I'm listening to the appeal judge's ruling and am amazed at the quote from Masipa that she accepted Oscar's distraught behavior at the scene (as reported by his doctor friend) as evidence that he didn't know (and couldn't have known) that it was Reeva in the toilet cubicle.
Oscar's begging God to save her, and railing about how sorry he was, is only evidence that he was very upset. It didn't bolster or undermine any narrative presented. If it had somehow been asserted that he'd been coldly stoic at the scene, then testimony to his praying and crying might have been important, but that the judge in the first trial found his in-the-moment-horror in any way compelling as a matter of verifying his story is weird to me. His upset is neutral in the truth of his defense narrative.
ETA - I should note that the above observation does not seem to have played into this judge's ruling. I just found it interesting. The appeal judge did find that the original court's satisfaction that Oscar didn't know it was Reeva doesn't get him out of the soup for murdering an indeterminate someone in the toilet cubicle. That seems to be the first sticking point of his ruling.
ETA2 - Finished the judge's commentary. That was most enjoyable. He didn't believe Oscar at all, but he was careful to support the original judge's professional diligence under the bizarre circus atmosphere of the first trial. The points of law that hooked in this new verdict were subtle, but well-diagrammed in this appeal. South African jurisprudence is, at least in this example, fascinating and admirably thorough.