We have not yet had an official verdict from Judge Masipa. But she has explicitly stated in the course of reading her judgment that there is not sufficient evidence to find Pistorius guilty of the murder – premeditated or not – of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.
He will also not be found guilty of murder without premeditation(dolus eventualis), as Masipa says it was not proved that he had foreseen that his actions could result in the death of the person behind the toilet door. Nonetheless, Masipa said it was clear that Pistorius had acted unlawfully in shooting the person behind the door.
She will return after lunch to deliver her decision on whether he is guilty of culpable homicide. She said Pistorius was a “very poor witness”, but that untruthfulness does not in itself mean an accused is guilty.
Oscar Pistorius hears the judge rule out a conviction for murder. Photograph: Kim Ludbrook/AFP/Getty Images You can read more detail of the judgment, which explain the judge’s conclusions, We have not yet had an official verdict from Judge Masipa. But she has explicitly stated in the course of reading her judgment that there is not sufficient evidence to find Pistorius guilty of the murder – premeditated or not – of Reeva Steenkamp.The judge said the state had failed to prove premeditated murder and the evidence was “purely circumstantial”.He will also not be found guilty of murder without premeditation (dolus eventualis), as Masipa says it was not proved that he had foreseen that his actions could result in the death of the person behind the toilet door. Nonetheless, Masipa said it was clear that Pistorius had acted unlawfully in shooting the person behind the door. She will return after lunch to deliver her decision on whether he is guilty of culpable homicide. She said Pistorius was a “very poor witness”, but that untruthfulness does not in itself mean an accused is guilty. Masipa said it “makes sense” that the screaming heard by neighbours was Pistorius and not Steenkamp.
The evidence of neighbours is “fallible” and some – such as that of Michelle Burger and her husband Charl Johnson – should be rejected entirely. Masipa accepts the defence timetable that shots were fired at around 3.12am, meaning screams heard after this time could not have been those of the victim. The sounds heard at 3.17am were the cricket bat breaking the door, as the defence maintained.
But she says that Pistorius’ evidence that if he had wanted to kill the perceived intruder, he would have fired higher is “inconsistent with someone who shot without thinking”. Defence claims that police tampered with the scene “pale into insignificance” in the face of other evidence. WhatsApp messages between the couple “prove nothing” for either side. Evidence from Steenkamp’s stomach contents that she ate later than Pistorius claimed is “inconclusive” and in any case does not help the state’s case. The judge says she will return after lunch to the question of whether Pistorius is guilty of the culpable homicide – manslaughter – of Reeva Steenkamp. The could be a manslaughter, or culpable homicide, conviction, if the judge believes Pistorius’ claim that he did not mean to kill Steenkamp, but decides he acted recklessly or negligently in firing into the locked door. There is no minimum sentence in South African law for culpable homicide: it would be at the discretion of the judge. Otherwise, given that murder charges have been dismissed, Pistorius could be acquitted if the judge accepts his account that he genuinely feared for his life and thought he was acting in self-defence. Alongside the charge of murder, Pistorius is accused of two counts of discharging firearms in public, and another of illegal possession of ammunition. Pistorius cannot be found guilty of murder.
But a verdict of culpable homicide still possible. Court adjourns for lunch.