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

[geevee]

I suppose when she accepted a geologist as an expert in sound (and everything else he testified about except geology) we should have known she never planned to accept the State's case, witnesses or evidence.

How does that happen in S.A.? Here in the U.S., if you are, say, a psychologist, your qualifications *in psychology* are examined and only when the judge is satisfied you are an expert in that field are you allowed to give testimony about psychological matters.

The mind still boggles.

 

[44ALLAN]

BBCNews Africa
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29163688

Oscar Pistorius verdict reaction

The judge at Oscar Pistorius’ trial has found him guilty of culpable homicide (manslaughter)...The court accepted that the athlete had killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp by mistake... The court accepted that the athlete had killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp by mistake...

I know this is far too late because the decision has been made but...........................the people who heard Reeva screaming and begging for her life were all wrong?
The policeman who took the photographs showing the scene when they arrived were all wrong?
It showed it was not pitch dark...............the lights were on and the curtains open?
The duvet was not there?
Yes it was ..........the photos shows that!
OP said it wasn't..................he is lying !
Is Masipa saying the police took these photos to frame OP?
Did she mention this in her ruling?
Did she say the photos were wrong/manipulated/fixed?

The lights were not on?
The stipps did not see lights on?
The Stipps were lying?

There was not a blood trail over the duvet and the carpet?
The bullet holes through the toilet door did not resemble bang......bang bang bang like the witness and Mangena testified?
They were not well grouped and aimed at a target?

I've spent the best part of ..........................!!!!! months listening to defence evidence from the most inept defence witnesses that has ever walked this planet and Masipa believes them....Dixon and Wolvmarans?
Seriously?

She has utterly disregarded all ear witness testimony as unreliable but after calling OP unreliable and a bad witness says his story could reasonably be possibly be true !
Sleep tight old girl your last trial will come back and haunt you big style................what a load of rubbish.

4 witnesses hearing REEVA screaming and petrified for her life and you say they didn't and it was unreliable.....................Disgraceful Masipa I hope your reading this................absolutely disgraceful.

If that verdict is going by the law in SA then it's a disgrace.......................the evidence ( and opinion of most legal people around the world) says you are totally wrong.
The evidence and his demeanour/evidence throughout the trial showed he was guilty....................firing 4 shots into a toilet cubicle of that size and you have the audacity to say he did not foresee he could kill the person in there ?

Ridiculous decision you should resign forthwith hanging your head in shame at this travesty of justice.
AIMHO

 

[jilly]

In my mind......Judge Masipa can only redeem herself here by giving Oscar 15 yrs. I somehow doubt she'll do that. She's supposed to be tough on men murdering women but imo she'll find a way out. She' tailored the evidence just as Oscar did with his testimony.

 

[Paul Connelly]

Paul -

Respectfully snipped by me.

What do you expect from an ex-social worker? That's how she comes across to me. Has a veneer of stern authority but underneath is a bleeding heart, trained to understand and empathise and rehabilitate unconscionable behaviour. It's a spiritual blindness and means she is so focused on empathising with the perpetrator she lacks compassion for the victim.

I couldn't agree more.

I generally agree with the mod's policy about leaving religion out of the discussion. However, your faith is your profession, your life and your experience. IMO you bring relevant and valuable expertise to the forum, as do experts from a wide range of other professions.

Thanks Bobbie, I really appreciate your kindness. I've always followed this forum throughout but rarely posted. I was so tempted to when the discussions were about the Pistorius family using (abusing) their faith to justify/affirm their actions but I refrained. Mainly because you make yourself a target and, if one comments in a professional capacity, even more so. Like you I think this faith aspect is an important part of how his family's mistaken understanding of their faith make them "enablers" of his anti-social behaviours. It is a common phenomenon.

Perhaps we should start a new thread on that aspect or is religion per se forbidden, I wonder?

 

[Ncl1968]

Wow...if a jury had seen this they would be shocked after all the time effort and delays it seems to me the judge has already made up her mind...
I had a flicker of hope that bail would be rejected.. alas.. i think sa justice is for the rich and famous and the next ordinary guy to stand in front of this judge will get a harsh lash out sentence... her hands were tied by a corruption called south Africa justice..
It does not sit well
We all know Oscar will walk we all know he murdered reeva....the world was waiting to see justice
They got nothing....
Shame on a country thats so beautiful to look at

 

[JuneBug67]

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.

 

[Sherbert]

Hello, a long time lurker here, decided to join to express my thoughts.

I think the outcome has been foreshadowed since the beginning of the trial. I remember Roux called State witness lying, and we heard nothing from Masipa. But when it's Nel turn to call Oscar a liar, Masipa reprimanded him. I have always found that bizarre. Why is it okay for Roux to call others lying, but it's not okay for Nel to do the same? The answer is obvious now - from the very beginning, Masipa has never believed in anyone's testimony other than Oscar's. That's why she is okay with calling others lying, but when it comes to Oscar, it's not okay.

Which brings me to my next point - so many people here had criticized Nel for not doing more - but really, if Masipa had already intended to throw away anything State was going to present, no matter what Nel did, it would not change her mind. The same way with those who believed in Oscar's innocent, no amount of logic, common sense, debate is going to change their perspective.

The saddest thing about this case is that, it is supposed to be about Reeva's death. However, her words were ignored, her screams were silenced, her presence was only an afterthought replaced by Oscar's tears, screams and puking.

I agree. I believe she had a closed mind from the start. So much so, that she didn't consider it necessary to ask questions which clearly demanded an answer, such as 'What does Mr Pistorius have to say about the damage to the bedroom door, Mr Roux?'

The question asked by Du Toit about the alarm was asked to assist OP - they wanted to establish that Reeva could have gone down to have a snack whilst he was asleep.

 

[mister happy]

I guess many of us feel as if My Lady Masipa wants to adopt Oscar as her very own grandchild. But at least we got the culpable homicide and firearm convictions from her. And, after thinking about it, I do see a possibility that she will give Oscar some jail time. The public pressure to do so could end up being enormous. Of course, there will be appeals and detours, with Oscar remaining free on bail the entire time, but maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. What do y'all think?

 

[fox1lady]

The article recently posted opines that he had to have perceived the act as unlawful for eventualis. So because the judge and assessors accept that he thought it was an intruder behind the door, and perceived a right to defend himself, he cannot have had the intent to kill as an unlawful act.

Even if he knew because he took the competency test that it was unlawful to shoot at people behind a closed door?

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

I wonder if Masipa is reading any of the new coverage, public and legal outcry because of her verdict, and questioning herself whether she's done the right thing? Or does she look in the mirror and think "you were absolutely 100% right"???

I sincerely hope that she gives OP jail time. But sadly, I doubt that she will.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Even if he knew because he took the competency test that it was unlawful to shoot at people behind a closed door?

The competency test also had a question about the visibility of your "target" and OP answered it correctly. You must be able to see your "target" - or something to that effect.

 

[Paul Connelly]

I guess many of us feel as if My Lady Masipa wants to adopt Oscar as her very own grandchild. But at least we got the culpable homicide and firearm convictions from her. And, after thinking about it, I do see a possibility that she will give Oscar some jail time. The public pressure to do so could end up being enormous. Of course, there will be appeals and detours, with Oscar remaining free on bail the entire time, but maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. What do y'all think?

Without the pressure coming down from her masters I fear a hurricane is about to extinguish the flickering light at the end of the tunnel. I pray I'm wrong.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Just watching Uncle Arnold's speech at the end again. <Shudder> Himself even said "It would be highly inappropriate to make any further statements at this time". WTF???????????? But it is appropriate to do it at that time?????

 

[Hope4More]

So, Reeva died for nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Reeva died for nothing.......what does that mean? How would finding OP guilty of murder - even if he was guilty- give purpose to her death?

 

[44ALLAN]

Not for me I'm afraid. I don't understand how the "even if he probably did so" bit squares with "subjectively ... did not foresee". Perhaps you can enlighten me?

ETA I think I can answer this for myself. Whether he probably foresaw is not important legally, it is whether he reasonably possibly did not foresee and acted regardless of the consequences that is at the heart of this. Masipa feels that the State did not plug this hole. He fired at the door but she cannot prove that, at the time, he reasonably possibly believed he would kill someone. It is the law that is the problem here.

The number of changes I keep making to this show how confused I am!

Well I'm sorry but the bit in bold highlighted by myself says it all really IMO.
If he fired at the door with someone behind it one shot could kill that person behind the door!
Who gives a flyin fXXX if he reasonably thought/expected he could kill the person behind the door..................it's so bloody obvious to anyone with a brain................4 talon bullets were going to wipe out anyone behind that door.................Masipa should be stripped of her Judiciary for even suggesting he couldn't foresee that happening .....even though he could see her and executed her AIMHO

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Just watching Uncle Arnold's speech at the end again. <Shudder> Himself even said "It would be highly inappropriate to make any further statements at this time". WTF???????????? But it is appropriate to do it at that time?????

Everything about this trial has just been so bloody bizarre!

 

[JuneBug67]

Even if he knew because he took the competency test that it was unlawful to shoot at people behind a closed door?

Apparently, yes. I don't know that having prior training or knowledge is sufficient to prove that he knew in that moment he was committing an illegal act. I think of all the things I did to earn my driver's licence for example - I drive every day but do I remember every concept and rule from the handbook I had to study? I don't. Actually wielding a gun in a perceived life threatening situation to the point of firing is not a typical situation, and many thoughts and emotions would be ahead of a test you filled out to get your gun license at some point in the past.

 

[tarjessi]

Wow so the South African courts say yes to domestic violence? What a *advertiser censored* - I am disgusted he is free. He had better not get back into athletics, surely no one would support a murderer walking free...

 

[44ALLAN]

Attorney Clifford Gordon believes verdict was correct.

Phew..................that's a relief !

 

[atthelake]

Just watching Uncle Arnold's speech at the end again. <Shudder> Himself even said "It would be highly inappropriate to make any further statements at this time". WTF???????????? But it is appropriate to do it at that time?????

I turned it off and i did not see that link please?
Tia

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2