'Why Oscar is guilty'

08 August 2014 - 02:02 By Graeme Hosken
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
Oscar Pistorius looks out of the Pretoria High Court building, where final arguments in his murder trial are being heard.
Oscar Pistorius looks out of the Pretoria High Court building, where final arguments in his murder trial are being heard.
Image: Times Media

Two renowned criminal law experts have told The Times that they believe the chances of murder accused Oscar Pistorius escaping a lengthy jail term are slim.

But prosecutor Gerrie Nel might have failed to hammer the final nail into the Blade Runner's case, according to James Grant of the Wits School of Law.

"In my view, Oscar Pistorius could be found guilty of murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on February 14 last year primarily because of his own poor testimony, but ultimately because any doubts that his defence may have raised might well be dismissed as unreasonable," he said.

Grant and defence lawyer William Booth gave their opinions yesterday as Nel presented his closing arguments in the Pistorius trial in the Pretoria High Court.

Grant said the most powerful evidence presented in the trial had been the evidence of the neighbours who heard a woman scream, followed by what they claim were gunshots.

"For me it is not explained away by Pistorius's lawyers bringing evidence of other neighbours who didn't hear a woman scream.

"It doesn't disprove that four independent witnesses did hear a woman scream. For me, when you take this, combined with the fact, which is agreed upon, that Steenkamp was first shot in the hip and would have screamed involuntarily - and with the fact that Pistorius, who was only metres away, refuses to accept responsibility for his other actions - it makes it hard not to suspect his guilt," Grant said.

He said it had been shown that Pistorius refuses to accept responsibility for his actions relating to any wrongdoing.

"He has asked the court to believe that guns simply go off in his hand when these guns are specifically designed not to go off by accident, as was the firearm that was fired in the Tasha's restaurant while he was handling it.

"It is this same argument that Pistorius is claiming as one of his defences for killing Steenkamp," said Grant, adding that on these things the court could very well find Pistorius guilty.

Booth said the athlete had done himself no favours, especially with his "multiple versions" of events.

"It is a big problem. If you are telling the truth surely you stick to the same story? Which version now, as a court, do you believe, is the truth?

"On top of this you have to look at the evidence of witnesses, especially neighbours. The court will have to look at why, if they are, would they be lying."

Booth said even if Pistorius's testimony that he fired in self-defence against a suspected intruder was accepted, it did not mean he would get off.

"The court must look at whether Pistorius exceeded the limits of self-defence by firing four shots through the door. Pistorius can easily be convicted of 'murdering' the intruder.

"Then, there is the issue of negligent conduct, of going beyond what a reasonable person would have done if they had been in Pistorius's shoes," Booth said.

Grant said Nel had done a good job in making a "virtually unanswerable case".

But Pistorius's defence had said: "Yes, he killed someone, but he was mistaken and he intended to lawfully kill another person."

"I'm not convinced Nel made a good argument to counter this," Grant said.

"If the court concludes there is a reasonable possibility Pistorius thought he was entitled to kill, it must acquit him." Additional reporting ©The Daily Telegraph

subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now