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

[aa9511]

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.

Ah, just one more thing Masipa overlooked. How convenient. He seemed to know exactly where he was aiming. Even though the "intruder" said nothing and the bathroom was "dark."

 

[aa9511]

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[/B]. "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

IDK, just common-sense wise, it makes sense that it would make a difference whether Oscar thought the person was a burglar or Reeva. I don't know about the technicalities of the law and all that, but in my mind, it makes a huge difference whether Oscar thought it was a burglar or whether he knew it was Reeva.

 

[aa9511]

Gerrie Nel as verdict read.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...us-arrives-court-hear-second-day-verdict.html

Look at how red his ears are....I think he was furious inside!

 

[mirage1]

So, in other words, she believed his story.

She believed it was reasonably possible, which itself is just ridiculous. The State clearly showed it was full of holes and contradictions, it did not even correlate with the crime scene photos, the fans were in the wrong place, let alone everything else.

 

[aa9511]

I don't think it was. But then the judge has shown least interest in any kind of proofs - she didn't bother about the fact that despite their promise, the DT never produced any evidence supporting their claim that Oscar screams like a woman, which I think was even more important and serious - she just discarded all State evidence, chose a combination of versions from the `unreliable' Oscar, and applied some legal principles!

Yes, ITA that she worked backwards.First she decided, I'm not going to hold him guilty for murder. For whatever reason (pity or whatever), she decided he should get some punishment in between nothing and murder. I think it was a combination of Pity for Oscar and also not knowing what they were arguing about and what led up to her shooting. So then she went from there. IMO.

 

[zoran]

For what it's worth, I do understand Masipa not wanting to send him to a South African prison for murder. The prisons are a disgrace, and no normal person would want to even spend a weekend there, let alone 15-25 years housed with some of the country's worst offenders, a lot of who are HIV positive and have TB. By finding him guilty of culpable homicide allows her to send him to a more open prison, where the offenders a are a better class of inmates. Is she going to suspend his sentence? That will be insulting to the steenkamp family. I will be shocked if he gets no jail time, clearly there was an argument before the shooting, but she is disregarding these witnesses. She seems to have favoured the defence throughout the trial, but I thought she was just trying to appear unbiased against OP, but I was wrong. I thought people saying he will get off were just crazy, and hadn't listened to all the evidence. Now I don't know what to think anymore. Maybe he will get off Scott free, and maybe he will run in the next Olympics.

Good post. I tend to agree that the conditions of SA prisons gave her no choice but to go the way she did. If the prisons were of the standard of Australian jails then she may have gone for murder. Sending a pretty white boy with no legs to a living hell hole is beyond extreme and yes Reeva is dead and she is gone however there is "punishment' and there is living hell. The question is which does OP deserve? I would like to get some opinions on this especially from the staunch anti OP members

 

[aa9511]

Good post. I tend to agree that the conditions of SA prisons gave her no choice but to go the way she did. If the prisons were of the standard of Australian jails then she may have gone for murder. Sending a pretty white boy with no legs to a living hell hole is beyond extreme and yes Reeva is dead and she is gone however there is "punishment' and there is living hell. The question is which does OP deserve? I would like to get some opinions on this especially from the staunch anti OP members

I'm sure they could have figured out a way to send him to a "better" prison. After all, with his disability and all. Like in the US I think they send police officers found guilty of crimes to different prisons for their own protection. IDK I don't think that's an excuse.

 

[mirage1]

For what it's worth, I do understand Masipa not wanting to send him to a South African prison for murder. The prisons are a disgrace, and no normal person would want to even spend a weekend there, let alone 15-25 years housed with some of the country's worst offenders, a lot of who are HIV positive and have TB. By finding him guilty of culpable homicide allows her to send him to a more open prison, where the offenders a are a better class of inmates. Is she going to suspend his sentence? That will be insulting to the steenkamp family. I will be shocked if he gets no jail time, clearly there was an argument before the shooting, but she is disregarding these witnesses. She seems to have favoured the defence throughout the trial, but I thought she was just trying to appear unbiased against OP, but I was wrong. I thought people saying he will get off were just crazy, and hadn't listened to all the evidence. Now I don't know what to think anymore. Maybe he will get off Scott free, and maybe he will run in the next Olympics.

Really? I would have thought prison conditions should have been totally irrelevant in her consideration of his guilt because that is not written in law. What you are basically saying is that her decision was not based on the law, but rather something else, which is indeed corrupt.

 

[aa9511]

Well we don't know about Masipa, but what were her 2 assistants doing? Did they watch the trial or were they dozing off for most of it?

 

[akp]

For what it's worth, I do understand Masipa not wanting to send him to a South African prison for murder. The prisons are a disgrace, and no normal person would want to even spend a weekend there, let alone 15-25 years housed with some of the country's worst offenders, a lot of who are HIV positive and have TB. By finding him guilty of culpable homicide allows her to send him to a more open prison, where the offenders a are a better class of inmates. Is she going to suspend his sentence? That will be insulting to the steenkamp family. I will be shocked if he gets no jail time, clearly there was an argument before the shooting, but she is disregarding these witnesses. She seems to have favoured the defence throughout the trial, but I thought she was just trying to appear unbiased against OP, but I was wrong. I thought people saying he will get off were just crazy, and hadn't listened to all the evidence. Now I don't know what to think anymore. Maybe he will get off Scott free, and maybe he will run in the next Olympics.

I am afraid I have to disagree with that. How is Oscar a normal person, how is he `normal' and better than those in the prison, the worst offenders?

 

[bajas]

Reasoning - how to think rather than what to think - is a very particular skill, and just one facet of intelligence. Everybody thinks they have the skill of reason in spades, but not everybody does. This verdict absolutely flowed from reason - the same logic that the minority here have been putting forth from the beginning, and the same logic that has been dismissed from the beginning. Rather than seeing the verdict as a challenge to their own thought and meeting that will curiosity and interest, people have accused Maspia of everything from feebleness to insensitivity to corruption. What she's guilty of, along with her assessors, is being a clearer and more efficient thinker than the general population. It's a requirement of the job and probably a component of what draws any of us to our professions: suitability and aptness.

Excellent post, as all of your posts are. Thank you.

 

[akp]

Well we don't know about Masipa, but what were her 2 assistants doing? Did they watch the trial or were they dozing off for most of it?

I guess when we say 'Masipa' or `the judge', we actually mean the three-member body.

 

[mirage1]

Reasoning - how to think rather than what to think - is a very particular skill, and just one facet of intelligence. Everybody thinks they have the skill of reason in spades, but not everybody does. This verdict absolutely flowed from reason - the same logic that the minority here have been putting forth from the beginning, and the same logic that has been dismissed from the beginning. Rather than seeing the verdict as a challenge to their own thought and meeting that will curiosity and interest, people have accused Maspia of everything from feebleness to insensitivity to corruption. What she's guilty of, along with her assessors, is being a clearer and more efficient thinker than the general population. It's a requirement of the job and probably a component of what draws any of us to our professions: suitability and aptness.

Oh ok. so the fact that she and her accessors are one of the few people on the planet who believed Oscars farcical story, is because they are clearer more efficient thinkers than the rest of us. I can only wish to have such 'clear' thinking that I would believe a bunch of balony like that.

 

[cottonweaver]

My guess -and hope- is that MiLady is taking a well deserved break from all things OP. She did an outstanding job in a trial made more difficult by intense publicity and some of the public's extreme emotionalism. Since she has integrity and admirable professionalism, I doubt very much that public opinion about her verdict means much to her.

“well deserved”- debateable

“public's extreme emotionalism”- was always irrelevant to her,
context in SA of intimate partner crime much much relevant to her

“She did an outstanding job”- again currently THE hot topic in legal cricles around the world

“I doubt very much that public opinion about her verdict means much to her” – obviously, that’s the basis of her position, but the opinion of her peers in legal circles will most probably mean a great deal to her.

“she has integrity and admirable professionalism“– think you’re correct on that one. If it goes to Supreme Court, it won’t be on a basis of whether she has professional integrity etc.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Somewhere in the distant past there was an article about OP's dogs, a pit bull and a bull terrier. IIRC he said they weren't guard dogs and that they just played and slept all day. Now can you imagine what might have happened if there had been an intruder ...

“Kola was only a few months old when Oscar’s two vicious bulldogs killed her. Sammy was devastated”.

From the article given by Sam Taylor's mother.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...feared-gun-crazy-Pistorius-kill-daughter.html

Just one more lie to add to the avalanche we've already heard.

 

[Lefthand]

Remorse, I think this plays the biggest role of why Masipa ended up with her verdict.

I remember reading an article about the case where Masipa handed down 252 years sentence. She said that the perpetrator has shown no sign of remorse as part of the reasons of why she handed out the sentence.

Everything Oscar did on the stand is to prove how remorseful he was. He started off by apologizing to the Steenkamp's family. Then proceed to cry, wail, puke, while looking absolutely miserable. Masipa bought his performance. She believes Oscar is remorseful, thus losing Reeva is more than a punishment for him. That's why she doesn't want to punish him "twice".

It's also easier to feel empathy towards Oscar where all the focus had been on him. We were spood fed with so many information about Oscar, but very few were about Reeva. If I didn't read any articles about Reeva online, I would have known very little about her just from the trial. The entire trial was to make Oscar the ultimate victim, not Reeva. Oscar's family also helped in the theatrics, crying, praying, hugging - they were all to emphasis their victimize status. In the end of the day, Reeva was just an unfortunate person. The true victim here is Oscar.

Masipa has judged the entire case solely based on her emotions. Evidence weights very little for her. I have to agree that she should have stayed as a Social Worker. A Judge should not be swayed by their emotion, they should be looking at all the evidence and analyze them, not thrown them all away in favor for the testimony of the poor crying man right in front of her.

 

[zoran]

I'm sure they could have figured out a way to send him to a "better" prison. After all, with his disability and all. Like in the US I think they send police officers found guilty of crimes to different prisons for their own protection. IDK I don't think that's an excuse.

apparently not. A good read from a 50-year-old paraplegic

"Living here is very hard. We are 88 men in this cell which is meant for 32. "

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/22/paraplegic-remand-south-africa

 

[Lefthand]

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

Reeva doesn't have a life anymore.

 

[whiterum]

Look at how red his ears are....I think he was furious inside!

I don't blame Nel for being furious, I'm sure he is realising that all his hard work, his excellent reasoning, his commitment to justice for the victim was actually falling on deaf ears as he spoke. The fact that OP, the star witness and killer, proved himself a liar on the stand obviously tailoring his evidence as he went along was IMO the greatest pointer of all to guilt. Yet the courageous State witnesses who came forward in the interests if Justice, and had no reason at all to lie, their testimony was immediately discounted and discredited , written off as worthless by the Judge!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Good post. I tend to agree that the conditions of SA prisons gave her no choice but to go the way she did. If the prisons were of the standard of Australian jails then she may have gone for murder. Sending a pretty white boy with no legs to a living hell hole is beyond extreme and yes Reeva is dead and she is gone however there is "punishment' and there is living hell. The question is which does OP deserve? I would like to get some opinions on this especially from the staunch anti OP members

So the rich, white, men in SA will not be in a hurry to change/rebuild/refurbish the current state of prisons because why would they, no prison time for crimes if you're a pretty, white, rich boy. What a great solution! /sarcasm

No fear, Carl and Oscar, carry on as you always have.


JMO