I know this is a bit of buzz word often used atm, but imo, this whole trial, from beginning to end, is a serious case of 'gaslighting'.
All the witnesses were mistaken, they didn't hear what they heard, they didn't see what they saw. Roux and Masipa agreed, the witnesses were not dishonest (oh, so kind), they were MISTAKEN.
OP's description of Reeva's actions that night reveals she didn't behave in a 'normal' manner and it's to be believed, she was silent...... yet noisy, flinging open the window, slamming the toilet door and locking it, causing OP to go into combat mode. She did not speak a word.
OP can scream like a woman without ever proving it! The ear witnesses only heard OP that night, all the shouting, screaming was him, but ABSOLUTELY NO arguing! Gaslighting at its finest!
OP explains his need to cover the amplifier's LED light yet it never bothered him before. One minute he's as blind a bat because of the darkness, next he's got the eyes of cat.
Cricket bats sound like gunshots, gunshots sound like cricket bats. For some reason, the scenario can't be reenacted convincingly, stomach content tests are not an exact science, 1 + 1 = 3.
OP was extremely security conscious but alarms not activated, ladder up against the wall, broken window downstairs, slept with balcony doors open, but remember, he lives in fear of his life!
OP convinces the court guns go off without pulling the trigger or with any intent. He's the only person capable of such a feat.
OP convinces the witnesses and the court after the fact, that he tried in vain to bring Reeva back to life. He cried a river and the court believed it.
Phones disappear and reappear, a gold watch disappears, Reeva's handbag is removed from the crime scene, no questions asked. But was it a crime scene? Of course not, we're mistaken, it was a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.
The ammunition found in the safe belonged to OP's estranged father, this is perfectly normal, he had NO other reason to possess it, believe it or else!
The timeline drawn up by Roux is the correct one, no matter how skewed or confusing. Believe it, I say!
Masipa described OP as a poor witness, an evasive witness, but at the same time, she believed every word he spluttered. Being untruthful doesn't mean he's guilty. He's rewarded for it by a short sentence because he's a fallen hero, why should the truth get in the way.
OP is a magnificent athlete who overcame his disability, a womanizer, party goer, gun lover, who has never considered himself disabled, no wait, scratch that, we're mistaken. He's a vulnerable, anxiety ridden, disabled lost little boy. Shame on us buying his lifestyle for all those years prior to the death of Reeva or while he was out on bail.
Frank, the manservant, who lives on the premises and was there that night, but we have to pretend he doesn't exist?! Frank who?
Masipa describes OP as a fallen hero, like something you'd read in a tabloid magazine, pretty disgusting imo. She's attempting to gaslight the Steenkamps, the people of SA and interested parties that OP is the victim and Reeva the cause of all his woes!!!
Mr and Mrs Steenkamp overlooked again, misquoted, under represented by Masipa and using their grief to relieve OP of his guilt.
I sincerely hope this does not end here. Masipa can't have the last word.
JMO
