Yes imagine an Afrikaner making a decision on this case. I believe the SA system prevents a miscarriage of Justice purely because you have a second head with the requisite knowledge skill and reasoning in the required field. Reading comments on here during the Trial and people's inability to understand the salient points would prove that lay people would not have understood a lot of points purely because they are not educated to do so.Quite a few Assessors are Magistrates, if the Judge loses concentration, does not hear some evidence or does not understand scientific evidence what good would a Lay Person on a Jury be in this instance.
the line between guilty or not guilty of murder in this case was not based on any of the evidence. in fact it ignored all the evidence and was based on the word of the accused who was not honest with the court.
the judge saw fit to determine that she could know he intended to shoot but she could never know if he intended to kill.
despite the accused knowing the damage his firearm and ammunition caused to a watermelon and having been seen on film to be proficient with his aim.
and despite the accused knowing the law and having passed firearm licensing tests.
and despite the accused being in full control of his thoughts.
and despite the accused firing into a closet allowing the victim no chance of escape, and with the succession of wounds showing that she was not killed instantly, he stopped with the bullet that killed, and still had bullets to spare.
her verdict means that no-one can ever be found guilty of murder unless they admit it. but you think that is safe and correct.
the same judge has also made it impossible for police to prosecute people holding firearms and ammunition for which they do not hold a licence.
but you think that is correct.
I would say most primary school aged children have more common sense than this judging panel put together.
Ok, I don't really get this either but... Masipa mentioned "animus" which refers intent to use the ammunition to harm a person. As he didn't have a firearm with which to do that, and it was locked in a safe, she found that he did not have "animus", if I've understood it right.
The term ‘animus’ was used in the context of possession. In other words she argued he did not have the ‘animus’ or ‘intention’ to possess the ammunition.
My problem is she, or the assessors did not, or appeared not to have, looked at the obvious reason why he WOULD have intention to possess.
That is, he had a firearm on order that would discharge that calibre of ammunition.
For all the other firearms he had on order he had also ordered suitable ammunition at the same time.
So why did he not order .38 ammunition? Because he already had some in his safe perhaps?
In which case he clearly HAD intention to possess.
Makes a lot more sense than the idiotic excuse that it belonged to a father who didn't live locally and to whom he had not spoken to for years.
That obvious scenario did not even get a mention before they all set off on a journey to try and redefine possession itself as contained in an Act which is supposed to ensure the safe handling of firearms. Now Masipa has set a dangerous precedent by her judgement. One really has to question why when there was a much more obvious answer, the problem being of course she would have to have found him guilty in that case.
You've used my exact words to represent "a lot on here" which I would like to say I did not presume.
The reason I am not going to assert that Masipa got it wrong In this trial is that I haven't followed every word or explored every item of evidence thoroughly. I also don't have the tools to assess the legal arguments that Masipa has used.
I am puzzled about the verdict but recognise that I am not an expert - that's all I meant.
This article puts it quite well, I thought - Masipa has been visibly at pains to ensure a fair and compassionate reckoning for OP, and via a route that would seem to close down opportunities for appeal.
In sentencing, we may find Masipa giving a decent jail sentence, which OP will not be able to wriggle out of. If not, I'll be back to eat a few more hats!
It was not my intention to use your words or even reply to any specific post. My post was supposed to show how there is no need to apply any learned reason to a question when simple common sense will get the right answer. However common sense seems not all that common in the Pistorius judgement. for 'some reason'.
And those who think it is a ruse do so without reference to the phones evidence. The phone times were not disputed by the state at any point so there's nowhere to go with arguing they are wrong as it's just speculation.
The phones only establish a theoretical point of reference, not a factual time line.
The defense wants to demand precise time in order to muddy the case.
That would be the first thing I would do too, were I defending OP.
The phones only establish a theoretical point of reference, not a factual time line.
The defense wants to demand precise time in order to muddy the case.
That would be the first thing I would do too, were I defending OP.
If the times are not wrong then it does provide a timeline, yes. Why deny this? By all means claim that the times must be wrong but to say that they don't (in the context of the witness testimony) create a timeline seems like putting your head in the sand to avoid hearing something you don't want to hear.
It was not my intention to use your words or even reply to any specific post. My post was supposed to show how there is no need to apply any learned reason to a question when simple common sense will get the right answer. However common sense seems not all that common in the Pistorius judgement. for 'some reason'.
Ok, but I disagree. I would be horrified if I were to go on trial by jury without a judge and I suspect you would too.
If the times are not wrong then it does provide a timeline, yes. Why deny this? By all means claim that the times must be wrong but to say that they don't (in the context of the witness testimony) create a timeline seems like putting your head in the sand to avoid hearing something you don't want to hear.
Just catching.... up are we back to talking about Frank again?
Sorry, I’m now confused. Where did I say anything about a trial without a judge?
Maybe I'm off on one of my ramblings, sorry.
I was referring to your apparent support for the line of reasoning which a few posters have put forward, that is, you don't need learned, experienced legal minds when a bit of common sense will do.
If you didn't support that notion, accept my apologies for not keeping up very well!
Sorry, I’m now confused. Where did I say anything about a trial without a judge?
I waited for you to reply. Don't think anyone on here is talking about getting rid of the Judge, only the benefits of having Jurors or not. The Judge has an important part to play and brings his or hers expertise into play as needed. Jurors have the potential to bring more to the Table. It has been somewhat worrying that some Defence Experts and the Judge seems to occupy their own World and limited their exposure to the Outside. Human nature I guess to hang out where you feel safe and perhaps appreciated, or just an inevitable with the pace of change and mass / speed of communication now applying.
If the times are not wrong then it does provide a timeline, yes. Why deny this? By all means claim that the times must be wrong but to say that they don't (in the context of the witness testimony) create a timeline seems like putting your head in the sand to avoid hearing something you don't want to hear.
Where are you getting the idea "the times are not wrong?"
The defense came up with a different timeline in which Reeva could not have screamed.
Someone tried floating the idea that the prosecution accepted the defense timeline.
Stipp was sure of a woman's screams despite Roux's attempts to discredit him.
The defense supposedly had proof that OP screams like a girl.
I waited for you to reply. Don't think anyone on here is talking about getting rid of the Judge, only the benefits of having Jurors or not. The Judge has an important part to play and brings his or hers expertise into play as needed. Jurors have the potential to bring more to the Table. It has been somewhat worrying that some Defence Experts and the Judge seems to occupy their own World and limited their exposure to the Outside. Human nature I guess to hang out where you feel safe and perhaps appreciated, or just an inevitable with the pace of change and mass / speed of communication now applying.
I meant that if you want to test the notion that laypersons are more reliable to assess guilt by applying common sense than some legal minds from ivory towers using experience of the law, then imagine being on trial by a panel of your peers without a judge.
It was intended as a thought experiment, not to be taken literally.
That's not correct, that the judge (or juror) needs to be educated in the field of psychology. That's why experts are called in. Granted she needs to know precedents in cases in which defendants used mental illness or cognitive impairment as a defense. She has researchers for that.
You may as well say that a person, or even the judge, has to be an expert in handguns, or arsenic, or arson, or whatever case comes her way.
Easy startle in and of itself does not excuse a person from legal responsibility for murder.
OP was found fit to stand trial after a forensics evaluation.
The basic question is not, did OP have easy startle, but was he lying about not knowing it was his lover in the toilet?
In which case, there was no "easy startle" to consider.
I meant that if you want to test the notion that laypersons are more reliable to assess guilt by applying common sense than some legal minds from ivory towers using experience of the law, then imagine being on trial by a panel of your peers without a judge.
It was intended as a thought experiment, not to be taken literally.
I don't think anyone is saying that peers will know every legal fine points.
They will know the basics of the law in order to follow it, though.
For example, to most of us. a person who shoots four times into a small toilet accepts, at least at that moment, that they may kill the person there.
This article puts it quite well, I thought - Masipa has been visibly at pains to ensure a fair and compassionate reckoning for OP, and via a route that would seem to close down opportunities for appeal.
In sentencing, we may find Masipa giving a decent jail sentence, which OP will not be able to wriggle out of. If not, I'll be back to eat a few more hats!
I think that article is somewhat confused, and I cannot see how he deduces that Masipa will hand out a heavy sentence. Seems unlikely, and most of the comments below the article agree with me.
I meant that if you want to test the notion that laypersons are more reliable to assess guilt by applying common sense than some legal minds from ivory towers using experience of the law, then imagine being on trial by a panel of your peers without a judge.
It was intended as a thought experiment, not to be taken literally.
Ok. Think as a Juror I would want clarification where there is any uncertainty, but would avoid going down the Pedantic Route, particularly in areas my experience may in reality actually be lacking. That's another reason to retain a Judge.
I don't think we are at odds here, a Judge is necessary. Just demonstrating perhaps how others thought processes when brought to together, can cut through uncertainty and can lead to agreement.
I think that article is somewhat confused, and I cannot see how he deduces that Masipa will hand out a heavy sentence. Seems unlikely, and most of the comments below the article agree with me.
If she was going to hand out a stiff sentence, I doubt she would have kept him on Bail and asked Uncle to keep an eye on the Naughty Boy whilst pending sentence.
The writer is likely to want to believe that to balance his arguments. We will see.
Ok. Think as a Juror I would want clarification where there is any uncertainty, but would avoid going down the Pedantic Route, particularly in areas my experience may in reality actually be lacking. That's another reason to retain a Judge.
I don't think we are at odds here, a Judge is necessary. Just demonstrating perhaps how others thought processes when brought to together, can cut through uncertainty and can lead to agreement.
We're not at odds
My "common sense" tells me that someone firing those bullets etc. etc. would expect the person behind the door to be killed.
My lack of legal knowledge and experience tells me someone who has them should make the final decision as to how to interpret the accused's guilt for legal and sentencing purposes.
I think I've been unduly affected by the number and ferocity of "bah why do we bother with judges when all they do is fail to agree with us" posts.
I find your opinions rather odd. If you found the trial hard to follow, it doesn't mean others did.
You shouldn't judge others by your own confusions.
Studying psychology is a hobby of mine. I'm not a psychologist, but I've read many books up on it for years as I find it facinating.
You don't have a clue what people's experiences are in here, nor what education they may have. Plus, a person cannot learn common sense from a book, it comes from experience. A person with loads of initials after their names could have not an ounce of common sense.
What would your judgement be on a brain surgeon who practiced for many years turned out to be a paedophile?
I was referring to the debate on here during the Trial regarding Prof. Dermains evidence, not the level of intellect on here. Your last point is just nonsensical.
Yes imagine an Afrikaner making a decision on this case. I believe the SA system prevents a miscarriage of Justice purely because you have a second head with the requisite knowledge skill and reasoning in the required field. Reading comments on here during the Trial and people's inability to understand the salient points would prove that lay people would not have understood a lot of points purely because they are not educated to do so.Quite a few Assessors are Magistrates, if the Judge loses concentration, does not hear some evidence or does not understand scientific evidence what good would a Lay Person on a Jury be in this instance.
Neither Masipa nor her assessors understood even basic elements of the evidence, hence their need to discard almost all of it in favor of the most simplistic decision they could come up with. If it were not such a serious miscarriage of justice it would be laughable. Sorry, but there cannot be any high marks for the intellectual prowess of any of the three, they just failed plain and simple.
If she was going to hand out a stiff sentence, I doubt she would have kept him on Bail and asked Uncle to keep an eye on the Naughty Boy whilst pending sentence.
The writer is likely to want to believe that to balance his arguments. We will see.
I disagree. Remaining free on bail awaiting sentencing is standard. Going further though, if she grants him leave to appeal and grants bail while he is awaiting appeal that would be exceptional, unless he has a very good case for winning an appeal such as witnesses lying or astounding new evidence.
Comments
the line between guilty or not guilty of murder in this case was not based on any of the evidence. in fact it ignored all the evidence and was based on the word of the accused who was not honest with the court.
the judge saw fit to determine that she could know he intended to shoot but she could never know if he intended to kill.
despite the accused knowing the damage his firearm and ammunition caused to a watermelon and having been seen on film to be proficient with his aim.
and despite the accused knowing the law and having passed firearm licensing tests.
and despite the accused being in full control of his thoughts.
and despite the accused firing into a closet allowing the victim no chance of escape, and with the succession of wounds showing that she was not killed instantly, he stopped with the bullet that killed, and still had bullets to spare.
her verdict means that no-one can ever be found guilty of murder unless they admit it. but you think that is safe and correct.
the same judge has also made it impossible for police to prosecute people holding firearms and ammunition for which they do not hold a licence.
but you think that is correct.
I would say most primary school aged children have more common sense than this judging panel put together.
The term ‘animus’ was used in the context of possession. In other words she argued he did not have the ‘animus’ or ‘intention’ to possess the ammunition.
My problem is she, or the assessors did not, or appeared not to have, looked at the obvious reason why he WOULD have intention to possess.
That is, he had a firearm on order that would discharge that calibre of ammunition.
For all the other firearms he had on order he had also ordered suitable ammunition at the same time.
So why did he not order .38 ammunition? Because he already had some in his safe perhaps?
In which case he clearly HAD intention to possess.
Makes a lot more sense than the idiotic excuse that it belonged to a father who didn't live locally and to whom he had not spoken to for years.
That obvious scenario did not even get a mention before they all set off on a journey to try and redefine possession itself as contained in an Act which is supposed to ensure the safe handling of firearms. Now Masipa has set a dangerous precedent by her judgement. One really has to question why when there was a much more obvious answer, the problem being of course she would have to have found him guilty in that case.
It was not my intention to use your words or even reply to any specific post. My post was supposed to show how there is no need to apply any learned reason to a question when simple common sense will get the right answer. However common sense seems not all that common in the Pistorius judgement. for 'some reason'.
The phones only establish a theoretical point of reference, not a factual time line.
The defense wants to demand precise time in order to muddy the case.
That would be the first thing I would do too, were I defending OP.
If the times are not wrong then it does provide a timeline, yes. Why deny this? By all means claim that the times must be wrong but to say that they don't (in the context of the witness testimony) create a timeline seems like putting your head in the sand to avoid hearing something you don't want to hear.
Ok, but I disagree. I would be horrified if I were to go on trial by jury without a judge and I suspect you would too.
Just catching.... up are we back to talking about Frank again?
Sorry, I’m now confused. Where did I say anything about a trial without a judge?
I was referring to your apparent support for the line of reasoning which a few posters have put forward, that is, you don't need learned, experienced legal minds when a bit of common sense will do.
If you didn't support that notion, accept my apologies for not keeping up very well!
I waited for you to reply. Don't think anyone on here is talking about getting rid of the Judge, only the benefits of having Jurors or not. The Judge has an important part to play and brings his or hers expertise into play as needed. Jurors have the potential to bring more to the Table. It has been somewhat worrying that some Defence Experts and the Judge seems to occupy their own World and limited their exposure to the Outside. Human nature I guess to hang out where you feel safe and perhaps appreciated, or just an inevitable with the pace of change and mass / speed of communication now applying.
Where are you getting the idea "the times are not wrong?"
The defense came up with a different timeline in which Reeva could not have screamed.
Someone tried floating the idea that the prosecution accepted the defense timeline.
Stipp was sure of a woman's screams despite Roux's attempts to discredit him.
The defense supposedly had proof that OP screams like a girl.
Where was it?
Where do you get any evidence that the times were wrong?
It's not relevant how sure the witnesses were if their evidence is contradicted by other evidence.
They didn't need such a tape in the end, though probably shouldn't have promised what they didn't deliver, I agree.
I meant that if you want to test the notion that laypersons are more reliable to assess guilt by applying common sense than some legal minds from ivory towers using experience of the law, then imagine being on trial by a panel of your peers without a judge.
It was intended as a thought experiment, not to be taken literally.
excellent point bollywood
It's been pointed out that the ear witness evidence of persons who heard a man crying for help actually supported the prosecution's case.
Where did you get that idea from? It definitely doesn't.
I can't answer this but I just felt the need to say I love your posts and therefore I think I must love your brain Jezza!
A big thankyou from me for your contributions to this amazing thread.
I don't think anyone is saying that peers will know every legal fine points.
They will know the basics of the law in order to follow it, though.
For example, to most of us. a person who shoots four times into a small toilet accepts, at least at that moment, that they may kill the person there.
That is an example of common sense.
I think that article is somewhat confused, and I cannot see how he deduces that Masipa will hand out a heavy sentence. Seems unlikely, and most of the comments below the article agree with me.
Ok. Think as a Juror I would want clarification where there is any uncertainty, but would avoid going down the Pedantic Route, particularly in areas my experience may in reality actually be lacking. That's another reason to retain a Judge.
I don't think we are at odds here, a Judge is necessary. Just demonstrating perhaps how others thought processes when brought to together, can cut through uncertainty and can lead to agreement.
If she was going to hand out a stiff sentence, I doubt she would have kept him on Bail and asked Uncle to keep an eye on the Naughty Boy whilst pending sentence.
The writer is likely to want to believe that to balance his arguments. We will see.
We're not at odds
My "common sense" tells me that someone firing those bullets etc. etc. would expect the person behind the door to be killed.
My lack of legal knowledge and experience tells me someone who has them should make the final decision as to how to interpret the accused's guilt for legal and sentencing purposes.
I think I've been unduly affected by the number and ferocity of "bah why do we bother with judges when all they do is fail to agree with us" posts.
Yes, I know no-one said exactly that.
I was referring to the debate on here during the Trial regarding Prof. Dermains evidence, not the level of intellect on here. Your last point is just nonsensical.
Neither Masipa nor her assessors understood even basic elements of the evidence, hence their need to discard almost all of it in favor of the most simplistic decision they could come up with. If it were not such a serious miscarriage of justice it would be laughable. Sorry, but there cannot be any high marks for the intellectual prowess of any of the three, they just failed plain and simple.
I disagree. Remaining free on bail awaiting sentencing is standard. Going further though, if she grants him leave to appeal and grants bail while he is awaiting appeal that would be exceptional, unless he has a very good case for winning an appeal such as witnesses lying or astounding new evidence.