Oscar Pistorius verdict live: judge says athlete not guilty of murder

My colleague David Smith has filed his report from Pretoria, which you can read here. Despite the not guilty finding on the charges of murder, it is not over for Pistorius or the family of Reeva Steenkamp:

Judge Thokozile Masipa said it was clear Pistorius had acted unlawfully in shooting the person behind the toilet door on Valentine’s Day last year.

She said a “reasonable person” would not have fired four shots into the toilet cubicle, and that Pistorius acted “too hastily and used excessive force … It is clear his conduct was negligent.”

The court will resume on Friday to hear her decision on whether the athlete was guilty of culpable homicide, which could result in a prison sentence of up to 15 years.

The not guilty verdicts will bring some relief to his family, who were in court to support him every day, and the legion of fans who believed in him. It even raises the prospect that the Paralympian could one day resurrect his career on the track.

But the judgment is likely to be condemned by friends and supporters of Steenkamp, including the African National Congress women’s league, who were regularly represented in the public gallery and danced and sang outside court on Thursday. It will also fuel fears that Pistorius has received preferential treatment because of his wealth and fame.

That’s it for the live blog for today. I will be back on Friday morning when the judge will resume her ruling. Thank you for reading.

AFP has put together this compilation of key quotes from Judge Masipa’s ruling so far:

On the state’s case

“The state clearly has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder.”

“Viewed in its totality, the evidence failed to establish that the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased, let alone with premeditation.”

“The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder.”

On Pistorius’s actions

“He took a conscious decision, he knew where he kept his firearm and he knew where his bathroom was. This is inconsistent with lack of criminal capacity.”

“The intention to shoot however does not necessarily include the intention to kill.”

“Clearly he did not subjectively* foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door.”

On Pistorius’s own testimony

“The accused was a very poor witness.”

“The accused was, amongst other things an evasive witness.”

“He failed to listen properly to questions put to him under cross-examination, giving the impression that he was more worried by the impact his answers might cause rather than the questions asked.”

On neighbours’ testimony

“Most witnesses had their facts wrong.”

“I am of the view that they failed to separate what they knew personally or what they heard from other people or what they gathered from the media.”

On messages between Pistorius and Steenkamp

“Neither the evidence of the loving relationship or a relationship turned sour can assist this court to determine whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased.”

[* 14.43BST edit: AFP had this as “objectively”, which was originally reproduced here; “subjectively” is correct.]

Pistorius is now leaving the courtoom. He will be back tomorrow morning to hear whether Masipa deems him guilty of the culpable homicide of Reeva Steenkamp, along with verdicts on three other firearms charges.

Reporters in Pretoria say Pistorius remains in the courtroom with his family.

A confusing end to the day – Judge Masipa seemed to be moving towards a verdict on the charge of culpable homicide but abruptly broke off to adjourn for the day. The court will be back on Friday morning, presumably to hear her decision on that charge right away.

Her latest comments certainly seemed to indicate she was moving in the direction of a guilty verdict on culpable homicide (manslaughter): she said Pistorius had “acted too hastily”, “used excessive force”, was “clearly” negligent, and could have called for help instead of approaching the bathroom with a loaded firearm.

But we will not now find out until Friday.

She says a reasonable person would have taken steps to guard against that possibility.

Masipa: I agree that the conduct of the accused may be better understood by looking at his background.

However, the explanation of the conduct of the accused is just that: an explanation. It does not excuse the conduct of the accused.

Many [people] have been victims of violent crimes but they have not resorted to sleeping with firearms under their pillows.

Pistorius could have picked up his phone and called the police or security, Masipa says. He could have run to his balcony and screamed for help.

There was no reason why he could not do so before he ventured into the bathroom with a loaded firearm.

Masipa says background, education, sex, race and culture of the accused must be taken into account when considering the reasonableness of his actions.

She says the defence tried to persuade the court that his disability rendered him so vulnerable that his acquiring of the firearm could not be called negligent. The judge says millions of people could fit into this category.

Masipa does not explain the delay. She starts right away with discussion of culpable homicide and negligence. The criminal test relies on whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen the possible consequences.

Barry Roux and Gerrie Nel have now returned to the courtroom. Hopefully Judge Masipa is not far behind.

Reporters in court in Pretoria says prosecutor Gerrie Nel has entered the room, only to leave again immediately with lead defence counsel Barry Roux.

The Guardian video team has put together this summary of the judge’s ruling so far:

We expected the court to have resumed by now but the judge is not back. Nor yet is the prosecution team. All other parties appear to be back in the room.

There is much discussion – in court and online – about the judge’s interpretation of dolus eventualis: whether, in firing four shots into the door, Pistorius should have foreseen the possibility that he would kill the person behind it. Masipa ruled that there was not evidence to show that he did.

Here is a report of proceedings so far – a reminder that, although Judge Masipa has ruled out a murder conviction, she has not yet delivered her verdict:

A South African judge has ruled there is not sufficient evidence to find the Olympic and Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius guilty of murder over the fatal shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

Judge Thokozile Masipa told the court in Pretoria that Pistorius “did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased”.

Tears streamed down the 27-year-old athlete’s face as the judge delivered her verdict in the hearing, which is still ongoing. She had earlier cleared him of the most serious charge, premeditated murder, saying the state had failed to make its case against him and the evidence was “purely circumstantial”.

Pistorius killed Steenkamp at his home on 14 February 2013 when he fired a gun through the closed door of his toilet. He had told the court he thought he was shooting at an intruder.

Masipa is still to rule on the lesser charge of culpable homicide and could acquit Pistorius if she believes he shot her by mistake.

There are protests in support of Reeva Steenkamp outside the high court today. The ANC Women’s League has supported the Steenkamp family throughout the trial, with representatives accompanying June Steenkamp, Reeva Steenkamp’s mother, to court.

My colleague Viasen Soobramoney sends this:

Culpable homicide in South Africa is defined as the ‘unlawful negligent killing of a human being’. It is a charge that focusses on negligence rather than intent. An example of culpable homicide could be reckless driving that results in a person’s death.

There is no prescribed sentence for culpable homicide and the judge can use her discretion in sentencing based on the circumstances of the case.

The judge says she will return after lunch to the question of whether Pistorius is guilty of the culpable homicide – manslaughter – of Reeva Steenkamp.

The could be a manslaughter, or culpable homicide, conviction, if the judge believes Pistorius’ claim that he did not mean to kill Steenkamp, but decides he acted recklessly or negligently in firing into the locked door. There is no minimum sentence in South African law for culpable homicide: it would be at the discretion of the judge.

Otherwise, given that murder charges have been dismissed, Pistorius could be acquitted if the judge accepts his account that he genuinely feared for his life and thought he was acting in self-defence.

Alongside the charge of murder, Pistorius is accused of two counts of discharging firearms in public, and another of illegal possession of ammunition.

The question is now whether Pistorius proceeded “recklessly”, with reasonable foresight that the person behind the door would be killed? Masipa says the answer has to be no.

Masipa says evidence does not support the state’s case that this was dolus eventualis (he must have known he was likely to kill the person by firing). He believed Steenkamp was in the bedroom. Pistorius’ account of this has remained consistent since the night of the shooting. It is “highly improbable the accused would have made this up so quickly”.

Masipa says that, on his own version, Pistorius genuinely – though wrongly – thought his life, and that of Steenkamp, were in danger.

There is nothing in the evidence to suggest this belief was not honestly obtained.

Masipa: The accused is the only person who can say what his state of mind was at the time he fired the shots that killed the deceased.

The accused has not admitted that he had the intention to shoot and kill the deceased or any other person.

On the contrary, he stated he had no intention to shoot or kill the deceased.

Masipa says a person who kills in “private defence” acts lawfully as long as the court decides a reasonable person would have acted in the same way.

Masipa runs through the law dealing with whether an accused should “reasonably have foreseen” that his actions could result in a person’s death.

The judge rules that this case is not a case of aberratio ictus, but error in persona: the blow (shot) was intended for the person behind the door.

The fact that the person behind the door turned out to be the deceased and not an intruder is irrelevant … The question is whether the accused had the intention to kill the person behind the door.

Reporters in court say the response to the judge’s decision that Pistorius cannot be found guilty of premeditated murder has been muted. He can, of course, still be found guilty of murder, if the judge decides that – pre-planning aside – he armed himself and shot with the intention to kill. He could also face a conviction for culpable homicide if she decides there was no intent. Or, of course, he could be acquitted if Masipa decides he acted reasonably out of fear that an intruder was going to attack him.

Judge Masipa takes a short break. Court will resume in a few minutes.

Masipa says Pistorius was “not truthful” about his intention when arming himself with a loaded gun before approaching the bathroom. This doesn’t necessarily mean he is guilty, she adds.

Masipa says Steenkamp was killed under “peculiar circumstances” that do not make sense. Why did Pistorius not check where she was before making his way to the bathroom? Why did Steenkamp not call the police, as Pistorius said he shouted to her to do, as she had her cellphone with her in the toilet?

Why did Steenkamp not hear him shout “at the top of his voice” for the intruder to get out of his house?

Unfortunately, this issues remain an issue of conjecture, the judge says.

But Masipa says that an assumption that because an accused is untruthful, he must be guilty, “must be guided against”.

Masipa: The decision to convict or acquit must be based on all the evidence … Some of it may be found to be unreliable … But none of it may simply be ignored.

Masipa says the intention to shoot does not automatically mean an intention to kill.

In this case, the only real point of dispute is whether Pistorius intended to kill when he pulled the trigger.

The onus of proof is on the state, she adds, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The defence of criminal capacity has “no foundation”, Judge Masipa rules.

First, did Pistorius lack criminal capacity at the time? Could he distinguish between right and wrong, and act in accordance with this?

Masipa says it became necessary for the court to refer Pistorius for psychiatric observation. She runs through the panel of health professionals who assessed and reported on his mental health. They found he did not have a mental disorder or defect that would have affected his ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and act on that.

Masipa picks up where she left off: did the accused intend to shoot?

The defence submitted that Pistorius was “vulnerable and fearful”. She will deal with the “plethora” of defences one-by-one.

Pistorius said: “The accident was that I discharged my firearm in the belief an intruder was coming out to attack me.”

So was the discharge of the firearm accidental, Masipa asks.

Masipa runs through the defences:

• it was an accident.
  
• he never intended to kill anyone.
  
• he did not purposefully fire into the door.
  
• he did fire into the door but did not do so deliberately.
  
• he did not aim at the door but the gun was pointed at the door.
• he did not mean to pull the trigger but did so in fright.
  
• he did not have time to think before firing.
• he believed someone was coming out of the cubicle to attack him.

The judge says the accused’s evidence “offers a number of defences”:

On the version of the accused it was not quite clear if he intended to shoot or not.

She cites the evidence of defence witness and forensic psychologist Dr Merryl Vorster, who queried whether Pistorius was responsible for his actions, due to an anxiety disorder.

Masipa says that once Pistorius had broken down the door with the cricket bat he found Steenkamp lying in a sitting position with her head on the toilet bowl.

She quotes Pistorius:

Before I knew it, I had fired four shots at the door.

The judge is running through Pistorius’ version of events and the moment at which he says he heard what he thought to be an intruder.

Masipa notes that a security guard passed the Pistorius house at 2.20am and heard no argument.

She now turns to the defence case.

Can the version of the accused that he was the one screaming “reasonably possibly be true”, Masipa asks.

The state says Pistorius and Steenkamp had an argument, and that the accused killed her “in the heat” of this argument, the judge reminds the court.

The prosecution queried why Steenkamp had her cell phone with her in the toilet. Masipa says she might have taken it with her to light the way to the toilet. But to pick a reason “is to delve into the realm of speculation”.

The calls to security give credibility to the timings for the gunshots given by the defence.

There are inconsistencies in the accounts of neighbours who testified for the state, Masipa says. Anette Stipp’s timings were wrong, she says; it was “more probable” that the shots were later than the time she mentioned.

Masipa says evidence from defence witnesses, Pistorius’ closest neighbours, casts doubt on state witnesses who said they heard a woman scream. The defence witnesses said it was a man – Pistorius – crying. This has the “ring of truth”, the judge says.

The judge’s interpretation of the timeline of events – notably, accepting the defence chronology – suggests she will rule out premeditation. But Pistorius can still be found guilty of murder if the judge believes he intended to kill Steenkamp or a perceived intruder.

The major dispute in chronology between state and defence is over the timing of the shots and the cricket bat.

The judge says it would be unwise to rely on any evidence about what witnesses – for state and defence – heard without testing it against objective evidence.

She says the court is lucky to have evidence that is more reliable than human memory: phone records, for example.

Masipa dismisses the defence claim that witness Dr Stipp tailored his evidence to help the state. He had no reason to do so, she says.

She singles out the evidence of Darren Fresco, who testified about the two incidents in which Pistorius is alleged to have fired guns in public.

Masipa moves on to Steenkamp’s “horrendous” injuries.

A person sustaining a wound of this nature … would probably be immediately unconscious.

She would not have been able to make voluntary movement, Masipa adds.

Steenkamp probably did not breathe for more than a few seconds after receiving the wounds, the judge says. It is unlikely she would have been able to scream.

The only other person who could have screamed is the accused. The question is, why did he scream?

The defence claimed Pistorius sounds like a woman when he screams. The judge says it is difficult to know the truth of this as nobody – including his former girlfriend Samantha Taylor – had heard him scream in this kind of life-threatening situation.

Masipa says it is easy to see why these witnesses – Burger and Johnson – could be mistaken. They were convinced a couple were being attacked but their distance from the Pistorius house made their interpretations of the noises they heard unreliable.

The judge says the testimony of neighbours Michelle Burger and Charl Johnson was “correctly in my view” criticised by the defence for being unreliable, but she says they should not be criticised for the similarities in their police statements: that was down to the police officer who wrote them, she says.

Masipa says the neighbours were not dishonest but “genuinely mistaken” in what they said they heard.

Masipa moves on to the disputed claims over the sounds of the gun firing and the cricket bat breaking down the door. The defence claims that some of the sounds interpreted by neighbours as shots were in fact the bat. The judge accepts this.

Did the police contaminate the scene or remove an extension cord from the bedroom after the shooting? Masipa says the court rightly spent time looking at this, but adds:

These issues pale into significance when one has regard to the rest of the evidence.

Masipa moves on to whether there was any intention or premeditation in the shooting of Steenkamp. She says it will serve no purpose to rehash the arguments on this.

But she says the court has considered all the evidence on this.

The judge moves on to “common cause facts” – those that are not disputed by state and defence. She deals with count 1 (the killing of Steenkamp) only for now.

She says it is accepted that the accused, on his stumps, fired four shots at the toilet door; that Steenkamp was inside the cubicle, which was locked from the inside and three of the shots hit her; that she died from multiple gunshot wounds.

She says it is not disputed that the accused then called for help; removed Steenkamp from the cubicle and carried her downstairs; that he was “very emotional” and tried to resuscitate her.

Again, Masipa summarises evidence from state witness without making any ruling on whether she is inclined to accept the prosecution case that the neighbours heard screaming from Steenkamp, or a row between the couple. We are hearing a precis of what each neighbour heard, and when they made calls to estate security.

The state’s case was that Pistorius had deliberately shot and killed Steenkamp, Masipa says. She begins to summarise the prosecution evidence, starting with testimony from neighbours.

Masipa: The accused admitted that the gunshot wounds were inflicted by him.

So far Masipa has read a clear, but entirely objective, account. We have had no indication of her findings, or whether she is minded to accept or dismiss Pistorius’ version of the events of 14 February 2013.

Masipa turns to Pistorius’ version of events. He said he believed there was an intruder in his bathroom who posed a threat to him and to Steenkamp.

Pistorius described the incident as “a tragic one”, the judge says. She recounts his evidence of the series of events that led to the shooting.

Masipa is still reading through the charges against Pistorius, including the alleged illegal possession of ammunition, which the athlete claims he was holding for his father.

Security has been especially tight around this verdict. Only the judge and her two assessors – more about them here – know which way the judge has ruled. Reporters in court say even the usual clerks were not allowed to type up the ruling, and it was kept under lock and key until this moment.

Masipa reads out the details of the four charges against Pistorius – you can read them here.

Masipa says Pistorius can remain seated.

She begins by talking through the scene of the shooting: Pistorius’ home on the Silver Woods estate in Pretoria, on 13/14 February 2013.

Judge Masipa is on her way. Reeva Steenkamp’s family are in the court to hear her verdict on the man who shot her:

My colleague David Smith, who is in court in Pretoria, says the judge’s reading of her verdict could run into Friday:

Masipa will read a written judgment in full and announce her verdict only at the end. She is expected to summarise the testimony of each of the 37 witnesses and make a finding on its credibility and applicability to the case. She is also likely to make reference to case law and will consider the three lesser firearms charges against Pistorius. The entire process will probably take at least a day. It therefore seems likely that she will not make her verdict known until Friday.

Court is due to resume in the next few minutes.

As we await the verdict, some background reading that helps put the trial into context.

My colleague David Smith says the trial has been a mirror on South African society:

South Africa itself has been on trial over the past six months. The world has been told of police bungling and dishonesty but been given a rather more flattering picture of the judicial system. It has tried to decide whether this is a case of domestic violence or fear of residential crime – twin demons that torment South Africa. It has seen how much has changed in this country since the end of racial apartheid in 1994, and how much has stayed the same.

For many, there was redemption in the way South Africa defied outsiders’ expectations of a kangaroo court. In the austere setting with its rules and rituals, prosecutor Gerrie Nel and defence counsel Barry Roux gave the 37 witnesses no quarter, not least Pistorius himself, whose celebrity and wealth meant nothing against Nel’s fierce onslaught. But above all there was Masipa, a red-robed figure of quiet dignity and gravitas who kept both lawyers in check and strove for a fair trial.

And, he writes, the trial has shone light on the issue of violence against women:

South Africa has one of the highest rates of intimate partner homicide in the world. In 2009 it was estimated that a woman was killed by her husband or boyfriend every eight hours – more commonly than by strangers.

The extraordinary life of the woman who already knows Pistorius’ fate, Judge Thokozile Masipa, is also worth a read:

Black female judges are still a rarity. Even though the population is 80% black, only 44% of superior court judges are. And out of the country’s 239 judges, only 76 are women.

Masipa says she feels the bench has more credibility in its diversity, but it also comes with specific challenges.

“Sometimes it’s not that easy; sometimes the woman comes before your court and she’s saying to herself, ‘Well, she’s black, she’s a woman, she must understand this.’ But you still have to look at what the law says.”

And the Guardian’s video team has put together this summary of the trial:

Pistorius has arrived at the court.

Friends of Reeva Steenkamp have been tweeting their support for her and her family: