Trial Discussion Thread #51 - 14.11.9, Day 41 ~announcement of the verdict~

[AJ_DS]

Here is another gem in Masipa's verdict…

- Mrs Nhlegenthwa heard a bang

- Mrs Nhlegenthwa heard a Help Help Help

- Mr Nhlegenthwa called security at 3:16:13

If that bang was a gunshot, then neither Mr Nhlegenthwa nor Mrs Nhlegenthwa heard the bat strikes which occurred a mere 9 meters away from their bedroom window through OP's open bathroom window… the Nhlegenthwa's were fully awake, alert and were able to hear OP crying and pleading… so the bat strikes would have been obvious to them had they occurred…

… furthermore the bat strikes occurred moments after the Help Help Help and before OP's phone to Stander at 3:19AM…

If that bang was a bat strike, then OP's version does not work at all

The ONLY way it can all work and also corroborate the evidence is that :

- Bat first around 3:02AM… not heard by the Nhlegenthwa's because they were asleep
- Gun second around 3:15… only last gunshot heard by the Nhlegenthwa's because they were asleep and woken up by the gunshots
- OP is lying

 

[Really?]

OMG, I am still shuddering about Masipa saying that if a person wakes up with a silhouette hovering beside their bed, it would be excusable and reasonable if the person shot and killed the silhouette person!!!

Absolutely . And yet she is the judge . A judge for that matter.
God bless America

 

[KarenUK]

There were plenty of us who questioned Judge Masipa's sympathetic treatment of OP when he was on the stand. So I don't know why someone implied it was just a 'few'. She adjourned almost every time there was a lip quiver, often asking him if he was feeling okay, while occasionally scolding Nel for seemingly being too tough on him, and even appearing to be concerned when OP rubbed his eyes.

Many of us voiced our feelings, and some posters suggested it was to make sure OP had no grounds for appeal. Many of us believed this (myself included), because the only other options were to believe that Masipa had been compromised, or was biased in OP's favour, or was just inept. I know which option I chose to believe, and I now think it was the wrong one.

I gave her the benefit of the doubt.... One of the key statements from her was whenshe allowed his psychiatric referral to be as an outpatient so not "to punish the accused twice".

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I gave her the benefit of the doubt.... One of the key statements from her was whenshe allowed his psychiatric referral to be as an outpatient so not "to punish the accused twice".

OMG, I forgot about that little nugget! He's NEVER going to be punished, that's the damn problem. :tantrum:

 

[AlwaysShocked]

My sympathy goes not only to Reeva's family but also to the general public in South Africa. Supposedly the decision to televise this trial was based on wanting the people to see that there is justice within the South African court system? And then they get THIS?

Here in the U.S. there still remains distaste for the outcomes in the O.J. Simpson trial and the Casey Anthony trial. With our system we can blame these outcomes on the jury.

In this Pistorious case, we are watching a judge discounting the sincere evidence of disinterested witnesses while she accepts the invented ramblings of a defendant she herself says was a poor witness. At one point, to me at least, it sounded like she said that just because the defendant lied about something doesn't mean you can't believe other things he said. Really?

I just recently read the book written by Natalie Holloway's mother, Beth Holloway. She describes in minute detail the attitude she encountered by the Aruban government officials after the disappearance of her daughter. This trial outcome kind of reminds me of that situation in a way. Joran Van der Sloot's parents had influence in Aruba. Joran had a known history - at age 17 - of drinking, gambling at casinos, and glomming onto pretty blonde tourists in the bars. All of which was ignored by the "powers that be". This was an older book, written long before Joran went on to murder another young woman in South America. Heartbreaking to read, in retrospect.

God knows, I hope there is a conviction announced tomorrow on the Culpable Homicide and the gun charges. If there is a conviction, how long until sentencing takes place?

 

[RosieC]

With Masipa's selective and creative interpretation of the evidence, one thing stands out as being a BIG problem…

- Masipa decided the bat strikes were the second set of bangs

- Masipa decided the bat strikes occurred moments after 3:17

Actually, and this is from memory: on Masipa's version the gunshots were about
… this means the gunshots were the first set of bangs and were heard ONLY by the Stipps

- Annette said that she heard the first shots around 3:02AM

… In Masipa's version, about 15 minutes separate the gunshots and the cricket bat strikes

What did OP testify as per what he did during those 15 minutes ?

Not much at all :

- He searched the bedroom briefly
- He tried to open the toilet door
- He shouted Help Help Help from balcony
- He put on his prosthetics
- He attempted to barge and kick the toilet door
- He grabbed the cricket bat from the bedroom
- He struck the toilet door with the bat

… as per OP's own testimony, he moved as quickly as he could and ran when he had his prosthetics on…

No reasonable person would say that this could possibly take 15 minutes… I challenge anybody to accomplish what OP said he did and take 15 minutes to do it… it's just not possible

- Furthermore, Dr Stipp said that immediately after the first set of shots, he heard a woman and man screaming

… at that time, OP did not know or even suspect that it could be Reeva in the toilet because he hadn't checked the bedroom yet !!!

One must hand it to Masipa for being able to overlooked and/or reject sooooo much damming evidence.

This is from memory, I was so gobsmacked I stopped taking notes. I think Masipa put the gunshots at about 3:12 - 3:14. The bat strikes must have been a couple of minutes later, and the phone calls a couple of minutes after that. It's not for nothing that Oscar is known as the fastest man on no legs.

A cricketer friend advises me that a cricket bat is an unsuitable instrument for banging through a door. The wood is soft and in two parts, hence likely to break.

 

[G.bng]

Not my opinion. James Grant a Professor of Law in SA, and he should know, I think.

And I am pretty sure in this country (UK) the same facility exists....if it's clear that the judge did not correctly apply the letter of the law, or showed signs of misunderstanding it, then that can be appealed. They just can't appeal because they don't agree with the verdict....it has to be an arguable and specific point of law.

IIRC, and I think I do, bench judgements can also be appealed if there has been a misinterpretation of the evidence and there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had it been interpreted correctly.

 

[Exchange973]

I think she misunderstood most of the evidence!

Let's just clear something up here. During a trial a judge will hear inconsistent evidence. The Defence case and the Prosecution case are inconsistent with each other. Heck, even the prosecution evidence, and defence evidence is internally inconsistent. The Judge had to pick one version to accept. She did. People here disagree. But that doesn't mean she has misunderstood anything - just that she disagrees with you. There is a difference.

She is the judge - and is a judge for a reason. Overall, her judgment must be accepted (unless it errs in law, in which case it can be overturned - but that's an argument for another day).

 

[G.bng]

It seems that Masipa rejected dolus eventualis because she didn't believe mens rea was proven by the State.

After the testimony of Sean Rens (firearms expert who assessed OP for his firearms licenses), I don't understand how Masipa can conclude that OP didn't know that shooting through a closed door is unlawful.

Are you sure it's actually "unlawful" or is it that it will generally be considered "unreasonable" and therefore negligent because the SA man who accidentally killed his very pregnant wife believing her to an intruder shot her through the bathroom door and was convicted of culpable homicide with 8 years suspended sentence. And I also recall reading of an SA woman who shot her husband through the door thinking he was an intruder when he returned a day or so early from a business trip and forgot to warn her.

 

[Hazy]

Here is another gem in Masipa's verdict…

- Mrs Nhlegenthwa heard a bang

- Mrs Nhlegenthwa heard a Help Help Help

- Mr Nhlegenthwa called security at 3:16:13

If that bang was a gunshot, then neither Mr Nhlegenthwa nor Mrs Nhlegenthwa heard the bat strikes which occurred a mere 9 meters away from their bedroom window through OP's open bathroom window… the Nhlegenthwa's were fully awake, alert and were able to hear OP crying and pleading… so the bat strikes would have been obvious to them had they occurred…

… furthermore the bat strikes occurred moments after the Help Help Help and before OP's phone to Stander at 3:19AM…

If that bang was a bat strike, then OP's version does not work at all

The ONLY way it can all work and also corroborate the evidence is that :

- Bat first around 3:02AM… not heard by the Nhlegenthwa's because they were asleep
- Gun second around 3:15… only last gunshot heard by the Nhlegenthwa's because they were asleep and woken up by the gunshots
- OP is lying

Unfortunately if she believes Op and the DT then she probably thinks the shots were fired at 3.12

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Are you sure it's actually "unlawful" or is it that it will generally be considered "unreasonable" and therefore negligent because the SA man who accidentally killed his very pregnant wife believing her to an intruder shot her through the bathroom door and was convicted of culpable homicide with 8 years suspended sentence. And I also recall reading of an SA woman who shot her husband through the door thinking he was an intruder when he returned a day or so early from a business trip and forgot to warn her.

But in both the examples you have stated, they only shot once, no?

 

[04009margaret]

James Grant @CriminalLawZA 47m
@EnemaGoblin Perhaps assessors didn't pick up error of law (assuming it was) because assessors are restricted to questions of fact.

 

[rachael123]

The only thing I can figure is the Judge thinks OP would have not shot if he heard her scream.Is she giving him the benefit of the doubt by discounting witness's.Then her bottom line will be it was an accident.

 

[Zuri]

Let's just clear something up here. During a trial a judge will hear inconsistent evidence. The Defence case and the Prosecution case are inconsistent with each other. Heck, even the prosecution evidence, and defence evidence is internally inconsistent. The Judge had to pick one version to accept. She did. People here disagree. But that doesn't mean she has misunderstood anything - just that she disagrees with you. There is a difference.

She is the judge - and is a judge for a reason. Overall, her judgment must be accepted (unless it errs in law, in which case it can be overturned - but that's an argument for another day).

Very well written. While I am not totally clear as to the rationale of the Judge's decision, she has had the input of the other assistants as well. It would be hypocritical of me to bash the Judge as I was impressed with her all along. I don't believe she has been bribed. I am waiting until the ruling is completed. I am sending prayers of strength to Reeva's family. Reeva will not be forgotten and will be remembered in many peoples' hearts. JMV

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Occam's razor principle is dead.
This verdict is more shocking to me than OJ's was and I didn't think it would be possible to bend the truth as to what happened the night Reeva was murdered by Oscar.

I'm so sad for Reeva and her loved ones. They must be beyond grief now. When I'm lost for understanding, I remind myself that God is not mocked.

 

[jacalyn]

Geezus, this judge is ALL over the freakin place!

Seems to be little method to her judicial madness.

Like she's picking one from Column A (hold the logic), one from Column B (he was so evasive he could only be telling mostly the truth), three from Column C (the poor dear was crying so hard and telling everyone who would listen It Was An INTRUDER!!!! over and over and over that no way did he commit murder) ... all served up with a side order of WTF.

And at the end of her verdict, she'll bust open a fortune cookie that reads "Your Lucky Day, Oz - Get Out of Jail Free Card!"

Unless she quickly proves otherwise, she's as bad or worse loose cannon than OP.

This is certainly NOT the judge I've been reading about.

Ditch dolus directus, fine, I'll go with that - the State could not prove premeditation.

But how the F can she so blithely and quickly discard dolus eventualis?!! It is beyond stunning.

This is simply BIZARRE and DISTURBING.

You answered one of my posts and informed me of the Judges record and gave me a little bit of hope. NOW that's down the drain when I see that YOU basically threw in the towel!, but thanks for a few day of positive feelings.

 

[Exchange973]

Does anyone have an ideas about the sudden adjournment, following a v brief bit after lunch (and after seeing Nel and Roux in chambers). All v. odd.

 

[04009margaret]

James Grant @CriminalLawZA 4h
Strange: Masipa correctly identified there was no question of transferred intent - its intention to kill no matter who he intended to kill.

James Grant @CriminalLawZA 6h
@vandortaj That's it - she seemed to confined her "error in objecto" point (that it's irrelevant who was behind the door) to Reeva.

James Grant @CriminalLawZA 6h
State can appeal legal errors. Arguably a legal error to restrict Dolus Eventualis to Reeva when it's irrelevant who was behind the door.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Pretoria - Lawyers and legal academics expressed surprise at the dismissal of murder charges against Oscar Pistorius on Thursday, with critics saying Judge Thokozile Masipa had been too lenient.

"I'm shocked," said criminal lawyer Martin Hood, after Masipa said the prosecution had not made the case for murder or premeditated murder.

"I think she's going to get quite a lot of criticism from the judiciary and the legal system," said the Johannesburg-based lawyer.

"The consensus is that she hasn't got it right."

"The consensus among the legal community was that he is guilty of murder. This could really open the door to systematic abuse of our legal system by people who shoot their partners and claim self-defence."


James Grant, Wits University criminal law professor James Grant noted the State could appeal if they believe there has been an legal error.

"Masipa doesn't accept that accused intended to kill anyone. Huh? His defence was he didn't intend to UNLAWFULLY kill," he tweeted.

"How can you voluntarily fire four shots into a toilet cubicle & not foresee the possibility of killing whoever was in there."

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...hocked-surprised-by-Masipas-judgment-20140911

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Agree totally with MeeBee. You come into my home unwelcome during the night and I am supposed to offer you cookies and milk...in THIS day and time? Why should anyone feel they have the right to break and enter and not suffer consequences of their own? Your reasoning is beyond me. Just wait until this happens to you once. You might change your mind.

Obviously, you missed my point. You, as the gun owner are responsible for your actions. If you shoot an intruder in self defense that will be investigated and charged as necessary or not. If you shoot a loved one by "accident" you should be held responsible whether you intended to shoot them or not. It's called being a responsible gun owner.