With what has happened with the verdict, I think it is interesting to look back at the Defence Heads of Argument at the section regarding Dolus Eventualis: Page 200 -210:
https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/defense-heads-of-argument.pdf
[RESPECTFULLY SNIPPED BY ME]
DOLUS EVENTUALIS
685. The question is whether the Accused acted with dolus eventualis or legal intent in relation to the death of the Deceased.
700.
Error in persona (mistake about the identity of the person) only finds application where an accused intended to kill the identified
specific predetermined individual but made a mistake as to the identity of that individual. His mistake will not constitute a defence.
701. Error in persona does not apply to the present case. Rather, what the State seeks to do is to introduce the doctrine of transferred intent/malice, which does not form part of our law. We deal with the doctrine of transferred malice/intent below.
702. We illustrate the above, with reference to three examples:
Example 1
702.1 The mother of a three year old little girl, her only child, heard a noise in the house early one morning. Her husband was away on business. She was a victim of a house robbery about 6 months before.
702.2 She armed herself with her licensed firearm and walked to the front of the house to determine the cause of the noise.
702.3 Her little girl, who slept in the room next door, woke up and went to her mothers bedroom. She closed the door behind her.
702.4 The mother heard the main bedroom door closing and feared that an intruder had entered her bedroom. She believed her daughter was still asleep in her own bedroom.
702.5 She heard a noise inside the main bedroom and feared that the intruder was coming out to harm them. It had previously happened to her in the house robbery.
702.6 She fired a shot into the door. Unbeknown to her, her daughter stood behind the door. The shot fatally wounded her daughter.
703. On the States reliance on error in persona, the mother is guilty of intentionally murdering her daughter as she wanted to kill the intruder or foresaw and reconciled herself that the intruder could be killed. According to the State, it is irrelevant that she definitely did not have the intention to kill her daughter and that she did not foresee or reconcile herself that her daughter was in the bedroom.
704. It offends against legal principles, our legal conviction and common sense, that in the absence of intent to kill her daughter, the mother must be convicted of murdering her daughter. (Her possible negligence is irrelevant in considering intention for purposes of murder.)
Thanks to Giles for posting this excerpt (I have snipped just this Example #1) from the Defense team's HOA regarding
Dolus eventualis "Error in Persona."
It is not hard to imagine Masipa and her assessors being stopped in their tracks by this tragic example of the Mother accidentally shooting her three-year old daughter, mistaking her for an intruder-- it certainly has given me pause for thought! And I am still struggling right now how the necessary acquittal for this accidental shooting would not necessarily extend to OP's version of his case... I am not always able to think as clearly as many of you, and do not have a legal background, so would appreciate some help with this.
If I were in the Judge's shoes and faced with this case as an example or precedent for my ruling in OP's case, how would I deal with the differences between the two cases?
I can only think, that in a circumstantial case such as this, you really must take ALL elements of the case into consideration-- just as Nel advised her to consider the entire "mosaic" of evidence in order to see the full picture. It's difficult territory, no doubt, if you pick things apart-- or look at things in the abstract-- in absence of clear intent, and compared to this example from the Defense, then yes, perhaps poor Oscar should be acquitted of murder for (presumably) accidentally killing "the (so-called) love of his life."
But good grief!! Other than the most basic facts of the two shootings-- there is no resemblance between the parties involved and their character and the nature of their relationship. This why Oscar's credibility (or lack thereof) should have played a more important role in the Judge's decision-- and why it is so pathetic that she would have granted any credence to his crying and praying to God in remorse after confronted with the finality of Reeva lying there dead, her head blown open by his own "Zombie Stopper" bullets.
No, sorry, Roux and company-- there really is no comparison. I am afraid it should have been more obvious to the judge that what happened to that poor Mother that night, was not the same story that went down on Valentine's Day in Silverwood Estates. Not the same at all, for so many reasons. The words "impossible" and "implausible" come to mind, but she chose to cherry-pick the evidence and accept the Defense's timeline without entertaining other plausible versions, such as bat first (and yes, I agree! Nel should have driven that version home with an accompanying timeline, but still not sure she would have entertained it, given the illogic of the ammo decision.)