Pistorius trial: Difference in event timeline
Defence advocate Barry Roux is delivering his closing argument.
- Oscar Pistorius
- Reeva Steenkamp
- Oscar Pistorius murder trial
- Oscar Pistorius trial
- Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
- Oscar Pistorius in court
- Gerrie Nel
- Barry Roux
- Oscar Pistorius lawyer
- Oscar Pistorius family
- Oscar Pistorius house
- Prosecutor Gerrie Nel
- Reeva Steenkamp remembered
- Oscar Pistorius faces no punishment
PRETORIA - Advocate Barry Roux has argued that there were two sets of sounds in the early morning of Valentine's Day last year and most of the witnesses in court heard the sound of a cricket bat hitting a door.
The state presented its final argument in the High Court in Pretoria on Thursday, saying the 'blade runner' was an appalling and deceitful witness and therefore his version of events must be dismissed.
The state has argued that Pistorius fired four shots at around 3:17am in the morning and several neighbours heard the shots.
Roux says a study of the timeline confirms that the first noises at about 3:12am could only have been the gunshots, and the second sounds at about 3:17am could only have been the cricket bat.
He says all the evidence from the neighbours fits into this puzzle, except for the evidence of Doctor Johan Stipp.
But Roux says the objective evidence, such as cellphone records, disputes his evidence.
Earlier today the athlete's lawyer continued his closing argument with other photographs which he says prove police mismanaged the crime scene.
Roux made specific mention of items in Pistorius's bedroom, including a fan and a duvet which he says were moved. He says there was no respect for the crime scene.
Roux then showed the court a photo of Colonel Schoombie van Rensburg fiddling with the extension cord near the bed, the same cord the state said was unable to stretch to the position of the fan.
He said other items were picked up and moved, adding that his client could not be accused of lying if the scene was tampered with.
Roux clarified Pistorius's defence, saying the double amputee acted in self-defence while the state argued that the athlete put forward two defences.
Roux has explained to the court that Pistorius pulled the trigger in a reflexive action but says there was a cognitive process.
He argued that Pistorius was acting against the perceived intruder and therefore it's putative self-defence.
To see the heads of argument click here.