.....where ?......anyone who has followed this case closely should know it's the biggest thing missing....there's no proof of anything, maybe the closest would be the screams but even then their open to question.....
Colin, I know you are still hoping there is a video tape of the killing and Oscar clarifies his testimony so we know why he shot, but please look again at the facts of the case (legal opinion invited from other Websleuthers):
First of all, there is
prima facie proof of unlawful killing (homicide)-- dead body (Reeva), murder weapon (9mm Parabellum), confessed killer (Oscar).
So a homicide is already well established and therefore, the initial burden was on the accused to justify the killing, otherwise it will automatically be murder.
He attempted to justify it as a lawful killing under putative (supposed) private defense (PPD).
However, his account failed to meet the standards for a lawful PPD claim for several reasons, including that he exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense and the prosecution was able to convince the court that, under the circumstances of Oscar's own version of events, he could not have honestly held the belief that he was lawfully entitled to use lethal force against someone behind a closed door just because they made a noise.
So he cannot justify what is already an unlawful killing (homicide) with the excuse that he was acting in a lawful form of putative self-defense.
So the court has to consider whether he killed out of negligence or intended to kill within any of the 3 forms of
Dolus-- directus, indirect, or eventualis.
Masipa ruled that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he directly intended to kill Reeva (DD).
Masipa did decide however that he acted negligently because he shot and killed Reeva without checking on her location first.
However, the State was obliged to appeal because she greatly erred in her test to determine if
Dolus eventualis applied to OP's situation. She failed to consider that the identity of the person in the toilet was irrelevant for determining what OP's intentions were toward them.
So, for evaluating if he was guilty of DE, you need to keep in mind that it has already been determined that he has no basis to justify an unlawful homicide ("of a person, to wit, Reeva Steenkamp"), and you now have to determine how it came to be that he killed that person (just the human being-- not Reeva personally, her death has already been ruled out as an "error in objecto"). But did he
intend to kill someone else when he accidentally killed Reeva?
YOU CHOOSE:
1. Did he intend to kill the person behind the door or was he negligent in some way that resulted in their death? Perhaps he could have been shooting some warning shots in the direction of the door and he inadvertently killed them?? Was that what happened? Did he handle his gun negligently and it went off and accidentally struck the person in the toilet and just happened to kill them? That's sort of his story... but it doesn't hold up to the ballistics evidence though, does it?
2. Or by firing four rounds of 9mm Black Talon type bullets into a confined space, did his actions demonstrate a reckless disregard for whether or not he could possibly kill someone?
For me the question boils down to:
A) Was he merely negligent to have not identified the person behind the door and they were consequently killed in a
lawful self defense action?
B) Or, was it obvious he did he not care who might get killed by firing four rounds into that door and he fired in an
unlawful and unjustified response to a mistaken threat??
