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 8 Version 9
Final Arguments in Pistorius Murder Trial Begin Final Arguments in Pistorius Murder Trial Begin
(about 3 hours 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 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.
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.” 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 Mr. Pistorius’s 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 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.” 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 an athletic superstar, the other a disabled and vulnerable man.”
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. Mr. Roux is expected to wrap up his argument on Friday, capping 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.
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.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.
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. Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa will deliver her ruling with the help of two assistants, as South Africa does not have a jury system. She has provided few hints about her thinking during the trial and maintained much of her inscrutability throughout Thursday’s hearing.
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. In her longest comment, Judge Masipa questioned the prosecutor’s categorical description of the couple’s relationship as unhappy.
“It’s either one or the other,” Mr. Nel said. Mr. Nel said many text messages between the two might have been affectionate, sarcastically recalling some of the terms they contained, like “booboo, baba.” But a few crucial, serious ones written by Ms. Steenkamp the month before the killing indicated her unhappiness and fear of Mr. Pistorius, 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. Referring to the messages, the judge asked, “Can you make a proper inference one way or another?” She added that relationships have their ups and downs, saying, “The fact that you are unhappy today doesn’t mean you’ll be unhappy tomorrow.”
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?” Cliff Alexander, a criminal defense lawyer who has been closely following the trial, said, “She’s still given absolutely no indication whatsoever of where she is leaning.”
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.” As the 40th day of hearings got underway on Thursday, Mr. Nel, a pugnacious prosecutor known as the Pit Bull, 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.
The defense is scheduled to present its final summary on Friday. 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.
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. 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.
Two rows behind him, parents and relatives of the defendant and victim squeezed into another bench — with members from each family rubbing shoulders in the middle.
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.
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.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.