The motive is ‘I want to kill’

2013-02-20 00:00

HE could not rule out the possibility that there was premeditation.

So said magistrate Desmond Nair in finding that the case against Oscar Pistorius falls under schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, imposing a greater burden of proof on an applicant for bail (see story at right).

Prosecutor advocate Gerrie Nel said that Pistorius himself admitted in his statement that he prepared himself and walked to the bathroom with the clear plan and intent to kill the “intruder”.

He did this while the “intruder” was harmlessly in the toilet.

In itself, this implies the premeditated murder of a “defenceless intruder”.

According to the state, premeditation doesn’t require months of preplanning.

Nel said the state was confident that the crime fell under schedule 6.

In the state’s case, handed to the court, he said the onus rests on the accused to convince the court that there are exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail. The court must also be convinced the release is in the interests of justice.

The state submitted that the definition of premeditation includes an accused weighing his actions and deciding to act to murder a person. It may include a degree of preparation.

Nel said that the only reasonable inference was that Pistorius armed himself, put on his prosthetic legs, walked seven metres to the bathroom and shot Reeva Steenkamp while she was in the toilet.

He shot four times, aiming at the washbasin.

“If I arm myself, walk a distance and murder a person, that is premeditated,” he told the packed courtroom, arguing that Pistorius had time to think about what he was doing.

“The door is closed. There is no doubt. I walk seven metres and I kill.”

“The motive is ‘I want to kill’. That’s it,” he added.

“This deceased was in a 1,4 by 1,14 metre little room. She could go nowhere. It must have been horrific.”

Pistorius lives in a secure complex and would have been in bed with Steenkamp sleeping next to him, the state’s argument reads.

There is no reasonable explanation to support his version that he thought it was an intruder. In his ruling, Nair said the intruder story could be part of the premeditation.

Advocate Barry Roux SC, for Pistorius, asked, among other things, where the state’s proof was that Pistorius put on his legs before shooting.

Roux handed a list of questions to the state seeking clarity on certain of their assertions. The defence wants access to reasonable extra information. Nel undertook to answer the questions today.

Join the conversation! encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions. publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.