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