Has justice been served or denied??.

Oscar Pistorius's trial & Judgement day for Pre-
meditated murder.
This is what the learned judge had to say.
She first of all analysed in details the
arguments,facts & propositions of the
Prosecution Team & came to the following
conclusions. She discredited the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses about the screaming they
purportedly heard and deemed it not credible but
rather choose to rely on other relevant evidence
like the time of the phone calls made and other
similar data. She also discredited the evidence
by the prosecution that the couple were having
marital issues/dispute. She was of the opinion
that the media influenced the testimonies of the
witnesses and that the prosecution did not prove
murder beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge then moved on to analyse the stance/
position of the defence and came to the following
conclusions.
She faulted the statement of pistorous that if he
intended to kill,he would aimed his gun at a
different level then went ahead to analyse the
pertinent question of "Whether the shots were
fired by accident. She noted that pistorous's
behaviour was inconsistent with someone that
acted without thinking. She made reference to
the 3 psychiatrists and psychologist that
evaluated pistorous & came to the conclusion
that at the time of the commission of the
offence,he was not under any mental defect and
was capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of
the act which both the State and defence counsel
accepted.
A pertinent question of law arose which was
"Whether he knew his actions would result to
killing a person" which when answered would
make him liable for murder or culpable
homicide.
The defense held that his client cant be held
liable for reflex action but the Judge disagreed
and distinguished between Reflex actions &
involuntary actions & came to the conclusion
was a conscious decision. The court however
considering the submissions of the defense
counsel agreed that a person in his physical
condition(disability) would be scared when in
such a situation but the pertinent question of law
remained "If it would be reasonable to arm
oneself with a firearm". The judge also held that
the accused testimony was inconsistent with
respect to the firing of the gun. He would still
face firearm charges. The court however
examined the test for reasonability & held that it
isn't rigid but flexible and varies depending on
its circumstance. While citing a plethora of
cases,she said that the test for reasonability in
for example 1996 cant be the same to be
applied in 2000 and that the court ought to
consider certain circumstances and factors
prevalent. The judge then held that the State did
not successfully prove that the accused was
guilty of pre-meditated murder and that charge
was dismissed. The charge for murder was also
dismissed on similar grounds. Oscar Pistorios
was found not guilty of the premeditated murder
charge of Reeva Steenkamp because he could
not have known that she was behind the door
which leaves the charge of culpable homicide.
The question on everybody's lips at this point
was which of the two options will the judge
exercise. He will either be held liable/guilty for
culpable homicide or acquitted. The judge after a
five minutes break preceded earlier on by longer
ones analysed the liability of the accused on the
charge of culpable homicide and made
statements faulting the testimony of the accused
and his team of lawyers. Just as the whole word
was waiting for the final verdict because it was
evident from the tides of the proceeding,the
Judge adjourned the matter to tomorrow.
Feel free to give your opinion and sound legal
arguments.