Judge finds Oscar Pistorius not guilty of murder

PRETORIA, South Africa – During his trial, Oscar Pistorius sometimes retched and sobbed. The double-amputee Olympian sobbed again on Thursday, this time in apparent relief as a judge said the evidence did not support a murder conviction for killing girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

The judge could still convict Pistorius of a negligent killing – a crime that can carry a lengthy jail term or just a suspended sentence and fine – when she likely finishes reading her lengthy conclusions in court today. Some legal analysts were surprised, saying the runner could at least have been convicted of a lesser murder charge, rather than the premeditated murder charge leveled by the state.

The Pretoria courtroom was packed for the ruling in the case against 27-year-old Pistorius, once a globally admired celebrity who competed against able-bodied athletes at the 2012 Olympics in London. His brother, Carl, was there in a wheelchair because of injuries suffered in a recent car crash. So were Steenkamp’s parents, June and Barry.

Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model, had been seeing the star athlete for only a few months before he killed her by shooting four times through a closed toilet door in his home in the pre-dawn hours of Valentine’s Day last year. Pistorius said he thought an intruder was in the toilet and about to attack him; the prosecution said he intentionally killed her after an argument.

Judge Thokozile Masipa, wearing a red robe, unveiled her analysis of the case after saying little throughout the sensational six-month trial as lawyers argued and witnesses testified about the shocking killing. South Africa does not have a jury system, and judges customarily issue verdicts only after explaining their reasoning.

“The accused cannot be found guilty of murder,” the judge said, noting there were “just not enough facts” to support the finding of guilt for premeditated murder, which carries a sentence of 25 years to life in prison, or an unplanned murder, considered a less severe crime.

To support her view that the state had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge said some neighbors’ accounts of hearing a woman’s screams on the night of Steenkamp’s death – a key part of the prosecution’s case – were unreliable. The defense had argued that it was Pistorius who was screaming in horror in a high-pitched voice after discovering he had fatally shot Steenkamp.

Masipa cited what she called an “objective” timeline of telephone calls made after the shooting, some involving Pistorius, that the defense had compiled in an attempt to discredit witness accounts about the sequence of purported screams and gunshots. She noted that Pistorius was reported to be in genuine distress in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, and that he could not have been “play-acting.”

Even so, the judge appeared to lay the groundwork for a conviction for culpable homicide, which is the killing of someone through reckless or negligent behavior. She described Pistorius’ conduct as negligent and said he could have telephoned security or screamed for help on the balcony instead of grabbing his gun and heading to confront a perceived danger in the bathroom.

“I am of the view that the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force,” Masipa said.