So, has the judge even addressed the key issue of Pistorius's defence?

... that he thought it was an intruder?

Seems to me that this is, to now, a judgement based on his actions regardless of who was behind the door.

That regardless of the occupant of the toilet, firing four shots in to it was negligent but not necessarily carried out with an intention to kill?

Check the panel describing the Judge's options in this story (towards the end). Where does it make any distinction between the Steenkamp prosecution case or the intruder defence?

Posted By: norway, Sep 11, 15:13:13