Guardian Live News Bloghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/20 ... e-coverageSUMMARY of Today's events:The defence and prosecution in Oscar Pistorius’s bail hearing began to sum up their cases today; defence lawyer Barry Roux was able to finish his, but Gerrie Nel, for the prosecution, will continue tomorrow.
Here are the key points from today’s hearing.
• Defence lawyer Barry Roux said that the killing of Reeva Steenkamp should not be considered "schedule six" (ie premeditated murder). The evidence does not show it was premeditated, he said. The evidence does not even show it was murder. He said that investigating officer Hilton Botha had yesterday corroborated Pistorius’s version of events – that he thought there was a burglar in the bathroom and shot through the door out of fear for his and Steenkamp’s safety – and criticised the prosecution’s evidence. Botha has not a credible witness, he said. Pistorius’s version of events is the only one that made sense and in the interests of justice he should be released on bail, he said.
• But Gerrie Nel, prosecuting, said that even on his own version of events Pistorius deliberately killed a burglar. He could not have meant those four shots through the toilet door to do anything other than kill, Nel said. The defence had not proved the exceptional circumstances necessary for the granting of bail, Nel said. He said Pistorius had to prove that on the balance of probabilities he would be acquitted, in order to get bail.
• Attempting to prove Pistorius’s “burglar” story, Roux said the fact Steenkamp’s bladder was empty at 3am suggested she got up to go to the toilet, not to hide from Pistorius because she was afraid of him after an argument, as the prosecution suggest – although he did admit it was possible she could have emptied her bladder due to the trauma of events. Even if she was dressed when shot, it didn’t mean she didn't go to the toilet, he says. He said if Pistorius wanted to kill Steenkamp he could have done so in bed, not in the toilet. And he suggested that it made sense for Steenkamp to have locked the toilet door for protection when Pistorius shouted (by his account) that there was a burglar.
• Nel said the position of phones belonging to Pistorius and Steenkamp on the bathroom mat suggested they had been having an argument there. But the magistrate, Desmond Nair, said Pistorius might have put them there after the killing.
• Roux said that Pistorius’s fears of crime were rational. One was not immune from crime in a security complex, he said.
• Nel read from a magazine article that stated that Pistorius had a house in Italy, in order to demonstrate that Pistorius was a flight risk. When Roux denied Pistorius owned the house, Nel said it was on loan to him and the athlete spent four months a year there. He said Pistorius was a man of means who had shown no realisation of what he had done and was a flight risk.
• Roux is attempted to answer the prosecution's question: "Why would a burglar lock himself in the toilet?" by saying that Pistorius did not know the person in the toilet had locked the door.
• Nel expressed scepticism about Pistorius’s claim that he walked through the bedroom twice and went to get his gun from under the bed without noticing that Steenkamp was not in bed or trying to warn her about the “intruder”.
• Roux said the evidence of a witness who said there had been an argument between Pistorius and Steenkamp before the killing should be discounted because the witness was hundreds of metres away. Even if there was an argument, he said, that was a very different thing to premeditated murder. Nair, the magistrate, suggested that the witness who heard arguing could have done so even from hundreds of metres away. And Nel said they had given statements under oath.
• And he said Botha did not know enough about ballistics to have given evidence about the trajectory of the bullets that killed Steenkamp. And he said Pistorius could not have known where Steenkamp or the burglar was standing or sitting when he shot through the door.
• Desmond Nair, the magistrate who will decide whether or not Pistorius is released on bail, seemed very concerned about the possibility the defendant could seek to influence witnesses. Roux said a past incident in which Pistorius fired a firearm by accident in a restaurant did not prove he had a propensity towards violent crime, and it would be unfair to factor this in now. And he said Pistorius's threat that he would break a love rival's legs were just the use of an expression common among people in their 20s. Nair also raised a previous arrest of Pistorius over allegations that were later dropped, and threatening language the defendant had used previously. And he suggested that there might be public outrage if Pistorius was released.
• And he hinted that he was considering downgrading the charge to culpable homicide.
The court also heard from Botha, following the revelation that he is facing a charge of attempted murder himself. But Botha was not asked about the charges.
The hearing continues at 10am local time tomorrow (8am GMT).