TLDR post.
Majorly dissapointed in Masipa, it is not even that she made perhaps incorrect interpretation of law that is vague or ambiguous, it is that even to a layperson, her rationales comes across as plain stupid.
1. Dismissing state eyewitnesses and experts, the rationale seems to be of course any doubt raised, means you automatically favor the accused, but this is in practice, untenable if it is approached so simply, any damn rich person can just buy another expert and make him say 'nothing is an exact science' and suddenly the accused ALWAYS must win.
2. He cried, therefore he must be innocent, how does this make any damn sense? this just makes the public shake their head because it makes it seem that a court of law is as simple and flawed as an adult finding
the kid did something wrong, the kid has a cry, suddenly the kid MUST be innocent, a joke.
3. What version? even if we accept that the accused gets the benefit of the doubt, what version are we supposed to support? they all do not work, if you contend so strongly that contradictions
makes peoples testimony unreliable (Fresco, eyewitnesses) then how do you give Pistorius version the benefit of the doubt when it contradicts?
Its so disappointing, for the public and SA law, this trial touched on so many social issue's, equality between men and women, fair justice for all and not just the young white rich men, gun deaths.
All the public will come away is that even with the best state prosecutor, even with the media backing Reeva, doesn't matter, Pistorius is a young white rich man, he gets let off easily.
I feel bad for judge greenland actually, i know he wanted so much for this trial to raise the profile and confidence of SA justice system to the public, and its all backfired.
Anyway it was an interesting ride, thanks to everyone around here, i don't know whether theres gonna be an appeal though honestly i think as has been shown,the rich have their version
of justice and the common people has theirs, so i don't have any hope for success there.