Oscar unlikely to get off the hook, experts say

TWO of South Africa's top legal minds believe murder accused Oscar Pistorius's chances of escaping a lengthy jail term are slim.

But, while Pistorius's multiple versions of what led him to shoot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, 29, three times with "killer bullets" make his case shaky, prosecutor Gerrie Nel may have failed to hammer the final nail into the Blade Runner's coffin.

This is according to leading law academic Professor James Grant of the Wits School of Law.

"In my view, Oscar Pistorius could be found guilty of murdering Steenkamp primarily because of his own poor testimony but ultimately because any doubts that his defence may have raised might well be dismissed as unreasonable," he said.

Grant's – and defence lawyer William Booth's – belief that Pistorius has serious problems, comes as Nel presented his closing arguments at the high court in Pretoria yesterday.

Grant said the most powerful evidence presented in the case had been the evidence of the neighbours who heard a woman scream, followed by what they claimed were gunshots.

"For me, it is not explained away by Pistorius's lawyers bringing evidence of other neighbours who didn't hear a woman scream.

"It doesn't disprove that four independent witnesses did hear a woman scream.

"For me, when you take this, combine it with the fact, which is agreed upon – that Steenkamp was first shot in the hip and would have screamed involuntarily – and with the fact that Pistorius, who was only metres away, refuses to accept responsibility for his other actions, it makes it hard not to suspect his guilt."

Grant said it had been shown that Pistorius refused to accept responsibility for his actions relating to any wrongdoing.

"He has asked the court to believe that guns simply go off in his hand when these guns are specifically designed not to go off by accident.

"It is this same argument which Pistorius is claiming as one of his defences for killing Steenkamp," he said.

AdvocateBooth said Pistorius had done himself no favours, especially with his "multiple versions" of defence. "It is a big problem. If you are telling the truth, surely you stick to the same story?" Booth said even if Pistorius's evidence – that he fired in self-defence against a suspected intruder – was accepted, it did not mean he would get off.

"The court must look at whether Pistorius exceeded the limits of self defence – by firing four shots through the door.

"Pistorius can easily be convicted of 'murdering' the intruder."

However, "Pistorius's defence was, yes, he killed someone, but he was mistaken and that he intended to lawfully kill another person. I'm not convinced Nel made a good argument to counter this." – Graeme Hosken. Additional reporting The Telegraph