+30

A judge being the one with the final word on cases may not need to be taken literally. Given the amount of work because of the number of cases a judge rules on, it is very difficult ruling on things, let alone adding to that being the final checker on depth. So, if I were a judge I would try to share this responsibility as much as possible, especially with parties of the case, by begin the issuing of rulings, whenever applicable, in a preliminary way and give time to receive responses. 

In addition to how adjacent posts in my blogs may not have any relation to each other, I want to emphasize here that the above is about judges who really try to be just and act in good faith and very far from those who gave that easy pass that cant deceive a monkey on a beyond reasonable doubt murder with  knowledge of the identity of the victim like those judges mentioned in the preceding posts. 

+29

Actually before thinking about competency, does the decision to acquit the guy from intentionally targeting the victim in her identity sounds like a decision one could make in good faith? If not, then regardless of how much an acquittal cannot be challenged, that would not apply here. That is because the rule, like any other rule, is about really doing the task and doing it with bias does not count as such. It does not count as real work just like kidding does not count as real.

+28

If there is something that is going to be presented to the court of appeal there, it should at least contain a challenge to the competency of the lower court because of how its acquittal verdict clearly shows that. The court of appeal needs to be shown that. It also needs to be told even if we assume a reasonable layman may see reasonable doubt in the intentional killing of the victim targeting her in her identity, a professional in the field, especially a criminal court judge, would be prevented from such mistake by recognizing how taking reasonable doubt to this level would render the judicial system useless. Indeed, if the allegations of the defendant here can make a reasonable doubt that he shot that girl targeting her then close the courts and open ice cream shops instead. Why bother? How many of all cases that ended with conviction to a defendant on this whole planet were not open to doubts at this level?  

+27

I can hardly believe that the version involving the victim hiding herself behind the bathroom door was really the best theory the prosecutor could have come up with for the events of that night. Most probably it was the result of intentional disfigurement to provide a less reasonable argument for a better excuse for the judge. Nevertheless, the intentional shooting of the victim targeting her in her identity was very clearly beyond any need for knowledge at this level for the events of the murder night for any reasonable person to have no reasonable doubt against it.

I think they tried to divide (or lose) the responsibility of the murder level corruption there and the above was in the prosecutor's part. I also read, like in HERE, that the judge of the lower court had told the prosecutor that he can appeal the acquittal but not the sentencing.

While one maybe light years away from seeing what is going on there as a good faith process, I still wondered why would she choose to allow the most important thing for the defendant to be challenged? That continued until I read in the judgment of the supreme court of appeal there that acquittals can not be challenged. So apparently it was also part of the dividing the responsibility game.

Remember, unlike the Zimmerman's court here where all what they had to do is to corruptly select the jury, in a no jury system, judges, need much better excuses for their corruption. 

+26

He speaks about a "competent" court, which imply performing at an acceptable level compared to other courts, while at the same time ignores how much below the average layman was the performance of the lower court in its alleged inability to see that the guy shot dead that girl intentionally targeting her. Being competent is about performing at an acceptable intelligence level. The decision of the  lower court acquitting the guy from shooting dead that girl intentionally targeting her was more like failing at the basic cognition level of a normal person. If, for example, a person solves fast a third degree algebra equation people would ask him how could he see the answer this quickly. On the other hand, if a person cannot see, for example, in two men standing close to him that one is taller than the other, people would ask that person what is wrong with him. The behaviour of that court in its acquittal of that guy was much closer to the second than the first of those two examples.    

Even assuming that, for some reason, acquittal cannot be appealed that does not give the decision there an exemption from being scrutinized for competency at least like how any other thing the court may do can also be scrutinized for that competency. Things are scrutinized for competency because of what they could indicate about and their potential roles in making main final decisions like that. The connection of the acquittal decision is even stronger because it is itself a main final decision.

In summery, based on what the supreme court of appeal there itself said, it is wrong in deciding that the acquittal cannot be appealed at least for the reason mentioned above. The acquittal can be appealed through its being also an extremely clear competency issue. 

+25

What about the behavior of that Supreme Court of Appeal there and its being complicit and part of the game in not reversing the acquittal that the guy intentionally shot dead that girl targeting her? 

In the link mentioned in the preceding post the writer says:  

"... as was observed by Corbett CJ in Magmoed[8] „the traditional policy and practice of our law‟ is that an acquittal by a competent court in a criminal case is final and conclusive and may not be questioned in any subsequent proceeding." (page 13)

 

What point there is in the difference in treatment for the state challenging acquittal versus the state challenging conviction to turn it to a worse conviction for the defendant?

Anyway, he spoke about a "competent court". The judgment of the acquittal here itself shows how the trial court was far from being competent.      

+24

Read "[15]", "[16]" and "[17]" (starting from page 9), related to the allegations of the shooter, in the JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA . As if by itself the allegation of blindly assuming there is an existence of an intruder not the person home with you in a probable place like the toilet area was already not sufficiently unnatural, improbable and conflicting with itself.