Pistorius Verdict as it happened: 'Accused not guilty of murder, but was negligent'

1800 IST: Verdict in a nutshell

Masipa finds that Pistorius was negligent and his actions were unreasonable but she hasn’t made a definitive finding on Culpable Homicide. She has ruled out murder or premeditated murder.

1757 IST: Pistorius acted negligently

“I am of the view that the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force. He acted negligently,” says Masipa.

“The accused failed to take any steps to avoid the resulting death,” she added, before adjourning.

1750 IST: Pistorius fails reasonable man test

“He could not have run from danger, but all the accused had to do was pick up his cellphone and call security or the police. He could have run to the balcony and screamed,” says Masipa.

“I agree that the conduct of the accused may be better understood by looking at his background. (But) The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and to conduct himself reasonably. I’m not persuaded that a reasonable person with the same circumstances would have shot into the cubicle. A reasonable person would have foreseen that the person in the toilet would be hit and possibly killed. He chose to use a firearm and he was trained in firearm use,” she adds.

1745 IST: The reasonable man test

Masipa explains that the court must use the test of the Reasonable Man to determine whether OP was negligent or not.

“Although the test for negligence is objective, certain subjective factors are applied,” she said.

https://twitter.com/MandyWiener/status/510039246036819968

https://twitter.com/Simmoa/status/510039846514335744

Judge Masipa yet to return from the break

@lucethornton: Carl turns round and winks at his brother Oscar as court waits for the Judge to return. #Pistorius

— Aislinn Laing (@Simmoa) September 11, 2014

https://twitter.com/rioferdy5/status/510037967046316032

Court adjourned for early lunch

1605 IST: Pistorius’ not guilty of murder

First Masipa says she finds no reason to reject that OP’s emotions were true when he was upset that night. She also says Pistorius is not guilty of murder. However, culpable homicide cannot be ruled out.

https://twitter.com/jeromestarkey/status/510013915838050305

1602 IST: Pistorius acted unlawfully

“There is no dispute that the accused acted unlawfully when he fired the shots. There was no intruder,” says Masipa. However, she adds: “Pistorius did believe that there was an intruder. He gave this version to witnesses immediately after the killing. It is highly improbable that the accused could have made all this up so quickly.”

1600 IST: Pistorius’ admissions

“The accused has not admitted that he had the intention to shoot and kill the deceased or any other person. He is only person who can say what his state of mind was. His own version was that he genuinely or although erroneously believed there was an intruder in the house,” says Masipa.

https://twitter.com/Simmoa/status/510012078669963264

1555 IST: There is an error in persona, says Masipa

Masipa says that this is clearly an error in persona and not transferred intent. This means she agrees with State not Defence.

“Starting point is whether Pistorius had intention to shoot the person behind the toilet door? It is irrelevant that the person behind the door was not the intruder,” she says.

1550 IST: Masipa refers to previous cases, compares them to Steenkamp murder

The state says that the ’error in objecto’, the error in who Oscar shot, should not mean that he be acquitted. This means Masipa dealing with the law where person A intends to kill B, but accidentally kills C.

https://twitter.com/NastasyaTay/status/510010089349332992

https://twitter.com/MandyWiener/status/510009701946626048

Court adjourned for five minutes

1538 IST: On premeditated murder count, evidence is purely circumstantial, says Judge

“The chronology set out in the timeline tip the scales in favour of the accused’s version in general,” says the Judge. She then adds that the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder.

1535 IST: Why didn’t Pistorius ask victim anything?

“Why didn’t she hear him scream? Why didn’t he check she was there? Why four shots?” asks Masipa. “These questions will remain a conjecture. What is not conjecture is that the accused armed himself with a loaded firearm when he heard a suspected intruder,” she adds.

1535 IST: Pistorius an evasive witness

“Pistorius was initially composed, but lost composure under cross-examination. Often a question requiring a straightforward answer turned into a point of debate about what another witness said or did. He often blamed his legal team for the oversight,” says Masipa.

1530 IST: The onus of proof is on the state

“The accused clearly wanted to use the firearm and the only way to use it is to shoot. But the intention to shoot does not necessarily mean the intention to kill. Did the accused intend to kill the deceased when he pulled the trigger? Onus of proof is on the state,” says Judge Masipa.

1530 IST: ‘A person with a disability like Pistorius would feel vulnerable’

Judge Masipa says that someone with ’limited mobility’ would feel vulnerable when threatened with danger. But then old people and other disabled people would also fall in the same category, she adds.

1525 IST: Masipa throws doubt on Pistorius’ explanations

“Pistorius’s various explanations about reacting to perceived intruder contradictory in my view,” says Judge Masipa. “The accused’s own evidence was that he never intended to shoot the robbers,” she adds.

“It was argued that if the accused claimed he never intended to shoot anyone, he can’t claim putative self defence.”

This is not going good for Pistorius.

1520 IST: Pistorius did not lack criminal capacity

Psychiatric found that Pistorius was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. Report found that Pistorius did not suffer disorder “that would have rendered him criminally not responsible for the offences charged”. So basically Masipa says both defence and prosecution accepted the psychiatric assessment that he did not lack criminal capacity at time of shooting – this is what the Pistorius’ psychiatric evaluation says.

1510 IST: Trial resumes - Judge Masipa concentrates on defence

“Defence submitted that when the accused approached toilet with firearm, it did not mean he intended to shoot without reason,” Masipa says, before asking: “Did the accused have criminal capacity?”

Masipa says although it wasn’t said explicitly, defence had hallmarks of temporary pathological incapacity.

https://twitter.com/JacaNews/status/509994105573998593

The court has adjourned for about 30 minutes

1429 IST: Masipa is now summarising Oscar’s version

Masipa: “He woke up and went to collect the fans, heard the noise, he thought there was an intruder in the house, he fetched his firearm, walked toward the bathroom shouting, the light was not switched on, but he could see inside, he did not know where the intruder was, he had his firearm pointed at the toilet door, and heard a noise he believed was the intruder coming out, he retreated to the bathroom and realised Reeva was not there, the panic set in, he called for help, fetched his cricket bat and bashed down the door. He found Reeva. After struggling to pick up the deceased, he eventually managed to carry her downstairs, when neighbours arrived.”

Masipa: He (Oscar) stated he was at no stage ready to fire, but it was in the ready mode, safety off.

1415 IST Masipa: “WhatsApp messages were introduced to show that the relationship was rocky. The defence showed loving messages. None of the evidence by the state or defence (in relation to messages) proves anything. Relationships are unpredictable.”

1405 IST: Masipa continues reading out verdict

Back after a short break

Masipa: “The shots were fired between approximately 3.13 and 3.14am. The screaming heard after those sounds could not have been the deceased because she suffered a devastating head wound.”

Masipa dismisses Stipp’s timeframes – the sounds she heard were a lot later than the 3:02 she claims.

https://twitter.com/MandyWiener/status/509985002269200384

1403 IST: Masipa reads out the chronology of events Starts at 2:20am when the guard track was activated, then the shots after 3am. After the shots, screams were heard, then neighbours started phoning security, then the bat strikes the door. After the bat was heard striking the door, the accused made three calls. There are 23 points linked to times and events, ending with the police arriving on the scene.

Masipa: “This chronology will prove useful in establishing whether the accused showed intent and premeditation.”

The court has taken a break.

https://twitter.com/MandyWiener/status/509982039496724480

1355 IST Masipa: “It is unwise to rely the evidence of witnesses without testing it against objective facts. Thankfully this court can rely on objective evidence in the form of technology - the phone records. The phone records can be used as a base to establish when the shots were fired, screams heard and bat hitting door.”

1348 IST Masipa: “Counsel for the defence submitted, correctly, that Dr Stipp’s evidence was unreliable in terms of the times.”

1347 IST Judge Masipa: “Most witnesses got their facts wrong. The probability is that some witnesses failed to separate what they knew personally and what they heard from others, the media.”

Masipa describing Reeva Steenkamp’s wounds - The hip wound would have caused immediate instability. - The deceased suffered a devastating wound to her arm. The head wound was immediately incapacitating. - The shots were fired in quick succession which meant the deceased would not have been able to scream… - The only other person who could have screamed was the accused.

Judge Masipa summarising the neighbours evidence - They heard noises that sounded like gunshots. - It became clear that some of the sounds the neighbours thought were gunshots were the bat striking the door. - Some of the witnesses missed some of the sounds either because they were asleep or their focus was elsewhere. -

Guilty or not guilty? The verdict in the Oscar Pistorius murder trial will not be delivered so simply.

Judge Thokozile Masipa will first recount and analyze the evidence given by each of the nearly 40 witnesses in the criminal case that captured considerable international attention. The verdict on whether Pistorius intentionally killed girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp is expected to take hours, maybe days.

And if there are any convictions on the four charges Pistorius faces — murder and three unrelated firearm charges — sentences will only be decided later at a separate hearing.

Here’s a look at how it might unfold.

Verdict Process

Because South Africa has no trial by jury, Judge Masipa must show why she and her two legal assessors reached their decision on each count. The process will likely take most of Thursday’s court session and might run into Friday.

The judge will give a summary of the testimony of all 37 witnesses. Masipa will then give her assessment of each witness — including Pistorius — and what was accepted or rejected from their testimony. Then, she will give a summary of her own findings based on how she interpreted the evidence and how it ties in with the law. Finally, she will pronounce Pistorius guilty or not guilty on the charges: Murder, two charges of unlawfully shooting a gun in public in unrelated incidents and one count of illegal possession of ammunition.

Pistorius will likely be asked to stand while the judgment is read out.

Possible Verdicts

Murder: If Pistorius is convicted of murder — of intentionally killing Steenkamp — the judge will explain if she found it was with premeditation, as prosecutors argue, or not. There is a longer prison term for premeditated or pre-planned murder.

Culpable homicide: If Pistorius is acquitted of murder, which he pleaded not guilty to, he still faces a culpable homicide or negligent killing charge even though it isn’t on the indictment. That’s because the double-amputee Olympic runner shot Steenkamp and must also be judged on whether he acted negligently in her death, even if it’s found he didn’t intend to kill her.

Acquitted: Pistorius could be acquitted of both murder and culpable homicide if the judge finds he had no intention to kill and also acted reasonably.

Will Pistorius remain free on bail?

If convicted, Pistorius would likely remain free on bail until sentencing because he has been out on bail during the trial, legal expert Marius du Toit said. However, that’s not guaranteed and the judge could order Pistorius be taken into custody. A defendant’s bail expires on conviction, meaning Masipa must make a new ruling on bail if Pistorius is convicted.

Sentencing: The second trial

If there is any conviction, prosecutors and Pistorius’ defense lawyers will have the chance to present witnesses in a separate sentencing hearing before Masipa decides if and how long Pistorius goes to prison. In what amounts to a second trial, prosecutors could call members of Steenkamp’s family, maybe her mother and father, to testify for sentencing. Defense lawyers might call psychiatrists to argue for a lighter sentence.

Premeditated murder calls for a life sentence in prison with a minimum of 25 years before the chance of parole in South Africa, which does not have the death penalty. Murder without pre-planning has a minimum of 15 years in prison.

Culpable homicide has five years if a gun is used, but this can be increased or decreased depending on circumstances. For example, the fact that Pistorius fired multiple times into a small space and didn’t fire a warning shot first could count against him.

The three unrelated firearm charges Pistorius faces usually carry fines or suspended sentences on conviction.

Appeal

Du Toit said an appeal is “extremely likely” and predicts that Pistorius would probably appeal if he is given any jail time. An appeal can only happen after sentencing. Pistorius could appeal against a conviction, against a sentence, or against both. The possibility is one of the reasons why Judge Masipa must be so thorough in the verdict she reads out on Thursday.

“The appeal courts start by reading her judgment,” Du Toit said. - Associated Press