david eades with bbc world news. oscar pistorius accused of dropping the baton of truth as the closing arguments begin this the murder trial. >> no difficult and predicting full version of events. russia's prime minister announces a ban on imports from

the west. jailed for life. two rouge leaders will get their verdict for crimes against humanity. hello. the final arguments in the murder trial of oscar pistorius have begun in pretoria after months of the trial. nel hopes to poke holes in the testimony point by point throughout the course of the day. the defense will will then close arguments on friday. over to pretoria. >> yes, today the prosecution led by gerrie nel has been

trying to discredit pistorius' own version of events when he shot reeva steenkamp last valentine's. he was explaining he was an appalling witness and said it became argumentative. we put the court proceedings to a 30 second delay in case of any graphic images. >> also argue that normal where the division indicated that one could also establish the intention to murder by the instrument or weapon used. what we have here is ammunition. my lady, at paragraph 72, we say

objectively evaluated. there was no imminent attack. even the defense would accept that. there was no attack. the accused failed to describe the imminent a attack as since intangible. what was the perceived imminent attack? it's nothing tangible. not the door making a sound, not the door handle opening. at most it's a sound. the perceived imminent attack was nothing more than a sound. the door was locked. there was no evidence there was even attempt to open the door from within the toilet cubicle. we made this point earlier. paragraph 74. our submission that the court need to accept the version as

reasonable possibly two before the court can commend evaluating the defense. our argument that is so unreasonable that his version could never be accepted as reasonably possibly true. even in the event that the court would accept the accused version, it is not to the finding, arming himself while approaching the danger, pursuing the possibility that he then should kill someone. the possibility by going on and then firing through the door. can we just -- page 1769.

that is his version. so you wanted to confront him? that's me oscar. i want to confront him. stand up for myself, that is correct my lady. i wanted to go confront the ladies. that's correct. you did it by firing. that's correct. that's what he wanted to do. that's what he just did. i go there, forsee the possibility that i might, arm myself, go there. forsee the possibility i may have to shoot somebody, i did. so my lay did i did, even on his own version. but we say paragraph 76 that we just argued said the best case scenario, the irresistible inference is even on his own version, he stood at the door with intention to kill.

this argument by the defense saying that our case is not. it's objective persona. it's not the missing of the blow. it's the intention to shoot whatever is in the bathroom. if it turns out to be reeva and not a robber, my intention was to shoot a person in the bathroom. it's not deflecting of a blow. i agree. i've read the defense. many the last paragraph they say what one should do, just a apply the normal principles of those in toilet and if forseeable he may shoot that particular person. that is the blow. what we have here is objection.

i know there's a person, a human being behind that door. i want to shoot and kill that human being. i do so. the mere fact it ends up being reeva and not intruder is of no consequence. i do conclusion and discuss this in so many words as i've done now. we say perhaps the most damming aspect of the evidence is backing up the defense in admitting he fired. he has to admit that he fired with intention to kill or hurt the person he perceived to be a attacking him. without admitting i shot to kill because i perceived an attack and acted in terms of that perception, he cannot succeed on

private defense. the argument if he did not aim at the threat he cannot comply. to consider the accused offense, the court needs to accept the following. the perceived decided to do so without describing it. they are both a wake. they both had a conversation. she gets up. she wouldn't say i'm going to the toilet, nothing. there's not a word further the short conversation they had in the bed. for no apparent reason she opened the bathroom window. it's 3:00 in the morning. i go to the bathroom, want to go to the toilet. why would i if one looks at toilet, why would i walk between the bath and toilet door to open the bathroom window. why would i do that?

it does not happen. she did not open that toilet window. why would she do that at 3:00 in the morning, sleepy, wanting to go to the toilet. she did not my lady. it's a figment of the accused imagination. why would she take her cell phone 3:00 in the morning? there's argument that she did so before. that's true. she's with the accused. why would she take her cell phone with her? she didn't have to talk to the accused. it's 3:00 in the morning, without a word she goes there for no apparent reason opens the bathroom window, for no apparent reason takes her cell phone with her. then he is standing in front of her in the bathroom.

he shouting her name. she's in the cubicle and did not utter a word. it just gets ridiculous with upmost respect. all these things the court will accept before accepting the accused version. she's in the cubicle. she doesn't say a word. my lady, for her she got up from the toilet or she was finished or whatever. she had to have got up and closed that door. if that door is open and you're on that toilet seat, it opens

this way. the toilet seat is there. you have to get up. if it's open enough to go in. so she had to do that. she had to get up. on his version she slammed the door shut. that's the second startle. we have to get to startles. she was dressed. she didn't hide behind a wall. she was standing right in front of the door. she's not hiding. she's not scared of an intruder or scared of the accused shouting. she's talking to him. it's not as if she thinks there's something wrong. she knows the person that is the danger in standing in front of her. i think it's of upmost

importance to be able to see a the door and realize that where a is her right hip. she is right in front of the door. in the middle of that door. that's not what a scared person would do my lady, scared of an intruder. then at 81 we say why did the accused shoot? i heard a noise from somebody. before coming out of the toilet, before i knew it, i shot five shots. one would have to say it's not the noise, it's the perception that somebody is coming out that's important. not the noise. there's something more. evaluating the noise. there is evaluating the

situation. it's not an immediate action. i heard movement inside the toilet. i felt trapped. i fired four shots. the accused version he never intended to shoot anyone destroys reliance or hope or success on a defense of private defense. we'll mention a few of the accused contradictory versions. he said i never intended to shoot anyone. i got a fright from a noise. i did not shoot at anyone, did not intend to shoot at anyone as someone i shot out of fear. if we go through this, the second offense -- the two defenses that accused says on two chairs at the same time. chair two, private defense is just shot down by himself. if he did not intend to shoot at the perceived threat, he cannot

even look at that and definitely not sit on it. i did not intend to shoot into, shoot at anyone. i never shot four shots. no, my lady. i did not. then he changed. what i fired at, an intruder coming out to attack me. between i never wanted to and i want to, the court can make nothing with itself except reject it based on the fact he indicated to court why he shot. he gave too many versions. the court cannot rely on it. court will have to look at circumstantial evidence and object to the fact. my lady, we anticipated when we

a rose we argued the court should accept his third startle. there's two hurdles. the first hurdle is to convince the court there was a noise. that's the first. the second one would be to explain the noise. on his evidence it was the noise of a magazine rack. the accused said something else. he said it sounded like wood moving. he thought it was a door opening. i heard a noise from inside the bathroom which i thought or perceived someone coming out to a attack me. it's not him acting on startle. it's him hearing the the noise, thinking about the noise, evaluating the noise and acting in terms of that. it's thought and perception.

it's not only a startle. then later he said during evidence accused adapted the version by means of reconstruction to indicate it sounded like the magazine rack was moving. that was reconstruction. in retrospect it could have been the only thing i heard in the bathroom was the only loose object in the room, in the bathroom. accepted immediately as the truth. it wasn't the doors, movement, click of the door. the it was the magazine rack moving. they accepted it. he never asked what he thought about it. he was happy to get a sound. the accused indicated it was not a sound that was fired because i thought the door was opening. then page 194.

i heard the magazine rack moving. i said why would you fire? answer the question. why would you fire if the magazine rack moved? because i thought it was the door opening. he fired my lady because he thought it was a door opening not because he heard the magazine rack. that's his own words. page 1914 my lady. kills any reliance he can have on any of his two defenses. we have professor bias and explanation for his remark which he believes to have been the magazine rack. i'm not going to deal with that my lady. i'm sure one can read the record as far as that's concerned.

87 is more important. a proper construction of events leads to the finding it is improbable the magazine rack moved before the first shot. all experts agree there was a first shot and struck reeva in the right hit. under the accused version he heard a noise and fired. that's defense one. with the magazine rack against the further most wall from the door, the deceased could not have moved it to cause the sound which was the catalyst which initiated the shooting and virtual willy simultaneously moved to the position immediately behind the door in time for the first shot to hit her. it's improbable and impossible. my lady, we can think of lots of scenarios. she's hitting on the toilet

kicking the magazine rack now on the left side. she cannot get up quick enough to point a of his shot. his version is startled when -- when startle happened i automatically fired. then she's at a and kicked backwards to kick the magazine rack? no my lady. she used the toilet. the one thing we know that is that the magazine rack was not in the way to get through the door onto the toilet seat. so how was it possible to make that sound? it was not. it's a figment of his imagination. it never happened my lady. there was no sound of a magazine rack moving. there was no sound. the accused was so intend on

tailoring the version that intention to convince the court the moving was magazine rack and door opening of the entrance. he changed from reconstruction to it was the magazine rack. my lady, although the accused version says heard movement inside the toilet, he had to create the sound to serve as startling evidence that led to all different versions. i've already argued there was no sound. my lady, in 92, we deal with the same principle. it's so important we do it again. the accused identified a sound as having from magazine rack. the sound could be attributed to magazine rack. it cannot make a sound on its own. that suggests only the deceased

could have caused such a movement which made the consequential sound. she was the only person will there. the accused version is he fired immediately upon hearing the sound. at that stage the deceased was upright facing the door directly in front of her. the magazine rack was not in her proximity and physically impossible for her to have caused the movement which was any sound before the first shot. while i'm here, my lady, we're dealing with the magazine rack. the accused placed the magazine rack when he entered in the corner right behind the door, further most corn frer from the door. if you stand on the right hand corner, that's where he placed it. in photograph 29 of the defense, i'm not sure if they say he was

incorrect, but i think they do. my lady, i've got another note. i made a wrong note. i apologize. my lady, he says that version is so improbable that the court will never accept there was a noise. now, my lady, the accused was confronted with photographs. the photographs of where the magazine rack was. open to 122.

open 180 we can also see where the magazine rack was. my lady, he had to move that magazine rack. he had to create the sound. that's the reason he moved it into the right hand corner. two experts contradicts him 100% on it. they say they looked at the mark in the blood of where the magazine rack was standing when the police got to the scene. they contradict him. what's also important is the accused was adamant on this point. he did not display usual i think so.

you in fact heard the magazine rack. the magazine rack was not found where she was. it was found in the corner of the toilet. it's not i think so, i'm not sure, i can't recall. he was convinced that it was in the right hand corner of the toilet. today we deal with the fact that -- >> we're going to take a break away from gerrie nel as he continues closing arguments on the prosecution side in the oscar pistorius murder trial. want to bring you a few more stories before we revert back to that. we're going to start with situation in iraq.

thousands of people trapped on a mountain after fleeing sunni militants in the north of the country have been rescued. 200,000 fled the area after it was taken by islamic state extremist. many left with no food of any sort and been at risk of starvation since saturday. united nations says it's mobilizing resources to help those affected and calls it a tragedy of immense proportions. we'll get more on the ebola outbreak. the siberian president says extraordinary measures are needed for survival of the state. liberia declared a state of emergency because of the outbreak. whether it's a global problem is currently debated by the world health organization. it started in guinea and affected many countries.

among them sierra leone. 900 have died. 1700 have been infected. there's no cure for the virus, also no vaccine. if the global health emergency is declare had the would mean travel restrictions and maybe closing of some borders. the u.s. and europe have warned travelers to cancel trips to infected countries. some airlines have suspended flights. the world health organization is considering whether to approve an experimental vaccine. it's a mounting crisis. bold decisions are need. >> we're hoping the the world health organization tells us early tomorrow mourni imorning results of the meting is. travel restrictions are are on

the agenda. you can insure there's an emphasis in beefing up health care in the countries. one of the reasons behind the spread is simple inability with the best in the world for the fragile health systems in those countries to stop the infection. ebola is a dangerous disease but can be controlled and prevented with the traditional good hygiene, good barrier nurse physician ying. unfortunately that's not happening. surprisingly in fact many of us it was announced it would look at use of untested experimental drugs. this is not the solution. everybody is stressing that. even if the drug was proven to be successful in every case which by no means isn't, there would not be enough of this currently to go around.

apparently it's a drug that takes quite some time to produce. it's something to be looked at. it's a solution for the future not immediate crisis. >> do you think the who is feeling now this has extended beyond being a regional problem, that it's a global problem? is it still concentrating efforts where i suppose the virus is most concentrated? >> i think so it will continue to concentrate efforts where people with the disease is turning up. we'll know tomorrow whether or not the world health organization classes this an international concern. the feeling is the world health organization may well do that if only to show all member states the seriousness with which the un body world health organization takes ebola to

provide more support for the affected countries and to get the message out there. what is ebola exactly? how does it spread? how to stay safe. because there are a lot of misconceptions and unfounded fear. i said it's a very dangerous disease. there's no cure. it can be controlled with the traditional proper hygiene methods. >> any suggestions or projections perhaps as to how much worse this particular outbreak could become if not dealt with? >> well, it would get very, very bad if not dealt with. we need to be positive in the sense that it is being dealt with. it needs to be dealt with faster and with many more staff on the ground, many more clinics, much more diagnosis, checking of anybody with symptoms plus the people they came in contact

with. i don't want to guess how many more cases we're going to get or how many more deaths. i say the countries affected, liberia seems to be the one of biggest concern. that's where the cases are rising fastest. >> thank you very much. getting the latest there from geneva. news just in to us here. former u.s. intelligence contractor edward snowden has been granted three year permanent residence in russia. he had a one year permit. that had run out. it's been extended to three years. also there's been clashes in ukraine's capital kiev as armed police try to remove protestors from the independence scare. they set heat to fire, threw stones to workers attempting to dismantle the barricade. police did eventually withdraw

leaving the situation unresolved. the area with the scene of street protest led to removal of the president in february. let's pick up again with gerrie nel, prosecutor in the trial of oscar pistorius as he continues closing arguments. >> no studies or evidence to support this assumption. he made no finding on ability at any distances. as perceived more often than though the we can identify women or a male voice screaming. he said we cannot tell. it happens everyday. everyday we identify if it's a woman or man talking and screaming. we say the evidence especially

if you add to calculations. if she was in danger she would have shouted at capacity. if you take 10 db my lady, you can't interpret evidence as any doubt on the listen by the listener. in his evidence, the listener is still the important person and tells you what he heard. averages of db would be available. defense asked a female neighbor to tell screams of a man she heard that night. ask the accused to do so and failed and to produce the test by the expert. they failed to confront the witnesses with the recording of the scream like a woman.

we dealt with that my lady. i'm not going to deal with that again. it's significant though that on the accused version, he has to explain sounds and screaming. he has to testify that he screamed he was breaking down the door. he would scream while breaking down the door and then would see her lying in a pool of blood, but he would stop screaming. his evidence he never screamed after he saw her lying there. now my lady, normal human behavior would dictate if you see your loved one lying in a pool of blood and just caused this and you've screamed before, that you scream more than ever. but he didn't. he had to stop because that's when the deceased stopped when she was killed. he had to taylor the version for

him to stop. are there were no other screams heard after the sound by the neighbor. my lady, what is important as far as screaming is concerned is it affects the evidence. expand to the court for what the accused did after the first startle. the accused evidence is when he entered that passage he screamed. while screaming or after he screamed the door slammed shut. now that's the second startle. the neighbor could not tell us

in examination what that cause. if there's a second startle, what did he do because of that startle? i see the defense would argue it confirmed his anxious state as far as the first startle. can it be my lady, say we will focus on one startle. we want to focus on one startle because one startle caused him to approach the danger. we want to focus on the third startle because that caused him to fire the shot. experts cannot testify like that. if he's in an anxious state, his startle would have caused something. second startle caused nothing.

my lady, now when talking about the sounds and startles. i'm paragraph 104. i'm trying to speed this up a bit. is he -- derma testified i cannot recall. can i make changes to my court reference. page 2967. below my lady 2968. my lady, he said i can't recall what the accused thought about the sound.

my lady, it is -- i'm looking for the correct word, but any proper expert would be interested in what the accused thought of the sound. but not this one. this one was only happy on his own evidence to hear a sound. i would go -- defense leave it be. any proper expert would interrogate the sound or why he acted. dermawas happy with a sound. the accused never told derma, he heard movement or thought the toilet door was opening. he never did. that was derma's evidence.

why would there only be a focus on the sound and not the other sounds? was it biassed my lady and selective? when he was cross-examined about the sound, he said we didn't know the expert defense would like the court to rely on? my memory is fuzzy on this. i think it's quite clear the expert that did not take notes, of his conservations with the accused, relied on his memory would say that to the court. my lady, the court will not with upmost respect accept his evidence. we say paragraph 108 that response to the second startle was not screaming.

the accused already started screaming when he entered the passage. he in fact -- the second startle on derma's evidence that he gave had they effect. and my lady, the second startle is i heard a door slam which could only be the toilet door. for me it confirmed there was a person or people inside the toilet. my lady, that startle did not create an exaggerated response. the second startle he was still thinking, making inferences, deductions. it never caused anything. before we get to state witnesses and screaming, we should perhaps

just deal with the first offense where the accused would want to call to accept that he acted voluntarily and where the accused referred to ed. may i refer the court to ed? i have copies i handed out. my lady, this is a matter dealing with various methods of discussion of non pathological criminal incapacity.

the defense would rely on ed my lady. may i defer the court to paragraph 61? 61, the time has come to face up to the fact our court dealing with accused persons having sympathy either because of circumstances in which the offense has been committed or because the deceased victim was a human being and resorted to reasoning it's not consistent with the approach of the decisions of this court. and this is important. mitigating factors should rightly be taken into account during sentence.

when an accused acted in a great cold, directed and focused manner. what do we have here? i'm going to sort them out. spurred on by anger with other emotion was able to appreciate the difference between right and wrong. still able to direct and control action, credibility he sources after killing someone at some stage dealing with the directed and planned maneuver he lost ability to control actions. reduced to essence, it amounts to this. the accused is claiming that his uncontrolled act happens to go inside with the demise of the person who prior to the act was object of anger, agility. this is exactly what we have here. uncontrolled action. he's codirected to go deal with the person in the toilet. now, just at that moment when he

fired the shots, he wants the court to say just when you killed that person, we understand you were not in control of yourself? the court will not be able to make that finding. that's over and above my lay did i did. if i argue this as if the accused version is successful, my main argument is still that it never happened. no perceived incruder. that is the main argument. one cannot get by -- past that. his explanation of the scene. if the scene is as it is, there's no perceived intruder. my lady, may i also refer to paragraph 64? >> did you say 64? >> 64 my lady. on the next page. part of the problem appears to me to be acceptance of accused concerning the state of mind. it appears to me to be justified

as evidence against the state of mind not against his prior or subsequent conduct but the court's experience of human behavior and social interaction. it's described as a policy yielding to principle. in my view it's an acceptable method for testing often accused evidence about the state of mind as this necessary break to prevent unwarranted extensions of this defense. that's all in terms of his version that i ask the court to do. he is codirected. he won't say he aimed. he's so directed he keeps his eye on the window and door. he keeps his eye on the window, on the door. just in that moment when i fired the shot, please excuse me, i acted voluntary.

my lady, paragraph 65. the last four lines. it is predictable that accused person would in numbers continue to persist cases must meet for non pathological criminal incapacity. the law is properly and consistently applied to determine whether that claim is justified. then the court deals with -- i don't want to quote too big a portion of this case my lady. may i also refer the court to henry.

may i refer the -- my page numbers are are a bit cut off. i don't know if the court caught this objective. i want to refer to page 20 my lady. my lady, i think we missed pages. may i ask the court to page with me. we've got the first page.

second page, 17 then after 17, there's 19. one can see 19. one can see 21 my lady. just on the opposite page is 20. i apologize my lady. does it help? >> i'm not too sure. i could see 17. i got lost somehow. >> it reads -- my lady -- >> just read. >> i want to deal with c. it's repeatedly emphasized the defense is non pathological. i've got evidence to put it there. i apologize my lady. i should have checked the page numbers. i didn't. >> it's fine.

we can follow. >> by the very nature of things, the only person to give direct evidence to level of consciousness to accuse othered person at the level of defense is accuse himself. the level of consciousness. if you act in an automatic state of mind, the courts would want a form of amnesia. it's not you. you're not in control of your actions. it says so. h, the court is not made easier by what is described evidence as common occurrence of amnesia versus subconscious repression of unconscious memory. it appears from evidence to be unrejected from amnesia. it follows the converse is not true. my lady, may i ask just to turn

the page. if you turn the page my lady, on the next page, inside 22. right hand page 23 at a. there's much debate in cross-examination and in argument as to whether conduct could be in the since of convincing conscious behavior. this is what pipt i want to rel. if there was consciousness there could have been no -- then my lady at c, he pointed out that before the shooting, that would have had to unforce the safety strap of holster to release the safety catch of pistol and aim first at mrs. henry who was shot three times and then shot at mrs. simmons shot three times. even the unfastening of the

safety strap and release of the safety catch. the fact both shot is a clear indication. it indicates that if you are in control of yourself and go directed, you cannot come to court and say at that specific moment when i fired the shots i wasn't in control of myself. and my lady, if one claims amnesia, acted automatically, you're not in control of your senses. one would expect amnesia. that's what the case law says my lady. all these cases dealing with non pathological criminal incapacity indeed does just that. my lady, may i then refer are to what he did. my lady, all i'll do is mark the

passages i want to look at. it is page 73 my lady. i'm looking at page 73. i'll put an asterisk. my lady, i put an asterisk against the paragraph i want to refer.

what i would like to look at is 73 b. the liability and truthfulness of the defender a crucial factor in laying such foundation. to close the evidence as early decision from the court of instance. my lady, i'm making the point that one would need a reasonably possible version of what happened if able to even think of applying the principles of this defense that we don't have. my lady, if i could then carry

on and deal with state witnesses and streaming my lady. we anticipated there will be arguments that the state witnesses were not credible. therefore we deal with principles of credibility my lady. i would not go through all th e these -- as far as ability is concerned, we just want to pair off 110. we asked to emphasize the state witnesses burger, johnson are all independent witnesses. my ladies, they are. we have burger and johnson as a married couple. we have step and step as a married couple. we have someone staying on the estate. there's no indication they knew

of each other's existence before this incident happened. there's no indication they everyone know of each other's existence before they made statements to police. they did not know each other. they're independence. none of them have met the accused or deceased. my lady, they've made statements independently. the level of corroboration is accepting. not only do they corroborate each other's versions but circumstantial evidence details. it's amazing that people that have never met, never seen each other would make statements with this amount of corroboration of exactly what they heard. even as far as emotion is

concerned. my lady, there is argument they were in the same room, they were in the witness room. my lady, when they made statements to police, they had never met each other. we argue my lady that demeanor of the state witnesses was such that it exhibited unblemished view they came to court with no other intention but to tell the court. my lady, we argue that they remain steadfast hearing evidence regardless of council having put a different version to them in terms of hearing a woman and sounds like a gun. they imagined it steadfast. the defense version that the accused can scream like a woman

and that sounds like a gunshot remains unproven. it wasn't proven at all. we deal again with what was put to johnson that no way that even standing on the balconies that you would be able to hear someone. that's not a fact my lady. even mr. lynne contradict had the statement. >> gerrie nel laying out closing arguments in the case of oscar pistorius on trial for murdering his girlfriend reeva steenkamp. it's been a long three and a half hours of detailed dismantling of the defense case by mr. nel including a dismantling of the evidence provided by defense witnesses who's been highly critical of them. most of his program reserved for oscar pistorius and accused as

being an appalling witness. he described vacillation of evidence. there were too many versions as to why he shot reeva steenkamp to use as value. we'll get the closing arguments from the defense friday. we'll keep a cross look here for you on bbc world news. ♪ ♪ ♪ woooooah. ♪ [ male announcer ] you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. zillow. angieby making it easy to buyng foand schedule servicen. by top-rated providers, conveniently stay up-to-date on progress, and effortlessly turn your photos into finished projects

with the angie's list mobile app. visit angieslist.com today. and it doesn't even fly. we build it in classrooms and exhibit halls, mentoring tomorrow's innovators.

we build it raising roofs, preserving habitats and serving america's veterans. every day, thousands of boeing volunteers help make their communities the best they can be. building something better for all of us. ♪

hello. you're watching "gmt" on bbc world news. i'm lucy hockings. who leaders of cambodia rouge are sentenced to life in prison. there's many cambodians that feel aegis has not been served. -- feel justice has not been served. >> it's really not sufficient and it's not acceptable.