Why was Pistorius’s lawyer, advocate Barry Roux, harping on about witnesses hearing cricket bats rather than gunshots? Was he listening to South Africa’s cricket test match against Australia on an earpiece?

Sowetan speaks to Cape Town lawyer William Booth about the major developments in the Oscar Pistorius murder trial this week:

..... No. The prime reason for the distinction is … that the defence claims that Pistorius thought there was an intruder [in his house] and that his and Steenkamp’s lives were in danger. To protect [themselves], Pistorius fired shots through the bathroom door, and then looked for Steenkamp, but couldn’t find her. Pistorius realised Steenkamp could be in the bathroom and started screaming for help, while he got his cricket bat to bash down the door, and found her inside the bathroom.

The state is saying there was an argument, with a man and woman shouting/screaming, and then shots were fired as a result of the argument.

What does the evidence led by prosecutor Gerrie Nel suggest about the case?

The evidence led suggests there was an argument and, as a result of the argument, gunshots went off, suggesting that there was intention on [Pistorius’s] part to kill Steenkamp. The witnesses testified 1) that they heard gunshots 2) they heard a man and a woman - not just a man - screaming/shouting for help.

What can we expect next week?

For the defence, the whole case revolves around the fact that Pistorius believed there was an intruder [in his home] and fired four shots through the bathroom door. …

Questions would include whether Pistorius felt in immediate danger, or under threat, and therefore started shooting. That is what the defence would try to establish.

The state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, and through the leading of evidence, that Pistorius had intention to kill Steenkamp. That is why they have extra charges relating to the firearm incident [at Tasha’s restaurant in Melrose Arch, Johannesburg]: the state wants to prove that Pistorius is a violent person and prone to irresponsible behaviour when he becomes angry.

The prosecution would try and prove that there could have been an argument, Pistorius lost his temper, and had the intention to shoot Steenkamp.

Also, that the evidence indicates nobody in his situation would be under the mistaken belief there was an intruder and therefore his self-defence action cannot be sustained.