscarriage of justice" that Judge Thokozile Masipa committed in the Oscar Pistorius case. According to the experts Masipa incorrectly applied the legal principle dolus eventualis.

This means the accused provided that death can indeed intervene, he reconciled himself with it and still performed the act that causes death.

Masipa found the evidence does not support the state's case that Pistorius acted with the necessary dolus eventualis. She said he did not know that he could kill his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp .

"It is very strange. I do not know what to say, because it is so far from the bus. It does not make sense, "Adv. Jan Henning, former deputy head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said.

He said it was not necessary for the State to prove who Pistorius thought was hiding behind the toilet.

"As long as the government proved that he had provided the possibility that he caused the death of whoever was behind the door."

Prof. James Grant, criminal law at the University of the Witwatersrand, said he realized Masipa make a mistake and gave the verdict a "strange twist" when she says the question is whether Pistorius meant to kill anyone. "That was not the question. His defense was he shot to kill, but he thought he was entitled to do so because he believed it was a burglar. The first question was whether he wrongfully fired."

Also Adv. Johann Engelbrecht SC says Masipa's analysis of dolus eventualis is completely wrong. "I was shocked. She is down the track. There is a one shot, no matter who he thought it was.

"She found that he was trained in the use of weapons, that means exactly why he had greater caution lies. By shooting four shots at a spot to the toilet by he had foreseen that he could become a man shooting and the person could die. It is murder.

"Three shots hit her, so it is pertinent to he shot her. If he thought it was a burglar, one would expect that the bullets would be more distributed."

Prof. Pierre de Vos, a constitutional expert, also believes Masipa's interpretation of the principle of law is highly debatable." He should have foreseen that the bullets can kill someone. If you mean to kill X, but you make a mistake and make the process Y killed, it does not mean it's not murder. Just because he did not intend to kill Y, it doesn’t make the matter right. I think the judge's understanding of the principle is wrong. My impression is that there is a regsmistasting is."

Dr. Llewelyn Curlewis, President of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, thinks Masipa clinically applied the law to the principle of dolus eventualis. "There are many contradictions in her judgment."

Ulrich Roux, a Johannesburg attorney, said Masipa had good judgment when she found the state had not proven premeditated murder . He was also he was "surprised" at her interpretation of dolus eventualis and believes the state has proven its case here.

Wessie Wessels, a Pretoria lawyer, also said he thinks "the judge respectfully with her interpretation of dolus eventualis misgetas".

"Her finding was unexpected and is outside the evidence presented."

A senior Johannesburg advocate said he and his colleagues were shocked by Masipa's application of the law. "We're not sure why we have not studied. Gerrie (Nel) goes holes in her ruling in the Court of Appeals store. She is not a very good legal scholar."

http://www.beeld.com/nuus/2014-09-12-haar-regsdwaling-skok