Oscar Pistorius trial: Why murder was ruled out

But she said she would deliver her verdict on a lesser charge, culpable homicide, on Friday.Here is a guide to the judge's reasoning:Premeditated murderThe state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot."The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.Common-law murderShe also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.This would also apply if he had intended to kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention.""Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."Culpable homicide (manslaughter)This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun."The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably."The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated."Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force.""It is clear that his conduct was negligent."And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.(BBC)Bakudaily.Az