Oscar Pistorius trial: judge will deliver verdict on 11 September – live coverage

That’s it for the live coverage for today. The live blog will be back on 11 September when Judge Masipa will hand down her verdicts.

Here is a summary of the arguments by the state and the defence, along with the list of charges Pistorius faces – and possible sentences, should he be found guilty.

Thank you for reading.

The full written version of the defence heads of argument is published here:

Pistorius has tweeted this message following the conclusion of closing arguments today:

That’s it from court for today. The trial will resume on 11 September, when Judge Masipa will give her verdict.

I’ll post a summary shortly.

Nel is on his feet again. He says Fresco ought to be able to address the court himself when judgment is handed down on the issue of indemnity.

Nel sits down. Roux wants to say something else now. He says the photo submitted this morning is admissible.

Masipa repeats the question she asked Nel: should Fresco receive his indemnity, promised in return for honest testimony on the two firearms offences with which Pistorius is also charged. Roux says Fresco lied; he should not receive indemnity. It’s not for him to say whether Fresco should be prosecuted.

Nel: 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.

It cannot be that there should be no consequences for Pistorius if it is agreed that he intended to kill an intruder but instead killed Steenkamp, Nel tells the judge.

Nel says Pistorius’ two defences – putative self-defence and that he fired involuntarily – are not just mutually exclusive but mutually destructive.

Nel is back on to the issue of the multiplug extension cord. He has never made an issue of the length of the cord, he says.

Nel now turns to the photographs the defence submitted this morning:

We cannot run roughshod over the principles of admissibility … We don’t know when this [photograph] was taken.

Masipa’s second question: should she grant Darren Fresco indemnity as agreed – that is, should she accept that he answered all questions posed to him honestly (the defence says he did not). Nel says she should.

Her third question relates to Nel’s acceptance of an annexe to the defence heads of argument; he is fine with that.

Nel is going to have the last say regardless, it seems. He says he’d like to respond to the photographs the defence presented this morning.

Masipa says she has three questions for Nel first. She wants to know if the state agrees with the defence timeline set out by Roux today. Nel says that only the phone data is common cause (with both sides accepting them as fact).

Roux would like the court to find that Pistorius fired the shots “reflexively” – that is, involuntarily, when anxious and startled. But if the court rejects that, he says, it can acquit him by finding he acted reasonably, “and that’s the end of the case”.

That takes us to culpable homicide (manslaughter), says Roux. He says that’s where this case should have started, not with a murder charge.

He says that when the court considers what a reasonable man would have done, it should consider a reasonable man with the same abilities and disabilities as Pistorius. Is it wrong to hear a noise and decide to arm yourself because you have no legs, Roux asks? If the court decides that is reasonable, it must acquit him.

Roux: Here’s the question: did the accused foresee the deceased was in toilet? Did he reconcile himself with that?

No, his version is consistent – he thought she was in the bedroom.

This is the pure legal question: did the accused foresee the possibility that the deceased was in the toilet and did he say I don’t care, I’m going to shoot anyway?

No. He genuinely thought she was in the bedroom.

Intention needs to be proved, says Roux, for murder by dolus directus or dolus eventualis: premeditated murder in the first case, and in the second, an awareness that actions could result in death “and he is reconciled with that”.

Neither is true here, says Roux: you cannot convict him of murder.

On to the issue of dolus eventualis – that he armed himself and fired in the knowledge that his actions might result in someone’s death.

Why would Steenkamp have to tell Pistorius she was going to the bathroom, Roux asks. He says it is not strange that she had her phone with her; there is evidence that she had previously sent WhatsApp messages from the toilet. She didn’t switch on lights because she had the light from her phone, he suggests.

When Pistorius yelled that there was an intruder, it is not strange to think Steenkamp might have stayed hidden and quiet, locking the toilet door to keep safe. I would have done the same, Roux says.

If the accused was threatening to shoot her, why would she stand right behind the door, he asks.

The bathroom window was open, Roux says: it was not a figment of Pistorius’ imagination. The accused had asked Steenkamp to close the balcony doors and she hadn’t; it was a hot night. If she got up to go to the toilet – Roux reminds the court she had emptied her bladder – as Pistorius was closing the balcony doors, would it be strange for her to open the window in the bathroom?

Roux moves on to the issue of dolus directus – premeditated murder – of which the state says Pistorius should be found guilty. The defence timeline of events is not consistent with dolus directus, Roux says. If he intended to kill Steenkamp, why did he fire from the entrance of the bathroom instead of walking in? Why did he fire on his stumps, aiming low?

Pistorius has a long history of feeling insecure and vulnerable especially when without his prostheses, Roux says. Professor Derman tested him well before the shooting and found high levels of anxiety. The state does not challenge the evidence that Pistorius suffers from anxiety, he says: “They could not say it’s not so.”

This state of mind compromised his ability in the witness box, Roux argues. The judge should take this into account.

Roux says Pistorius “had no clue” when he gave his version of events at the bail application of the statements from witnesses. He has not come up with a new version of what happened. He has always said he thought it was an intruder.

Pistorius was “desperate” to save Steenkamp and called for help, Roux says. That is not consistent with the actions of a man who wanted to kill his girlfriend.

Nel is wrong to be conflating different times to suggest Pistorius has tailored his evidence, Roux asserts. When Pistorius woke up he saw the fans on the balcony and that the door was still open. The blue light of the amplifier was not his focus but it bothered him when he came back into the room. Nel had disputed why he would cover the light.

Other alleged incongruities Roux is dismissive of:

Details of Pistorius’ account that emerged after the bail application reveal no tailoring of evidence, Roux says:

The state alleged that “all” the couples who were witnesses said they had woken each other to ask about the sounds they heard. That is not true, says Roux: only one witness said they had done this. It was not strange that Pistorius did not make sure Steenkamp was in bed when he heard what he thought was an intruder. Roux sneers at the state’s point number 12: that Pistorius first said he whispered to Steenkamp, and later said he used a “soft voice”. It simply doesn’t matter, Roux tells the judge.

Roux dismisses Nel’s third alleged incongruity, and criticism of Pistorius’ poor memory. “He has a severe depression,” Roux says. “You cannot criticise him for that.”

Incongruity numbers four and five concern the duvet – I’ve dealt with that, says Roux. He says there was no blood splatter on the bed; doesn’t this suggest the duvet was in fact on the bed? Six and seven also deal with the duvet and other items in the bedroom.

The second alleged incongruity was the apparently contradictory evidence given by Pistorius about whether he heard the first noise (that he thought was an intruder) on the balcony or in the bedroom. He did not ever say he heard the noise on the balcony, Roux says. Nel is wrong in his interpretation.

Turning now to Nel’s “baker’s dozen” of 13 alleged incongruities in the defence case, as outlined by the prosecutor yesterday. On the first – the video in which Pistorius fired into a watermelon and called it a zombie-stopper – Roux says it is understandable that Pistorius did not remember saying it: he was focused on his murder trial and the quote was out of context.

Roux admits that the duvet on the floor does not work in Pistorius’ favour. But he says his client did not lie when he said it was on the bed. He was “fixated” on looking for Steenkamp after the gunshots, Roux says; he was traumatised and not looking for the duvet. “It’s not too important.”

Back to the police officers at the scene.

Pistorius did not have a motive to kill Steenkamp, Roux says. Their messages to each other on the day before the shooting were “lovely”.

Roux points out that Yvette Van Schalkwyk, a social worker and probation officer who was asked –independently of the defence – to assist Pistorius in his first court appearance in February 2013. Van Schalkwyk came forward as a witness because she was “upset” by what she read about Pistorius allegedly “putting on a show” when he was crying in court:

What I saw from the first time I saw him was a man who was heartbroken … He cried, he was in mourning, he suffered emotionally. He was very sorry for the loss, especially for the parents, what they were going through.

Roux says the testimony of the social worker was that his emotions were “never about him, what was going to happen to him or whether he’d get bail”.

After 7 February, Roux says, all WhatsApp messages between the couple were loving. There is also the evidence of the Valentine’s card Steenkamp had written to Pistorius (“Today is a good day to tell you that I love you”), he adds.

Roux quotes from the psychological report on Pistorius, which concluded he was not a narcissist, psychopath or malingerer. He and Steenkamp had a normal, loving relationship, with no evidence of violence or aggression. His method of conflict resolution in the relationship was to walk away, the psychologist noted.

(You can read the key conclusions of the psychologist’s reports here.)

Roux says the evidence does not justify the inference that the accused and the deceased were arguing. The security guard who went past the house at 2.20am heard nothing.

Roux says he has a few more points to make on the issue of the screaming. He wants the court to note the similarities in the statements made by witnesses for the state (and husband and wife) Charl Johnson and Michelle Burger. Their statements are virtually identical, Roux says: it is quite clear Johnson “adapted” his evidence to match that of Burger.

In court, they both used the word “fade” in relation to the screaming, when they had not used it in their earlier statements, Roux says. He says he will not draw conclusions about why this is. But there is no guarantee of independence in their testimony.

Reuters has filed a report on the morning’s hearing:

Oscar Pistorius’ “primal instincts” kicked in when he shot dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp because he was in a vulnerable and fearful state, his defence lawyer said at the athlete’s murder trial on Friday.

Barry Roux said during his closing arguments that psychological evidence had proven the track star had a heightened fight response because of his disability.

“You’re standing at that door. You’re vulnerable. You’re anxious. You’re trained as an athlete to react. Take all those factors into account,” Roux said, adding that Pistorius had felt exposed because he was standing on the stumps of his legs.

“He stands with his finger on the trigger, ready to fire when ready. In some instances a person will fire reflexively,” he added. “That is your primal instinct.”

Roux also argued that prosecutors had only called witnesses who supported their argument and not other key people, including police officers, who he said would have undermined their case.

He said the trial should only ever have been on the charge of culpable homicide, rather than murder, because he said Pistorius had clearly shot Steenkamp by mistake.

Nel and Roux have focused much of their closing arguments on evidence from witnesses who say they heard a woman scream before a volley of shots, supporting the prosecution’s position that the couple had an argument before Steenkamp was killed.

Roux went through the early morning of the shooting minute-by-minute during his wrapping-up, arguing that the witnesses were confused and contradictory about the sounds they heard.

He also spent time analysing photos he said proved the police had moved items in the couple’s bedroom, countering a key claim by Nel that images of the room proved Pistorius’ version of the events were impossible.

Roux says Steenkamp’s body was not refrigerated for 10 hours after she died. Digestion continues after death. Even if she ate at 1am, he says, the fact Prof Saayman could distinguish the food she’d eaten – vegetable matter – in her stomach shows the process of gastric emptying. By the state’s rules, there should have been no recognisable particles.

Can you take it as a fact that she ate at 1 o’clock in the morning? No, you cannot.

Would an athlete and model really wait until 1am – or wake up in the middle of the night – to go and eat together in the kitchen, as the state suggests? It does not make sense, says Roux. There is a period of inactivity on Pistorius’ iPad between 7pm and 8pm when he says they were having dinner.

I don’t know, says Roux, if Steenkamp got up for something to eat while Pistorius was sleeping. She knew how to work the alarm system and could have gone downstairs. It’s a possibility, he says.

Now to the contested issue of when Reeva Steenkamp last ate. Nel yesterday cited the testimony of Professor Gert Saayman, whose analysis of Steenkamp’s stomach contents indicated she had eaten about two hours before her death. That would suggest she was awake at around 1am. Pistorius claims the couple went to bed around 10pm.

Roux says the assessment of gastric emptying is not an exact science. Even Saayman said it could have been 11pm when she ate. There is no mention of stomach contents in the post mortem, Roux adds.

Roux is now talking about acoustics expert Ivan Lin, another defence witness. His testimony was not to settle the matter of the difference between male and female screaming, Roux says, but to show that screaming from the toilet cubicle could not have been heard at the home of witness Mrs Burger.

He says Burger’s testimony about “bloodcurling screams” tallies with that of the next-door neighbour hearing a man.

Yesterday, Nel asked why the defence did not call a witness to back its claim that Pistorius screams like a woman.

Roux says the witnesses who were not called by the state but were on the state list were not available to the defence before the state case closed. Once they could call them, their evidence on the screaming was better than that of experts: “They were there.”

Roux says the state has “no explanation” for these key points.

There’s no mosaic and no dropping of the baton. Everything fits in.

Has the state proved that the only reasonable inference is that the shots were fired at 3.17? It cannot be.

Roux: Would it make sense – 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?

Would he shout help, help, help, if he was in this rage mood? If he was standing in the bathroom talking to the deceased in the toilet?

Roux says you would expect Pistorius to call for help and scream after he realised what he had done.

State has failed to explain the first noises, or when Pistorius would have been able to break down the door with the cricket bat, in its version, Roux says.

He runs the court through all the things Pistorius would have had to do between shooting Steenkamp at 3.17am and neighbours arriving at 3.22am, if the state version is to be believed.

On the state’s version, there was only one and a half minutes between shooting at 3.17am and ringing estate manager Johan Stander. He also had to go to the balcony to call for help, put on his prostheses, fetch the cricket bat and break the door down, unlock the door and pick up Steenkamp, fetch his phone and make the calls. It is impossible, Roux says. It cannot be.

Colonel Gerhard Vermeulen is the a forensic investigator who gave evidence about the cricket bat used by Pistorius to break down the toilet door.

Roux turns to the evidence of neighbour Estelle van der Merwe, who told the court she heard arguing in the early hours. Roux is more concerned with what she heard later: shots, then a woman crying loudly. Her husband corrected her, said Roux: it was the accused crying.

This is consistent with the accused’s version, he says: a short timelapse between the first shots and the screaming.

Some witnesses interpreted the screaming as a woman screaming, but the closest neighbours Michael Nhlengethwa and Eontle Nhlengethwa, who testified for the defence, said it was a man.

Back to the first sounds, which the defence says were the gunshots.

He says Mrs Stipp says she heard both a woman and a man screaming after 3.17am. (By either state or defence version of events, that is probably not right. It is agreed that Steenkamp had been shot by then.)

He says the evidence from neighbour Mr Johnson was that the screaming sounded as if “they were being attacked”.

Dr Stipp also testified to hearing screams, Roux says. There was a break for lunch in the middle of Stipp’s testimony, Roux says: after the hour-long break, Stipp described the screams (as he had not done in his police statement) as anguished, fearful, severely emotional. Prior to lunch and in his earlier statements, he had merely said it was a female voice. Why did he not say this before, Roux asks.

You cannot rely on him. You have to put a big question mark on his evidence.

Roux says this manipulation of the timeline was not accidental. To have Pistorius walking on his prostheses in the bathroom before 3.17am was “bad for the state”, he says: it proves the noises at 3.17am were the bat against the door, not the gunshots.

Roux says the defence handed in photos to show the lights in the bathroom and adjoining toilet cubicle: the light was shining from the bathroom into the toilet. This means, Roux says, that when Stipp saw the lights, the toilet door was already opened. That is, after Pistorius had broken down the door.

Dr Stipp could not have made his call to security at 3.27am, or seen the man in the bathroom at 3.30am, because he was already at the accused’s house by then.

His wife, who also gave evidence, told the security guard Baba at 3.22am that her husband had seen the man walking in Pistorius’ bathroom.

Roux has a problem with some detail of Dr Stipp’s testimony. It is untruthful, he says; he “desperately wanted to assist the state”.

Stipp says his first call to security at 3.15am did not go through, and a second call at 3.27am did, resulting in the security guard Peter Baba coming to his house. He said it was after 3.27am that he heard a man’s voice shouting “help”, with security arriving around 3.30am. They then went to the accused’s house, where Stipp examined Steenkamp.

Measured against objective facts, this timeline does not work, Roux says. He has already argued that telephone data shows the first call did go through and Baba went to his house then.

The Oscar Pistorius Trial channel – which, admittedly, is watched by people with a particular interest in the unfolding case, as well as live bloggers – has been conducting a poll of viewers: 71% say they plan to take a day’s leave from work to hear the final verdict being delivered.

We should hear a date from the judge today when she will return to give her verdict. Masipa has resumed other trial duties, so her availability will be affected by that. Media commentators who have attended court in Pretoria suggest she could take up to a month to reach her verdict, which could then take two days to read to the court.

Where yesterday Gerrie Nel tore into the character of Pistorius, disputing his evidence and saying his version of events was “devoid of truth”, it is clear the defence argument is going to focus closely on the timeline of events on 14 February 2013.

There are difficulties with both versions of events:

Roux says witnesses testify that, on arrival at the house at 3.22am, Pistorius was carrying Steenkamp down the stairs. All witness accounts tally with this apart from Dr Stipp’s.

Roux says call data show the call from Stipp to security did go through. Accepting this, all the accounts and timings tally with the defence timeline.

Roux zooms in on the evidence of Dr Stipp, a neighbour of Pistorius and witness for the state.

Stipp said he saw a man in the bathroom window at 3.15am, but this could only be true if the accused was wearing his prosthetic legs, Roux says. It is accepted that he was on his stumps when he fired the shots, then put them on to break down the door. This backs the defence claim that the second sounds at 3.17am was the cricket bat, Roux argues, and that Stipp saw Pistorius after the shooting.

Roux says security went past Pistorius’ house at 2.20am and heard no arguing. Everything was normal. This is “fatal for the state”, which says the couple did not go to bed and were awake and arguing.

Security passed again four minutes later and saw nothing out of the ordinary.

Roux takes the court through the timeline of events on the night of 14 February, minute by minute. Much of it is based on telephone data.

We don’t know the exact time of the first set of noises, Roux says, but it was some time before 3.15am.

A witness, Stipp, said he was on the phone trying to get through to 911 when he heard second sounds at 3.17am.

Roux says there was roughly a five-minute gap between the gunshots and the second group of “bangs” – which the defence says is the cricket bat on the door.

Roux cites a number of witnesses who heard shouting: “Help, help, help.” It all fits with the defence timeline, he says. This would have been around 3.14am, Roux argues. This was after Pistorius had fired the shots and was calling for help.

We know the screaming was between the first and second set of bangs, Roux says. He says this was Pistorius.

Roux turns his attentions back to the shooting of Reeva Steenkamp. There were two sets of noises heard by neighbours, he says. The defence contends the first set were the gunshots, the second the sound of Pistorius breaking down the toilet door with a cricket bat. The state says the second set of sounds were the gunshots. It does not say what the first set was.

After the shots, it has been established that Steenkamp would not have been able to scream.

The defence says this means that the screams heard between the first and second set of noises must have been Pistorius.

On the final charge, of illegal possession of ammunition, the defence says Pistorius was merely looking after his father’s ammunition in his safe. The athlete did not have a gun that could use these bullets. He didn’t have a licence for them because they were not his.

On the other charges against Pistorius, including the two incidents in which he apparently fired a gun in public, Roux says witnesses against him are not credible:

Roux says the court should disregard the testimony of Samantha Taylor, an ex-girlfriend who said Pistorius fired a gun through a car sunroof, because she has admitted the athlete cheated on her with Steenkamp. “She has a motive.” Taylor and Fresco “materially contradicted” each other, Roux says.

Roux turns to the evidence that he says Nel is ignoring in the state’s heads of argument: the first noises (which the defence says was the shots; the state offers no explanation); the cricket bat; the evidence of the neighbours who said they heard Pistorius screaming in a high-pitched wail.

You cannot take several different possibilities and put them together to make a fact, Roux says.

He criticises Nel for quoting in the heads of argument a psychologist in a radio interview discussing the WhatsApp messages: “That was naughty.”

Was Pistorius argumentative in the witness box? Yes, says Roux. He should not have been. But he was 26, 27; he was apprehensive. He was being questioned by someone who was calling him a murderer.

Roux moves to Pistorius’ bail application. He had just been through a traumatic event, says the lawyer, and is then told by the state he has committed premeditated murder.

He makes much of the state’s original contention that Pistorius had put on his prostheses to go to the bathroom to shoot (both sides now concede he was on his stumps when he fired). Investigating officer Botha claimed at the bail hearing that Pistorius fired while standing right in front of the toilet door (this has also been disproved).

Roux says it was the (wrong) evidence presented at the bail hearing that prompted the charge of premeditated murder.

Masipa queries the analogy Roux made between Pistorius’ situation and that of an abused woman. As a judge, Masipa is renowned for her tough stance on abusers.

Roux says the athlete’s disabilities contributed, over many years, to a feeling that he could not run away. This gave him an exaggerated fight response. This was the “slow burn” for him, not abuse. When the abused woman kills her abuser, it is because she has had enough, not because of the most recent assault. The cup is full to the brim, Roux says.

The judge will need to decide why Pistorius fired the shots, Roux says. Was it reflexive action only, or action with thought? If purely reflexive, then he lacked criminal capacity, Roux insists.

If the judge finds there was thought behind the shooting, though, Roux says this is not murder but “putative private defence” (self-defence). But what was the thought process? It was that he believed he was in danger; that an intruder was coming out of the toilet.

Roux concedes that by arming himself, Pistorius anticipated he might have to shoot. But this fear is consistent with the responses of a disabled man with a “slow burn” of insecurities. The judge can’t look at the shooting in isolation, Roux says. Just as a woman kills her abusive husband after many years, so Pistorius built up an exaggerated response to danger.

He says it is not contradictory to pose two defences: of putative self-defence, and involuntary response to a startle. Pistorius was vulnerable, anxious.

He stands now with his finger ready to fire if necessary. He stands there, then [roux thumps desk] BANG.

In some instances a person will fire, reflexive. In some instances not.

Roux says the state queries why Pistorius did not call the police. By that time he’d called Johan Stander, the estate security manager, and 911 for an ambulance, Roux said:

Now to the WhatsApp messages. Both sides agree 90% of messages between the couple were loving, but Nel said yesterday:

But it’s the 10% that matters. It’s like saying you have cancer in your lungs but it’s only a small part of your body. It’s that 10% that counts.

They made up after the message in which Steenkamp said she was scared, Roux says. It was resolved.

Nel is the one who is tailoring his story, Roux argues. The prosecutor said he did not believe that Pistorius deactivated the alarm, as he claimed, because the alarm was never on: the couple were still awake. But elsewhere in the state heads of argument, Roux notes, Nel says Steenkamp could not have gone downstairs to eat at 1am because she would have had to switch off the alarm. Nel cannot have it both ways, Roux tells the judge.

The defence also has an issue with Nel’s analysis of the shots through the door – he said there was aim and a “good grouping” of bullets, rather than wild firing.

If you put me two metres from the door and I shot, I’m pretty sure I could get a better grouping.

He also disputes Nel’s contention that Steenkamp was standing behind the toilet door, talking to Pistorius. But the athlete was not in the bathroom, Roux says (the toilet was in a cubicle beyond the bathroom itself), but at the entrance, in the doorway. This was backed up by Captain Mangena, a witness for the state, Roux points out.

Roux launches a defence of one of his witnesses, Professor Wayne Derman, of whom Nel was scathing yesterday. Derman, chief medical officer of the South African Paralympic team at the 2012 London Olympics and a physician to Pistorius, is one of the most qualified people in his field, Roux says. everything he told the court was backed up by research, even if he did not keep notes. Everything he told the court was backed up by research, even if he did not keep notes. The only detail he could not remember was the second startle (one of three noises said to have provoked Pistorius’ actions on the night).

In law, Roux says, moving on, whether or not someone acted in a reasonable way is subjective. If it was genuinely the accused’s perception that there was an intruder, you have to test the intention. If you decide his actions were negligent, that is culpable homicide.

Roux says culpable homicide is what the trial should have been about – “but unfortunately it was not”.

Roux says the court cannot ignore the evidence that the crime scene was tampered with by police. He says the state’s case is compromised by its failure to show the court the photos seen this morning.

Roux is now tearing into differing accounts given by police officers who attended the scene:

Botha was the initial investigation officer, but was sacked after being charged with seven counts of attempted murder himself.

Nel ridiculed the idea of a police conspiracy in his argument yesterday. Roux says the defence does not allege a conspiracy, but says there was no respect for the crime scene. Things were moved “inadvertently” in the bedroom, he says. But it was not fair to cross-examine Pistorius about the placement of items, and call his version a lie, when the police had disturbed the scene, Roux insists.

Nel also accused Pistorius of lying about where he placed the fans when he brought them in from the balcony. The athlete says he put them at the end of the bed; Nel said the cord would not have been able to reach. Here, Roux says, is the photo that proves it does reach:

Roux now shows the court a photograph obtained by the defence showing Colonel van Rensburg, one of the police investigators, touching a plug at the crime scene. Police had denied touching or moving anything in the room.

The plug has been the source of contention, with the state disputing Pistorius’ testimony concerning two fans in his room, saying there was not space on the multiplug for a second fan. Nel told Pistorius he was lying, Roux points out. (The extension cord itself is missing, which has riled the defence and the judge – see earlier live blog here.)

Roux begins with reference to photographs he mentioned yesterday. Gerrie Nel, in the state’s heads of argument, showed the court a photograph of the view from the bedroom of Anette Stipp showing a clear sightline to the bathroom in Pistorius’ house. Why did Nel not show a photo with the curtain in its normal place, Roux asks. This is not a true reflection of what the witness could see.

The defence team has released its written heads of argument, highlights of which will be presented to the judge in court today (she already has the written version). I’ll aim to get a full version on the blog as soon as possible, but in the meantime, you can see it via this link.

Reporters in the court in Pretoria are racing through the written argument – it is 243 pages long – before the court session starts in the next 10 minutes.

Pistorius and his family are in court now, as are June and Barry Steenkamp, the parents of Reeva Steenkamp, and their supporters.