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.
Defense in Murder Trial of Oscar Pistorius Challenges Police Investigation
Oscar Pistorius Lawyers, in Closing Argument, Say Murder Charge Is Too Strong
(about 5 hours later)
PRETORIA, South Africa — As lawyers concluded their final submissions on Friday at the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius, the defense sought to cast doubt on the police investigation of the Valentine’s Day shooting last year when the double-amputee athlete killed his girlfriend in what he has called a tragic mistake.
PRETORIA, South Africa — The defense concluded its arguments on Friday at the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius, with his lawyers contending that he had killed his girlfriend in a tragic mistake that warranted a far less serious charge than murder.
The case closed on the 41st day of a trial that has drawn a global audience through video and audio broadcasts, reinforced by avalanches of messages on social media sites. Final arguments by prosecution and defense lawyers are the last step before the case is handed over to Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa.
As she closed the hearing at the High Court in Pretoria, Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa told both sides to return on Sept. 11, when she will deliver her ruling.
As she closed the hearing, the judge said she would return to the court on Sept. 11 to pass judgment. In the absence of jury trials in the South African legal system, she will make her ruling helped by two assessors. The trial opened in early March and has frequently been delayed. It was initially set to last three weeks.
The 41-day trial lasted well beyond the three weeks it was initially scheduled for. South Africa’s first trial shown on live television, it drew a global audience with its cast of outsize characters, especially Mr. Pistorius, 27, the double-amputee athlete nicknamed the Blade Runner, who overcome his disability to run in the Olympics against able-bodied men.
On Thursday, the lead prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, had derided Mr. Pistorius as mendacious and an unreliable witness. The prosecution says the athlete, disabled since the amputation of both legs below the knee at the age of 11 months, committed premeditated murder when he fired four rounds from a handgun through the locked door of a toilet where, he has said, he suspected there was at least one intruder.
Mr. Pistorius’s main lawyer, Barry Roux, emphasized that because of his disability, Mr. Pistorius had felt acutely vulnerable on the night of the shooting, Feb. 14, 2013, when, the defense says, he thought an intruder had entered his home, in a gated complex in Pretoria. Mr. Roux said Mr. Pistorius’s disability left him continually anxious, likening it to the trauma suffered by a longtime victim of domestic abuse — a comparison that Judge Masipa questioned.
The shots killed Reeva Steenkamp, his 29-year-old girlfriend, a law graduate who had been making a career as a model and reality television star.
In that state of mind, Mr. Roux said, Mr. Pistorius reacted to the mistaken belief that an intruder was in his bathroom by firing four shots through the locked bathroom door and accidentally killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, 29, who was inside. The case came down to a matter of seconds as Mr. Pistorius stood outside the door, Mr. Roux said.
Mr. Nel argued that whoever was behind the toilet door, Mr. Pistorius had set out to kill him or her and should be convicted of murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence with a minimum of 25 years before parole may be sought.
“He was standing at the door, vulnerable, anxious, with his finger on the trigger, and when he heard a noise, bang,” Mr. Roux said, slamming the wooden lectern in front of him with his hand.
After the prosecution argument took up all but 30 minutes of the hearing on Thursday, Mr. Pistorius’s main lawyer, Barry Roux, began his final argument on Friday morning by challenging the forensic skills of police officers investigating the shooting, accusing them of moving items in Mr. Pistorius’s bedroom, including a fan.
Since there was no intention to kill, he said, the shooting should have led only to a charge of culpable homicide, a lesser crime in which sentencing is left to the judge’s discretion.
Prosecutors have accused Mr. Pistorius of lying about his actions in his bedroom immediately before the shooting, including the use of the fan. They have said that an extension cord in the bedroom was too short to reach it.
On Thursday, the lead prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, argued that Mr. Pistorius had committed premeditated murder when, after an argument, he shot Ms. Steenkamp, a law school graduate who had been making a career as a model and reality television star. Mr. Nel argued that no matter who was behind the bathroom door, Mr. Pistorius had set out to kill and should be convicted of premeditated murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence with a minimum of 25 years.
The defense lawyer then attempted to counter the prosecution’s portrayal of Mr. Pistorius and Ms. Steenkamp’s relationship as deeply unhappy and troubled.
Most experts say it is unlikely that Judge Masipa will find Mr. Pistorius guilty of premeditated murder. They point out that since Ms. Steenkamp’s death, he has been free on bail, based in part on an affidavit detailing his account of the shooting; people strongly suspected of premeditated murder are usually not granted bail, experts say.
On Thursday, Mr. Nel argued that cellphone messages between the two on the application WhatsApp showed that Ms. Steenkamp was unhappy and fearful of her boyfriend just weeks before the shooting in the early hours of Feb. 14, 2013, at Mr. Pistorius’s home in a gated complex here in Pretoria, the South African capital.
While the prosecution argued for a conviction on premeditated murder and the defense asked for a complete acquittal, each side appeared to be aiming for something in between, said Marius du Toit, a criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor.
But Mr. Roux offered a different analysis. “Go and look at every single WhatsApp message,” he said. “Look at how quickly they made up,” he said, referring to the couple’s recovery from differences.
“I would think that it will be between culpable homicide and murder,” Mr. du Toit said, referring to murder without premeditation, a lesser charge. “I don’t know if the state has done enough for murder, and I think Oscar Pistorius may have done too much for culpable homicide.”
In the courtroom, Mr. Pistorius, who mostly kept his head down during the prosecution’s final argument on Thursday, looked directly at his lawyer on Friday morning.
A murder conviction carries a maximum of 20 years in prison.
Mr. Roux also sought to undermine the prosecution’s assertion that the couple had argued shortly before the shooting. Mr. Roux said that when a security guard passed the house at 2 a.m., it had seemed normal. If there had been an argument, he said, the guard would have heard. Mr. Roux also set out a detailed timeline of what he says was the sequence of events, beginning with the first shots fired at 3.12 a.m., cries of “help” from Mr. Pistorius at 3.15 a.m., and the sound of him breaking down the toilet door with a cricket bat at 3.17 a.m..
The defense also tried to counter the prosecution’s portrayal of the couple’s relationship as deeply unhappy and troubled.
As he has done throughout the trial, Mr. Roux emphasized that, because of his disability, Mr. Pistorius had felt acutely vulnerable on the night of the shooting when he thought an intruder had entered his home.
On Thursday, Mr. Nel argued that cellphone messages between the two on the application WhatsApp showed that Ms. Steenkamp was unhappy and fearful of her boyfriend just weeks before the shooting.
On Thursday, the prosecutor had argued that Mr. Pistorius was actually self-confident and claimed to feel anxious only when it was convenient.
Mr. Roux offered a different analysis. “Go and look at every single WhatsApp message,” he said. “Look at how quickly they made up” after arguing, he said.
Mr. Roux said that Mr. Pistorius’s disability had resulted in a “slow burn” that left him continually anxious, likening it to the trauma suffered by a longtime victim of domestic abuse — a comparison that Judge Masipa questioned.
In the courtroom, Mr. Pistorius, who mostly kept his head down during the prosecution’s final argument on Thursday, looked directly at his lawyer on Friday.
In that state of mind, Mr. Roux said, Mr. Pistorius reacted to the mistaken belief that an intruder was in his toilet by firing four shots and accidentally killing Ms. Steenkamp. The case came down to a matter of seconds as Mr. Pistorius stood outside the toilet door, Mr. Roux said. “That’s what the case is all about,” he added.
Mr. Roux also sought to undermine the prosecution’s assertion that the couple had argued shortly before the shooting.
If Judge Masipa found that Mr. Pistorius had acted reasonably, “then you acquit him,” Mr. Roux told her.
Mr. Roux said that when a security guard passed the house at 2 a.m. in the early hours of Feb. 14, it had seemed normal. If there had been an argument, he said, the guard would have heard. Mr. Roux also set out a detailed timeline of what he says was the sequence of events, beginning with the first shots fired at 3.12 a.m., cries of “help” from Mr. Pistorius at 3.15 a.m., and the sound of him breaking down the bathroom door with a cricket bat at 3.17 a.m..
Mr. Roux also argued that Mr. Pistorius’s training as a sprinter had made him more susceptible to react instinctively to sound.
With no jury system in South Africa, the outcome of the trial now rests with Judge Masipa, who will be helped by two assistants.
“He was standing at the door, vulnerable, anxious with his finger on the trigger and when he heard a noise, bang,” Mr. Roux said, slamming the wooden lectern in front of him with his hand.
Since there was no intention to kill, he said, the shooting should have led just to a charge of culpable homicide, a significantly lesser charge for which the level of sentencing is left at the judge’s discretion.
