Originally Posted by musing:
“Difficult to know to what degree Masipa felt slighted by the SCA judgement. She did seem terse in her dealings with Nel at sentencing and sentencing appeal.
It seems Masipa had a problem fully accepting the crime is murder and not CH, and this is reflected in her sentencing. This view is perpetuated by others who continue to claim this crime is some sort of murder-lite or a toss-up with CH. The SCA judgement makes it patently clear that the killing was wholly the result of wilfulness, neither justified nor involuntary, and that it cannot be characterised as negligence.”
“Difficult to know to what degree Masipa felt slighted by the SCA judgement. She did seem terse in her dealings with Nel at sentencing and sentencing appeal.
It seems Masipa had a problem fully accepting the crime is murder and not CH, and this is reflected in her sentencing. This view is perpetuated by others who continue to claim this crime is some sort of murder-lite or a toss-up with CH. The SCA judgement makes it patently clear that the killing was wholly the result of wilfulness, neither justified nor involuntary, and that it cannot be characterised as negligence.”
Judging by the looks she was giving him during the leave to appeal hearing such as here Nel was in grave danger of being turned to stone!!




