To have a problem with the Trial Judge in the Pistorious case

[Charliebitmyfinger]

I think it has been hugely irritating to listen to her summing up today. She has stumbled over words quite a lot and been quite longwinded in the issues of the lesser Firearm charges OP was accused of, I actually fell asleep(not kidding). I woke up an she was still droning on about the Restaurant incident. Then... She gave the verdict we have all been waiting for.... Culpable Homicide. But that part was so brief one could almost have missed it. Surely she could have prepared her statement last night and could have been a little more polished or does the Court hand her the statement as the session started this morning? Excuse my ignorance of The SA Courts. I also do not understand her reason behind extending OP's bail. I am not questioning her judgement as that could be a separate thread. I just think her delivery has been fairly clumsy today..

I have not said any where that it was an entertainment show, but I do admit that I just found it hard to keep up and follow, ( and that is MY problem, as I am not very legally minded). I would be pretty scared to be on a Jury on a murder trial but I imagine there would be plenty of officials to guide and advise, (I am sure I am not the only person to feel this way TBH)

So many people took to Twitter yesterday having a go at Judge Masipa for "going on too long" and posting comments that they couldn't believe he was found not guilty of murder because they don't understand the SA legal system and seemed to be blissfully unaware of the culpable homicide aspect.

I actually was very impressed by her yesterday. She has clearly pulled the evidence apart, seen what fits, what doesn't, what is too circumstantial to be considered and will be well aware that she has millions of people waiting and watching.

I do think the whole Pistorious trial has been a bit of a circus and that it hasn't shown SA justice in a good light.

But it's worth bearing in mind that on the whole when we see legal summings up we generally see the highlights brought to us by the media rather than the live uncut version, as it were, so cannot possibly judge whether this summing up has been any more or less stumbled than any other in a similar situation, iyswim.

She's a judge not a performer and you were under no obligation whatsoever to watch it. She's not under any obligation to keep it to a 22 minute format to allow for messages from her sponsor and the viewing publics attention span.

I think she did very well in terms of the content, her setting out of the detailed arguments and reasoning, even if we might not agree. I think the odd fluffed line is inevitable with such a complicated judgement but I agree that there is no excuse for repeatedly losing place in papers (today and yesterday), having to stop and refer back to previous pages, not being sure what charge you're talking about and having to correct yourself. I'm not as senior or in the legal industry, but I am a professional in my field, if I had done the same in delivery of my judgements to the recipients I would certainly have expected some adverse feedback from my seniors. It's all about contributing to a sense of credibility and it IS a performance in my view.

Agree the televising is not for entertainment purposes, the Judge has to be detailed using case law as to how she reached her conclusion and not just - "he's guilty because he's arrogant/his eyes are too close together".

Another point is that I believe her first language is Zulu. Although she obviously has a good grasp of English required to work in the SA judicial system, the emphasis of sounds in certain words (e.g category, plethora) is different to that of a person who has used English as their first language for the duration of their life.

Btw, she didn't skim over Count 1; she dealt with that yesterday.

Didnt she prepare a 100 page document for the summing up overnight? I think shes rather amazing actually.

The verdict has to come from the evidence. There is no evidence that he intended to shoot her (contrary to my opinion btw).

Yes, member, I believe her first language is not English. I also believe she insisted on typing the whole thing herself and not giving it to any assistant or clerk to ensure nothing leaked out.

Her ruling - and that of the two 'assistants' alongside her, seems very thorough and she was very careful to quote precedent in other cases and continually referred back to the burden of proof is on the state, not the defence, and that while there MAY have been evidence to back up their proposition, it was mostly circumstantial, in which case there was reasonable doubt on a LEGAL basis. She may well, in private, have a different view, but she HAS to follow legalities.

I am a barrister and have seen many judges delivering judgments by reading them out. Mostly they put them in writing (and don't read them) if they're going to be as long as this one was! I have only seen clips of the judge delivering her verdict and reasons, but she seemed to be making a pretty decent fist of it to me. I don't think I have ever witnessed a judge reading out a judgment without stumbling over some words or losing their place in the papers and having to find it again. Having to read out such a lengthy judgment under the scrutiny of television cameras must have been very difficult.

I would also say that, unless you have followed a trial intently all the way through, hearing all the evidence, parts of the judgment are likely to be confusing or unintelligible to you - particularly if you are not a lawyer.

She's a lawyer, not an actress. Some judges manage to be Thespians too but it's not part of the job description.

DH said she was drawing it out for the free lunches. He is South African though... It doesn't portray them in the best light. Having lived here for a long time he just despairs.

Notnew, i reckon she privately thinks he is a woman abusing, murdering bastard, she seemed to rather strongly dislike him. She has to convict on evidence, and finding him not guilty of murder if that isnt what she thinks, shows exactly why she was the right woman for the job.

I have just seen a ridiculous article written by a black woman in the Guardian despairing at the outcome and bringing the race card into play. How an abusive white man can get away with murdering a woman.

Pistorius never claimed the supposed intruder was black (although that could be inferred due to crime statistics). But to denigrate a black female judge for doing, actually, a bloody good job and sticking to the legal framework, is out of order.

Masipa certainly made no attempt to hide her opinion of Pistorius as an actual witness. And her very detailed reasoning will give the state plenty to pour over should they wish to appeal.

She seemed nervous, she must be aware that she's being watched around the world by millions of people. No wonder she stumbled over a few words really.

Legal argument is long-winded and tedious.

I remember when I did jury service - the judge's summing up, oh my god, it went on for DAYS but that's the law and they have to observe it.

I liked the bit where she said the court had come to a "unanimous" decision. Um, she was the only one making the decision. A bit as to how it could be anything other than unanimous.

I too found the reference to the word "court" rather odd when she is a judge acting alone. It is just not a good form of justice to have a single judge in my view and it is rarely used here. We have a jury with a judge for this type of trial, thank goodness. The prosecutor was a total showman and was very aggressive at times. The whole thing was not a good advert for SA law and the judge has discounted a lot of evidence in favour of Oscar P's version of events. I definitely prefer the jury system to a judge acting alone.

How many languages do you speak, OP?

Yes, YABVU. Legal judgements are all long and can be extremely boring and extremely detailed.

When was the last time you read one?

FFS, it's a real trial. The fact it is being broadcast should not affect how they are actually like.

I liked the bit where she said the court had come to a "unanimous" decision. Um, she was the only one making the decision.
She had two assessors assisting her to reach the decision.

Lawyers / judges / solicitors / legal people are not famed for getting to the point. They never use one word where 10 will do.

Why? They usually are paid hourly.

MsAnthropic where have I made any comment re her linguistic skills?? It just seemed to my inexperienced ear ( and if you had read the thread you will see that I have said that) that she was unprepared, but as someone has pointed out here she was working on a 100 page document the preceding night and she had to be meticulous. There is no need for the vitriol

Maninawomans world that is also a perception which many people who are not part of the Legal profession share. But I had not thought that in this particular case

Court proceedings shouldn't be televised. It makes it too much of a media circus. They should however make all transcripts public for those that are found guilty.

There is no evidence that he shot her on purpose and he is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Since there's is no proof of his guilt, it defers back to him being innocent. Though he should (and is) getting charged with manslaughter.

There will be thousands of non legal people with opinions on this tonight and I do feel it would help if broadcasters could explain briefly how the system in SA works, I did t know that her 2 assessors helped her in reaching the decision I thought it was the Judge's sole decision which counted.

Good point Bulbasaur, I have not watched much on TV because I felt it was sensationalised like the OJ Simpson trial particularly on Sky some New Channels...

Was it at the OJ trial that the judge started sobbing and made some public appeal to his wife about how much he loved her?