The director of public prosecutions is to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal against Oscar Pistorius's six year jail sentence in September of 2017.
Two different events were presented to Judge Masipa for her to decide which one occurred.
Judge Masipa decided it was not murder. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein overturned the initial culpable homicide conviction to murder.
In the Supreme Court there were three judges on the bench.
Judge Masipa was again responsible for the sentencing of the convicted murderer, she gave him six years. By law in South Africa a convicted murderer is faced with a mandatory 15 year sentence.
The prosecutors again questioned Masipa’s judgment.
The first possibility.
Reeva Steenkamp and Oscar Pistorius were arguing and shouting was heard.
Reeva locked herself in the toilet to protect herself from Pistorius and when she would not open the door he shot her to death firing four times.
Estelle Van Der Merwe a neighbour said she heard arguments that lasted over an hour.
Masipa dismissed this evidence.
Other neighbours said they heard a woman's scream.
Masipa said it could have been Pistorius screaming and dismissed this as evidence.
One has to wonder here if anyone can differentiate between a woman screaming and a man.
Other forensic experts carried out their own tests on Reeva’s body and found heavy and numerous bruising caused by a blunt instrument.
Wounds found on the body were overlooked by the pathologist at the time and were not presented as evidence of abuse. Evidence was provided about the bullet holes on her body.
When the investigating police were questioned about an extensive pathological investigation they said "we believed it was an open and shut case”.
The second possibility presented by Pistorius.
Pistorius claimed that he thought there was an intruder in his toilet and felt that his life was in danger and he shot four times.
Pistorius knew the power of the weapon he was holding. He had used a gun before including firing a shot in a restaurant, and out of the window of a car. There is ample evidence of him practicing with powerful guns.
A man is standing outside the locked door of a toilet with a powerful handgun that could easily penetrate the door. Some intruder is inside locking himself in the toilet.
Would anyone in this situation really not talk to the person inside?
"Don't move I have a powerful gun and would shoot you”
"If you open the door I would shoot you I'm calling the police’
“Who are you and what are you doing in my toilet’
It is inconceivable that during this episode the person inside did not speak a word.
How can a man holding a powerful weapon against somebody locked in a small toilet fear for his life and shoot them to death.
How can a man fear for his life when we know for sure it was defenseless Reeva in the toilet?
How can a man not talk to the person inside just in case it was Reeva and not some intruder before shooting them to death?
In fact we know it was Reeva but he couldn't say that he talked to her because then he would know it was not an intruder and therefore have no defence at all.
So Reeva locked in the toilet did not utter a sound and he outside with a gun did not communicate with her, she locked herself in the toilet in a small apartment and he did not know this.
A man with a powerful handgun shooting someone to death using four shots is surely a man with rage. It is inconceivable that he did not know it was Reeva.
