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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sky News special on right now examining the relationship OP had with Reeva.

ETA - it's more of a look back at his early life.
 
"Among her comments, Judge Masipa, who has acquitted herself well throughout the trial, noted that Pistorius’s defence of his crime can “reasonably possibly be true”. The evidence against Pistorius for premeditated murder was “purely circumstantial”. He did, however, act negligently because “a reasonable person with a similar disability would have foreseen that the person behind the door would be killed, and the accused failed to take action to avoid this”. Those words are hollow because a reasonable person never would have been in such a situation in the first place."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/12/oscar-pistorius-verdict-reeva-steenkamp-defence-implausible?CMP=fb_gu
 
ApplesInMyBra said:
"Among her comments, Judge Masipa, who has acquitted herself well throughout the trial, noted that Pistorius’s defence of his crime can “reasonably possibly be true”. The evidence against Pistorius for premeditated murder was “purely circumstantial”. He did, however, act negligently because “a reasonable person with a similar disability would have foreseen that the person behind the door would be killed, and the accused failed to take action to avoid this”. Those words are hollow because a reasonable person never would have been in such a situation in the first place."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/12/oscar-pistorius-verdict-reeva-steenkamp-defence-implausible?CMP=fb_gu
Click to expand...
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!!!
 
Apples, here's david Dadic on foreseeabilty:

"Where I do think she erred is that she said there was no intention to kill, irrespective of who the victim is, which is dolus eventualis. I believe the state had proven the case for eventualis in the fact that Oscar was looking to kill by using bullets, by the door being closed, by the size of the bathroom - these are object effects which one could see as an object of intent."

Q.You said the judge should expect an appeal. Why is that?
A. "A few people have said, and I agree, that she's interpreted the law regarding forseeability incorrectly. The foreseeability test applies to eventualis, and not to culpable homicide. So from that point of view, if the state feels she applied the law incorrectly in terms of section 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the state can appeal the decision based on the wrong application of law by the judge."
 
cottonweaver said:
Apples, here's david Dadic on foreseeabilty:

"Where I do think she erred is that she said there was no intention to kill, irrespective of who the victim is, which is dolus eventualis. I believe the state had proven the case for eventualis in the fact that Oscar was looking to kill by using bullets, by the door being closed, by the size of the bathroom - these are object effects which one could see as an object of intent."

Q.You said the judge should expect an appeal. Why is that?
A. "A few people have said, and I agree, that she's interpreted the law regarding forseeability incorrectly. The foreseeability test applies to eventualis, and not to culpable homicide. So from that point of view, if the state feels she applied the law incorrectly in terms of section 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the state can appeal the decision based on the wrong application of law by the judge."
Click to expand...

Thank you! I have a great respect for David Dadic and I do hope that they appeal!
 
People, people, people! Why not just do a search and see exactly what the psychiatric report said instead of continuing to argue it back and forth? The report did NOT say Oscar suffers from GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder). Not then and not now.

What they DID say her suffers from is PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). These are two different disorders with two different sets of symptoms.

Sheesh!


"The report reads: "At the time of the alleged offences, the accused did not suffer from a mental disorder or mental defect that affected his ability to distinguish between the rightful or wrongful nature of his deeds."

During today's hearing, the court heard how Pistorius is 'severely traumatised' following Miss Steenkamp's death and is suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-read-3798864

----------------------------

If Mr. Nel believes, as do several other respected South African law professors and lawyers, that this judge has made a blatant error of law, I cannot imagine him NOT appealing. Why ever would he not? It would be his JOB (or that of his office in the event of his retirement) to pursue the case, would it not?

This seems to not be a case of these experts needing to ponder the judge's thinking for some amount of time to decide that perhaps MAYBE she made an error. This is that the minute they heard her state her reasoning they were saying, "Wait! Whoah, no, that is incorrect and here's why."

Hey, judges make errors. And we've just seen a big one. Usually, though, it is not in a case which was just broadcast live with probably thousands of lawyers watching it.
 
6qigkw.jpg
 
I’ve just been browsing some of the thread history as I catch up with last couple of days.

Although I’ll certainly have a laugh about the Driving Miss Daisy etc analogies and some seriously funny quips by posters, no-one’s under any illusion of how serious this case is.

It’s interesting that a few posters are mocking the dissent about Masipa’s ruling as if there was pure prejudice. (Ie. "We" are so entrenched in our opinions that "we" can’t respect her verdict, although we had previously marvelled at her composure, inscrutability and projected* many qualities onto her- bar a few disquieting moments that posters raised regularly times over the last 5 months. (That* is natural anyway- there’s less background available on her than there is on Nel.)

No-one wants to be right simply for the sake of being right – except maybe in the playground. ( In my experience those who are always right, are, until they’re wrong.)

Also, SA only has two top female judges so it just doesn’t make sense that so many posters want her to be wrong, incompetent, biased or worse corrupt. We have a lot of female WS posters, I guess, and a female victim although of course it’s not really about gender in anyone’s book - but yes she could've been a new role model in SA.

Posters are disappointed, the SPA are disappointed, I’m finding more legal eagles in that same camp, (sure I have found a few that say she got it right.) Steenkamps will be feeling further crushed.
Obviously I want to see the full report that she read an extract from but realistically I’ll never get to read/wouldn’t have the time to read the boxes of court records that we didn’t see.

Nonetheless judges have been wrong, the law is never static and cases like these can show up problems in current law, Prof Grant says some of the legal intricacies are very tricky. Error in objecto and aberratio!! Jeez.

We can assume a lot, had a lot vested in Masipa, as though like Nel, she would provide Truth & Justice. The SA public,-OP fans -have already had their “New South Africa hero” destroyed by his unmasking. Must feel like a double-whammy for them.
The wheels on this justice wagon will keep on turning, slowly, and although it’s deeply dissatisfying at the moment we might get there in the end. Let's see what pans out- one thing I've noticed WSers are good at is perseverance.

Anyway still “hoping for more” and a just final conclusion!

earnest moment over - keep the funny pix coming!!!
 
JuneBug67 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have trouble with your claim that "this verdict absolutely flowed from reason". Sure, it should be a minimal requirement of the job that a judge be a clearer thinker than most of the unwashed masses. But plenty of legal experts have faulted the judge's finding of CH vs. DE. (I am not talking about her finding re the intentional murder of RS. That was always problematical.) I would wager some of these experts, including a few of the best legal minds SA has to offer (so it is said), are more gifted in the thinking department than is Masipa.
 
I think nel will try and argue that a hard sentence would prevent any appeal that is so forthcoming
Just a thought
 
very naughty - but definitely laugh out loud!
Seriously my pure assumption (!) makes me feel this judge is integrity personified and I sincerely feel so bad for her if she really has got it wrong!
 
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
 
Soozieqtips:Why is there a cheeseburger in the RH corner?

Surely one WSer can crack this secret code?
 
Ncl1968 said:
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
Click to expand...

Could be one or both assessors were bribed, and hence influenced Masipa's thinking. Just a thought.
 
no, i think masipa is the type of judge we all dread.

One that is driven by emotion and not logic.

The fact she thinks Oscar is innocent LITERALLY because he had a cry afterwards, speaks volumes.

I don't mean to be insulting, but when a female judge reinforces this sad stereotype of women, i think she kind of set things backwards for women.
 
vanatos said:
no, i think masipa is the type of judge we all dread.

One that is driven by emotion and not logic.

The fact she thinks Oscar is innocent LITERALLY because he had a cry afterwards, speaks volumes.

I don't mean to be insulting, but when a female judge reinforces this sad stereotype of women, i think she kind of set things backwards for women.
Click to expand...

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/
 
Any truth in the rumours that instead of a car Masipa drives around on a Cherry picker?.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 147 more.
Total: 380 (members: 148, guests: 232)

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
232
Total visitors
380
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,475
Messages
18,239,993
Members
234,385
Latest member
johnwich
Back
Top