Oscar Pistorius: Judge Delivering Verdict Live

[Saharapost]

The judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial, Judge Thokozile Masipa, seems to be unimpressed with evidences of most witnesses as she has begun to question "the reliability of several witnesses in court..."

According to the judge, "humans were fallible, and may not have heard gunshots or screaming as they thought."

The BBC reports that: "Judge Thokosile Masipa began by detailing the charges against the athlete and repeating extracts of his testimony, reading in a slow, measured way. She then moved on to a summary of the trial." BBC News - Oscar Pistorius trial: Accused 'inconsistent' on gunshots

I think Pistorius may walk scott-free today. This does not mean that he won't be liable for manslaughter or culpable homicide... So far, the judge's statement seem to be in favor of the defense.

EDIT:
Verdict seems to be taking a different turn as Judge says that Pistorius testimony was full of inconsistencies.
She continues reviewing evidence, testimony before verdict.
Judge: He knew where he kept his firearm and knew where the bathroom was." Inconsistent with lack of criminal capacity…"
Judge: Defence submitted that the accused could not be held responsible for a reflex action. I disagree with this submission.
Judge: The accused was a poor witness...
Judge: "The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder. There are not enough facts."
Judge: Pistorius cannot be guilty of murder.

Court goes on lunch break, will resume and may consider whether Pistorius should be guilty of culpable homicide.

[soliloquy]

The Judge is right to some degree...I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the verdict. But witness testimony is highly skewed. Witnesses are not nearly as reliable as we would like to believe. I've taken numerous courses regarding the psychology of witness testimony and I was personally surprised at how fallible it is.

Brain Games NATGEO actually covered eyewitness testimony in one of their episodes. Designed to test your memory, the first episode presents viewers with a mock-up crime scene. In a New York park, a man is mugged in broad daylight. The eye witnesses were adamant about what they saw and many of them were incorrect.

National Geographic: Test Your Brain Episode 1 - Pay Attention - Video Dailymotion

[LaterBloomer]

There's an interesting book, Picking Cotton which tells the true-life story of mis-identificatin which put a man in prison for a long time. The relation that ultimately developed between the accused and the accusor shows that there are lots of folks much nicer than I am.

[TMW2010]

There's an interesting book, Picking Cotton which tells the true-life story of mis-identificatin which put a man in prison for a long time. The relation that ultimately developed between the accused and the accusor shows that there are lots of folks much nicer than I am.

I use Picking Cotton as part of my section on memory in the Psychology class I teach. Witness misidentification of a suspect is not something I'd call truly rare, but the story behind what happened to Mr. Cotton goes way beyond that; especially when he identifies the real rapist while in jail, gets a new trial, and gets reconvicted with an even longer sentence. It really makes you question the reliability of your memory.

[alleycat]

The judge is being responsible by rendering her verdict. She is not saying he did not not do it, all she is saying how far did he go to commit this act. He will be held responsible but to what level remains to be seen. So sad someone daughter died due to domestic violence or someone irrational behavior and lack of judgement. So sad.

[TMW2010]

The judge is being responsible by rendering her verdict. She is not saying he did not not do it, all she is saying how far did he go to commit this act. He will be held responsible but to what level remains to be seen. So sad someone daughter died due to domestic violence or someone irrational behavior and lack of judgement. So sad.

I was up early this morning (actually, last night, because I hadn't gone to bed yet, so I was up late last night Semantics!) and watched a good chunk of the live broadcast. I am quite impressed with how the judge is basically going through everything step by step and noting if it's applicable, admissible, or extraneous. True, it's a tedious process for those who have been raised on the Law & Order series with here's 10 minutes of trial and viola! Verdict! The judge is being very (and necessarily) thorough and her comments on material (such as how telling how long food had been in the stomach wasn't an exact science or the possibility and plausibility that the victim got something to eat after dinner, and such) really make a lot of sense to me in the way she's approaching it. And she's being very even handed about it; she's criticized state witnesses whose stories don't match up, and she's criticized the Pistorius for being evasive during questioning.

Once again, I'm just impressed by how she's dissecting this and examining it to come to her conclusion and decision.

[alleycat]

Yes I think she knows a lot of eyes are on this case. More judges should be that mindful and thought in their decisions. He is guilty but to what degree.

On a person side when I had to bring someone to court a few years back. The judge (a woman) was extremely clear in how dhe ce to her ruling and findings. Noting everything that had transpired. Very happy with the out come.

[LaterBloomer]

It's funny. The judge I used to work for believed police even when I wouldn't have done so. When misdemeanor traffic offenses came up, she would give the defendant her complete attention, find him/her guilty, and explain her reason. When other judges came available to hear some of her holding cases, the defendants were resistant to being moved. I wanted to say to them, "flee, you have a better chance of a not guilty verdict with any other judge." They wanted to stay. She listened, and was respectful. Quite different from some of the trials that you see on TV.