(I'm back.)
I've been looking all over the net, unsuccessfully, for a terrific article I read a couple of weeks go. It was written by a SA lawyer who was articulate, specific, seemed knowledgeable, and was concise. Since I can't find it, let me try to explain my recollection of it in my best stumbling fashion. It was called the Law of __?___. darn, the name was key to the explanation.
In some countries it may be that if someone intentionally and with premeditation was murdering someone by shooting them, missed, and killed an innocent person instead, the shooter would not/could not be convicted of premeditated murder. They did not pre-meditate killing THAT person. Killing THAT person was an accident.
She said that under SA law, it's not that way. In SA, if someone intentionally and with premeditation is murdering someone by shooting them, misses, and kills an innocent person instead, the shooter WOULD BE guilty of premeditated murder, even though they did not pre-meditate killing the INNOCENT person.
I thought that was fascinating. While I don't know that law well enough to know, in the US where I am, I think in that scenario, the murderer could only be charged with accidental homicide, or whatever it's called.
This woman's point was that, in this case, if OP was intentionally and with premeditation tryin to kill an intruder by shooting them (even if the intruder was a figment of his imagination) and killed Reeva, instead, it's still premeditated murder.
If true, it magnifies the reason why OP doesn't want to admit in any way, shape or form that he shot at "the intruder" with intention and forethought, instead skating around in such a slippery manner that it defies even the whiff of truth.