Former Olympic and Paralympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius killed his girlfriend Reeva Steevkamp on Valentine's Day 2013. This is a fact that nobody disputes. But was it a murder or, as argued by Pistorius and his defence team, a tragic case of mistaken identity? As we enter the stage of the trial where both sides make their final submissions, we see that some strong, well-crafted arguments are stacked up against Pistorius.
One clever tactic employed by the prosecution team was to include three charges relating to the reckless or negligent use of a firearm and possession of ammunition. What may appear to be the inclusion of extra, lesser convictions to prove, was actually a well planned trap to prove Pistorius' guilt for the prosecution's main target: murder. Unfortunately for Pistorius, he walked straight into this trap by pleading not guilty and contesting these additional charges. Since they were disputed, the prosecution were able to introduce evidence that would not normally be allowed in a murder trial. This evidence – including bad character evidence and reference to previous bad acts – is typically inadmissible due to its prejudicial nature. For this very reason, the judge may decide to reject this evidence as being irrelevant to the murder charge. But the evidence cannot be retracted all together and, on a subconscious level, who knows the impact it may have on the judge's verdict?
In any event, the prosecution are expected to argue strongly for the inclusion of this evidence in their final submissions. The evidence in question relates to Pistorius allegedly shooting out of a car's sunroof and the firing of a gun at a Johannesburg restaurant. These incidents show, the prosecution will claim, that Pistorius is reckless with firearms. Pistorius has strongly denied these accusations despite several eyewitness accounts to the contrary. Pistorius' explanation of the restaurant shooting was that the gun went off "by itself" – a rather bold claim. The court are unlikely to accept this argument from Pistorius and it could damage his credibility on both this individual charge and that of the murder of Reeva Steevkamp.
Added to this is the changing of Pistorius' defence for killing Reeve Steevkamp. Similar to events at the Johannesburg restaurant, Pistorius claimed in his testimony that the gun just "went off" on the night of Steevkamp's death. He refused to admit that it was a voluntary action, thus introducing the new defence of "involuntariness" mid-trial. Are the court likely to believe such an explanation for the discharge of a weapon twice? He would have perhaps been better advised to rely solely on the self-defence plea.
However, even the argument that Pistorius acted in self-defence has been effectively discredited by the prosecution. There are the several prosecution witnesses who heard the screams of a woman before gunfire and the admission of the defence's own acoustic witness that they could be right. Both sides agree that the first shot hit Steevkamp in the hip, allowing her at least four seconds to scream. Pistorius was unable to explain clearly how he could misidentify his girlfriend as he stood a mere three metres away.
Pistorius' fate hangs on the court finding reasonable doubt that he did indeed murder Reeva Steevkamp. However, given the unreliable qualities of Pistorius' own evidence, this doubt is made all the harder to find.
