Guilty or not and everything in-between

Gerrie Nel, prosecutior in the Oscar Pistorius murder trial, is seen at the High Court in Pretoria on Monday, 30 June 2014. The star sprinter returned to court after spending 30 days under psychiatric observation to determine if he should be held criminally responsible for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. Picture: Phill Magakoe/Independent Newspapers /Pool

Gerrie Nel, prosecutior in the Oscar Pistorius murder trial, is seen at the High Court in Pretoria on Monday, 30 June 2014. The star sprinter returned to court after spending 30 days under psychiatric observation to determine if he should be held criminally responsible for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. Picture: Phill Magakoe/Independent Newspapers /Pool

Published Sep 10, 2014

Share

Pretoria - First prize for the prosecution would be for North Gauteng High Court Judge Thokozile Masipa to convict Oscar Pistorius of premeditated murder.

State prosecutor Gerrie Nel argued Pistorius, after claiming he heard a noise in his house, remembered where he’d hidden his gun.

He moved towards it and took it out of its holster.

Pistorius then got the firearm ready to fire and walked back to the bathroom, about 5m from where he was, with the firearm ready to fire.

He fired four shots into the toilet door, maintaining a good grouping of shots.

“The actions of the accused demonstrate pre-planning in that he armed himself, moved towards the toilet and killed the person in the toilet,” Nel argued.

He said if the court accepted that Reeva Steenkamp had eaten within two hours of her death and that her voice was heard by a neighbour who claimed she heard a woman arguing, then the finding of murder with direct intent would be inevitable.

Second prize for the prosecution would be a conviction of murder with the direct intention to kill.

Nel said Pistorius fired four shots into the small toilet with deadly ammunition and the shots were all grouped where Steenkamp was hiding.

The first shot hit her while she was standing facing Pistorius behind the closed door.

Nel said even if the court accepted Pistorius’s version that he thought she was an intruder, he could not escape a conviction on murder with direct intent.

He said objectively speaking there was no imminent attack on Pistorius.

Pistorius armed himself and approached the danger by walking down the passage towards the bathroom ready to shoot.

Upon reaching the bathroom, then realising the intruder was in the toilet, he fired into the cubicle.

But Nel said there was no reason for Pistorius to believe an attack was imminent.

Alternatively, he said, Pistorius can’t escape a finding that he must have foreseen someone would be killed. In firing the shots into the small cubicle, he must have known he would hit and kill a person behind the door, especially with the Black Talon ammunition, Nel said.

He said Pistorius reconciled himself with this realisation and went ahead, shooting not once, but four times.

Consolation prize for the prosecution is a conviction on culpable homicide. In this regard, Nel said a reasonable person, armed with a firearm, facing a closed door, would not have fired four shots through the door if only provoked by a sound.

First prize for the defence is an acquittal on murder.

Defence Advocate Barry Roux argued the shooting was an accident, that Pistorius shot in the belief that an intruder was coming out of the toilet to attack him and Steenkamp.

Roux said Pistorius never intended to shoot anyone and he did not have time to think when he heard a noise behind the door. He simply fired.

“He did not purposefully or deliberately fire the shots. He also did not specifically aim at the door. The firearm was pointed at the door when he discharged it as he got a fright.”

Roux said Pistorius remembered pulling the trigger in quick succession, but did not remember firing four shots.

Pistorius, during his evidence said: “I fired before I could think. Before I even had a moment to comprehend what was happening. I pulled the trigger the moment I heard the noise (behind the door).”

Roux said Pistorius never thought about the possibility that he could kill people in the cubicle. He said although Pistorius approached the bathroom in a state of readiness to defend himself and Steenkamp against a perceived attack, he did not consciously discharge his firearm in the direction of the door.

“The conduct of the accused and the death of the deceased is indeed a tragic accident,” Roux said.

He further argued that the State did not prove the couple argued that night or that it was Steenkamp who was screaming.

Roux said the couple were in a loving relationship and Pistorius had no reason to kill Steenkamp.

“There is not an iota of evidence as to why he would have wanted to kill her.”

Roux said if Pistorius wanted Steenkamp dead, he would not have tried everything to try to save her life.

Pretoria News

Related Topics: