Email
The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp has concluded and Judge Thokozile Masipa – there is no jury – will return to hand down her verdict on 11 September.
Here is a summary of the closing arguments by the state, which argues that Pistorius should be found guilty of premeditated murder, and the defence, which says he should be acquitted.
The athlete denies murder, saying he mistakenly shot his girlfriend in the early hours of 14 February 2013 believing there was an intruder in the house.
The state’s case
The prosecution says Pistorius is guilty of murder. Lead counsel for the state Gerrie Nel told the court that the accused’s actions in fetching the gun and walking down the corridor towards the bathroom indicates premeditation: “He had lots of time for reflection. He made up his mind in the bedroom when he armed himself. That is pre-planning.”
Nel said Pistorius was an “appalling witness” whose testimony was “devoid of truth … The accused is more interested in fending for his life than in entrusting the court with a truthful account.”
The prosecutor highlighted what he called significant incongruities in the defence case, arguing that conflicting evidence about the position of fans and a duvet in the accused’s bedroom proved Pistorius was tailoring his evidence to mask the fact that he knew it was Steenkamp in the toilet cubicle when he fired four shots through the door. There is no proof the police tampered with the crime scene, Nel said. The position of items in the bedroom means Pistorius’ version cannot be true.
Whether he believed the person behind the door was an intruder or knew it was Steenkamp, it was murder by dolus directus (premeditated murder) or dolus eventualis (he must have known he was likely to kill the person by firing). Nel told the judge: “The accused intended to kill a human being. He knew there was a human being in that toilet. That’s his evidence … He is guilty of murder. There must be consequences for it.”
But Nel insisted Pistorius knew it was Steenkamp. She was facing the door when he fired directly at her. He said WhatsApp messages between the pair show they were having problems, with Steenkamp saying she was “scared” of her boyfriend. Nel told the court: “This was not a normal relationship. This relationship ended in death.”
The prosecution contends that the pair were arguing. A witness says she heard a row, another saw the bathroom light on and Steenkamp’s stomach contents indicate she was awake and eating several hours after Pistorius said they had gone to sleep. “Nobody went to bed in that house,” Nel said. “Nobody was sleeping.”
State witnesses who said they heard a woman showed “extraordinary corroboration” in their independent statements to police. Witnesses also heard “intermingling” screams of a man and a woman, disputing claims by the defence that the only screams on the night were that of Pistorius.
The other charges (see below) faced, and denied, by Pistorius show a pattern of behaviour in which the athlete acts recklessly and does not take responsibility for his actions, the state argues.
The written heads of argument can be read in full here.
The case for the defence
The defence says the trial should have begun with a charge of culpable homicide rather than murder, but insists Pistorius should be acquitted. If the firing of the gun was purely reflexive, he lacked criminal capacity; if there was a thought process, it was “putative private defence” (self-defence) because he believed he was in danger – that an intruder was coming out of the toilet. He had no motive to kill Steenkamp. He has always said he thought it was an intruder.
Lead defence counsel Barry Roux compared Pistorius’ years of disability to an abused women who kills her husband after many assaults. The shooting was a reflexive action after a “slow burn” of vulnerabilities led to a point at which he had “had enough”. He was anxious and acting on “primal instinct”.
The defence says the state’s version of events – in which the fatal shots were fired at 3.17am – cannot be true. The defence says noises heard at 3.17am were the thuds of the cricket bat as Pistorius broke down the toilet door. The shots, it contends, were earlier, which means the screams heard before 3.17am were made by the accused, and not by Steenkamp, who was already fatally wounded. Roux asked the judge: “If the shots were, as submitted by the state, at 3.17am – would it make sense that before firing the shots the accused would shout: help, help, help?” It was “fatal for the state” that a security guard went past Pistorius’ house at 2.20am and heard no arguing.
State witnesses gave false evidence to the court, Roux alleged. A neighbour, Dr Johan Stipp, had tailored his evidence to try to assist the state’s case, it was claimed: his timings do not add up. Witnesses including Stipp added new details to their recollection of the screams when they testified in court. Witnesses to two separate charges of firing a gun in a public place also “materially contradicted” each other, the defence said.
He also alleged that police had disturbed the scene in Pistorius’ bedroom and produced photographs that showed an officer touching items in the room.
Roux says Pistorius should be found guilty of a separate charge of negligently discharging a firearm in a restaurant. Roux said the athlete did not deliberately pull the trigger. He made a mistake. Pistorius had pleaded not guilty to this charge.
The written heads of argument can be read in full here.
The charges Pistorius faces
If Masipa finds Pistorius guilty of premeditated murder – that is, he knowingly intended to kill Steenkamp, or deliberately decided to kill an intruder – he would face a mandatory life sentence. It would be 25 years before he would even be considered for parole.
The judge will also consider whether he is guilty of murder without premeditation: an intent to kill, but with no planning, in the heat of the moment. Sentencing for a guilty verdict is at the judge’s discretion.
There is also the possibility of 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.
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.
Discharging firearms in public, first count: The prosecution says he discharged a firearm at a restaurant in January 2013. Pistorius said his friend Darren Fresco had passed him the loaded gun and denies he deliberately pulled the trigger. But the defence has now conceded that he should be found guilty of negligence on this charge.
Discharging firearms in public, second count: Pistorius is accused of firing a gun through a car sunroof while he was with Fresco and Pistorius’ then girlfriend Samantha Taylor in November 2012. The athlete says he became angry after a police officer inspected his gun when the car was stopped for speeding, but denies firing it.
Illegal possession of ammunition: Pistorius is charged with being in possession of .38 ammunition without a permit. Pistorius told the court the bullets belonged to his father and he had them for safe-keeping.
If found guilty, Pistorius could face five years in prison on each of the first two firearms counts, and 15 years for the illegal possession of ammunition.
;