Protesters from both sides were gathered outside the courthouse when the verdict was read.[88] Judge John Horn ruled that there was no evidence that Mahlangu had been acting in self-defence, and that the murder had been committed for financial reasons.[88] Although Mahlangu claimed that he had been raped, Horn declared that if that was the case he should have raised it immediately, which he failed to do. He also claimed that he had been acting in retaliation because he had been living in an "appalling condition... not fit for human habitation," as well as having experienced child exploitation on the farm.[86]