Err no. I was pointing out that a "well documented temper" was no such thing. It never featured in court.
Remember it's real evidence I'm talking about not tabloid evidence and the bias that followed the river of bile that poured OP's way before the trial even began.
Also remember Masipa found only that he was untruthful about his intent to shoot which ironically supports a PPD.
Just because a few loud mouths keep shouting liar still doesn't make it so.
You are still getting this wrong and I'll explain why.
Intention to shoot does not account for reason for shooting. It can be shooting to murder or shooting in self-defence.
Masipa did not establish in her judgement that when he shot he shot in PPD.
So no one is with you on this - not even Masipa! - not Roux, the DT, the PT, or the bench of judges at the SCA.
That is why :-
Roux asked at the SCA - so why did he shoot? He knows PPD was not established by the trial court.
The DT tucks in a couple of paragraphs at the end of the appeal saying - the finding that he intended to shoot MUST be considered in view of the finding that he believed his life was in danger. There's a clue in there somewhere (if you look hard enough) that it just wasn't an explicit finding of the trial court.
Yet you persist in regularly asserting that his evidence of not shooting in PPD is supplanted by Masipa's finding of intention to shoot.
If you have an argument as to why you are right, not just that you are right, then state it. Otherwise it looks as if you are maintaining a view without justification, that you are not open to considering the real merits of the case.