Lawyers in the Oscar Pistorius appeal were grilled by judges who will make the final decision on the Paralympian's fate. Key to whether Pistorius returns to prison as a murderer or remains locked in his uncle's Pretoria home as a negligent killer, are the decisions taken by his trial court judge, Thokozile Masipa.These decisions are linked to:Her apparent disregard of vital police ballistic and circumstantial evidence;Her alleged misinterpretation of the law; andWhat a reasonable man's thinking would be when firing four times through the locked door of a small toilet cubicle.The battle of attrition between prosecutor Gerrie Nel and Pistorius's lawyer, Barry Roux, continued yesterday in the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein, with the state fighting for Pistorius's acquittal of the 2013 Valentine's Day murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, to be overturned.Masipa found Pistorius guilty last year of culpable homicide.For Judge President Lex Mpati and judges Nonkosi Mhlantla, Eric Leach, Steven Majiedt and Elizabeth Baartman, the primary questions, say legal experts, areprinciples of law and their application.Llewelyn Curlewis, former SA Law Society president, said points he believed would form the basis of the judges' decision, were:The correct definition and application of dolus eventualis [that an accused who foresees that someone, and not a specific person, might be killed by their actions, reconciles themselves with that possibility and proceeds, can be found guilty of murder];To what extent circumstantial evidence must play a part in the law of evidence to secure a possible conviction; andWhether Masipa materially misdirected herself in her verdict.Leach, responding to Roux's comment that Masipa had found there was no intent in the form of dolus eventualis when Pistorius shot through the toilet door as he did not think Steenkamp was in the bathroom, said her [Masipa's] analysis of the dolus eventualis principle seemed "wrong"."The issue was not whether she was behind the door. He knew there was someone in the cubicle."[The] accused knew there was no room for someone behind the door to manoeuvre."On whether Masipa considered all the presented evidence when reaching her findings, Majiedt told Roux: "What you don't deal with in your heads of argument is [police ballistics expert Captain Chris] Mangena's evidence. Do proven facts show a crime has been committed?"Nel said Masipa had had a fragmented approach in evaluating circumstantial evidence, including failing to consider Mangena's evidence.Mangena testified that there had been a break between the four shots fired by Pistorius, implying Steenkamp could have screamed and identified herself, though Roux denied this.Curlewis said an important issue the judges would have to consider was circumstantial evidence: "Nel argued Masipa, instead of applying her mind properly to circumstantial evidence, only paid lip service to it. Three judges agreed with him, one noting that Masipa didn't take Mangena's evidence into consideration despite declaring him an excellent witness."Curlewis said the judges' decision on dolus eventualis would set a trend for future cases."While Nel was questioned on two issues, the judges . hammered Roux on numerous points in his submission. The judges were not impressed with his or Masipa's interpretation of the law."Curlewis said the judges had carte blanche to do whatever was necessary to put the record straight in terms of both the law and the interests of justice...