this is bbc america, and now live from london, "bbc world news." this is "bbc world news." we're going to return you to pretoria for our special live and continuous coverage of the verdict of the oscar pistorius trial. >> it follows, therefore, that someone in the position of the accused, would find given evidence a harrowing experience as he relays the incident. however, what we are dealing with here is the fact that the

accused was, amongst other things, an evasive witness. in my view, there are several reasons for this. he failed to listen properly to questions put to him under cross-examination, giving an impression that he was more worried by the impact that his answers might cause rather than the questions asked. often, a question requiring a straight forward answer turns into a point of debate about what another witness did or said. when contradictions were pointed out to him, or when he was asked why certain propositions were not put to state witnesses, he often blamed his legal team for the oversight. although the evidence of the

accused is important, when a court determines to give or otherwise often accuse, caution must be exercised, and courts ought to avoid attaching too much weight to such untruthfulness. the conclusion, that because an accused is untruthful, he is therefore probably guilty, must be guided against as a false statement does not always justify the most extreme conclusion. in the present case, the deceased was killed under very peculiar circumstances. there are indeed a number of aspects in the case which do not make sense, which is why the accused did not ascertain from

the deceased when he had the window open whether she too had heard anything. why he did not ascertain whether the deceased had herd him, since he did not get a response from the deceased before making his way to the bathroom. why the deceased was in the toilet and only a few meters away from the accused, did not communicate with the accused or phone the police as requested by the accused. this the deceased could have done irrespective of whether she was in the bedroom or in the toilet as she had her cell phone with her. it makes no sense to say she did not hear him scream "get out." it was the accused's version that he screamed on top of his voice when ordering the intruder to get out.

another question is why the accuser fired not one, but four shots, before he ran back to the bedroom to try to find the deceased. these questions will remain unfortunately a matter of conjecture. what is not conconjecture, howe, is that the accused armed himself with a loaded firearm when he suspected an intruder might be coming through the bathroom window. he was not truthful when asked about his intentions that morning as he armed himself with a lethal weapon. the accused was clearly not candid with the court when he said he had no intention to shoot at anyone as he had a loaded firearm in his hand ready to shoot. however, as stated above,

untruthful evidence does not always justify the conclusion that the accused is guilty. the weight to be attached thereto must be related to the circumstances of each case. in volume 1sa-590, capital a in brackets. there is also the question of onus. no onus rests on the accused to convince this court of any explanation that he gives. if he gives an explanation, even if that explanation be improbable, the court is not entitled to convict unless it is satisfied not only that the explanation is improbable, but

that beyond any reasonable doubt it is false. if there is any possibility therefore of his explanation being true, then he's entitled to his acquittal. see in brackets, 93-7, capital a, capital d, closed brackets. the onus is on the state throughout to prove reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offense with which he has been charged. t should the accused's version to be reasonably true, he would be entitled to his acquittal. in count one, the accused is

charged with premeditated murder. in respect of this charge, the evidence is purely circumstantial. that evidence, is in essence, about shots, about the creams, and about sounds of the bed. the fundamental rule in considering circumstantial evidence is that in order to justify an inference of guilt, a court must be sure that circumstances are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis. the simple explanation from the accused is that shooting the deceased dead was a genuine

mistake, and he thought he was shooting at an intruder behind the toilet door. the timeline is set out in the chronology of events tip the scales in favor of the accused's version in general. viewed in its totality, the evidence failed to establish that the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased, let alone with premeditation. i am here talking about direct intention. the said clearly has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder. there are just not enough facts to support such a finding. counsel for the state submitted that even if the court were to

find the accused shot the deceased thinking that he was firing the shots at an intruder, this would not assist him as he has had intended to kill a human being. this was so because all the elements of the crime of murder had been met, it was argued. on the other hand, council for the defense submitted that the state was attempting to reintroduce the concept of transferred malice, which was not part of our law. this brings the question whether we really are dealing with the question of transferred malice. it might be convenient at this stage to say something briefly about two concepts, which often are confused. namely, error in persona or

error in object talk. we'll take a five-minute break. >> you're watching special coverage here from the bbc of the verdict in the trial of oscar pistorius. we have just heard in the last few minutes judge thokozile masipa telling the court that the state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder, so in just the last few minutes, the evidence was purely circumstantial regarding the

premeditated aspect to that murder charge, the charge that the state has gone for, the prosecution has gone for since the bail hearing back in 2013. and so just in a rather dramatic and rapidly moving morning of the judge giving her ruling culminating just before the court adjourned briefly there in that statement f, that the stat has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder. let's analyze this with a former judge william heath. dramatic and fast-moving. very significant words in the last few minutes. >> i agree, very much so. and it was after very careful, although brief analysis of the crux of the matter, and that is, did the accused plan to go and murder his girlfriend? or for that matter, anybody else? that wasn't proved. it's not just a few of accepting

the accused's version. that is fatal y vital to the cae prosecution. generally, you would supply the same facts to that in saying that a reasonable man would not have fired the shots. now, that is a very cold approach, which doesn't mean that you're analyzing the objective experiences, and although reasonable fear is subjective, the fact is, would any man have fired shots or would any man not have fired shots? so any man who's using his brain, who's analyzing a thing, would he or would he not not fired the shots? so that's what we're waiting for now. >> so if judge masipa is not convinced beyond a reasonable

doubt that oscar pistorius is guilty of premeditated murder, just talk us through the options she now has available. >> the other one is just simply murder, which means it's not a long-planned murder, which was considered over a period of time. the next one is that he had intention to kill the person behind the door. but if you go back on the evidence used, i would say it's unlikely that she's going to find that he had the intention to kill, because if he had any intention to kill, it means that he went there and he decided he's going to kill the person on the inside. now, if it was his girlfriend and if he was aware of that, that is actually a shocking decision to make. which would require very clear evidence, and that is lacking, as far as i am concerned. if it was anybody, someone who had broken into the house, again, he was armed. but at this final moment, he

lost control. that doesn't mean he suffered from some form of brain damage or that he wasn't culpable. that means that in that emotion, he lost control. and if you find that, then of course it's not murder either. and then for that matter, a reasonable person in that position where the accused found himself and saying to himself, would he have act eed discreetl. and if there's any doubt that he would have acted differently, so it's measured against a better man, a more objective man. but it's going to be hard to find that there was -- that a reasonable man would not have fired the shots. that's a long way to go.

i'm of the view that it's unlikely, but of course, against the analysis of what she's going through right now, i cannot throw it out that she's going to find out the negligence. >> she has been tough on oscar pistorius as a witness. she called him an evasive witness as she said he was deliberately misleading in his answers, thinking more about the consequences of his answers than actually giving a truthful answer. what do you think will be the consequences of that in her judgment? >> well, the consequences of that is she cannot rely on him as such, but that doesn't mean that she's rejecting his evidence, but she cannot rely on it. she cannot rely on his evidence to find that he acted negligently. she would have to find that somebody else would not have fired that. so it's a distinction, a result

she would have to move to. >> and judge masipa also said that oscar pistorius did know the difference between right and wrong. >> yes. well, that's very much what the psychiatrist also felt, but that doesn't mean he could have lost control. if you lose control, it doesn't mean that you you're mentally ill. so that's just a distinction you would have to draw. >> why were the prosecution so adamant to go for this premeditated murder charge? >> i think they were reckless in their approach, as i believe that they were probably asking many improper and unfair questions. but that is where the -- premeditated murder, and that is what the prosecutor relied on.

i think that was all that was important, to find that. the newspapers in the background eventually publishing that he was guilty of premeditated murder. so i think that was wrong. >> really, do you think just because of the high publicity value of this case, that actually influenced the legal process? >> that's what appears. but at the same time, assuming that he was adamant that it was premeditated murder, then he should have had much better evidence. so as a lawyer, if he analyzed his evidence, it was to provide the conclusion that the judge provides. if you rely on his version, then you can say -- although i don't believe him, what are the odds now?

what evidence of this that he premeditated this, and again, when you go back to it, if you ignore the evidence for the state, what you do find is there's no evidence of premeditated murder. there's no evidence that he armed himself with the intention to shoot whoever is behind him. let alone arrived at the conclusion that he was going to kill his girlfriend. that's a long way to go to find that. it does not really hold a picture of a man who's got those kind of characteristics to say i've got a good excuse. >> those of you watching us, you're watching special coverage of the verdict in the oscar pistorius trial here from pretoria. what we've learned in the last few minutes, of course, now on a break, we're not sure entirely

how long that's going to last. but judge thokozile masipa has said the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that oscar pistorius committed a premeditated murder of reeva steenkamp. so we're discussing the options with former judge heath. actually, while i am just about to ask you another question, i can see that the court pictures that we can see have come back. judge masipa is walking back into court. perhaps we will just throw back and continue to listen in to what thokozile masipa said after that very significant statement she made just before that short reces recess. in fact, i'm just being told we can't hear what she is saying yet. i think we are about to get a connection with judge thokozile masipa, who has just sat down in court and is going

to continue to read her judgm t judgment. let's listen in. >> it means going astray of the missing blow, or missing of the blow. foresaw the possibility of c's death, in which event he would be guilty of murder, or for culpable homicide. if c's death was reasonably foreseeable, in which event, he would be guilty of calculable homicide.

a stab in the dark, a case of 1968 page 85, falj. see also glenville william, 138 closed brackets. a's intention is directed at a specific predetermined individual, although he's in error as to the exact identity of that individual. in other words, irrespective of whether the name of the individual is b or c. in the case of error, so to speak, an undeflected -- which falls upon the person it was intended to affect. the error as to the identity of

the individual therefore is not relevant to the question of mens rea. it is so that the rule derived from two decisions. a's intention to kill. without the prosecution having to establish an intention to kill c specifically. recent case, though, however, moved away from causal on the basis that that ratio was founded on the out one doctrine.

and could no longer be supported. the current south african law regarding criminal liability is set out in 1970 volume 3, page 747 a. on page 752, holmes j.a. explains the legal position as follows. i quote, nowadays, criminal liability is not regarded as attaching to an act or a consequence unless it was attended by mens rea. accordingly, if a assaults b, and in consequence b dies, a is not criminally responsible for his death unless, a, he foresaw the possibility of resultant's

death yet persisted in his deed, regardless whether death ensured or not. or he ought to have seen the reasonable possibility of resultant's death. in a, the mens rea is the type of intent, and the crime is murder. in b, the mens rea -- and the crime is culpable homicide, closed quote. my view is that we are here not dealing with -- it would tlefr serve no purpose to say anything else about it. we are clearly dealing with error in persona in that the blow was meant for the person behind the toilet door who the accused believed was an

intruder. the blow struck and killed the person behind the door. the fact that the person behind the door turned out to be the deceased and not an intruder is irrelevant. the starting point, however, once more is whether the accused had the intention to kill the person behind the toilet door whom he mistook for an intruder. the accused had intention to shoot at the person in the toilet but states that he never intended to kill that person. in other words, he raised a sense of private defense. 1993, volume 2, capital s, capital a, capital c, capital r,

59, in brackets, capital a, closed bracket, at 63 and 64, a distinction was drawn between private defense as a defense, excludeing unlawfulness, which is judged objectively, and putative private defense, which relates to the mental state of the accused. in that case, j.a. stated, i quote, frthe difference between these two defenses is significant. a person who acts in private defense angts lawfully, provided his conduct satisfies the requirements laid down for such a defense and does not exceed

its limits. the test for private defense is objective. would reasonable men in the position of the accused acted in the same way? it is not lawfulness that is an issue but culpability. if any accused honestly believes his life or property is in danger, but objectively viewed they are not, the defensive steps he takes cannot constitute private defense. if in those circumstances he kills someone, his conduct is unlawful. his belief that his life or property was in danger may well in brackets, depending on the

precise circumstances, exclude -- in which case the liability for the person's death based on intention will also be excluded. at worse for him, he can then be convicted of calculable homicide, closed quote. in murder, the form of culpability required is intention. the test to determine intention is subjective. in the present case, the accused is the only person who can say what his state of mind was at the time he fired the shots that killed the deceased. the accused has not admitted that he had the intention to shoot and kill the deceased. or any other person for that

matter. on the contrary. he stated that he had no intention to shoot and kill the deceased. the court is, however, entitled to look at the evidence as a whole, and the circumstances of the case to determine the presence or absence of intention at the time of the incident. in the present case, on his own version, the accused suspected that an intruder had entered his house through the bathroom window. his version was that he genuinely, though -- believed that the life of the deceased was in danger. there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that this belief was not honestly entertained.

the bathroom window was indeed open, so it was not his imagination at work when he thought he heard the window slide open. he armed himself with a loaded firearm and went to the direction of the noise. he heard a door slam shut. the door toilet was indeed fired shut when he fired four shots at it after he heard a movement inside the toilet. on his version, he was scared as he thought the intruder was coming out to attack him. there is no doubt that when the accused fired shots through the toilet door, he acted unlawfully. there was no intruder. instead, the person behind the door was the deceased and she was dead. i now deal with legal intent.

the question is, one, did the accused subjectively foresee that it could be the deceased behind the toilet door, and two, notwithstanding the foresight, did he then fire the shots, thereby reconciling himself to the possibility that it could be the deceased in the toilet. the evidence before this court does not support the state's contention that this could be a case of dolis eventualis. from the onset, the accused believed that at the time he fired shots into the toilet door, the deceased was in the bedroom while the intruders were in the toilet. this belief was communicated to a number of people shortly after

the incident. at 300 hours, the accused disclosed this to johan sanders when he requested him to come quickly to his house. at 3:22, he told his story in the company of his father. a few minutes later, the same information was relayed to the doctor when he arrived at the accused house, and lastly, it was told to the police at about 4:00 in the morning the same day. counsel for the defense correctly argued it was highly improbable that the accused would have made this up so quickly, and be consistent in his version even before he had access to the police docket and

before he was privy to the evidence on behalf of the state application. the question is did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant's death, yet persisted in his deed, reckless whether death ensured or not. in the second sentence of this case, the answer has to be no. how could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? clearly, he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that you would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time. to find otherwise would be tantamount to saying that the

accused's reaction after he realized that he had shot the deceased was fake, that he was play acting merely to delude the onlookers at the time. an independent witness who was at the accused house minutes after the incident had occurred stated that the accused looked genuinely distraught as he prayed to god, and as he pleaded with him to help save the deceased. there was nothing to gain saying that observation and this court has not been given any reason to reject it and we accept it as true and reliable. it follows that the accused's erroneous belief that his life was in danger -- the accused therefore cannot be found guilty

of murder. that, however, is not the end of the matter, as culpable homicide is a competent verdict. >> we will take an early lunch. court will adjourn. >> reporter: so, an early lunch there in the oscar pistorius murder trial. the adjournment in the last couple of seconds made by judge

thokozile masipa after a very significant past few minutes, where she has discussed the whole issue of intention in the shooting of reeva steenkamp by oscar pistorius, and then in the last few seconds, said the accused cannot be found guilty of murder. and using the term doli dolis eventualis. just explain, has she completely discounted the prospect of finding oscar pistorius guilty of murder per se? dolus eventualis is indirect intention. to foresee that they could be killed, then of course, can be guilty. but she has said there was no proof of such.

in this case, she accepts it as evidence, which is very strong, which will also affect him when dealing with culpable homicide. >> just after saying it's not possible to find oscar pistorius of murder dolus eventualis, she mentioned that is not the end of the matter, there is the matter of culpable homicide. so this is what you think -- this is a very strong indication. has she said, this is what i'm going to find him guilty of? >> no, she didn't say that. she needs to deal with alternative conditions and she needs to go through that. so if that's a possibility in law of alternative conviction, she needs to deal with that. there's no indication that she has any intention to find him guilty. >> she simply mentioned the existence of that charge, which other countries know as manslaught manslaughter. what exactly is that charge? >> there's no intention whatsoever. so it is on the basis that the

accused did not behave, like as we call, a reasonable man. so if he was not acting reasonably, then it is negligence, and guilty of culpable homicide. >> just what was lacking -- >> on the facts that we have listened to, it's going to be interesting to see the conclusion. so really looking forward to that. >> so the adjournment for lunch, possibly around an hour until the court resumes. i mean, just what was lacking in the prosecution's -- in the state's case that didn't achieve, a, a premeditated murder conviction, or any kind of a lesser charge of murder? >> in fact, more than one element of the crimes were actually missing in the prosecutor's case. the first one is intention. the second one, that his

thoughts were when he was approaching the bathroom. there was no malice. it wasn't unlawful when he decided he was protecting himself. so that's an indication that something that might have otherwise been unlawful. so that's justification. if he reasonably expected an attack, or if he was in danger, then of course, he cannot be convicted of that. if you put yourself in that position, he's outside the door, somebody's broken into your house unlawfully, it is not uncommon that such a person is armed. so there's a real risk that that person might fire shots as well. and it will play no role and it will serve no purpose if he's waiting for the other person to respond, because the other person could have killed him. and he was just waiting and the other person opens the door and

fires the shots in the process. >> reporter: just a reminder, judge masipa has just been in the last few minutes saying that the court cannot find oscar pistorius guilty of murder, and now we're going to hear after the lunch adjournment of perhaps an hour whether she is going to find oscar pistorius guilty of the lesser charge of culpable homicide. we now expect a listing of her findings, the key parts of evidence, what she thinks of them, with regard to this new charge. this is a lower charge. a lot of people have asked throughout this why didn't, a, the prosecution go for culpable homicide rather than murder, and b, the defense accept a lesser charge instead of fighting? >> it doesn't follow necessarily that if you convict on a more serious crime that you must be convicted of a second crime.

meant to be proved -- that's the crux of the legal system, such as yours and ours in many countries. i've been listening to so many comments throughout this case. everybody's quick to say, why didn't he ensure, what was his mind focused on? it was focused on noises that he had heard. so i don't believe, without proper analysis, that you can find somebody guilty. that's not in a democratic society, you just can't do that. >> reporter: and we talked a little earlier about the

pressure on a judge. south africa's first televised trial. you just mentioned that everybody has an opinion about it. everybody thinks they know what oscar pistorius did or was thinking that night. judge masipa, how difficult is that for a judge to distance yourself from every single thing you read and hear around you and focus purely on the evidence? >> well, after years of experience, you do acquire that ability to do that. not all judges, but most of them. she has obvious acquired it. i will say i am very impressed with her reasoning. one can debate that she's right or wrong, but the reasoning, the crux as she's analyzing it as she does. that is so true in the basic principles of criminal law. that's where it comes from. if the onus was on the accused to prove, but that's the

difference between the system. >> is there any doubt now that we will find out by the end of the day oscar pistorius's fate? will we be getting a verdict in maybe a couple of hours? >> yeah. well, probably not more than one hour. >> just straight after the lunch adjournment. >> yeah. >> reporter: we're seeing -- the wider legal process and what it shows about the south african legal is. has this been an edifying view of the legal process in action? people have their prejudices about how it works, how they thought it worked. >> well, that's why i'm really grateful for this opportunity that the press was there, and that it was actually on video camera. when you are listening and watching, applying the principles of law. it's not just discretion.

the applied principles of law. if she wanted to deviate from her arguments, it could have been easy for her to say well, on this, i don't believe it. but that's not the analysis. what is the essence of the case. >> she did not have good words for oscar pistorius's conduct. she said he was an evasive witness. as a judge, what difference does that make in the overall picture? >> well, if the judge was of the view that he is guilty, and he was evasive, which corroborated her inference that he was guilty. so evasiveness is an important factor when you analyze

evidence. even if the accused is an excellent liar. that's the crux of this. >> reporter: just about the wider legal process, when a verdict comes and if there is a conviction, what is the likely course of events and how much longer does a case generally -- how much can it go on for with appeals and mitigation? >> well, if the prosecution decides to appeal, then, of course, they would have to apply to appeal. usually in the light of such a space, they wouldn't do it this afternoon. so the matter will be set down for when available again. that might take a few weeks. if the judge does grant you to appeal, then the evidence,

together with the analysis of the judge, and then, as we call it, only then, and the court of appeal is sort of two years behind, not because they're slow, but because of the number. so it could take another three years. >> as much as that? >> yeah. >> reporter: regarding what the options are for judge masipa now, effectively two options, to find oscar pistorius guilty of culpability homicide or to acquit him entirely. the charge of culpable homicide, what is the range of possible sentences and how much leeway do you have as a judge to take various factors into account? >> well, if it is a culpable homicide where it is so close to murder, if he was acting recklessly, and that it was a brutal murder, it could be 15

years to 20 years. >> reporter: 15 to 20 years as a maximum sentence. >> in this present instance, if she finds him guilty, i can't imagine it would be more than five years. >> reporter: and why would you imagine that? >> because all of the emotions -- so what he feared, what he felt may have exceeded the limits of the reasonableness of that. but the question is now you look at that subjectively. you can't say that. because she already accepted the facts. that he was in danger. in fact, it's not uncommon, very seldom that the court can impose a sentence until the court

adjourns. that happens quite often. but it does happen from time to time. >> reporter: so effectively it's just a formality. >>. >> many litigating circumstances. >> reporter: of course, judge masipa has not convicted oscar pistorius of anything yet. yet. we've been hearing from judge thokozile masipa in the past few minutes. that the court is unable to find oscar pistorius guilty of premeditated murder. the state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder, and then she went on to say that murder without that aspect, that element of premeditation was also not proven beyond reasonable doubt, so we're here discussing the options that judge masipa will have when the court resumes after lunch, and

we hear the rest of her judgment on discussing this with former judge william heath. and so the two options we mentioned, and one is complete acquittal. it's one of south africa's most high profile cases ever. >> many members of the public will be most unhappy, because of their own little prejudices, because of their views that he acted guilty. but when you analyze it cold, you can see why he's acquitted of the more serious charges. >> reporter: another judge -- this issue of what the public thinks of an outcome, how much does that play in your mind? >> it's actually irrelevant. there may be judges -- because we're all people, human beings. but it's of no consequence when

you consider justices. >> your mission is to absolutely focus on the cold legal facts. this case has been all about the issue of contention. we're going through oscar pistorius's mind. but there's no element of a whodunit. >> and the cross-examination which was done by the prosecutor sort of hammered always in that direction. did this intentionally. you knew it was wrong. you knew your girlfriend was behind the door. absolutely. if he had cross-examinatied hime might have found -- what he has done now is to create sympathy.

that doesn't mean it's not to the point. of course it's really important. if it's overdone, if it's too deliberate, then you create sympathy for the accused. >> let's return to what some of judge masipa has been saying in the last hour about the issue of premeditated murder and the state's inable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that oscar pistorius was guilty of that crime. >> viewed in its totality, the evidence failed to establish that the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased, let alone with premeditation. i am here talking about direct intention. the state clearly has not proved reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of

premeditated murder. there are just not enough facts to support such finding. it follows that the accused's erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus. the accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder dolus eventualis. that, however, is not the end of the matter, as culpable homicide is a competent verdict. >> reporter: and so we now await what the judge has to say on that after the lunch adjournment. with me, my colleague andrew harding. it all moved very fast. >> it did, didn't it? it was extraordinary. the judge taking a sledgehammer to much of the prosecution's case. she dismissed ultimately the evidence of all those neighbors who insisted they heard a woman

screaming. dismissed the speculation that the couple had been rowing. all those text messages. the prosecution tried to show meant that surely oscar and reeva were having some terrible relationship, and that he must have deliberately gone into that toilet to kill her. and we are left with the defense's case -- and what was interesting is that initially judge masipa made a great deal about the discrepancies between oscar pistorius's various versions of what happened in those critical few seconds, when he was standing, pointing his gun at the bathroom door. she went through all these different versions, that it was an accident, that he knew someone was coming out and he fired either intentionally or voluntarily. a lot of people in court thought we're heading toward some sort of murder charge. and then just in the last few minutes, she concluded that no, the prosecution had not proved

any form of murder. culpable homicide, which could still get him, remember, ten years in prison. or a fine, suspended sentence. the judge has massive discretion when it comes to sentencing in the weeks ahead. or, and i think this would be the huge chardrop. an acquittal. to me what's been extraordinary is the entire prosecution's case could have been forgotten about. they hardly needed to turn up in court. this is all about oscar pistorius's performance on the stand and the crucial cross-examination by the prosecutor who did rattle pistorius very, very badly. but it was really about pistorius's own version and the confusion that he showed, and we're left with essentially pistorius's own version of events and the possible that he may still go to prison, not on what the prosecution have accused him of, but on his own muddled version of what he says

happened. >> what is oscar pistorius's demeanor like in court today? >> well, i was sitting right behind him and his father and family. i actually conn see his face. but you could see particularly towards the end that his head slumped, his neck muscles were twitching frantically. it was clear that he was starting to sob, especially when judge masipa, who had not made it entirely clear what she was really saying. she was quoting a lot of legal cases. and then suddenly she got to the lowest murder conviction, which would be dolus eventualis, and she said they haven't proved that and she said that very clearly. everyone really gasped, and pistorius realized that he would not be found guilty of murder. he is not a murderer. and with some sort of relief, he started sobbing. his family, though -- i was trying to talk to a some of them afterwards. they don't know if it's going to be acquittal or culpable homicide, in which case

sentencing is a huge issue. there are mixed emotions playing over their faces. hints of relief. they know that pistorius could still spend years in jail. and it's still very unclear, but i think they're looking, as we suggested for some weeks, actually, at culpable homicide as the most likely verdict. >> reeva steenkamp's family is in there as well. any sense of their emotions? >> no. to be fair, that's a little bit further down the line for me. but throughout, an extraordinary example of controlled emotions. i even remember when her daughter's photo -- her head flashed up on screen early in this trial, and she showed nothing. she just put her head down gently. so it seemed like she'd been determined to maintain an extraordinary degree of

composure. >> andrew, thank you very much. i know you'll be going back into court very shortly. and the proceedings will resume. after the lunch break, in possibly the next half-hour. we will be bringing you all the very latest developments, the democratic facts emerging is that oscar pistorius will not be found guilty of the charge of murder. and that became our passion. to always build something better, airplanes that fly cleaner and farther on less fuel. that redefine comfort and connect the world like never before. after all, you can't turn dreams into airplanes unless your passion for innovation is nonstop. ♪ you pay your auto insurance for innovatpremium onstop. every month on the dot. you're like the poster child for paying on time. and then one day you tap the bumper of a station wagon. no big deal... until your insurance company jacks up your rates.

you freak out. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? hey insurance companies, news flash. nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ eenie. meenie. miney. go. more adventures await in the seven-passenger lexus gx. see your lexus dealer.

hello, you're watching "gmt" on bbc world news. our top stories, the judge in the trial of oscar pistorius dismisses all charges of murder against the paralympian. judge masipa will consider the charge of culpable homicide when the court reconvenes, and she delivered a damning view of pistorius as a witness. >> what we are dealing with here is the fact that the accused was, amongst other things, an