Curlewis Opinion so Far
Curlewis speaking with Sky reporter Thomson regarding the judgement
Curlewis:
Remember from the outset you asked me what is the benefit of not having a jury system. Here's typically one example of the benefit so to speak. First of all obviously because she is a legal petitioner herself she cut to the chase she gets to the gist of it which I said from the outset is his state of mind because that will determine his fate.
From an objective test point of view obviously that will determine negligence.
Subjective test that will determine possible intention, which is the crux one of the elements of murder. That is where we are right now, hopefully in he next hour or two we will have a pretty good indication whether his versions is REASONABLY, POSSIBLY TRUE because if so he will get the benefit of the doubt and he will walk out scot free on that count.
If not, well, then you know...the other side of it!
Thomson:
In the first hour or so I would have thought that Gerrie Nel the Prosecutor and his team would have been looking on a bit anxiously as she cut away several of the mainstays of their argument.
Curlewis:
One kind of expected that but being the old chap that he is in this law sphere having done this a lot of time before, he looks relaxed. He was as some stage using his cell phone behind the bar and he looked relaxed ( ? ) that he's not too concerned with regard to the issue surrounding premeditation. I think that was is something the arsenal of the State that they threw in just for the sake of it.
But the real question before Court was ultimately whether dolus eventualis, which is one of the forms of intention, was applicable in this instance or not, and then ultimately also culpable homicide.
And the last remark by the Judge just prior to the short adjournment was the first ticket in the box of the State. It is not uncommon during a Judgement that the tendency is to sway from one side to the other from time to time only to find out at the end. oh wow! And this is where we are getting to.
Thomson Sky News then speaks of Judge Masipa's statement where she said that part of the evidence by Pistorius was inconsistent and that she would revert back to this later.
Curlewis:
His state of mind is ultimately the crux and the question before Court and this matter one way or another will depend a pronounciation specifically on that issue.
Thomson:
But the fact that he had taken the safety catch off and that he had armed himself with a gun doesn't necessarily, you say, mean, that it was pre-meditated, there could be intent but necessarily premeditation.
Curlewis:
Well the question obviously remains whether there are any other possible explanation for that specific facts under the circumstances. Let's compare it to the one example with regards to the cell phone in the bathroom. The Judge also said but there are other possible explanations and if that is so, he will have to get the benefit of the doubt.
END
l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
11th September 2014
