Oscar dodges bullet

Oscar Pistorius is a liar - but not a cold-blooded murderer.

In delivering her verdict in the Pretoria High Court yesterday, Judge Thokozile Masipa said there would forever be unanswered questions around aspects of Pistorius's evidence.

Although she cleared him of murder, Judge Masipa said Pistorius had "acted too hastily, used excessive force and his conduct was negligent".

Pistorius might still be found guilty of culpable homicide.

Masipa continues delivering her judgment today.

Pistorius shot dead his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in his Pretoria home on StValentine's Day last year.

Among those who will never have answers now that Masipa has ruled out murder are Steenkamp's parents. Her father, Barry, declined to comment. "Right now is not the time," he said.

After finding Pistorius an "untruthful", "very poor" and "evasive" witness "who had not been candid with the court", Masipa added that his "untruthfulness did not necessarily mean guilt".

"Weight must be attached to this carefully. There is no onus on the accused to convince the court of truthfulness. The court is not entitled to convict unless beyond a reasonable doubt."

Masipa dismissed the evidence of Pistorius's neighbours, testifying for the state, as unreliable. Instead, she relied on the "timeline" presented by the defence, which used telephone records, security guard monitoring systems and other technology to bolster its case.

"The state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There were not enough facts."

Masipa said Pistorius had a "plethora" of defences: "It was a shocking accident; he never intended to shoot anyone, he fired into the door but didn't deliberately intend to do so; [he] got a fright; he didn't think; he shot because he thought he was under attack and he didn't have time to think."

She said that although Pistorius's arguments were contradictory, the essence was that, while he had intended to shoot, it had not been to kill.

She dismissed the possibility that he had diminished responsibility.

According to criminal defence lawyer Ulrich Roux, Masipa's ruling so far meant that "Pistorius subjectively did not foresee (dolus eventaulis) that the shooting would lead to the death of someone."

Roux said it was "amazing" that Pistorius had been cleared of murder.

"Obviously the judgment needs to be studied but it is surprising. There was no case for premeditated murder - but [unpremeditated] murder?"

Masipa said there were, however, aspects of the evidence that did not make sense, including why Pistorius did not ask Steenkamp if she had heard a window open and why she failed to communicate with Pistorius or phone the police.

"It makes no sense that Steenkamp didn't hear Pistorius scream. These questions shall remain a conjecture. What is not a conjecture, though, is that Pistorius arrived at the bathroom with a loaded gun."

Masipa has laid out strong grounds for the possibility of a culpable homicide verdict. She said Pistorius had options other than confronting the "danger".

She said: "I'm not persuaded that a reasonable person would have fired four times into a small toilet. A reasonable person would foresee that a person inside the toilet might have died. He knew there was a person behind the door."

Constitutional law expert Marinus Wiechers said that Masipa's findings so far were "solid".

"Although Pistorius could have acted either out of fear or fury, it is a total combination of various emotional factors. The intention to kill has definitely not been proved by the state."

Wits law expert James Grant said: "The judge said Pistorius didn't intend to kill anyone but she bypasses the defence that he intended to kill someone lawfully, which is what Pistorius's defence was.

"I struggle to find how Pistorius intentionally fired four times into the cubicle when he knew someone was inside but didn't foresee the possibility of killing this person."