A legal expert analyzing the testimony in the Oscar Pistorius murder trial says he would find Pistorius guilty.
The Telegraph allowed Professor James Grant, a criminal law specialist at Wits University in Johannesburg, to write a first-person opinion piece on the trial in which the double-amputee Olympic sprinter is accused of killing girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Oscar Pistorius' lawyer says South African police are too sloppy to catch criminals
Grant gets straight to the point, writing, "In my view, Oscar Pistorius could be found guilty of murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on February 14 last year primarily because of his own poor testimony but ultimately because any doubts that his defense may have raised might well be dismissed as unreasonable."
Grant credited the prosecution with gaining the upper hand early with the charges it brought against Pistorius, and Pistorius' own testimony ultimately damaged his own defense.
Oscar Pistorius' four shots fired exceeds bounds of self-defense, impartial lawyer says
"The introduction by the prosecution of three other charges relating to the reckless or negligent use of a firearm and possession of ammunition was no accident - it was a cleverly constructed trap that Pistorius fell into by pleading not guilty.
The charges allow the state to introduce bad character evidence, or evidence of prior bad acts, that would ordinarily be inadmissible in relation to a murder charge since it is usually prejudicial, triggers stereotyping, and is ultimately irrelevant."
The prosecution was able to introduce two other incidents in which Pistorius fired a firearm - allegedly shooting out of a car sunroof and at a Johannesburg restaurant, Tasha's.
Grant points out that the incident at Tasha's particularly hurt Pistorius' cause. He denied discharging the firearm in each instance, which contradicts testimony of witnesses that say he did discharge the weapons.
Pistorius claimed the gun at Tasha's went off by itself, but Grant explained that the weapon's design makes it impossible for the weapon to discharge without the trigger being pulled.
Pistorius later used the same excuse - that the gun just went off as he pointed it at the bathroom door after he heard a noise coming from behind the door.
Grant added that Pistorius' lawyer, Barry Roux had to disprove the testimony of four witnesses that said they heard a woman screaming, and most of the witnesses saying they heard a gun discharge afterward.
Roux produced witnesses that said they did not hear the screams or gunshots, but as Grant said, just because the witnesses did not hear screams does not prove that the screams didn't occur.
Finally, it was agreed by the prosecution and defense that Pistorius' first shot hit Steenkamp in the hip, and she had at least four seconds to scream. Grant said Pistorius was standing three meters away but did not explain how he continued to mistake Steenkamp for an intruder after the first shot.
Do you believe that a newspaper has the right to hire an impartial legal expert to give his opinion on an impending verdict? Comment below or tell us @SportsWN.
© 2023 Sportsworldnews.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
