End draws near for Oscar
The state and the defence will play a game of connect-the-dots when they deliver their closing arguments in Oscar Pistorius’s murder trial
THE state claims Oscar Pistorius intended to shoot his girlfriend, former Port Elizabeth model Reeva Steenkamp, after an argument. On the prosecution’s version, Steenkamp screamed during the shooting, so Pistorius must have known she was behind the toilet door. Pathologist Professor Gert Saayman said Steenkamp was likely to have screamed after the first shot hit her hip, while four state witnesses who lived nearby said they heard a woman screaming before and during what they believed were gunshots.
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel is expected to say there was a short pause between the first and second shots, based on the evidence of one of these neighbours, Saayman and police ballistics expert Captain Christiaan Mangena, and that Steenkamp was screaming at the time.
In support of the state’s claim that the couple had argued, Nel is likely to rely on the evidence by Saayman, who believed Steenkamp ate about two hours before her death at about 1am, and that neighbour Estelle van der Merwe said she had heard an argument at about 1am.
Nel is also likely to make provision for the possibility that should Judge Thokozile Masipa believe Pistorius’s version that he thought he was shooting at an intruder – that he still be found guilty of murder because he fired with the intention to kill a person.
Nel has said that Pistorius could not see what he was firing at and there was no imminent threat to his life or Steenkamp’s, which would make his defence of putative self-defence invalid.
This argument would be backed up by the testimony of state witness and gun dealer Sean Rens, with whom Pistorius took a firearms competency test.
Rens testified that Pistorius knew when firing in self-defence was permitted. – Marzanne van den Berg
PISTORIUS testified that he thought someone was breaking in when he heard noises in the bathroom. Terrified, he armed himself and went to investigate. When he heard another noise, which he thought was the toilet door opening, he thought someone was about to attack him and he fired four shots.
The defence claims that any neighbours who heard screaming, heard Pistorius – not Steenkamp – screaming at a high pitch after realising he may have shot Steenkamp. They were too far away to distinguish whose scream they heard, the defence is likely to argue.
Also, according to the defence, Pistorius fired four shots in quick succession and Steenkamp would not have had time to scream
Roux is also expected to say that the state witnesses did not hear the gunshots but rather heard Pistorius breaking down the door with a cricket bat. At this point, Steenkamp had suffered a head wound, rendering her unable to scream, so, on the defence’s version, they must have heard Pistorius screaming.
The defence is likely to back this up with the testimony of three neighbours who denied hearing a woman screaming, but heard “bangs” and loud crying.
Roux’s closing arguments are also likely to refer to Pistorius’s emotional state after the shooting – as testified to by three neighbours – and the fact that he told all of them he thought Steenkamp was an intruder, to show that the shooting was an accident.
Also, the defence is likely to rely on the testimony of pathologist Dr Jan Botha and anaesthetist Professor Aina Lundgren, who said it was impossible to say how long before her death Steenkamp ate, to counter the state’s evidence on this aspect.
The defence, relying on testimony by orthopaedic surgeon Dr Gerald Versfeld and sports doctor Professor Wayne Derman, is also expected to argue that Pistorius’s disability should be taken into account when judging his actions, as he cannot flee from danger. – Marzanne van den Berg