I think this is best way it is explained is to put the link to the actual Judgement to clarify , you have not interpreted the SCA Judgement correctly.
It does not matter who was behind the door >> the SCA findings were :
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2...om-the-sca-s-judgment-against-oscar-pistorius
7) On whether dolus eventualis can be applied when someone does not "know" the identity of their victim:
"In this regard, it is necessary to stress that although a perpetrators intention to kill must relate to the person killed, this does not mean that a perpetrator must know or appreciate the identity of the victim. A person who causes a bomb to explode in a crowded place will probably be ignorant of the identity of his or her victims, but will nevertheless have the intention to kill those who might die in the resultant explosion.
"...By confining its assessment of dolus eventualis to whether the accused had foreseen that it was Reeva behind the door, the trial court misdirected itself as to the appropriate legal issue."
8 .
On the high court failing to take evidence into account:
"In this regard, the failure of the court to take into account the evidence of Captain [Chris] Mangena, a police forensic expert, whose evidence as to the reconstruction of the crime scene was found by the court to have been particularly useful, is of particular importance.
"All of this was circumstantial evidence crucial to a decision on whether the accused,
at the time he fired the fatal four shots, must have foreseen, and therefore did foresee, the potentially fatal consequences of his action. And yet this evidence was seemingly ignored by the trial court in its assessment of the presence of dolus eventualis. Had it been taken into account, the decision in regard to the absence of dolus eventualis may well have been different. In the light of the authorities I have mentioned, to seemingly disregard it must be regarded as an error in law."
