Pistorius verdict live: judge says athlete not guilty of murder

Judge Thokozile Masipa says Pistorius ‘clearly negligent’ over death of Reeva Steenkamp and will deliver ruling on culpable homicide on FridayinShare22

• • theguardian.com, Thursday 11 September 2014 14.43 BST

Oscar Pistorius hears the judge’s ruling on Thursday. Photograph: Rex

2.35pm BST

End-of-day summary

Judge Masipa did not give her verdict today – that will come on Friday morning. But she has effectively ruled out the possibility that Oscar Pistorius will be found guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.
The judge said the state had failed to prove premeditated murder and the evidence was “purely circumstantial”.
He will also not be found guilty of murder without premeditation (dolus eventualis), as Masipa says there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that he had foreseen that his actions could result in the death of the person behind the toilet door.
Nonetheless, Masipa said it was clear that Pistorius had acted unlawfully in shooting the person behind the door. A reasonable person would not have fired four shots into the toilet cubicle, because he would have foreseen the consequences: that somebody could be killed.
Pistorius acted “too hastily and used excessive force … It is clear his conduct was negligent.” But the judge adjourned the hearing for the day before delivering what many observers in and outside the court expected to be a guilty verdict on the charge of culpable homicide (manslaughter).

Oscar Pistorius (centre) leaves court today. Photograph: Kim Ludbrook/EPA

Masipa said Pistorius was a “very poor witness”, but that untruthfulness does not in itself mean an accused is guilty.
You can read more detail of the judgment, which explain the judge’s conclusions, here:

• Masipa said it “makes sense” that the screaming heard by neighbours was Pistorius and not Steenkamp.
• The evidence of neighbours is “fallible” and some – such as that of Michelle Burger and her husband Charl Johnson – should be rejected entirely.
• Masipa accepts the defence timetable that shots were fired at around 3.12am, meaning screams heard after this time could not have been those of the victim. The sounds heard at 3.17am were the cricket bat breaking the door, as the defence maintained.
• But she says that Pistorius’ evidence that if he had wanted to kill the perceived intruder, he would have fired higher is “inconsistent with someone who shot without thinking”.
• Defence claims that police tampered with the scene “pale into insignificance” in the face of other evidence.
• WhatsApp messages between the couple “prove nothing” for either side.
• Evidence from Steenkamp’s stomach contents that she ate later than Pistorius claimed is “inconclusive” and in any case does not help the state’s case.