So far - first hour - I must say the funny little Judge, who reminds me of the Rider Haggard stories, is making great sense and balance.

The more I hear, the better her analysis. My God, I wish she'd been the Judge and Jury on my case.

I am becoming a massive fan of this little judge; she is SO good!

NOT GUILTY of premeditated murder - brilliantly analysed by the judge (my new hero). She really is very good.

It was pretty clear from the very start that it wasn't premeditated, in a strict meaning of that term. She's an odd character - is she ill? She needs two hands to pick up a glass of water, then appears to need a break. And she can't seem to read her own typed report. Her general judgements so far are quite impressive (I hope MWT is taking note), but she's not covered much that's genuinely complicated in the context of this case. Okay, so OP didn't plan to murder his girlfriend. No surprise. The big decisions are yet to come.

Agreed Pru but she really does seem to be on top of detail; I think she's wonderful. As you point out - what an extraordinary, mad decision to go for "premeditated".

Oh she's good, yes. Just made to seem more surprisingly good, I fear, because of the poor standards of our own legal officials in recent times.

This has been such a strange case. OP must have known that someone in his bathroom was either an intruder or his girlfriend. His girlfriend was sharing his bed. When he moved to get out of the bed, it seems inexplicable that he wouldn't have checked that his girlfriend was still in the bed. Beneath the mass of detail, there's not a wildly difficult case here.

NOT GUILTY of Murder either.

Spot on Pru; you've noticed my implications that she is so much better than so many of our British courts.

The one thing I do query about her arguments is her claim - if I heard it correctly - that if you fire a gun in the direction of another human being you cannot be expected to have believed that there was the POSSIBILITY that it might have killed them. That's surely a very peculiar interpretation of what is a possibility.

No I think she has very accurately expressed that it is possible for someone to lose control of their actions if truly terrified (and especially when they are disabled in some way or other) so that the desire to protect oneself overcomes all normal thinking and replaces it by basic reactions. We'll see whether or not she has decided this was what happened or that it wasn't, and he SHOULD have anticipated disaster, after lunch. Whatever she decides I reckon she has illustrated first class thinking.

JK2006 wrote:
No I think she has very accurately expressed that it is possible for someone to lose control of their actions if truly terrified (and especially when they are disabled in some way or other) so that the desire to protect oneself overcomes all normal thinking and replaces it by basic reactions. We'll see whether or not she has decided this was what happened or that it wasn't, and he SHOULD have anticipated disaster, after lunch. Whatever she decides I reckon she has illustrated first class thinking.

Ah, okay. I still think she's erred for once away from what has otherwise been an admirably dispassionate evaluation there. Where is the proof of him being 'truly terrified'? You can't insert isolated assumptions whilst excluding them everywhere else.

She's taking into account HIS evidence (not saying whether she agrees or not but he is the only witness to the event and that's what he claims) plus, I imagine, the fact that he has no legs and would therefore behave differently to someone for whom "flight" is easier than "fight".

It's certainly refreshing that she's doing what the law is supposed to do and focus on facts and the proper definition of terms. I'm uncomfortable about the stress on the absolute sovereignty of the accused to provide a definitive judgement of their own intentions. In one sense, of course, it's true - only we can know for sure what we think and feel - but that doesn't mean that only what we say we thought and felt is true. On the one hand she's acknowledged he's a poor and fallible witness not incapable of lying, but on the other she's drawn a circle around his claims about intention and moved on. That's not an implausible move, and one should hope for someone to err on the side of caution, but I'm not sure, if treated as an absolute judgement rather than a somewhat indulgent act of faith, that any murder charge would ever be accepted unless there was the most unambivalent statement of intention extant.

Yes - in any case (particularly sex cases) - when there is absolutely no other evidence other than one (or two) peoples word, it has to come down to the opinion - in Britain, of twelve people; in South Africa, of one Judge.

But I think she's shown admirable sense and balance and we'll find out in a few minutes whether she has decided he is or isn't guilty of culpable homicide.

JK2006 wrote:
Yes - in any case (particularly sex cases) - when there is absolutely no other evidence other than one (or two) peoples word, it has to come down to the opinion - in Britain, of twelve people; in South Africa, of one Judge.

But I think she's shown admirable sense and balance and we'll find out in a few minutes whether she has decided he is or isn't guilty of culpable homicide.

Yes, an impressive performance in general. I'm no expert - obviously! - on the courts in that country, but I believe the pressure on officials there to be consistently precise in their interpretation, and application, of the principles of the system has cultivated a culture that is so much more resistant than ours, alas, to outside agenda and transient fashions. Much to be learned by the UK.

Incredible summing up of the culpable homicide. I think she is absolutely fantastic. My new hero of the year.

And talk about a cliff hanger. She's the Simon Cowell of Justice.

I suspect he'll be found guilty of culpable homicide. The Judge has been spot on so far with her analysis of the evidence and statements.

Well I thought the Judge handled it brilliantly and seems to have got it absolutely right. As Pru has mentioned - we can all believe British Justice should learn a lot by watching, listening and reading her conclusions.