Africa

Oscar Pistorius trial: Steenkamps 'rejected blood money'

  • 14 October 2014
  • From the section Africa
Media captionProbation officer Annette Vergeer said that there was not appropriate provision for Pistorius in prison

Athlete Oscar Pistorius offered a large cash sum to the parents of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp after he killed her - but it was rejected as "blood money", a South African court has heard.

Pistorius's offer of $34,000 (£21,000) was revealed by prosecutor Gerrie Nel during his sentencing hearing.

Earlier, a defence witness told the court that Pistorius would be physically at risk if sent to prison.

He has been found guilty of culpable homicide, but cleared of murder.

The defence is trying to show that prison would be an inappropriate punishment.

Pistorius' offer of a lump sum of 375,000 rand to the Steenkamp family emerged on the second day of his sentencing hearing, during the cross-examination of defence witness Annette Vergeer.

Image caption June Steenkamp is said to have angrily rejected the offer of "blood money"

Mr Nel told Ms Vergeer that Pistorius raised the funds from selling his car.

The prosecutor added that Reeva Steenkamp's mother, June, had rejected the offer. "She does not want blood money," he said.

He also highlighted separate monthly payments of 6,000 rand (£340; $540) made by Pistorius to the Steenkamps - who were short of money after their daughter's death.

Mr Nel said these funds - mentioned in Ms Vergeer's report - would be "paid back to the accused in full - every cent."


Analysis: Andrew Harding, BBC News, Pretoria

What constitutes "blood money?" That question surfaced in court when it was revealed that Oscar Pistorius has been making monthly payments to Reeva Steenkamp's parents.

The couple's lawyer confirmed that he had approached the Pistoriuses some 18 months ago, asking for support because Barry and June Steenkamp were broke. It seems their daughter had been supporting them prior to her death.

But earlier in court, Prosecutor Gerrie Nel scathingly described a separate lump-sum offer of 375,000 rand, made by the athlete as "blood money".

So what is the different between refusing a lump sum and accepting a monthly payment - in moral terms? Clearly issues of need, timing, emotion, and the ebb and flow of the trial process itself must come into play.

But in the meantime the Steenkamps have now announced that they will not be pursuing any civil case against the man who killed their daughter, and will repay "every cent" of the money Pistorius has already given them.


'At risk'

Image caption The defence's main aim is to avoid a custodial sentence for Pistorius
Image caption Gerrie Nel's aggressive style has been a hallmark of the trial

The Steenkamps' lawyer, Dup De Bruyn, explained that the couple were now "reasonably comfortable" after he had negotiated a series of media deals concerning their daughter's death.

The Pistorius family later accused Mr Nel of giving a distorted picture in court of the financial agreement with the Steenkamps, and said they would provide a full statement on Wednesday.

Earlier on Tuesday, Ms Vergeer - a probation officer paid for her defence work - said that without legs Pistorius would be "a lot more vulnerable than the normal man".

She added that she had recently handled the case of an inmate who had been sexually assaulted in prison. "How can we say that he won't be exposed to that?"

"There is also no facility to cater for the accused's disability."

Media captionIn 60 seconds: Key developments in the trial of Oscar Pistorius

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel suggested to Ms Vergeer's that her information about conditions in South African prisons were second-hand and outdated.

Speaking fees

Early on Tuesday, the proceedings centred on Pistorius' charity work.

Cross-examining one of the athlete's managers, Peet Van Zyl, Mr Nel said sportsmen often took on such work for pragmatic reasons.

Later he questioned whether Pistorius had used his own funds to pay for prosthetics for disadvantaged young people.

However, Mr Van Zyl insisted that the athlete had asked for his speaking fees to be paid not to himself but to charity.

The athlete's manager also said that while Pistorius had contractual obligations to his sponsors, he "went the extra mile" for disabled children.

The BBC's Andrew Harding in Pretoria says Mr Nel has been trying to show Pistorius as a self-interested, corporate client rather than a selfless volunteer.

The Paralympic sprinter denied murdering Ms Steenkamp after a row on Valentine's Day last year, saying he shot her by mistake.

He faces up to 15 years in jail, although the judge may suspend the sentence or impose a fine.

On Monday, a defence witness suggested Pistorius not be sent to prison but be sentenced to house arrest or community service.

Ms Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model and law graduate, was hit three times by bullets shot through a toilet door by Pistorius at his home in the capital, Pretoria.

The sentencing hearing is expected to last several days.

Inside Oscar Pistorius's home

INTERACTIVE
  • ×

  • Balcony

    ×

    Mr Pistorius said he and Ms Steenkamp had dinner at about 19:00 before going to bed at 21:00. He said he woke in the early hours, spoke briefly to his girlfriend and got up to close the sliding door and curtains.

    Judge Thokozile Masipa questioned the reliability of several witnesses who said they heard screams and gunshots between about 03:12 and 03:17, saying most had 'got facts wrong'.

  • Bathroom noise

    ×

    Mr Pistorius said he heard the bathroom window sliding open and believed that an intruder, or intruders, had entered the bathroom through a window which was not fitted with burglar bars.

    Mr Pistorius said he grabbed his firearm and told Ms Steenkamp, who he thought was still in bed, to call the police.

    The judge said it made no sense that Ms Steenkamp did not hear him scream 'Get out' or call the police, as she had her mobile phone with her.

  • Shooting

    ×

    Mr Pistorius could see the bathroom window was open and toilet door closed. He said he did not know whether the intruders were outside on a ladder or in the toilet.

    He had his firearm in front of him, he heard a movement inside the toilet and thought whoever was inside was coming out to attack him.

    'Before I knew it, I had fired four shots at the door,' he said.

    The judge said she did not accept that Mr Pistorius fired the gun by accident or before he knew what was happening. She said he had armed himself with a lethal weapon and clearly wanted to use it. The other question, she said, was why he fired not one, but four shots before he ran back to the room to try to find Ms Steenkamp.

  • Bedroom

    ×

    Mr Pistorius said he went back to the bedroom and noticed that Ms Steenkamp was not there.

    Mr Pistorius said this was when he realised she could have been in the toilet and rushed back to the bathroom.

  • Toilet door

    ×

    Mr Pistorius said he screamed for help and went back to the bathroom where he found the toilet was locked. He returned to the bedroom, pulled on his prosthetic legs and turned on the lights before bashing in the toilet door with a cricket bat.

    When the door panel broke, he found the key and unlocked the door and found Ms Steenkamp slumped on the floor with her head on the toilet bowl. He then carried her downstairs, where he was met by neighbours.

3D animation of the apartment

Media captionNote: 3D model based on floor plan presented at Pretoria Magistrates' Court in 2013, Agencies and Eyewitness News.

Around the BBC

Related Internet links

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites