This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial.html

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
Final Arguments in Pistorius Murder Trial Begin Final Arguments in Pistorius Murder Trial Begin
(about 1 hour later)
PRETORIA, South Africa — The murder trial of Oscar Pistorius, the double-amputee sprinter accused of killing his girlfriend in a fit of rage, entered a decisive stage on Thursday as lawyers from both camps began two days of final arguments at the High Court here before handing over the case to the presiding judge. PRETORIA, South Africa — The murder trial of Oscar Pistorius, the double-amputee sprinter accused of killing his girlfriend in a fit of rage, entered a decisive stage on Thursday as lawyers began two days of final arguments at the High Court here before handing over the case to the presiding judge.
From the outset, the main prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, said he wanted to show how “the domino effect of lies” had undermined Mr. Pistorius’s case with “a baker’s dozen” of inconsistencies in his testimony ranging from the position of a room fan to the question of when he switched off a burglar alarm. “If one piece of the mosaic is moved,” Mr. Nel said, referring to Mr. Pistorius’s version of events, “the rest has to move as well to keep the picture intact.” The main prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, said he wanted to show how the “domino effect of lies” had undermined Mr. Pistorius’s case with a “baker’s dozen” of inconsistencies in his testimony on matters including the position of a room fan and the timing of his decision to switch off a burglar alarm. “If one piece of the mosaic is moved,” Mr. Nel said, referring to Mr. Pistorius’s version of events, “the rest has to move as well to keep the picture intact.”
But defense lawyer Barry Roux offered a an opposing vision, citing a psychologist’s report issued during the trial that said, “There are two Oscars — one athletic superstar; the other a disabled and vulnerable man.” But a defense lawyer, Barry Roux, offered a an opposing vision, citing a psychologist’s report issued during the trial that said, “There are two Oscars — one athletic superstar; the other a disabled and vulnerable man.”
On Thursday and Friday, both sides were scheduled to summarize the arguments they have delivered over a five-month courtroom drama that has been compared by some to the O. J. Simpson trial and by others to high-profile soap opera. They are also expected to field questions from Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa, who has so far provided few hints about her thinking and maintained her inscrutability throughout Thursday’s hearing. On Thursday and Friday, both sides are scheduled to summarize the arguments they have delivered over a five-month courtroom drama that has been compared by some to the O. J. Simpson trial and by others to a high-profile soap opera. They are also expected to field questions from Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa, who has so far provided few hints about her thinking, and maintained her inscrutability throughout Thursday’s hearing.
Prosecutors have argued that Mr. Pistorius, 27, fatally shot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model and law graduate, after an argument on Feb. 14, 2013, inside his home here in Pretoria, the capital. The defense team has argued that Mr. Pistorius fired four rounds from a handgun through a locked bathroom door in the mistaken belief that an intruder had entered his home. Prosecutors have argued that Mr. Pistorius, 27, fatally shot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model and law school graduate, through a locked bathroom door after an argument on Feb. 14, 2013, inside his home in Pretoria, the capital. The defense team has argued that Mr. Pistorius fired four rounds from a handgun in the mistaken belief that an intruder had entered his home and was in the bathroom.
As the 40th day of hearings got underway on Thursday, the prosecution presented its argument before the defense. Mr. Nel, whose tenacity as a prosecutor has earned him the nickname the Pit Bull, began by saying that the defense had offered two irreconcilable versions of events on the night of the killing. Mr. Nel, whose tenacity as a prosecutor has earned him the nickname the Pit Bull, began by saying that the defense had offered two irreconcilable versions of events on the night of the killing.
Mr. Nel said the defense had argued that Mr. Pistorius acted in “putative self-defense,” fearing there was an intruder in the house. But, Mr. Nel added, Mr. Pistorius also asserted that he acted without thinking, depicting the shooting as an involuntary action. Mr. Nel said the defense had argued that Mr. Pistorius acted in “putative self-defense,” fearing that there was an intruder in the house. But, Mr. Nel added, Mr. Pistorius also asserted that he acted without thinking, depicting the shooting as an involuntary action.
“It’s either one or the other,” Mr. Nel said.“It’s either one or the other,” Mr. Nel said.
Turning to the moment of the shooting, Mr. Nel repeatedly questioned Mr. Pistorius’s testimony that he had shouted Ms. Steenkamp’s name but she had not replied. “Why would Reeva not utter a word?” Mr. Nel said. Seeking to reinforce the charge of premeditated murder, the prosecutor accused Mr. Pistorius of intending to kill the person behind the door. “The mere fact that it turned out to be Reeva is of no consequence,” he said.Turning to the moment of the shooting, Mr. Nel repeatedly questioned Mr. Pistorius’s testimony that he had shouted Ms. Steenkamp’s name but she had not replied. “Why would Reeva not utter a word?” Mr. Nel said. Seeking to reinforce the charge of premeditated murder, the prosecutor accused Mr. Pistorius of intending to kill the person behind the door. “The mere fact that it turned out to be Reeva is of no consequence,” he said.
Even if the judge rejected the prosecution argument that Mr. Pistorius set out to kill Ms. Steenkamp, Mr. Nel said, “if the court accepts that he thought there was an intruder and fired four shots into that toilet cubicle, why would that not be murder of the intruder?” Even if the judge rejected the prosecution’s argument that Mr. Pistorius set out to kill Ms. Steenkamp, Mr. Nel said, “if the court accepts that he thought there was an intruder and fired four shots into that toilet cubicle, why would that not be murder of the intruder?”
Earlier, Mr. Nel attacked Mr. Pistorius’s character and his version of events on the night of the killing. “The accused was an appalling witness,” Mr. Nel said, referring several times to the defendant’s “mendacity.”Earlier, Mr. Nel attacked Mr. Pistorius’s character and his version of events on the night of the killing. “The accused was an appalling witness,” Mr. Nel said, referring several times to the defendant’s “mendacity.”
Mr. Pistorius, he said, was “more concerned about the implications of his answers” rather than the truth. Mr. Nel aimed his scorn at the defense’s explanation that Mr. Pistorius — feeling extremely vulnerable because of his disability — shot into the bathroom thinking that a noise behind the door indicated the presence of a burglar..Mr. Pistorius, he said, was “more concerned about the implications of his answers” rather than the truth. Mr. Nel aimed his scorn at the defense’s explanation that Mr. Pistorius — feeling extremely vulnerable because of his disability — shot into the bathroom thinking that a noise behind the door indicated the presence of a burglar..
The prosecutor tried to cement his portrayal of the athlete as a reckless young man unwilling to accept responsibility for his actions. He recalled one incident in which Mr. Pistorius accidentally fired a gun inside a restaurant and tried to get a friend to take the blame. The defendant, he said, has shown a “blatant disregard for the safety of others in handling” firearms.The prosecutor tried to cement his portrayal of the athlete as a reckless young man unwilling to accept responsibility for his actions. He recalled one incident in which Mr. Pistorius accidentally fired a gun inside a restaurant and tried to get a friend to take the blame. The defendant, he said, has shown a “blatant disregard for the safety of others in handling” firearms.
As he wound up his case, Mr. Nel referred to the “baton of truth” in a metaphor evoking Mr. Pistorius’s experience in relay races. “He cannot complete this race,” Mr. Nel said. “If in a relay race you drop the baton, you are disqualified. The accused disqualified himself.” The defense is scheduled to present its final summary on Friday.
Throughout the hearing, Mr. Pistorius sat behind his lawyers, alone on a long wooden bench. He mostly kept his head down, only occasionally looking up at the prosecutor. Judge Masipa will then reach a verdict with the assistance of two assessors, because South Africa does not have a jury system. Judges can take weeks or months to deliver their rulings in such cases, though some experts say that Judge Masipa may arrive at a decision sooner because of the many delays in this trial.
Two rows behind him, parents and relatives of the defendant and victim squeezed into one long, wooden bench — with members from each family rubbing shoulders in the middle. If convicted of premeditated murder, Mr. Pistorius would face a mandatory life sentence with a minimum of 25 years in prison. He has also pleaded not guilty to three firearms charges.
Mr. Pistorius’s side wore suits and well-cut dresses while Ms. Steenkamp’s relatives were modestly dressed, an indication of the social and economic differences between the two families that the news media here have remarked upon.
Early on in the trial, the two sides could sometimes be seen exchanging pleasantries; one time, Mr. Pistorius’s sister, Aimee, passed a written note from the defendant to the victim’s mother. Very little interaction took place on Thursday, though Mr. Pistorius’s father could be seen nodding in acknowledgment to a member of Ms. Steenkamp’s family when their eyes met.
Once the defense and the prosecution have finished summarizing their cases, it will be up to Judge Masipa to reach a verdict. She will reach her conclusion with the assistance of two assessors, because South Africa does not have a jury system. Judges can take weeks or months to deliver their rulings in such cases, though some experts say that Judge Masipa may arrive at a decision sooner because of the many delays in this trial.
A key issue for her to resolve, South African legal experts said, is whether the months of hearings have left a reasonable doubt about Mr. Pistorius’s intentions when he opened fire.
If convicted of premeditated murder, Mr. Pistorius would face a mandatory life sentence with a minimum of 25 years in prison.
Scrutinized in its every twist on social media, the case has drawn huge interest in the spectacle of a man who once ranked among the world’s fastest sprinters — nicknamed Blade Runner for the scythe-like prostheses he used in competition — facing his accusers.
Police officers, forensics experts, specialists in mental health, friends and former associates have all taken the stand — as has Mr. Pistorius himself — in the course of the oft-delayed trial, which was initially set to take three weeks.
The killing came months after Mr. Pistorius made headlines in another way, competing against able-bodied as well as disabled athletes at the London Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. Mr. Pistorius was born without fibula bones, and both legs were amputated below the knee when he was 11 months old. The defense has sought to portray his disability as a source of anxiety and “hypervigilance” that influenced his actions on the night of the killing.
While the prosecution has depicted him as trigger-happy, self-centered and easily enraged, Mr. Pistorius, usually wearing a dark suit and tie, has at times appeared to be deeply affected by the proceedings, sometimes weeping and retching into a bucket as he recalled the shooting.
At one point the trial was adjourned for a month while Mr. Pistorius underwent psychiatric assessment after a defense witness said he suffered from generalized anxiety disorder. The mental health specialists who examined him found no reason for his trial not to continue.
In addition to the murder charge, Mr. Pistorius has pleaded not guilty to three charges related to firearms.