|
 After 41 days of testimony and drama in the Pretoria High Court,
Pistorius's freedom hangs on whether the prosecution has made its
case well enough to convince judge Thokozile Masipa that such
improbabilities cannot be "reasonably possibly true".
Pistorius, a double-amputee who made it to the semi-final of the 400
meters at the London 2012 Olympics, says he fired through the door
into the toilet cubicle in the mistaken belief he was defending
himself from a burglar.
Why, Nair had asked, did Pistorius not find out who was in the
toilet before firing four 9mm hollow-point rounds?
And why did Reeva Steenkamp not let him know she was there?
With Pistorius the only direct witness, much of the state's case
rests on forensics, including evidence that the sequence of
Steenkamp's injuries would have allowed her to cry out, and on the
testimony of neighbors who say they heard the terrified screams of a
woman immediately before and during a volley of shots.
The defense says the screams came from Pistorius, at an unusually
high pitch for a man because of the distress of discovering that he
had unwittingly shot Steenkamp.
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel, known as "The Pitbull", painted a picture of
Pistorius, 27, as a gun-obsessed hot-head who killed Steenkamp, 29,
in a fit of rage after a row in the early hours of Valentine's Day
last year.
Pistorius and his representatives have made no comment outside the
trial since it started in early March, other than to thank friends,
family and supporters.
NO JURY
South Africa's apartheid government scrapped trial by jury in the
late 1960s, meaning that 66-year-old Masipa, only the second black
woman to rise to the bench, will ultimately decide Pistorius's fate
when she delivers her verdict on Sept. 11.
Possible verdicts range from convictions for premeditated murder -
and a minimum 25-year sentence - or a lesser count of murder, to
culpable homicide - with a maximum 15-year sentence - if Masipa
believes he did not intend to kill Steenkamp but did so by firing
negligently or recklessly.
She could acquit if she accepts that Pistorius believed he was
acting in self-defense - known formally as 'putative private
defense' - when he pulled the trigger.
"This case is about the credibility of Oscar Pistorius," said
Johannesburg-based advocate Riaan Louw. "If he's not a credible
witness and the judge does not accept his testimony, he's going to
be convicted on either murder or culpable homicide."
Pistorius gave five days of cross-examination in April under the
gaze of the world's media.
[to top of second column]
|
By turns calm, tearful and combative, at one point he appeared to confuse
the central pillar of his legal defense under questioning from Nel.
Having argued that the killing was a deliberate but mistaken act of
self-preservation, he then said he pulled the trigger without thinking -
an assertion that would match a so-called automaton defense but not
self-defense.
Three times when under pressure during cross-examination, Pistorius
blamed his legal team for differences between or omissions from the
sworn affidavit prepared for his bail deposition and his evidence in
court.
"When it starts happening regularly like this, and every time you get a
difficult question you blame it on your lawyer, the judge is going to
make a very careful note," Johannesburg-based criminal defense advocate
Mannie Wits said.
There were other inconsistencies in his evidence, including an admission
that he had not after all left the bedroom to get a fan from the balcony
- contradicting his bail deposition, in which he said it was during this
absence from the bedroom that Steenkamp must have gone to the toilet.
If the judge accepts his testimony and agrees that the shooting was
self-defense, she must still decide whether shooting four times at an
unidentified target on the other side of a closed door is legally
"reasonable".
After the end of apartheid in 1994, South Africa tightened its gun laws,
such that a person can shoot only if there is an imminent and direct
threat - a principle Pistorius said he had read and understood as part
of his firearms license test.
"He knew there was a human being in the toilet. That's his evidence,"
prosecutor Nel said in closing remarks.
"His intention was to kill a human being. He has fired indiscriminately
into that toilet. Then, M'lady, he is guilty of murder. There must be
consequences."
(Reporting by Ed Cropley; Editing by Pascal Fletcher and Will Waterman)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
