Oscar Pistorius: The Verdict BBC News Special

We can go live to Pretoria, for special coverage, after Oscar

Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide.

Welcome to Pretoria, and the end of two long days in court in which we

finally learned the verdict by the judge on Oscar Pistorius in this

six`month murder trial, Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty not

of murder but of premeditated murder, as the state had gone for,

but of culpable homicide. For killing his girlfriend, Reeva

Steenkamp. Before we discuss the locations of the conviction, we will

look back on the day in court. Oscar Pistorius arriving in court, not

guilty of murder, but still not a freeman. The judge first dealt with

three firearms charges brought at the same time as the main charge,

that the athlete shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp. Thokozile Masipa:

He has got to be acquitted. Once again, prosecution evidence was

called into question, described as too weak to secure a conviction on

two of the three charges, but Oscar Pistorius would found guilty of

negligence when a gun that he was holding went off in a crowded

restaurant. By itself, that conviction could carry a prison

sentence. Then, the judge moved to the merged `` moved to the verdict.

He is discharged, instead he is found guilty of culpable homicide.

Outside of the court, discontent from the state prosecuting body. We

are disappointed that we did not get or secure a conviction on

premeditated murder, and also that there was acquittal on the other two

charges. The verdict is probably the best that the family of Oscar

Pistorius could hope for. We always knew the facts of the matter, and we

never had any doubt in Oscar Pistorius's version. Oscar Pistorius

is free, for now. Lawyers meet again in October to argue over his

sentence. He could still go to prison for years, or he could face

as little as a fine. A little of the reaction to the

verdict there, in the report, but what about the reaction from other

quarters to the fact that Oscar Pistorius has not been convicted of

murder, and that he has had bail given to him again, to spend the

next month at the house of his uncle, not in custody. Africa

correspond and Andrew Harding looks at the wider reaction to the case.

Oscar Pistorius, shortly after he had killed Reeva Steenkamp. From the

very beginning, he insisted it was a terrible mistake, that he and Reeva

Steenkamp, seen arriving at his home a few hours earlier, were very much

in love. I was simply trying to protect Reeva. I can promise you

that when she went to bed, she felt love. In court, not shown on

cameras, Lee maintained he shot through his bathroom door, convinced

an intruder had broken into his home. His grief and his regret were

compelling. I cried. And... I do not know how long I was left for. She

was not breathing. Oscar Pistorius's defence made much of the

athlete's vulnerability as a disabled man, confronting a

perceived threat. His capacity to walk without his push the cis is

poor, his balance is poor, he could easily be pushed over. When exposed

to a threat, he is more likely to respond with a fight response rather

than a flight response, as his physical capacity for flight is

limited. Prosecution sought to show that there was a darker side to

Oscar Pistorius. His obsession with guns, his quick temper, and it

questioned how the athlete could have made such a terrible mistake.

When you shouted and screamed at Reeva Steenkamp to phone the

police, she is three metres away from you, in the toilet, and she

never uttered a word? It is not probable! At the heart of the case,

the question of what Oscar Pistorius was thinking when he shot four times

through the toilet door. It was nice, I thought it was somebody

coming out to attack me, I fired my firearm. Your defence has now

changed... From self defence, to involuntary action... Is that what

you are telling me? I do not understand the law, I can only reply

as to what I thought... Today's verdict suggests that the judge

believed the explanation given by Oscar Pistorius. I believe that the

judge was swayed by his demeanour on the stand. The judge was swayed by

the evidence procured by the defence, including amongst others,

the psychological impact that his childhood may have had on him, as

well as the experts that were brought in by the defence. When it

comes to murder, Oscar Pistorius has been given the benefit of the doubt,

many here consider he has had a lucky escape. As for the friends and

family of Reeva Steenkamp, they still need to know whether her

killer will spend any time in prison. Some of her friends have

already criticised the verdict. It is unfair but it does not surprise

me, it is pretty much what I expected from the outset. Because he

can afford the best possible defence. He can invest in private

investigator to support his case... Today, Oscar Pistorius left court a

freeman, for now. The judge agreed to extend his bail, and rejected the

state 's claim that he might flee the country. The athlete will be

back next month for sentencing. He could still get a prison term. He

could, this is a very serious case of culpable homicide, because of the

use of a firearm. Four shots were fired, in particular. The judge has

complete discretion, she can impose any kind of sentence, it could even

be a non`jail sentence. She needs to send out a strong message to the

public. Tonight, he is back at his uncle 's home. Some in South Africa

have forgiven him. Some have not. The possibility of a prison sentence

still hangs in the air. With me here outside of the court, a

defence lawyer, and a campaigner from a gun`control lobby. You train

the barrister in the 1980s, how have you viewed what she has been saying

in court? I think that she has given her judgement very well, she was the

second black female ever to be appointed in South Africa as a

permanent judge, she has been on the bench ever since, she has acquitted

herself very well. In regard to the way that she conducted the trial.

She conducted in the way that a judge should be, she was polite and

was not obtrusive. Dealing with the judgement, weighing up the evidence,

the way that she came to her findings, to a large extent, I think

she did a good job in that regard, especially with regard to

premeditated murder. She put aside a lot of the evidence and said, "I

need more reliable evidence," and premeditated murder has no

definition in South African law. It means a degree of planning. Even if

it is a sudden rage or an argument, it is not need to be an hour before,

a year before, if you pick up a gun and kill summary, it can be

premeditated. But the witnesses that the state called were not enough in

regard to liability, because of the distance. She then dealt with

summing up of the evidence and applied legal principles and then in

her own opinion, her legal findings, together with the two assessors, who

play a very important role, they can outvote the judge, but they agreed.

The finding which inanimate. They make the finding to the facts only.

She then applied the law to those particular facts and said, the only

version I have got is the accused himself. She then applied what she

believed was the correct findings in regard to his version. Even though

he was a per witness, evasive, and even lied in certain respects, she

found that his version could not be rejected, for the simple reason that

shortly after the unfortunate tragedy, he said to an independent

witness, a nearby neighbour who came to render assistance, a radiologist.

He tried to revive the late Reeva Steenkamp. She seemed to be in very

bad medical condition. He said, "I made a mistake, I thought it was an

intruder". He kept that in the bail application and the trial and the

judge believed him. He did not fabricate the evidence, it is

evidence that he gave, and the judge found it reasonably possibly true,

even though in many respects he was not a good witness. Summing up the

legal position, there is a lot of criticism that has been levelled. In

this case, you have the smoking gun and the shooter and the unfortunate

victim, Reeva Steenkamp. Everyone has said it is so obvious, fired

through a closed door, it has got to be murder. You have got to look at

the principals. Burden of proof, the onus. Once there is no intention,

then you cannot have in any way murder. You have got to look at the

competent medic, the objective test, which is different, subject to what

he believed and whether it was justified. That is how she came to

her conclusion. Before I ask you about sentencing, I would like to

speak with you. The overall impression of what you have seen in

court, over the last few months but particularly, the reasoning that we

have heard from the judge. I would like to focus specifically on the

nature of the crime, which was what we would see as gun violence. One of

the things throughout the trial, and over the last two days, an increased

awareness in the public around the danger of guns in the home. I think

the fact that Oscar Pistorius has got one conviction on one of the

firearms charges. The lesser firearms charges that we were

hearing about, which were also being heard. One of them is about

negligent discharge. One of the three. That will automatically

hopefully disqualifying him and have him declared unfit to be an owner of

a firearm. But we have been surprised at her acquitting him on

the illegal possession of ammunition. The act is very clear,

you do not have to have intent to possess. It goes further, there is a

presumption of possession. Take an example with his father, perhaps his

father had left the ammunition at his home and had not told him. That

is sufficient to see the owner of the property, where there is

ammunition for which you do not have a licence or do not have a licence

to deal, that is seen as a legal possession. That finding is really

very surprising and confusing in terms of our understanding of the

law. Very briefly, in terms of the wider case, do you feel this has

changed perception about gun crime in South Africa or heightened

awareness? Absolutely, over the last six months we have had a significant

increase, particularly from women, saying, "I live with my partner, I

know a neighbour, a woman living with a man who abuses alcohol... He

has a short temper... What must we do? This is important, because the

law is not just for the gun owner, the law is there to help prevent gun

violence. If we look at the case of Oscar Pistorius. Several incidents

where he demonstrated negligence. It would have taken one person one

individual to have gone to the police station and reported, not

levelled a charge, but deported. The police would have been required to

hold a section hearing, considering whether he was fit and proper to

continue possession of a gun. If that had been completed, then there

is a strong chance it would have been completed and found that he

should not own a gun and Reeva Steenkamp could well be alive. Found

guilty on only one of those three gun charges. But an important

charge, very significant charge, and it carries a five`year sentence.

Speaking of sentencing, we have a verdict but we do not know Oscar

Pistorius's fate beyond the 13th of October, we now know he is back at

his uncle's, on bail, a freeman effectively until the date. There is

a variety of sentence options available to the judge. The

sentences will not play any further role in South African law. It is up

to the discretion of the judge, she is the only one who will be imposing

a sentence. She will hear evidence from the defence, they will lead

evidence. The state will lead evidence in aggravation of sentence.

Then there will be legal arguments on both sides as to what kind of

sentence should be in post. I have no doubt that the state will be

asking for direct imprisonment. `` should be imposed. Very fortunate,

if this was a murder charge, if it was common law murder, the direct

intervention, premeditated would carry 25 years, life, in South

Africa. First offender, 15 years on a murder charge, minimum. Maximum,

20. Unless you can show substantial and compelling circumstances, which

could be the way he has to cope with life with his disability. The judge

can probably sentence anywhere up to 15 years. Possibly the maximum for

this. Although it does not fall under the minimum sentence

legislation, we have had that since 1998. The legislature, and the new

government, decided crime is getting out of control, and so serious and

violent offences, they put in place a minimum sentence. Everyday, every

year, May one, even though it is workers Day, public holiday, they

extended for another year, so that it is still in force. He is very

fortunate that he does not fall under minimum sentence. The judge

has a wide variety of options open. Direct imprisonment, had direct

imprisonment where a portion would be suspended. I anticipate that

could happen. Also, a fine, a suspended sentence, perhaps what

could be called community service. If you well`known sportsman,

unfortunately, have not had charges against them but they have gone into

various underprivileged areas and they have helped underprivileged

children, immunity service. The community can see that they are

paying back, they show they are not beyond the law. That is one of the

alternative sentences, together with house arrest, for three years. The

judge has got various options open. It is at her discretion.

The reason why this trial has attracted so much attention is

because of his celebrity status. Six gold medals in the Paralympic Games,

bringing disability sports to the mainstream. But what went wrong?

Oscar Pistorius did more than win races. He changed the way the world

viewed disability. They may call me the Blade Runner. My parents made

the difficult decision of getting my legs amputated, but looking back

they made the correct decision. Few nor Pistorius as well as has long

terror training partner. `` as well as his long`term training partner.

He will stick to his words while chasing a gene. That Jean began

whilst at school. He was given prosthetics and began to run. It was

here in Pretoria in March 2004 when a teenage Pistorius, after two

months of training with bleeds, showed how good he was. He won the

100 metres in 11.5 seconds. `` training with blades. I put in more

hours. I train better. Oscar Pistorius is flying away from all of

them. Paralympic golds followed in Athens and Beijing. Pistorius has

become a brand. At London he became the first amputee to run the

Olympics, but by no stories were also emerging of another side to his

character. This man has known his story since he was a boy. A roommate

told me that he had to move out of the room because Oscar Pistorius was

shouting and screaming. He was shouting and screaming at his then

girlfriend. The story was confirmed by other athletes. Rumours about his

private life persisted. He seems to be a different person. He was an

insomniac. He used to go to the shooting range in the middle of the

night. He was volatile and aggressive. There was controversy on

the track as well. Having lost in the 200 metres final in London, he

suggested that his rival had cheated. He said there was something

wrong. After all that it was difficult to stand beside him. He

refused to talk to me. But the man who has become the new poster boy of

Paralympic sport told me that Pistorius was also capable of

generosity. He asked if she could pray for me. He made the first

breakthrough. At Pretoria University a new generation of Paralympic

hopefuls remain loyal. He is still an inspiration for me. I saw him

doing so well without his legs. As an athlete, superhuman, as a man,

flawed. Sports ultimate fall from grace is complete.

I am joined by a sports editor. Is there any conceivable future for

Oscar Pistorius which a Mac `` Oscar Pistorius? People will see he has

been tainted. I find it difficult to see him become the Oscar Pistorius

who captured the world. He was a hope for a lot of people. You knew

Oscar Pistorius well. South Africa make of the fact that it's hero is

now a convicted killer? Julian the apartheid era there were sports

boycotts. I think that time has moved on. The records that he made

have been broken. The Paralympic Association has said that if he is

punished and has paid his debt he can perform again. If Oscar

Pistorius calls and does community service, whether he is instructed to

or does it voluntarily, he has some way of vindicating himself. That

would be the best thing for him. You were hinting at potential

rehabilitation in the eyes of South Africans. Absolutely, if he did it

that way. We have seen people who have fallen wall pick themselves up

by doing community service. If he took a lying on gun control for

example. If he tries to correct those things now it would be an

indication. I agree. His image has been heavily tainted by this court

case. He has got to go back to the people that need ten 80. He has got

to see that he is sorry and that he made a genuine mistake. He has got

to offer coaching lessons. He has got to try and get civil society to

back him again. At present we do not know if Oscar Pistorius is going to

jail. We are stealing there is a lot of anger from the family of Reeva

Steenkamp. Whatever happens, his family has said they will not take a

custodial sentence, they will appeal. It will be many years before

Oscar Pistorius walks through a prison gate. They will take it the

entire way. They will want to see. They will be able to exhaust the

legal system. This is certainly by no means the end of the legal

process. By and large it is set fair and most

of us should see some sunshine. Spear a thought for those in

southeastern parts of Europe where there has been a lot