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

[delilah]

The more I think about this verdict, the less I understand it.

I am not going to throw insults at Masipa or her assessors, only at their findings.

masipa's comment that it would have been more understandable if OP had shot at a shadow over his bed that then turned out to be RS was astonishing.

Her comment about relationships being 'dynamic' as she dismissed the texts and whatsapp messages showing unhappiness and worse in their relationship was utterly naive. Has it come to the point where it is now considered normal for a woman to say she is scared of her partner?

To claim that the fact that OP appeared to show genuine remorse immediately after the shooting was evidence that suggested he had not intended to kill RS is ridiculous.

I can understand their view that the state failed to prove OP intended to kill RS. But I cannot understand how they concluded that OP had not intended to kill whoever was in the toilet when he fired the four shots. If they have erred by dismissing DE on the basis that they accepted OP's version that he thought RS was in the bedroom, it shows a shockingly bad grasp of the law and of simple logic.

 

[Ncl1968]

Is it not a normal reaction to wipe away body fluids as they leak or leave them for effect? Mmm
More crocodile tears from the predator
.....seems as i failed in quoting a picture of a tearful and snotty op.......

 

[foxbluff]

You'll love Professor James Grant's column

http://criminallawza.net/

have a look, see what you think

There are many things in life that I'm fascinated by, the law being one of them. While the rendering of the verdict was still pending, I enjoyed reading the thoughts of Mr. Grant and others with legal training... I was hungry for their opinions and would have relished being able to sit in on some of Assoc Prof Grant's classes. I expect he is really good at what he does. However, Imo, (well in fact for that matter), he is no Judge Masipa.

All along I have held Judge Masipa in the highest regard and though her verdict was not what I had hoped to hear, my admiration for her and for her position has not changed one iota. She was the only Judge on this case and she has spoken... I have to honor that.

I actually applaud her for having the guts to go against the majority public opinion.

 

[cottonweaver]

Rsbm sorry i'll have to do bold as i haven"t learnt to multi-quote- i am not shouting.

masipa's comment that it would have been more understandable if op had shot at a shadow over his bed that then turned out to be rs was astonishing.
Her whole point here was about panic/unexpected/just waking up similar to a reflex action

her comment about relationships being 'dynamic' as she dismissed the texts and whatsapp messages showing unhappiness and worse in their relationship was utterly naive. Has it come to the point where it is now considered normal for a woman to say she is scared of her partner?
Agreed naive in relation to domestic violence, but in her view doesn't clinch any evidence of intention b.y.r.doubt

to claim that the fact that op appeared to show genuine remorse immediately after the shooting was evidence that suggested he had not intended to kill rs is ridiculous.

Agreed- bizarre

i can understand their view that the state failed to prove op intended to kill rs. But i cannot understand how they concluded that op had not intended to kill whoever was in the toilet when he fired the four shots. If they have erred by dismissing de on the basis that they accepted op's version that he thought rs was in the bedroom, it shows a shockingly bad grasp of the law and of simple logic.
B]yes, embarassing if true[/B]

[

 

[Ncl1968]

Snipped....
She never heard public opinion.. shes a judge in a high profile case she would have avoided all media about it..she got it wrong all on her own...

 

[james83]

What is that email address for the IPC?, i want to be the guy who fires the starting pistol when he makes his comeback?.
P.s Any idea where i can get some black talons?.

 

[Cherwell]

From that article:

"Hers is a verdict that raises the question – what does a man have to do to be found guilty of murdering a woman?"

What indeed!!!

Be unimportant, poor and not have the government in his pocket?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Is it not a normal reaction to wipe away body fluids as they leak or leave them for effect? Mmm
More crocodile tears from the predator
.....seems as i failed in quoting a picture of a tearful and snotty op.......

IMO left for effect.

 

[Feynman]

View attachment 58820

Really? Is this the level Masipa's detractors want to sink to?

 

[cottonweaver]

You've done it there Viper - you made my empathy "gland" kick in again- which I'd had excised in relation to OP.

I can't laugh at that - even though it's OP- I'm just programmed that way when I see human distress that looks sincere even though he cries for all the wrong reasons, always IMO.

I will go and hunt for something equally depressing!! :thinking:
Then someone else can take the tone back up...

 

[PrimeSuspect]

If that's true Vanatos, then you're right but surely it can't be that simple. She has applied the law to the facts, but she has got it wrong, the law is apparently complex* in this area and maybe she is simply not experienced enough. Of course, we also take into account the fact that male judges get it wrong too.

*"Correctly Masipa identified that this required an analysis of two scenarios in criminal law: error in objecto and aberratio ictus. Anyone who tells you these are easy to understand, probably hasn’t understood them." Sorry to quote prof Grant again but it's a salutary warning to other legal experts. Where she then got mixed up follows in the extract linked below- if he is right?!

http://criminallawza.net/

Interesting read .

What I understood from J Masipa's reasoning, OP thought Reeva was in the bedroom and he believed an intruder was in the toilet, that he acted in putative private defence whereby it is legal to protect himself. J Masipa thinks to use excess force is acceptable. This part is in the article where Prof Grant does not agree with J Masipa.

J Masipa even offered another example, where OP is in bed, a dark figure is looming over him, he is within his rights to grab his gun and shoot. That dark figure could have been Reeva, his sister or any visitor to his home, so OP has been given permission to do this all over again. :facepalm:

JMO

 

[jilly]

The more I think about this verdict, the less I understand it.

I am not going to throw insults at Masipa or her assessors, only at their findings.

masipa's comment that it would have been more understandable if OP had shot at a shadow over his bed that then turned out to be RS was astonishing.

Her comment about relationships being 'dynamic' as she dismissed the texts and whatsapp messages showing unhappiness and worse in their relationship was utterly naive. Has it come to the point where it is now considered normal for a woman to say she is scared of her partner?

To claim that the fact that OP appeared to show genuine remorse immediately after the shooting was evidence that suggested he had not intended to kill RS is ridiculous.

I can understand their view that the state failed to prove OP intended to kill RS. But I cannot understand how they concluded that OP had not intended to kill whoever was in the toilet when he fired the four shots. If they have erred by dismissing DE on the basis that they accepted OP's version that he thought RS was in the bedroom, it shows a shockingly bad grasp of the law and of simple logic.

I totally agree with you and about the remorse - my understanding is that remorse is used as a mitigating circumstance at the sentencing stage and not guilt or innocence. Judge seems to have put the cart before the
horse here.

 

[Cherwell]

I dont feel the judge got a bribe she fell for oscars fake tears and got confused but that is why she has two assessors to guide her... they failed as much as she did

Could be one or both assessors were bribed, and hence influenced Masipa's thinking. Just a thought.

There are other ways of putting pressure on people besides bribery.

 

[delilah]

Rsbm sorry i'll have to do bold as i haven"t learnt to multi-quote- i am not shouting.


[

On the reflex action, I agree that was the point she was trying to make, but it was a very clumsy and rather dangerous way to make it.

On the fact that she dismissed the whatsapp messages - I've no problem with her doing that, it was her comment about why she did it that was out of order.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

The more I think about this verdict, the less I understand it.

I am not going to throw insults at Masipa or her assessors, only at their findings.

masipa's comment that it would have been more understandable if OP had shot at a shadow over his bed that then turned out to be RS was astonishing.

Her comment about relationships being 'dynamic' as she dismissed the texts and whatsapp messages showing unhappiness and worse in their relationship was utterly naive. Has it come to the point where it is now considered normal for a woman to say she is scared of her partner?

To claim that the fact that OP appeared to show genuine remorse immediately after the shooting was evidence that suggested he had not intended to kill RS is ridiculous.

I can understand their view that the state failed to prove OP intended to kill RS. But I cannot understand how they concluded that OP had not intended to kill whoever was in the toilet when he fired the four shots. If they have erred by dismissing DE on the basis that they accepted OP's version that he thought RS was in the bedroom, it shows a shockingly bad grasp of the law and of simple logic.

:goodpost:

 

[cottonweaver]

Really? Is this the level Masipa's detractors want to sink to?

I'm not a Masipa detractor -I still have a lot invested in her- see my previous post - maybe I just have a sick sense of humour.

No, seriously, humour is a serious business in my book. We only poke fun at things that matter, that we care about.
You can hold several viewpoints simultaneously, I do not think there is the remotest possibility that she has been bribed - but it's just well amusing in it's iconoclasm - if that makes a more suitable, noble justification- as opposed to "sinking to a level" etc.

 

[Ncl1968]

After months on this web site looking at crime scene pics evidence from all angles friendly banter on different points of view the occasion to row or show discontent for a few posts i feel like a jury member with all of you on here..
I think im correct in saying at least 90 per cent of us went for a guilty of murder vote only to be overruled by the judge who fell for op tears and body fluid output even though it was after the event....

I feel emotional tired and let down by it all...

 

[mister happy]

I totally agree with you and about the remorse - my understanding is that remorse is used as a mitigating circumstance at the sentencing stage and not guilt or innocence. Judge seems to have put the cart before the
horse here.

The "little" sentencing hearing may turn out to be the most dramatic and interesting part of this whole ordeal.

 

[cottonweaver]

RSBM

On the reflex action, I agree that was the point she was trying to make, but it was a very clumsy and rather dangerous way to make it.

You hit the nail on the head Delilah - every legal beagle has said her justifications for each decision were too brief and I agree with you that what she said was potentially dangerous as it has been widely misconstrued.
She should have spent the full two days explaining and I am sure she is really regretting that now.

IMO Her reputation is more important than OP's. ( I think his was always "brand management" ie BS. Not hers- she needs to explain herself better at sentencing as she made a mistake in her presentation for sure)

 

[delilah]

If that's true Vanatos, then you're right but surely it can't be that simple. She has applied the law to the facts, but she has got it wrong, the law is apparently complex* in this area and maybe she is simply not experienced enough. Of course, we also take into account the fact that male judges get it wrong too.

*"Correctly Masipa identified that this required an analysis of two scenarios in criminal law: error in objecto and aberratio ictus. Anyone who tells you these are easy to understand, probably hasn’t understood them." Sorry to quote prof Grant again but it's a salutary warning to other legal experts. Where she then got mixed up follows in the extract linked below- if he is right?!

http://criminallawza.net/

Interesting article but I can't work out whether the whole issue is being over complicated or whether I'm just a bit stupid : )

Put aside RS for a moment. If OP had fired four shots into the toilet cubicle and shot a person who he believed to have been an intruder, and who actually did turn out to be an intruder, wouldn't that make him guilty of DE?