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

[jay-jay]

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.

Good post, especially the last para BBM. I'm absolutely astonished that she could've been taken in by a killer who put on the theatrics that OP did .. of course that's what murderers do, it's exactly what they do in order to try and convince people of their innocence! I simply cannot believe that a judge would be so stupid as not to know this .. and I think it's because she has, in the past, dealt with a different type of domestic violence .. ones where it is just plain and simple violence, without the manipulation, etc, so therefore she doesn't understand the mindset of someone like OP who is able to lie at the drop of a hat, or put on the 'showing remorse' theatrics (when actually, what it is is a transfer of emotions on the part of OP .. i.e. he is upset about his own future, but is able to transfer those emotions to be able to make them look as though he is upset that he killed Reeva). I think that SA is very behind in not understanding the psychology behind domestic abuse and violence, people are only just really beginning to understand it here in the UK, but we seem to be a lot further ahead it has to be said!

 

[Cherwell]

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

....... if you're lucky and avoid people like Oscar Pistorius

ETA and his brother, come to that

 

[whiterum]

A frightening thought: would the screams of Reeva have made any difference?

I don't see how. Masipa must still stick by the absurd finding it is reasonably possibly true he didn't even foresee killing. If he threatened her in the heat of argument, adrenaline pumping, grabbed his gun, confronted her so that she fled to the toilet and shot through the door - how is this saliently different to perceiving a threat, adrenaline pumping, grabbing his gun, confronting so that they fled to the toilet and shooting through the door. There is nothing to allow you to suddenly say differently, that in the case of it being Reeva and her screaming he must have foreseen the bullets may kill.

The trump card played by Masipa is this finding of fact. Not just casting of doubt, but a positive finding that "clearly" he did not foresee killing. She has provided no reasoning for this, she has not considered the objective evidence in making this inference - this is surely a failure of justice, and I would argue a question of law and its application, it appears she may well have incorrectly excluded objective evidence as a proper basis for making inferences about what must have been the subjective intention. I'd throw everything at this and appeal.

Even if there was someone else witnessing the whole thing at the time, she must have acquitted of murder by her same reasoning - "it proves he must have intended to shoot, but does not prove he intended or foresaw killing". This sets ridiculous legal precedent, as to how one should consider evidence in determining subjective intention.

Well said , an excellent post !!

 

[jay-jay]

....... if you're lucky and avoid people like Oscar Pistorius

.. yes, and now this case has set a precendent for many more woman to be allowed to be killed in DV situations, with no comeuppance .. life will not 'go on' for them, will it. This case is really important in terms of not setting precendents, and I really object to that type of glib, smug type comment '.. and life goes on ..'

 

[PrimeSuspect]

So what other trials are you following (now that the door has shut on this one)?

OT

I'm waiting for the Dewani murder trial to start soon, in SA too. Shrien Dewani is accused of orchestrating the murder of his new wife, Anni, while on honeymoon in South Africa.

I'm also following 2 other cases, yet to come to trial, Gable Tostee accused of the murder of Warriena Wright (a young woman he met on a dating site in the Gold Coast, Australia)

AND Heather Mack and her boyfriend Tommy, accused of the murder of Heather's mother, Sheila, in Bali while on vacation. Heather is 18 yrs old and repeatedly bashed her mother for many years.

 

[kittychi]

BIB .. definitely .. she did, didn't she. I believe she worked from a starting point of not wanting to give him any jail term at all (which we will get to hear about in Oct), and in order to be able to arrive at that she would have to convict him of the appropriate crime for which could warrant no jail term (i.e. CH, which is indeed what she did convict him of), then working backwards from there she was able to do a 'pick and mix' (i.e. throw out anything which didn't fit and just keep in all the things that did fit that conviction). She actually threw out tons of evidence, just totally disregarded it all, and without any real reason .. on the one hand she was quite willing to take OP's at his word for so many things, and without any proof whatsoever, and yet she was not willing to accept any of the evidence (some of it hard evidence) that in any way showed OP's guilt. It's just a complete nonsense, this whole trial has been a total farce .. and moreover, I'm am livid by JM's attitude towards the prosecution, she has shown no compassion for them whatseover and has actually been quite rude towards them in her manner these past couple of days .. typical bleeding heart liberal .. always got time for the perpetrator, and always so full of compassion for them, but never got time for the victim and couldn't really care less about them.

Sorry I am off topic here, but...

BBM: Not so much, really.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I now realise I did not post the link to the broadcast where it is said that an appeal is no longer possible. There were two broadcasts posted by Giles (fairly close together) and I thought JudgeJudi was referring to the second one. However, I was wrong. Here is the link to the relevant broadcast and if you listen from 8 minutes onwards you will see where the opinion is that Judge Masipa changed, by adding to her previous statement, the point in question from Error in Law to an Error in Fact which the prosecution is legally not allowed to appeal

8 minutes onwards (though the whole discussion is very interesting indeed).
https://soundcloud.com/giles-10/legal-round-table-after-verdict/s-u3guC

Thank you to Giles for the link.

 

[Susza]

Will the Dewani murder trial also be televised? Would anybody have any links that you could suggest allowing me to follow that trial?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

.. yes, and now this case has set a precendent for many more woman to be allowed to be killed in DV situations, with no comeuppance .. life will not 'go on' for them, will it. This case is really important in terms of not setting precendents, and I really object to that type of glib, smug type comment '.. and life goes on ..'

What's sad too jayjay, when the attention on OP dies down, in months and years to come we will hear in the news of the next round of 'mistakes' of OPs, another shooting, reckless driving where someone is injured or killed, nightclub fights etc. etc. and all we can do is shake our head. I don't believe this is the end of it but we will become to tired to care. (speaking for myself here)

His past escapades and the death of Reeva should give us an inkling into his future. :crystalball:

JMO

 

[Jake18]

.. yes, and now this case has set a precendent for many more woman to be allowed to be killed in DV situations, with no comeuppance .. life will not 'go on' for them, will it. This case is really important in terms of not setting precendents, and I really object to that type of glib, smug type comment '.. and life goes on ..'

It's not over yet. By now the judge will have realised that many SA criminal lawyers have questioned her application of the law. She'll have also learned that many laypeople have questioned her interpretation of the facts, although the former will matter more.
If OP has a light sentence the NPA will likely appeal, they've already discussed this.

And Oscar is a ticking bomb - what are the chances he'll manage to "behave" for another whole month?

 

[Feynman]

What I would like to know, were the gunshots and bat sounds proven to sound exactly alike? Was that proven without a doubt? Because Masipa seems to believe so. As I remember the tests reenacting the bat and gunshot sounds were done in an open field?! Masipa didn't visit the house, the scene of the crime??!!

:banghead:

Well Dr. Stipp, with his military and gun training, thought they sounded the same. He heard at least 6 "gunshots", which we know is not possible.

 

[Cherwell]

A frightening thought: would the screams of Reeva have made any difference?

I don't see how. Masipa must still stick by the absurd finding it is reasonably possibly true he didn't even foresee killing. If he threatened her in the heat of argument, adrenaline pumping, grabbed his gun, confronted her so that she fled to the toilet and shot through the door - how is this saliently different to perceiving a threat, adrenaline pumping, grabbing his gun, confronting so that they fled to the toilet and shooting through the door. There is nothing to allow you to suddenly say differently, that in the case of it being Reeva and her screaming he must have foreseen the bullets may kill.

The trump card played by Masipa is this finding of fact. Not just casting of doubt, but a positive finding that "clearly" he did not foresee killing. She has provided no reasoning for this, she has not considered the objective evidence in making this inference - this is surely a failure of justice, and I would argue a question of law and its application, it appears she may well have incorrectly excluded objective evidence as a proper basis for making inferences about what must have been the subjective intention. I'd throw everything at this and appeal.

Even if there was someone else witnessing the whole thing at the time, she must have acquitted of murder by her same reasoning - "it proves he must have intended to shoot, but does not prove he intended or foresaw killing". This sets ridiculous legal precedent, as to how one should consider evidence in determining subjective intention.

It's utter crap, and he condemned himself from his own mouth when he admitted that he didn't fire a warning shot because he feared the ricochet. That alone proves that he was thinking about his actions. How can anyone argue that he might be unaware that the effect of four dum-dum bullets fired into a small tiled enclosure would be likely to kill the person inside?

I was shocked that Nel did not make this one of his main points in his closing argument.

Not that it would have made any difference because I believe that corrupt influences were in play here.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Is that possible though? If there's been an error in law - which most SA lawyers agree there was - can you make a judgement based on this error (not eventualis) and then try to rectify things a day later? Presumably after the error had been pointed out to her?

I really have no idea but I definitely got the impression that not much could be done. You have listened to the same discussion as I and the eminent Processor Tuson was there. He is considered to be the most knowledgeable professor of law in SA. However, I thought it was indicated by the panel that they felt sure the prosecution would do absolutely everything to go to appeal. I don't think the NPA will leave the situation as is. If he is handed down a good sentence the state will accept it but, of course, OP can appeal that and there is a chance that another judge might set him free. What an unholy mess.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Will the Dewani murder trial also be televised? Would anybody have any links that you could suggest allowing me to follow that trial?

I'm wondering if it will, if OP's trial was considered a success, I'd say it's possible.

 

[whiterum]

I don't see the point in Nel trying to do anything, the Judge will rule against him on everything... it's clear OP can hardly do any wrong in her eyes. The only things I've heard her say against him are "you should have called security you naughty boy, you should have shouted out of the balcony, you shouldn't have been so evasive in cross examination... you were doing so well before that, listen to the questions next time and stop trying to have a debate... I don't think you were lying though so that's a good boy. Next time you get peed off with your girlfriend and want to shoot her though, wait until she's hovering above you in bed, you're more likely to get away with it then... much more believable!

You are right, the lady and her side-kicks have already made up their minds, perhaps even before the trial proceedings. Nel had done more than enough IMO to secure a murder conviction (he actually spelt it out in terms of the law word for word) at the very least, what else can he say now that would not fall on deaf ears. I wonder how she would expect a fellow Judge to rule if in similar circumstances her own daughter was shot to death and she had to view her lifeless body lying on a slab of ice with a hood to cover the large black hole in her head. Certainly not the ruling that she has seen fit to hand down which is a mere slap on the wrist!!!

 

[Cherwell]

You are right, the lady and her side-kicks have already made up their minds, perhaps even before the trial proceedings. Nel had done more than enough IMO to secure a murder conviction (he actually spelt it out in terms of the law word for word) at the very least, what else can he say now that would not fall on deaf ears. I wonder how she would expect a fellow Judge to rule if in similar circumstances her own daughter was shot to death and she had to view her lifeless body lying on a slab of ice with a hood to cover the large black hole in her head. Certainly not the ruling that she has seen fit to hand down which is a mere slap on the wrist!!!

I wonder if she does have a daughter, or a granddaughter perhaps, someone she cares about whom she would do anything to protect.

 

[Feynman]

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.

They believe his story is reasonably possibly true. That is a long distance from "believing" his story.

 

[cottonweaver]

.. yes, and now this case has set a precendent for many more woman to be allowed to be killed in DV situations, with no comeuppance .. life will not 'go on' for them, will it. This case is really important in terms of not setting precendents, and I really object to that type of glib, smug type comment '.. and life goes on ..'

Agreed, absolutely no appreciation of the impact of this ruling in terms of all the other similar cases in the future/awaiting trial. And with the stats showing 1 woman killed every 8 hours in SA........that's potentially a lot of cases in the pipeline.

Judge Masipa won't be unruffled by the current furore, however cloistered she has been against the media/public feeling during the trial - this is a career defining case for her. Even as a "layperson" to think anything else is naive.

 

[cottonweaver]

They believe his story is reasonably possibly true. That is a long distance from "believing" his story.

Let's hope for a stiff sentence then come Oct 13th and then we will know that is true.

 

[mirage1]

They believe his story is reasonably possibly true. That is a long distance from "believing" his story.

True, and that's bad enough. What an embarrassment for SA law that a judge could be fooled by such a terrible witness and fairytale.