Paralympic runner Oscar Pistorius will learn on Sept. 11 if he is going to prison — up to 25 years — for the shooting death of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in a case that dominated world headlines since his arrest on Valentine’s Day 2013.
The defense and prosecution wrapped up final arguments last week, and Judge Thokozile Masipa — known for her tough stance on domestic abusers — has five weeks to make her judgment, according to TheWeek.
Defense lawyer Barry Roux repeatedly asked Masipa to put herself in Pistorius’ shoes, at one point likening his situation to that of an abused woman. Prosecutor Gerrie Nel portrayed Pistorius as a deceitful witness.
Here are the main takeaways from the closing arguments, according to TheWeek.
Pistorius has two defenses: one — putative self-defense — in which he claims he was
defending himself against a genuinely held fear of attack and two — involuntary action –in which he claims his mind did not control his behavior. In his closing speech, Roux said he was arguing both defenses.
Pistorius admits guilt on one firearms charge: in addition to the murder charge, Pistorius faces three firearms charges. He denies firing a gun out of the sunroof of a car, accusing the other witnesses of inconsistent testimonies with motives to lie. He also denies illegally
possessing ammunition. But on Friday, Roux conceded that the court should find Pistorius guilty of negligently discharging a firearm in the Johannesburg restaurant Tashas.
Normally, that evidence would have been inadmissible but pleading not guilty was a trap Pistorius fell into, said Prof. James Grant, a criminal law specialist, in the Daily Telegraph — it has allowed the state to introduce bad character evidence, he said.
Police touched objects at the crime scene: during his closing speech, Roux introduced a photograph previously not seen in court showing a police officer – who had specifically told the court he had not touched anything at the crime scene – touching a plug in Pistorius’s bedroom. Roux accused investigator Hilton Botha blatant lies to incriminate his
client. Roux told the court there was “no respect” for the crime scene by investigators, making it difficult for Judge Masipa to convict Pistorius purely based on the evidence
provided by police.
Several witnesses were unreliable: both lawyers questioned the reliability of certain witnesses. Nel picked apart Pistorius’s testimony. Roux demonstrated that one of Pistorius’s neighbours, state witness Dr Johan Stipp, gave an wrong account.
Still undetermined: whether Pistorius acted reasonably. Ultimately, the judge will decide.
“He cannot escape a verdict of murder,” said Nel. “If you fire four shots into a small cubicle with Black Talon ammunition you see the possibility that you will kill somebody.” But the defense insists that Pistorius acted reasonably, especially for a man who was vulnerable without his legs, fearful of violent crime and with a propensity to choose fight over flight because of his inability to run away, TheWeek reports.
