
The
judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial has said the accused athlete’s
account of the shooting is inconsistent with someone who shot without
thinking.
Mr
Pistorius has said that he did not intend to kill anyone, but Judge
Thokozile Masipa said the height of the bullets suggested otherwise.
Earlier she questioned the reliability of several witnesses in court, while delivering her verdict on the athlete.
Correspondents say this could cast doubt on a key prosecution argument.
The
South African Olympic sprinter denies murdering Ms Steenkamp on
Valentine’s Day last year, saying he thought there was an intruder.
The judge could also find him guilty of culpable homicide, or manslaughter, for which he would face a long jail term.
Mr
Pistorius, 27, has pleaded not guilty to all the charges he faces,
including two counts of shooting a firearm in public and the illegal
possession of ammunition.
Judge
Masipa began by detailing the charges against the athlete and repeating
extracts of his testimony, reading in a slow, measured way.
She then moved on to a summary of the trial.
A tense-looking Mr Pistorius looked on from the dock, and then began to weep.
Judge
Masipa said that defence claims that police contaminated evidence and
removed items from the crime scene “paled into insignificance”.
But
she questioned the reliability of several witnesses who apparently
heard screams and gunshots at the time of the incident, saying most of
those who said they had heard the incident had “got facts wrong”.
The
judge also said that the court would not make inferences about the
state of the relationship between Mr Pistorius and Ms Steenkamp. The
prosecution has suggested that it was “on the rocks”.
She
then suggested that Mr Pistorius knew his actions might result in
death, which would leave him open to the charge of murder rather than
culpable homicide.
“He
stated that if he wanted to shoot the intruder he would have shot
higher up and more in the direction where the opening of the door would
be. To the far right of the door and at chest height,” she said.
“I pause to state that this assertion is inconsistent with that of someone who shot without thinking.
The
BBC’s Andrew Harding says the court is witnessing Judge Masipa’s logic
and style – gentle, tolerant of error from witnesses, but razor sharp.
And
he says that her conclusion that the state had not contradicted Mr
Pistorius’s version – that it was he who had screamed – suggests that a
premeditated murder verdict is unlikely.
Correspondents
say the judge appeared to be moving much more quickly than expected
through the evidence, in a process which had been expected take hours or
even days.
During
his closing remarks last month, his lawyer Barry Roux conceded that the
athlete should be found guilty of negligence for discharging a firearm
in a restaurant – which carries a maximum penalty of five years.
No comments:
Post a Comment