Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[Belgarion]

BIB: I don't think it was irrational. With what we now know the most obvious answer is she prejudged the trial or she was compromised in some other manner. She knew what she wanted and she picked the assessors to assist her.

If what you say about the judge's right to pick their own assessors is true, it makes a mockery of the fact the judge can be overruled by her assessors. Talk about preemption! Thank God we have juries in this country.

I was using ‘irrational’ in the sense of how her judgment appeared to the vast majority who were expecting fair and clearly understandable behaviour both in court and in the written judgment.

Unfortunately the court at times resembled a ‘comedy of errors’ appearing to be set in a land where men claim to scream like women and women scream like women thinking they are actually screaming like a man, where no body takes any responsibility for anything and even firearms miraculously discharge themselves. From the acting perspective there were dubious performances by the likes of Roger Dixon and Annette Verger and of course Masipa herself took the starring role as Pistorius’ Fairy Godmother.

 

[mrjitty]

I'm not so sure it's too far, I was trying to show restraint

I take your point about the legacy issues but I think she was a good judge. You look at some of her previous judgements and she was sound. I just think she allowed her empathy to overshadow her objectivity and further allowed it to pervert her logic and reasoning in her judgement to give him the lightest possible punishment. You may well be right re the legacy issues but I do think she purposely did what she did. Even if she had a misguided conscience judges are not allowed to let it influence how they apply the law and she failed miserably.

I agree with you as to the kinds of errors she made.

But I think that is in part because she is far too low end for this kind of case.

I think for example of one guy I know well who recently became a High Court Judge back home.

His legal analytical ability pisses all over Masipa. And beyond that, there is no advocate in NZ who can intimidate him because he is one of the top advocates of the last 20 years. he has see it all. he has won massive cases (and lost them).

Masipa was miles out of her depth.

It would be like asking a green provincial coach to manage the All Blacks in the world cup finals.

 

[mrjitty]

BIB: I don't think it was irrational. With what we now know the most obvious answer is she prejudged the trial or she was compromised in some other manner. She knew what she wanted and she picked the assessors to assist her.

If what you say about the judge's right to pick their own assessors is true, it makes a mockery of the fact the judge can be overruled by her assessors. Talk about preemption! Thank God we have juries in this country.

I actually asked a german judge about this aspect and it can be a real risk that the assessors are a trifle naive

Again - unless you actually earned your spurs in the High Court and Appeal Courts over a couple of decades, I don't think you have the experience for this kind of case

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The reign of Charles II (1660-1685) made wigs essential wear for polite society. They were a fashionable item for all gentlemen of wealthy and established social classes. By 1680 most judges and barristers wore wigs in court; they were simply following the fashion of the day. At that time they signified wealth and status.

Junior barristers wear a full black gown made of cotton or modern fabric. QCs/Senior Counsel wear silk gowns. The design derives from the style of mourning gown adopted by the Bar following the death of Charles II in 1685. .

http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules..._barristers_solicitors/04_barristers_wigs.htm

Traditional judicial garb imbued in a lay person a sense of solemnity and dignity of the law. This was regarded as particularly useful in criminal trials, where respect for authority may be lacking. Traditional garb sends a powerful if not forthright message to all participants in a proceeding. By setting a highly authoritative tone, the barristers’ attire commands a high level of professional respect for their skilled advocacy and the proceedings.

http://www.hearsay.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=677&Itemid=48

bbm

I think, nowadays it isn't useful anymore. Who would have respect? Criminals? Oscar? They would rather make fun of it. IMO

 

[Paul Connelly]

I was using ‘irrational’ in the sense of how her judgment appeared to the vast majority who were expecting fair and clearly understandable behaviour both in court and in the written judgment.

Unfortunately the court at times resembled a ‘comedy of errors’ appearing to be set in a land where men claim to scream like women and women scream like women thinking they are actually screaming like a man, where no body takes any responsibility for anything and even firearms miraculously discharge themselves. From the acting perspective there were dubious performances by the likes of Roger Dixon and Annette Verger and of course Masipa herself took the starring role as Pistorius’ Fairy Godmother.

It was surreal wasn't it? More Alice in Wonderland than Comedy of Errors though! I remember a few years back an elderly priest, a Kiltegan Father, visited my parish on a fundraising drive for his missionary work in Sudan. He spent his time in the pulpit covered by a huge map that rustled against his throat microphone and filled the church with white noise and had all those on the hearing-aid "loop" screaming in agony. He then proceeded to come down on to the sanctuary and demonstrate the difficulties the victims of land mines had by kneeling on the floor and shuffling around the sanctuary on his bottom. The congregation moved from screaming in agony to screaming with laughter.

When I saw Dixon with his props and his unique manner of presentation I was reminded of the hapless Kiltegan Father and thought it must be something to do with the hot African sun!

 

[Paul Connelly]

I agree with you as to the kinds of errors she made.

But I think that is in part because she is far too low end for this kind of case.

I think for example of one guy I know well who recently became a High Court Judge back home.

His legal analytical ability pisses all over Masipa. And beyond that, there is no advocate in NZ who can intimidate him because he is one of the top advocates of the last 20 years. he has see it all. he has won massive cases (and lost them).

Masipa was miles out of her depth.

It would be like asking a green provincial coach to manage the All Blacks in the world cup finals.

BIB: Lol I'm not even green provincial coach standard but I know for sure if I managed the All Blacks in the world cup finals against England, it would still be 56-3 to the All Blacks!

 

[Tortoise]

It was surreal wasn't it? More Alice in Wonderland than Comedy of Errors though! I remember a few years back an elderly priest, a Kiltegan Father, visited my parish on a fundraising drive for his missionary work in Sudan. He spent his time in the pulpit covered by a huge map that rustled against his throat microphone and filled the church with white noise and had all those on the hearing-aid "loop" screaming in agony. He then proceeded to come down on to the sanctuary and demonstrate the difficulties the victims of land mines had by kneeling on the floor and shuffling around the sanctuary on his bottom. The congregation moved from screaming in agony to screaming with laughter.

When I saw Dixon with his props and his unique manner of presentation I was reminded of the hapless Kiltegan Father and thought it must be something to do with the hot African sun!

Nel couldn't have been more derisive of Dixon and Wollie in his closing speech, he displayed the calibre of intellect that a murder trial demands of a judge and assessors.

 

[Paul Connelly]

I actually asked a german judge about this aspect and it can be a real risk that the assessors are a trifle naive

Again - unless you actually earned your spurs in the High Court and Appeal Courts over a couple of decades, I don't think you have the experience for this kind of case

Yes, I do see what you are saying. A top high court judge would never have been fooled so easily given their vast experience. It's more of a systemic failure. It's a wonder then that they don't have experienced Judges as assessors to guide the less inexperienced presiding judge. It seems madness not to. Another area of law reform that needs addressing?

 

[Tortoise]

Just the fact that Masipa didn't convict on the two other charges tells us all we need to know about her abilities.

 

[Tortoise]

So you are saying that when Roux stated that he would bring an expert witness to ‘testify that Pistorius screams like a woman when he is anxious’. That Ivan Lin proved this was the case?

Anyone know when Ivan Lin was commissioned to do his tests?

 

[Estelle]

"Oscar Pistorius’s family has lashed out at reports the Paralympian flirted online and declared his undying love for a leggy 30-year-old blonde Austrian woman while awaiting trial for killing Reeva Steenkamp.

MailOnline this week reported that a woman, identified as Nina F, struck up a friendship with Pistorius, who called himself “Liam”, when they communicated on WhatsApp and Instagram.

Nina told Germany’s tabloid newspaper Bild she fell in love with Pistorius over the internet, and claimed the Paralympian even told her he wanted to marry her."

http://www.msn.com/en-za/news/natio...onde/ar-BBnJk4C?li=AAaxc0E&ocid=mailsignoutmd

 

[Belgarion]

Just the fact that Masipa didn't convict on the two other charges tells us all we need to know about her abilities.

No more so is Masipa’s perverse logic demonstrated than in her ‘reasoning’ on the ammunition charge.

Pistorius says the ammunition belonged to his father and that he had no intention to possess it.

Based on this statement Masipa concluded as it belonged to his father Pistorius lacked the necessary animus to possess the ammunition.

The State countered by saying there was no proof that the ammunition was his fathers and to support this assertion told the court his father had actually refused to make an affidavit, confirming that the ammunition belonged to him. Thereby effectively removing the reason Masipa used to conclude Pistorius did not possess ‘animus’

Unbelievably, Masipa says this does not assist the state and finds Pistorius not guilty on the charge.

I believe the appropriate expression here is ‘go figure’

 

[mrjitty]

"Oscar Pistorius’s family has lashed out at reports the Paralympian flirted online and declared his undying love for a leggy 30-year-old blonde Austrian woman while awaiting trial for killing Reeva Steenkamp.

MailOnline this week reported that a woman, identified as Nina F, struck up a friendship with Pistorius, who called himself “Liam”, when they communicated on WhatsApp and Instagram.

Nina told Germany’s tabloid newspaper Bild she fell in love with Pistorius over the internet, and claimed the Paralympian even told her he wanted to marry her."

http://www.msn.com/en-za/news/natio...onde/ar-BBnJk4C?li=AAaxc0E&ocid=mailsignoutmd

Very interesting story isn't it.

Amazing they are not suing Bild/DailyMail

 

[JudgeJudi]

BIB: I don't think it was irrational. With what we now know the most obvious answer is she prejudged the trial or she was compromised in some other manner. She knew what she wanted and she picked the assessors to assist her.

If what you say about the judge's right to pick their own assessors is true, it makes a mockery of the fact the judge can be overruled by her assessors. Talk about preemption! Thank God we have juries in this country.

The judge chooses who to appoint as assessors and it is normally skilled people in law, such as advocates, retired magistrates, attorneys or professors in law. The assessors help the judge decide the facts of the case. The two assessors can “overrule” the judge when it comes to a verdict on the facts, based on the majority doctrine. This means that if the two assessors, for example, rule in favour of murder, or the judge and one assessor rule as such, that verdict will be the accepted one. Only the judge has the last say when it comes to decisions in law.

The judge alone decides on a suitable sentence, although it is not uncommon that presiding officers do sometimes discuss a sentence with assessors.

It’s interesting that it’s “normally skilled people in law, such as advocates, retired magistrates, attorneys or professors in law” and yet despite this, and despite how it was to be a showcase trial to the world, Masipa chose Themba Mazibuko, who was straight out of university, from the pool of assessors. How did this happen?

Henzen du Toit is another kettle of fish entirely. She has a BA honors degree in psychology and a master's degree in criminal justice and criminal prosecution. At the commencement of the trial she was working on her doctorate in criminal law, criminal prosecution, evidence and constitutional interpretation. Her thesis deals with the holistic approach to legislation on minimum sentences in SA.

Is there a reason Masipa chose du Toit? Unfortunately we'll never know the answer to that, but perhaps it had something to do with OP's disability. Many of us, and that includes people in SA familiar with Masipa’s style of judgment, felt that du Toit may have written the judgment. Masipa stumbled a number of times when reading it, amending it on the fly as if it was the first time she’d read it – which I find odd considering she took close to 6 weeks to prepare it.

Did she choose someone (du Toit) she hoped or expected would agree with her views? That leaves the guy straight out of uni. Is he going to disagree with a High Court Judge and the assessor Advocate Janette Henzen-Du Toit who has a BA honors degree in psychology, a master's degree in criminal justice and criminal prosecution and who, at the beginning of the trial, was currently working on her doctorate in criminal law, criminal prosecution, evidence and constitutional interpretation? Hardly. He never uttered one single word during the entire length of the trial. An inference can be drawn here. Was he chosen in the hope that he would “go with the flow” because he certainly doesn’t fit the description of those mentioned above. It seems that way to me.

As far as Masipa doling out 2 harsh sentences in the past, that’s 2 out of how many cases? Judges who are renowned for harsh sentences don’t gain that reputation based on 2 trials. I think the media led us to believe that we could expect that in this trial, and we were bitterly disappointed. She wasn’t on the ball a lot of the time. Do you remember when Nel stood up in court and wished her a happy birthday? That’s a highly unusual thing to do. At the end of the day, Masipa thanked Roux for his birthday wishes. Huh?

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-trial-judge-appoints-assessors-1.1646332#.VnkYfjFuk4k

 

[Tortoise]

No more so is Masipa’s perverse logic demonstrated than in her ‘reasoning’ on the ammunition charge.

Pistorius says the ammunition belonged to his father and that he had no intention to possess it.

Based on this statement Masipa concluded as it belonged to his father Pistorius lacked the necessary animus to possess the ammunition.

The State countered by saying there was no proof that the ammunition was his fathers and to support this assertion told the court his father had actually refused to make an affidavit, confirming that the ammunition belonged to him. Thereby effectively removing the reason Masipa used to conclude Pistorius did not possess ‘animus’

Unbelievably, Masipa says this does not assist the state and finds Pistorius not guilty on the charge.

I believe the appropriate expression here is ‘go figure’

There is only one crumb of comfort amongst this whole mess she created - we got to witness it. I have seen their blindness. She and her assessors were incapable of finding him guilty. Now that must have come from a place of not requiring any trial of the facts at all. People are scared for some reason of saying it or thinking it.

 

[JudgeJudi]

No more so is Masipa’s perverse logic demonstrated than in her ‘reasoning’ on the ammunition charge.

Pistorius says the ammunition belonged to his father and that he had no intention to possess it.

Based on this statement Masipa concluded as it belonged to his father Pistorius lacked the necessary animus to possess the ammunition.

The State countered by saying there was no proof that the ammunition was his fathers and to support this assertion told the court his father had actually refused to make an affidavit, confirming that the ammunition belonged to him. Thereby effectively removing the reason Masipa used to conclude Pistorius did not possess ‘animus’

Unbelievably, Masipa says this does not assist the state and finds Pistorius not guilty on the charge.

I believe the appropriate expression here is ‘go figure’

Judge Greenland said he'd never heard of animus being used the way Masipa used it. This tells us something doesn't it? It seems the only offence where she agreed with the State was Tashas. I guess if you have a number of witnesses in a crowded restaurant it does tend to make it a little difficult to find him not guilty. The fact that Roux only stated towards the end of the trial that his client had changed his plea was just simply outrageous.

 

[Belgarion]

There is only one crumb of comfort amongst this whole mess she created - we got to witness it. I have seen their blindness. She and her assessors were incapable of finding him guilty. Now that must have come from a place of not requiring any trial of the facts at all. People are scared for some reason of saying it or thinking it.

You may well be right. Otherwise this is how it should have happened….

Pistorius: It’s not my ammunition it belongs to my father.

Masipa: And is your father going to back you up on that?

Pistorius: Well, actually, no

Masipa: In that case, guilty as charged

 

[Belgarion]

Judge Greenland said he'd never heard of animus being used the way Masipa used it. This tells us something doesn't it? It seems the only offence where she agreed with the State was Tashas. I guess if you have a number of witnesses in a crowded restaurant does tend to make it a little difficult to find him not guilty. The fact that Roux only stated towards the end of the trial that his client had changed his plea was just simply outrageous.

Well if she had found him not guilty on that count there would be a real possibility of firearm enthusiasts in SA celebrating the ‘Miracle of the Immaculate Discharge’ in Tashas every year and Pistorius would be on his way to becoming St Oscar

 

[lisasalinger]

The judge chooses who to appoint as assessors and it is normally skilled people in law, such as advocates, retired magistrates, attorneys or professors in law. The assessors help the judge decide the facts of the case. The two assessors can “overrule” the judge when it comes to a verdict on the facts, based on the majority doctrine. This means that if the two assessors, for example, rule in favour of murder, or the judge and one assessor rule as such, that verdict will be the accepted one. Only the judge has the last say when it comes to decisions in law.

The judge alone decides on a suitable sentence, although it is not uncommon that presiding officers do sometimes discuss a sentence with assessors.

It’s interesting that it’s “normally skilled people in law, such as advocates, retired magistrates, attorneys or professors in law” and yet despite this, and despite how it was to be a showcase trial to the world, Masipa chose Themba Mazibuko, who was straight out of university, from the pool of assessors. How did this happen?

Henzen du Toit is another kettle of fish entirely. She has a BA honors degree in psychology and a master's degree in criminal justice and criminal prosecution. At the commencement of the trial she was working on her doctorate in criminal law, criminal prosecution, evidence and constitutional interpretation. Her thesis deals with the holistic approach to legislation on minimum sentences in SA.

Is there a reason Masipa chose du Toit? Unfortunately we'll never know the answer to that, but perhaps it had something to do with OP's disability. Many of us, and that includes people in SA familiar with Masipa’s style of judgment, felt that du Toit may have written the judgment. Masipa stumbled a number of times when reading it, amending it on the fly as if it was the first time she’d read it – which I find odd considering she took close to 6 weeks to prepare it.

Did she choose someone (du Toit) she hoped or expected would agree with her views? That leaves the guy straight out of uni. Is he going to disagree with a High Court Judge and the assessor Advocate Janette Henzen-Du Toit who has a BA honors degree in psychology, a master's degree in criminal justice and criminal prosecution and who, at the beginning of the trial, was currently working on her doctorate in criminal law, criminal prosecution, evidence and constitutional interpretation? Hardly. He never uttered one single word during the entire length of the trial. An inference can be drawn here. Was he chosen in the hope that he would “go with the flow” because he certainly doesn’t fit the description of those mentioned above. It seems that way to me.

As far as Masipa doling out 2 harsh sentences in the past, that’s 2 out of how many cases? Judges who are renowned for harsh sentences don’t gain that reputation based on 2 trials. I think the media led us to believe that we could expect that in this trial, and we were bitterly disappointed. She wasn’t on the ball a lot of the time. Do you remember when Nel stood up in court and wished her a happy birthday? That’s a highly unusual thing to do. At the end of the day, Masipa thanked Roux for his birthday wishes. Huh?

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-trial-judge-appoints-assessors-1.1646332#.VnkYfjFuk4k

Thanks for this JJ... I whole heartedly agree the assessors were strategically picked, not for their legal prowess, but to fill two empty chairs and let Masipa rule.

 

[mrjitty]

Judge Greenland said he'd never heard of animus being used the way Masipa used it. This tells us something doesn't it? It seems the only offence where she agreed with the State was Tashas. I guess if you have a number of witnesses in a crowded restaurant it does tend to make it a little difficult to find him not guilty. The fact that Roux only stated towards the end of the trial that his client had changed his plea was just simply outrageous.

That interpretation was clearly incorrect

That's even before you get into the whole jurisprudence as to how these kinds of regulatory offences tend to have either strict liability or liability is strictly interpreted.