Trial of Oscar Pistorius

Pistorius was a leading South African runner who won attention as an athlete with a disability competing at a high level, including at multiple Paralympic Games and the 2012 Summer Olympics.

[22][23] Based on testimony from Detective Hilton Botha, Prosecutor Gerrie Nel claimed that Pistorius had put on his prosthetic legs, walked across his bedroom to the bathroom, and intentionally shot Steenkamp through the door.

Detective Hilton Botha argued that Pistorius was a flight risk and should remain in custody because he had a house in Italy and offshore bank accounts.

Botha also said the trajectory of the gunshots indicated that they had been fired downward and directly toward the toilet, which conflicted with Pistorius' statement that he was not wearing his prosthetics at the time.

[29] Botha acknowledged that procedural mistakes had been made during the crime scene investigation and that police had found no evidence inconsistent with the version of events presented by Pistorius.

[28][30] He had to admit the police had overlooked a bullet that hit the toilet bowl and was later discovered by the defence's forensic team, and that investigators had walked through the crime scene without protective boots.

[34] The trial was assigned to judge Thokozile Masipa,[35] who appointed two assessors, Janette Henzen du Toit and Themba Mazibuko,[36] to help her evaluate the case and reach a verdict.

[43] The opening statement of prosecutor Gerrie Nel observed that the murder case against Pistorius was based largely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the incident.

If the court concluded that this was a reasonable mistake, it would convict him of Culpable homicide – defined in South African criminal law as the negligent unlawful killing of another human being – roughly the equivalent to the concept of manslaughter in other jurisdictions.

"[67] At the trial, pathologist Gert Saayman said Steenkamp was shot in the head, pelvis, and arm with Black Talon hollow-point bullets, which open up into a petal-like shape on impact, and were "designed to cause maximum damage".

[68] Nel said the killing was premeditated based on contested testimony by those who lived nearby that they heard an argument and a woman screaming prior to shots being fired.

Concerned about the claim of premeditation, the presiding magistrate asked Nel why Pistorius had not staged a break-in to make his story look more believable.

[71] At the bail hearing, the prosecution argued that Pistorius was wearing his prosthetic legs when he shot Steenkamp, claiming that the time he took to put them on was evidence of premeditated murder.

[77][78] Prosecution witness Johannes Vermeulen, a police forensic analyst, testified Pistorius was probably not wearing his prosthetic legs when he broke the toilet door down with a cricket bat after the shooting either.

[79] However, defence lawyer, Roux pointed out to Vermeulen that if Pistorius had been on his stumps, he would not have been able to balance while swinging a cricket bat with enough force to break the door.

The state’s first witness, Michelle Burger, lived 177 metres away from Pistorius' house but claimed to hear Steenkamp screaming from behind the closed toilet door.

[91][92][93][94] The defence cross examined these witnesses, attempting to establish that, in fact, this was Pistorius screaming for help and that the "explosive sounds" came from the door to the toilet being battered down.

This argument was bolstered on 6 May by a married couple who lived next to Pistorius's house, testifying that they both heard a man crying loudly in a high-pitched voice and calling three times for help.

[102] The evaluation also found that Pistorius was not mentally incapacitated to the extent where he could not tell right from wrong,[103] although it said that he was suffering from a post-traumatic stress disorder and would need continuing psychiatric care or he could become suicidal.

[104] On 30 June, Gerald Versfeld, the surgeon who amputated Pistorius' legs when he was eleven months old, agreed that he would be "severely impaired in a dangerous situation, and would be unable to flee if on his stumps".

[109] Sean Rens, manager of the International Firearm Training Academy in Walkerville, testified at the trial that Pistorius had "a great love and enthusiasm" for guns.

Rens also described an incident, which occurred months before Pistorius killed Steenkamp, where he heard a noise in the house, drew his gun, and went into "combat mode".

[115][119] Masipa also said a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have "foreseen the possibility that if he fired four shots whoever was behind the toilet [door] might be struck and die as a result".

Steenkamp's cousin Kim Martin testified for the state about the impact on the family and asked the court to impose a prison sentence.

[138] Suggestions of improper political interference were made, after a tweet on the official Twitter page of the ruling party, the African National Congress, incorrectly referred to Pistorius as a "convicted murderer".

[144][145] Pistorius' family questioned the legality of the delay, suggesting that he was not treated like other prisoners due to "the public, political and media hype", and stated that he was already receiving ongoing psychotherapy.

[17] On 27 October 2014, prosecution spokesman Nathi Mncube confirmed that prosecutors would lodge an appeal against both the verdict and the sentence, arguing that Masipa misinterpreted the law when she cleared Pistorius of murder on the basis that he did not intentionally shoot Steenkamp.

[151][152][153][154] On 10 December 2014, Masipa gave prosecutors leave to appeal against the murder acquittal but not the five-year sentence given for the lesser charge of culpable homicide.

[157] On 14 September 2015, the defence filed papers arguing that the state was disputing Masipa's finding that Pistorius did not intend to kill Steenkamp; this was not allowed.

He was to be allowed to leave home between 7 am and noon each day but staying within a 20 km radius of his uncle's mansion in Pretoria, to be enforced with the aid of an electronic monitoring device.