I completely agree with all of this post. I have highlighted the praying as this really got my back up during her judgement and was why I posted the other day about Judge Masipa being deeply religious, which makes me wonder if this is why she mentioned this. It is completely different from Dr Stipp who was merely relaying in evidence what he heard OP saying. The way she described how upset he was after the event certainly made me feel she fell for his acting and lies hook, line and sinker and as you say emotions should never be considered when deciding the innocence of a defendant.
Well, I hate to say it but there are only two ways that I can interpret Masipa disregarding ALL of that evidence... She is either incredibly dense or incredibly corrupt. I know that is controversial, but that's my honest opinion.
As for her taking in to consideration his crying and praying as an indication of innocence... that is so incredibly unprofessional. Judges and juries should NOT take the emotions of the accused in to consideration when determining a verdict, as I stated in my blog post. That is something that you only consider during the sentencing phase.
Every single person who has committed murder has a reason to put on an act. Some are better at it than others. I could cite hundreds of cases were the accused is publically crying, calling 911, acting distraught, etc to save their tail... only to be found guilty based on the facts of the case. On this point alone, I lost every ounce of faith in this Judge.
I know we've got the transcript of the judgement now but I haven't read it yet -
if she accepts there was negligence does she also accept he perceived his life to be in danger? if that is the case, why did she reject PPD?
my brain is beginning to hurt^_^
I think she rejected it as a "not guilty" defence , but accepted that it was the cause of the incident and the context in which he was acting , she basically accepted that it was reasonably possibly true that he acted in that set of circumstances.
I just have serious problems accepting that a trained gun user , aware of the ammo his firearm employed ,shooting in such small space, did not foresee that it could have resulted in death of another human being , even in his own scenario.
I would more easily accept negligence if the accused just happen to find a gun nearby and shot in fear , not knowing where he was shooting , what pistol it was , what ammo and so on.... essentially.
" What is not conjecture, however, is that the accused armed himself with
a loaded firearm when, on his own version, he suspected that an
intruder might be coming in through the bathroom window. He was not
truthful when asked about his intentions that morning, as he armed
himself with a lethal weapon. The accused was clearly not candid with
the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone, as
he had a loaded firearm in his hand, ready to shoot.
However, as stated above, untruthful evidence does not always
justify the conclusion that the accused is guilty. The weight to be
attached thereto must be related to the circumstances of each case. (S
v Mtswene 1985 (1) SA 590 (A)). "
did anyone else think she jumped from pre-meditated straight to dolus eventualis?
pre-meditation is not a prerequisite for a finding of dolus directus
I got the impression that her aim way to condense her findings so much that we were left with no option but to come to our own conclusions as to the why's.
Imagine having to explain why she has dismissed every individuals evidence that testified including not only prosecution experts but defense experts who gave evidence that was not in OP's favour.
In fact there was as more evidence gleaned from the defense witnesses that favoured the prosecution than it did OP.
In order to clear OP of murder she had no choice but to totally diss every witness and evidence to the contrary.
You could not make it up
I mentioned this over in The Trench but I think they were all dozing so I'll ask in here.
Sorry if it has already been talked about but I am way out of date with this thread these days!
The recent nightclub incident, was it OP who said he was friends with Zuma? Or was it the other bloke he had the kerfuffle with?
I was just wondering if Zuma was a moominballomin he may have 'spoken' to Masipa if you get my drift?
" What is not conjecture, however, is that the accused armed himself with
a loaded firearm when, on his own version, he suspected that an
intruder might be coming in through the bathroom window. He was not
truthful when asked about his intentions that morning, as he armed
himself with a lethal weapon. The accused was clearly not candid with
the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone, as
he had a loaded firearm in his hand, ready to shoot.
However, as stated above, untruthful evidence does not always
justify the conclusion that the accused is guilty. The weight to be
attached thereto must be related to the circumstances of each case. (S
v Mtswene 1985 (1) SA 590 (A)). "
it is a mass of contradictions isn't it? The more you read it the less sense it makes.
I have an idea. There were reports that the trial went on so long it accumilated thousands of pages.
If the judge disregards most of the trial, then she doesn't have to go through all the evidence again to reach a virdict. ;-)
Spot on. If M'lady believes that the case will be reviewed anyway then what was the point in her writing endless reports for a month when she could be sat back sucking her worthers originals?
" What is not conjecture, however, is that the accused armed himself with
a loaded firearm when, on his own version, he suspected that an
intruder might be coming in through the bathroom window. He was not
truthful when asked about his intentions that morning, as he armed
himself with a lethal weapon. The accused was clearly not candid with
the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone, as
he had a loaded firearm in his hand, ready to shoot.
However, as stated above, untruthful evidence does not always
justify the conclusion that the accused is guilty. The weight to be
10 attached thereto must be related to the circumstances of each case. (S
v Mtswene 1985 (1) SA 590 (A)). "
OP said in his xexam that he had no intention to use the gun but the judge correctly concluded that if you set off cocked with one up then you do so with no other intention than to use the weapon - if you need to.
I mentioned this over in The Trench but I think they were all dozing so I'll ask in here.
Sorry if it has already been talked about but I am way out of date with this thread these days!
The recent nightclub incident, was it OP who said he was friends with Zuma? Or was it the other bloke he had the kerfuffle with?
I was just wondering if Zuma was a moominballomin he may have 'spoken' to Masipa if you get my drift?
I mentioned this over in The Trench but I think they were all dozing so I'll ask in here.
Sorry if it has already been talked about but I am way out of date with this thread these days!
The recent nightclub incident, was it OP who said he was friends with Zuma? Or was it the other bloke he had the kerfuffle with?
I was just wondering if Zuma was a moominballomin he may have 'spoken' to Masipa if you get my drift?
He was reported that OP said ( if I remember it properly ) " My family own SANDF" and also, " I p*ss on Zuma"
Comments
What a brilliant find! Well done!
He definitely says, 'She was everything'.
It is so blatantly inept that the only conclusion that I can come to is that Masipa must have felt embarrassed to read "her" findings out
Amazing isn't it. And it doesn't matter how many times you try it you can make him say whichever phrase you choose. Just by willing it.....
Spooky
I may need a glass of wine.....maybe.
But,
What are you talking about matey?
That's amazing. Mind you, I still hear she wasn't breathing!
I think she rejected it as a "not guilty" defence , but accepted that it was the cause of the incident and the context in which he was acting , she basically accepted that it was reasonably possibly true that he acted in that set of circumstances.
I just have serious problems accepting that a trained gun user , aware of the ammo his firearm employed ,shooting in such small space, did not foresee that it could have resulted in death of another human being , even in his own scenario.
I would more easily accept negligence if the accused just happen to find a gun nearby and shot in fear , not knowing where he was shooting , what pistol it was , what ammo and so on.... essentially.
I have an idea. There were reports that the trial went on so long it accumilated thousands of pages.
If the judge disregards most of the trial, then she doesn't have to go through all the evidence again to reach a virdict. ;-)
here is a puzzling extract -
" What is not conjecture, however, is that the accused armed himself with
a loaded firearm when, on his own version, he suspected that an
intruder might be coming in through the bathroom window. He was not
truthful when asked about his intentions that morning, as he armed
himself with a lethal weapon. The accused was clearly not candid with
the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone, as
he had a loaded firearm in his hand, ready to shoot.
However, as stated above, untruthful evidence does not always
justify the conclusion that the accused is guilty. The weight to be
attached thereto must be related to the circumstances of each case. (S
v Mtswene 1985 (1) SA 590 (A)). "
Even if you try to hear "she was everything"?
But because the author tells you what he/she thinks he is saying it's already implanted in your brain IFSWIM.
And what does it add really
I got the impression that her aim way to condense her findings so much that we were left with no option but to come to our own conclusions as to the why's.
Imagine having to explain why she has dismissed every individuals evidence that testified including not only prosecution experts but defense experts who gave evidence that was not in OP's favour.
In fact there was as more evidence gleaned from the defense witnesses that favoured the prosecution than it did OP.
In order to clear OP of murder she had no choice but to totally diss every witness and evidence to the contrary.
You could not make it up
Sorry if it has already been talked about but I am way out of date with this thread these days!
The recent nightclub incident, was it OP who said he was friends with Zuma? Or was it the other bloke he had the kerfuffle with?
I was just wondering if Zuma was a moominballomin he may have 'spoken' to Masipa if you get my drift?
This porky.
This can apply to either side of the arguement.
And thank you for calling me matey. I mean that considering all the stick I've given you. ;-)
it is a mass of contradictions isn't it? The more you read it the less sense it makes.
Well, I haven't listened to it thousands of times.
The first time I heard she was everything, but thereafter I kept hearing she wasn't breathing.
Spot on. If M'lady believes that the case will be reviewed anyway then what was the point in her writing endless reports for a month when she could be sat back sucking her worthers originals?
Free your mind....;-)
Never said it added much, but I find it fascinating.
OP said in his xexam that he had no intention to use the gun but the judge correctly concluded that if you set off cocked with one up then you do so with no other intention than to use the weapon - if you need to.
there's this article here
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/07/15/pistorius-in-club-fracas-after-insulting-zuma-family-report
He was reported that OP said ( if I remember it properly ) " My family own SANDF" and also, " I p*ss on Zuma"
Something like that
Hey it's all good. Wasn't trying to make to much of that audio. More for fun really.
Porky's Fun Time Corner.
Claire you are a star, thanks again
Yep just refreshed my mind and had a read of the article. He really is a dick.
Thanks, Booty