apols, it's just a sketch!!
Masipa accepted “Accused would have fired higher”
but Nel says masipa accepted bad witness, but I'll accept portions of his testimony, but OP did not fire voluntarily.
ha ha “ which one of the defences Nel?” Steven Majiedt
“But I fired at the noise” Leech interjects and shows he knows PDefence
Oliveira case
N Z Mhlantla – so if he didn't aim/intend to shoot he can't claim PPD
Nel
lethora of offences, so a judge can't just pick one out”
Nel : you can't have multiple excluding offences, where
Baartman : court “picked a Defence”
Nel :yes , not just the problem of picking, but the incredibility of his testimony so shouldn't have chosen some of OP's testimony as true, should have rejected it all
Mpati: Ignoring Mangena, the crime scene evidence , what else Nel?
Nel: Well there's EVDM, the gastric content and viewing in isolation these points.
N Z Mhlantla : is the supposed eating same time as the EVDM voices?
Nel: Yes. ( bumbling, forgotten the exact time of eating momentarily)
Alarm and Reeva using a cell phone for light. If you follow this idea of a phone torch it would have been visible. But no Masipa viewed everything in isolation.
Mpati- on the screams before the shots
Nel: Yes OP said he screams before the shots
Mpati- did judge find he screams before the shots
Nel: No, she ignored this point basically
N Z Mhlantla: As Roux in his heads, it's almost as if you are arguing DD and u r trying to straddle 2 chairs
nel: No I am not arguing DD, I am arguing foresight, likelihood that someone will die, I'm arguing DE
Leech- So you are not persisiting with DD based on argument and rushing to toilet and getting shot.
Nel: Correct. I am arguing that firing this way, in that tiny room, as a trained gun -user, that he had foreseen
Leech- so not should have foreseen , but did foresee
Mpati- so how does circumstantial fit in with this
Nel- ihis version should have been rejected outright
Mpati - so masipa should have rejected all of his version
Nel – yes, it's still DE.
Mpati- even if he didnt know it was Reeva behind the door, it doesnt matter
Nel: yes ,
Leech: Are you happy with arguing that he had sufficient intent to kill whoever was in that bathroom.
Nel: yes.
Baartman- and that ( sufficient intent) must be sure because of the number of shots
Nel: on 332 (1)
we are not asking the court to subsitute the finding /conviction and the sentence
N Z Mhlantla: It would have to go back to another court . Bogarts(?) case precedent which Nel has not referred to
