Oscar trial: State rejects anxiety defence
The state rejected Pistorius’s disability as a potential defence to explain his heightened anxiety.
PRETORIA - The state has dismissed murder accused Oscar Pistorius's disability as a potential defence to explain his heightened anxiety that led to the shooting of his girlfriend.
The Paralympic star's defence team is expected to continue its closing arguments today after prosecutor Gerrie Nel concluded his presentation on Thursday.
Pistorius shot Reeva Steenkamp at his home on Valentine's Day a year ago.
Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp at the SA Sports Awards on 4 November 2012. Picture: AFP.
While he says it was an accident, the state has argued Steenkamp was murdered in cold blood.
Watch: A look back at Oscar Pistorius's testimony
Pistorius also faces three separate charges, including two counts of discharging firearms in public and possession of illegal ammunition, all of which he denies.
"There is just no attack on him; the intruder is behind a closed door, at the least. He is in charge and is armed with a high powered firearm."
He says a reasonable man, disabled or not, would not fire without cause, which in this case there was none.
"We have an unarmed, vulnerable woman shot and killed in a toilet, that's what we have."
Watch: _State presents final argument in Pistorius trial _
The defence is expected to argue that Pistorius does not have criminal capacity because the shooting was reflexive, caused by a heightened startled response.
The timeline and key events, like the gunshots in relation to witnesses hearing screams, will be among the focus points of Pistorius's defence team as well, which has accused the state of ignoring material objective facts to incriminate the athlete.
Defence advocate Barry Roux says the state disingenuously argued that the gunshots were the second set of sounds.
"So he had to move the shots from the first shots to the cricket bat sounds, otherwise all his witnesses were discredited."
Roux says that the state blatantly ignored evidence.
"We were waiting for the state to tell the court what those first shots were. And you will not find the answer in his heads of argument. They also don't deal with the cricket bat striking the door because they cannot."
The advocate is also expected to argue that the police tampered with the crime scene.
Watch: Pistorius trial: State vs defence
To see the heads of argument click here.