Obviously it is going to be difficult for supporters of premeditated murder to come to terms with the fact that the evidence for premeditation has been rejected and see DE in that light.
I would rather be guided by the evidence presented in court.
If you mean that, then you will necessarily have to believe that Masipa got it wrong.
The evidence presented in court was that he didn't mean to fire. Since that is an absolute nonsense, if one fears an imminent threat to their life, it means he hasn't accounted yet for purposefully firing 4 shots.
When Masipa found that he could not rely on a defence of PPD because he said he did not intend to shoot, she should have thrown out his evidence completely, on the basis that his version was not reasonably possibly true. That is the only natural conclusion to draw, that the State proved its case by his failure to give a reasonably possibly true account for the shooting. There is no reason for you not to see that too as an observer of the trial.
Fortunately for justice though, it meant that the State could appeal, and see proper justice done securely in a higher court.
He is not going to be able to overturn the verdict of the SCA. I would even go as far as to say the DT knows this, and knew it at the SCA hearing. It's a lost cause.
It is evident in the appeal to the ConCourt and it was evident in Roux's last half hour of argument at the SCA - when he said wtte 'why would he shoot at 3 in the morning if he didn't honestly believe his life to be in danger?' He recognised that Masipa's verdict was not conclusive on the matter and I would argue, not logical. She found he had no claim to PPD, yet didn't reach the only logical verdict - that of murder, and not murder of the bogeyman, but murder of Reeva because the version was a lie.
The SCA asked Nel if a lack of a known motive was a bar to a finding of murder. Of course it wasn't. That doesn't mean that anyone has to wonder why he would shoot a perceived intruder if he didn't fear for his life - it means, when stuck with Masipa's erroneous finding that he was afraid of intruders (for which there is only the word of the killer and which cannot be overturned by any court in the land), that he has been found by the SCA to have killed with criminal intent and given no credible explanation. You aren't forced to think that this isn't logical, you can view it in the light that he hasn't been believed - his version did not withstand the scrutiny of the SCA judges, and the majority of the public who heard the evidence. All it means is that he hasn't got a defence of PPD, so if you think logically, he didn't think there was an intruder. That only leaves his 4 bullets intentionally aimed at Reeva and the SCA having its hands tied by the CPA, not being able to touch the factual findings, so not having the power to pronounce that he knew Reeva was in the toilet, but in the interests of justice, delivering the correct verdict on the whole of the evidence.
In its appeal to the ConCourt, Fawcett exposes the weakness in his own argument quite succinctly -
"114. The only difference in his evidence was whether he purposefully discharged the shots or whether he discharged the shots in reaction to a startle response triggered by fear.
115. The Trial Court analysed the Applicant's evidence and rejected the evidence that he had discharged the shots as a result of a startle response and found that he purposefully discharged the shots.
116. The finding by the Trial Court that the Applicant had purposefully discharged the shots must be considered in view of the Trial Court's finding that the Applicant had genuinely, though erroneously, believed his life and that of the Deceased were in danger."
There you have it.
We can't point to anywhere in the Applicant's evidence where he said he fired purposefully in fear for his life, but the trial court found he did intend to shoot so please now consider that as his version. But hang on a minute - haven't they also just exposed that the trial court REJECTED his version that he shot in fear?
They also devote quite a few pages to his ability as a witness being compromised by his depressed mood. What are they trying to excuse here? The fact that his version wasn't credible? Unfortunately for them, Masipa already considered that very thoroughly and REJECTED it as an excuse. He was only evasive under cross-examination she found.
I would say it is very apparent that they know they are hamstrung by his evidence. Trying to avert the inevitable. As Andrea Johnson says so clearly, the appeal is without merit and contrived.