Oscar Pistorius Trial: Judge Questions Witness Reliability

The judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial has questioned the reliability of several witnesses in court, as she delivers her verdict on the athlete.
Oscar-Pistorius-in-court-360x202
Judge Thokozile Masipa said humans were fallible, and may not have heard gunshots or screaming as they thought.

Correspondents say this casts doubt on a key prosecution argument.

The South African Olympic sprinter denies murdering Ms Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day last year, saying he thought there was an intruder.

The judge could also find him guilty of culpable homicide, or manslaughter, for which he would face a long jail term.

Mr Pistorius, 27, has pleaded not guilty to all the charges he faces, including two counts of shooting a firearm in public and the illegal possession of ammunition.

‘Insignificant’ evidence

Judge Thokosile Masipa began by detailing the charges against the athlete and repeating extracts of his testimony, reading in a slow, measured way.

She then moved on to a summary of the trial.

A tense-looking Mr Pistorius looked on from the dock, and then began to weep.

Judge Masipa said that defence claims that police contaminated evidence and removed items from the crime scene “paled into insignificance”.

But she questioned the reliability of several witnesses who apparently heard screams and gunshots at the time of the incident, saying most of those who said they had heard the incident had “got facts wrong”.

The judge also said that the court would not make inferences about the state of the relationship between Mr Pistorius and Ms Steenkamp. The prosecution has suggested that it was “on the rocks”.

The BBC’s Andrew Harding says the court is witnessing Judge Masipa’s logic and style – gentle, tolerant of error from witnesses, but razor sharp.

And he says that her conclusion that the state had not contradicted Mr Pistorius’s version – that it was he who had screamed – suggests that a premeditated murder verdict is unlikely.

Correspondents say the judge appeared to be moving much more quickly than expected through the evidence, in a process which had been expected take hours or even days.

During his closing remarks last month, his lawyer Barry Roux conceded that the athlete should be found guilty of negligence for discharging a firearm in a restaurant – which carries a maximum penalty of five years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *