THIS IS WHAT THE JUDGE HAS SAID SO FAR ABOUT THE #OSCARPISTORIUS TRIAL

Today, Oscar Pistorius, the South African athlete, who allegedly killed his girlfriend months ago, will know whether he’s guilty or not.

We bring you proceedings from the court, as it happens, from the tweets of @SmithInAfrica, who is in the courtroom.

• At high court in Pretoria. Oscar #Pistorius looking calm in dark suit, white shirt, black tie. Brother Carl in wheelchair after car crash.
• Judge Thokozile Masipa enters with familiar slow walk, bows and sits. Tell #Pistorius he can sit down. Begins reading judgment.
• “The accused shot and killed Steenkamp, the deceased. At the time the shots were fired, the deceased was inside the locked toilet.”
• Masipa says the accused was charged with murder and goes on the detail the three other firearms charges against
• “The accused described the incident as a tragic one that had occurred after he mistakenly believed an intruder or intruders had entered his home and posed an imminent threat to the deceased or to him.”
• Masipa quotes from #Pistorius’s defence statement but notes that there was no explanation of plea on the three other firearms charges.
• “The accused also admitted that the gunshot wounds were inflicted by him.”
• The accused admitted that a shot went off while the firearm was in his possession. Admitted did not have licence.
• The accused said he believed the deceased was an intruder who posed a threat to his life and the deceased. #Pistorius
• Masipa describes state witnesses who said they heard voices, gunshots, screaming. #Pistorius
• “It is common cause that on 14 February 2013, shortly after 3am, screams were heard from the accused’s house.” #Pistorius
• “Three of the shots struck the deceased… The deceased died from multiple gunshot wounds… The accused called for help”
• The accused was very emotional after the incident and tried to resuscitate her.
• “There were a number of issues that arose during the course of the trial. These issues took up court time and rightly so”
• “Whether police contaminated scene, length of extension cord, authenticity of photos. “These issues have paled into insignificance.”
• “There were no eyewitnesses.” But some witnesses did describe “what they heard or thought they heard”.
• “During the course of the trial it became clear that some of the sounds interpreted by witnesses were not gunshots but cricket bat.”
• “It is common cause that only four shots were fired by the accused that morning.” So some sounds must have been cricket bat on door.
• “Burger and Johnson were correctly criticised in my view as unreliable. But unfairly criticised for making almost idential statements
• “I do not think Mr Johnson or Ms Burger were dishonest. “They were, however, genuinely mistaken in what they heard, as the “chronology of events will show.”
• “Voice identification. “None of the witnesses had ever heard the accused cry or scream, let alone when he was anxious.
• “Even Samantha Taylor… had to concede she had never heard him scream when he was facing a life threatening situation.”
• “It makes no sense to say she did not hear the accused scream “Get out!” at the top of his voice. Why did shoot four times, not once?
• “What is not conjecture is that the accused armed himself with a loaded firearm” when he heard a suspected intruder.
• “Untruthful evidence does not always justify the conclusion that the accused if guilty.” Depends on the circumstances of each case.
• The court is not entitled to convict on his explanation unless it is beyond reasonable doubt that is it false. Onus on the state.
• “On count one, the accused is charged with premeditated murder. “The evidence is purely circumstantial.”
• “The chronology set out in the timeline tip the scales in favour of the accused’s version in general.”
• “The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder. There are not enough facts.”

The court is on 5 minutes recess.

Masipa running through different legal categories of intention, identity and killing.

• “The fact the person behind the door turned out to be the deceased and not an intruder is irrelevant.”
• The accused claim putative private defence.
• “Would a reasonable man in the position of the accused have acted in the same way?”
• “The accused is the only person who can say what his state of mind was at the time he fired the shots that killed the deceased.”
• The accused said he did not intend to kill the deceased but the court is entitled to look at the evidence as a whole.
• There is nothing to suggest  Pistorius’ thats belief there was an intruder was “not honestly entertained”.
• There is no dispute that the accused “acted unlawfully” when he fired the shots.
• Pistorius did believe that there was an intruder. He gave this version to witnesses immediately after the killing.
• SOURCE:Y!ONLINENAIJA.COM