It was interesting how the legal mind searches out the minutia to discredit the whole.

Listening to the Defence Councils legal argument on the South African High Court ruling, that murder with a minimum sentence of 15 years should replace the Lower Courts interpretation of events leading to the shooting of Rita Steenkamp. 

The Lower Court ruled that the shooting had not intended to kill "her" (Pistorious thought she was in the bedroom) and that he thought someone else was behind the bathroom door  it was argued, his action was in fact to "protect"  Steenkamp from the potential harm from who ever was behind the door. Her murder should therefore be ruled out and that a charge of manslaughter should be brought which necessitated a much shorter sentence. The focus was on the "intention" to kill the named victim.

The High Court in its ruling was having none of this and ruled that he was culpable of murder because he discharged 4 shots through the bathroom door which would inevitably have the effect of killing someone who he deemed was on the other side of the door. This has been my lay-man argument all along, irrespective of who was in the bathroom.

This week the lawyer for the Defence tried to reinstate the "findings" of the initial trial saying that the findings of the Lower Court had not been overturned by the High Court ruling, in fact the High Court hadn't challenged the Lower Courts findings, only the determination of whether it was murder or manslaughter.

If the findings of the original trial still stood then his state of mind, remember he thought she was in the bedroom and that he feared for 'his' life given his incapacity and his emotional fragility that he was not culpable of her murder, only the murder of someone else, but crucially  under fear of his own life which of course would put another interpretation on the case.

The Prosecution on the other hand had presumed the High Court were in agreement with his guilt and focused on the trauma of Rita Steenkamp's family, particularly the fathers emotional testimony. Their aim was to eradicate from the judges mind that it was 'only' Pistorious'  pain and grief (which  Pistorious had projected from the start), which should be  considered  but should also be balanced by that of the victims family.
It was interesting that the Prosecution were therefore rather thrown onto the back foot when the Defence cleverly supported Justice Masipa initial ruling and said that the High Court had effectively left her ruling in place and that his claim that the event was due to his reasons of personal fear and protection for Steenkamp were sufficient to produce a lenient sentence.

The Prosecution quickly responded by claiming that the Judge had no room for manoeuvre and must at least sentence him to the mandatory 15 years, under South African Law.
I can't see how she has any option but it was interesting how the attorneys twisted and turned on what seemed at first a clear cut case, carrying all the weight of High Court reasoning.