Roux finds a reference in his notes. Leach says it does not support the defence argument that Masipa made a factual finding that Pistorius genuinely believed there was an intruder.
He didnt know if it was a 12-year-old child or a man with a submachine gun, Leach says.
The fact that Pistorius was wrong is something else, says Roux.
Did he believe that he was entitled to shoot in those circumstances, Leach asks.
He thought his life was in danger, Roux insists. He was vulnerable and on his stumps.
Roux insists there was a factual finding by the trial court that Pistorius genuinely believed his life was in danger.
Show me, says Judge Leach.
Leach says the trial judge found Pistorius to be a shocking and unreliable witness, but then went on to accept his claim that he honestly believed his life was in danger, without evidence to support it.
He was armed with a firearm and went to confront the noise, Leach adds.
Roux asks, do we think he is lying?
Roux says it makes sense to him that Masipa ruled she could not find dolus eventualis because Pistorius genuinely thought it was an intruder in the cubicle.
But why does the identity matter, the bench wants to know: did Pistorius think he was entitled to shoot at whoever was behind the door?
Identity doesnt come into it, says Roux, because it never entered Pistorius mind that the person behind the door was Steenkamp.
Roux is very animated; he is being pushed hard by the judges now.
Defence lawyer Barry Roux argues that the verdict of the high court should not be overturned.
Roux comes back. Pistorius believed his life was in danger, he says. He thought he was firing shots at an intruder.
He says the judges comments on dolus eventualis relate to whether the accused foresaw that it could have been Steenkamp in the cubicle. He did not, Roux says.
Leach: When he fired the bullets did he know there was a person behind the door?
The issue is whether Pistorius foresaw the consequences, Leach goes on. Masipas ruling was that he did not because he did not know that it was Steenkamp.
His view is that this intepretation is legally wrong.
Leach is still not happy. Masipa defined dolus eventualis correctly, he repeats, but she then failed to apply it to anything other than Steenkamp being behind the door.
Her analysis of dolus eventualis, it seems to me, was wrong
The issue was he knew a person was in the cubicle.
Thats not really the issue, Roux interjects. Leach comes back:
Of course its the issue.