On September 11, Judge Masipa, abiding in the solemn deference of the court, seated herself in all her robed majesty and proceeded to deliver an accounting of justice. What then transpired will forever be a filthy rape of all that is good and decent. The disgraceful ruling in the very least puts her honor and integrity into question. The fumbling rhetoric that ensued was on a par with a struggling law student, grappling with concepts of law. It can be adduced that the lawless primate has either been bought or she is unfit to hold her office. It was not only legally irreconcilable with objective facts, but logically flawed. There are people sitting in jail right now for having killed an actual intruder in their homes. Sentenced for murder. Please tell me I’m wrong.
Masipa said of the accused:
“Clearly he did not objectively foresee that he would kill the person behind the door.”
“It could not be said that he [Pistorius] foresaw that either the deceased or anyone else for that matter might be killed when he fired the shots at that door.” –
If I have to explain the stupidity of the aforementioned statement then the beholder is not teachable by any persuasion. Masipa does not have mental powers that I do not. Masipa cannot possibly make a finding to Oscars intent. She has thus made the finding, entirely subjectively, on Oscars version. Even though she had to admit he was a poor and evasive witness.
Now, it must also be explained to Masipa, that in actual fact, an ‘intruder’ (armed or unarmed) locked in a bathroom cubicle is more vulnerable than a gun wielding amputee with his pistol fixed on the door. On his own version, Oscar cannot presume an ‘intruder’ to be armed. When he fired, the door was closed, thus the ‘intruder’ posed no possible threat and allowed no possibility for the ‘intruder’ to surrender or save himself. A finding of dolus eventualis is thus inescapable.
“Clearly, he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time.”
Here, Masipa again lets on her shaky understanding of dolus eventualis. The identity of the person behind the door has no relevance. The only thing that is clear, is that Masipa possesses extraordinary human powers, concluding that Oscar could not have reconciled himself to the possibility that his actions could be fatal. It seems necessary to state the obvious here. Such a grouping of shots did in fact kill a person, and if it was indeed a intruder behind the door, that intruder would have in all likelihood been killed as well. Somehow it counts in Oscars favor that it was, in hindsight, a defenseless woman behind the door.
Masipa was so moved by the evidence of Mister Stip as to deem it exonerating. The thought of Oscar weeping and praying to God over Reeva’s lifeless body apparently melt her heart. In the backward and disordered mind of the primate, genuine remorse after the fact must mean he was innocent. The judgment also sets a dangerous precedent for anyone with similar ideas. How hard can it be to tailor a story that could ‘reasonably, possibly be true’, particularly in South Africa, where home invasions are commonplace. What this really means: if there is one remaining witness to a homicide, the killer gets at most culpable homicide.
Any wild and elaborate story could be ‘reasonably, possibly be true’- not conceding that Oscars version even met this definition. It has the ring of high improbability according to public consensus.
Now Masipa needs to sit down with a legal expert and have explained to her, as though speaking to a child, that she is a moron, grossly incompetent in the field of law. My legal training consists of watching the trial on TV and relevant legal discussions. And therefore, yes, indeed I am better versed in the law than Judge Masipa. In light of this disgusting ruling, we should not withdraw from questioning Masipa’s integrity and possible role in the aiding and abetting of criminal conduct. Indeed, a thorough audit into Masipa’s financial affairs is in accordance with her suspicious ruling.