You have missed the point that OP is the confessed killer, and as such it is the burden of the defense to prove that the killing was an exception to the South African murder laws.
Walking from one position to another to get a gun, then following a woman down two passages and firing four shots into the toilet door behind which she was standing is prima facie evidence of premeditated intent to kill.
The defense has the burden of proof to show why it was not intent to kill, and to explain the myriad of witnesses who heard a woman screaming before gunshots silenced her.
So far OP's explanations have been contradicted by every bit of evidence on the crime scene, e.g., the broken bedroom door, the fan blocking the door to the balcony, the jeans on the duvet, the blood on the duvet and the carpet, the clippers beside the bed, the blood on the watches, the internet access after he claimed they were both asleep, the undigested food in Reeva's stomach, the lack of pooled blood in the bathroom with arterial blood spatter between that bathroom and front door, etc.
Also, it's helpful to argue a position from a place of knowing the evidence and facts, not on guessing or projecting your own beliefs.
