The more I read (
http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2013/sca2013-034.pdf &
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1985/41.html etc. & judgement after Jub Jub about the tightening of dolus eventualis about motorists) about "subjective foresight", "reconciling himself towards this possibility" & "volitional state of mind" under dolus eventualis appellant cases, the more I see Masipa ruling as perhaps legally possible. Of course, I completely disagree with not finding a Pistorius guilty of murder, but one needs to look repeatedly at why it happened, and from different perspectives, to stop a miscarriage like this again.
It's complicated and I feel very easy to confuse, or at least it's hard to differentiate between eventualis and negligence. I perceive this law, from reading a very short series of case law about eventualis, as subjective to context, semantic and available for various loopholes. This may be the major problem in this trial, it's convoluted SA law that leads to a loose, easily contested application of the charge. If a judge wants to use a totality of evidence, a choice of evidence, or compartmentalise the evidence leads to a difference in the application of the law - in this trial which Masipa basically threw out the majority of the prosecution evidence.