(Because of the 12-hour time difference between Hawaii and South Africa, the court proceedings of this case actually commenced during prime time hours, Hawaii Standard Time, which is how I got to watch them.)

Successfully prosecuting a charge of murder requires proof of intent plus opportunity. In the original criminal trial which was held in Pretoria, Prosecutor Gerrie Nel specifically and repeatedly implied that the defendant Oscar Pistorius' primary motive for murder that night was to kill his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp was jealousy and distrust.

But when it came to actual evidence to support that contention, in my opinion Nel's proof of intent was based primarily upon two rather slender facts: (1)Neighbors heard the couple arguing quietly spiritedly, perhaps even violently, earlier in the evening prior to the shooting; and (2) Steenkamp had earlier written to Pistorius regarding what she saw as his emotional and mental abuse of her.

Unfortunately for Nel's case, none of these neighbors could really make out what the argument was about. Nor could they even necessarily agree about the specific time during which said argument took place, relative to the time of the actual shooting.

The basis for the prosecution's original contention foundered at trial upon Nel's inability to prove that Pistorius demonstrated any malice aforethought with due regard to Steenkamp, i.e., that his intent that night was to specifically kill her.

But when Gerrie Nel re-presented the prosecution's case upon appeal in Bloemfontein, which is the administrative seat of the country's Supreme Court(s) and judiciary, he instead argued that Pistorius did not have to know exactly who was in the bathroom during that early morning hour when he deliberately fired four bullets through the door, to be found guilty of murdering somebody.

And that's because Pistorius had to have known that regardless of whoever he thought was in the bathroom at the time, that person would be unlikely to survive such a fusillade of bullets directed at such a small and enclosed space. Therefore, it's pretty clear that he intended to kill somebody -- if not necessarily his girlfriend per se.

Now, I'll admit that I can't necessarily disagree with that particular argument for murder at all. Under South African law, deliberately and successfully shooting anyone, even a random stranger, with an intent to kill does in fact constitute the crime of murder. So in that regard, yes, Oscar Pistorius is probably guilty and Masipa likely erred in failing to consider that when rendering her original verdict.

But that said -- and I'm pretty sure that Jeralyn will agree with me here -- this particular argument was not presented in any detail or otherwise even emphasized by Prosecutor Nel during the original trial proceedings, except as almost an afterthought during his closing summation.

Because at trial, Nel wasn't contending that Pistorius knowingly and deliberately fired at just anyone. Rather, he had argued -- and not very effectively, as it turned out -- that the defendant knowingly and deliberately killed Steenkamp in a uncontrollable fit of jealous rage. And defense counsel Barry Roux subsequently shot that particular argument full of holes.

Therefore, I think you'd agree that Nel's first and second arguments are not one and the same thing. Further, I would note that none of the appellate court justices took issue with any of Trial Judge Thokozile Mapisa's actual findings of fact, as she presented them at the original trial.

Where they contend that Judge Masipa erred was in not considering an argument for murder that was never made while Nel was presenting its original case, but rather was brought up only during his final summation when he likely realized that he had probably failed to prove the defendant's motive regarding any specific desire to kill his girlfriend.

The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein was perfectly within its jurisdiction to rule as it did in considering the amendment to the prosecution's original argument for conviction, that Judge Masipa erred in her interpretation of the law regarding dolus eventualis, when she ruled that Pistorius did not harbor any criminal intent when he fired through that door at somebody. Rather, she ruled that he had acted in reckless disregard when she found him guilty of culpable homicide (manslaughter).

Judge Masipa will have to accept their findings, given that under South African law, her prior consent was required for the prosecution to appeal her original verdict, which she had granted to Nel last December. Otherwise, they could only petition her to reconsider her decision.

(She later noted during a live interview on BBC that she had decided to grant the appeal even before she rendered her verdict publicly, because she knew that her ruling would be considered controversial and she desired an appellate review herself.)

But as Peter G. noted earlier, the defendant Oscar Pistorious was subjected to what in this country constitutes double jeopardy, in that South Africa's judicial system does allow the prosecution a second bite at the apple through their appeal of an acquittal. Suffice to say that Gerrie Nel made the most of that opportunity the second time around.

Pistorius is noe required to re-appear before Judge Masipa in Pretoria at a future date yet to be determined, whereupon she will re-sentence him in accordance with the verdict of murder rendered by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein.