Oscar Pistorius trial: Prosecutor doubts athlete's 'caring' image
The prosecution in the Oscar Pistorius case has scrutinised the athlete's charity work, on a second day of his sentencing hearing.
Pistorius's main motive was to further his career, the prosecutor said, in an attempt to show he deserves jail for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Annette Vergeer said Pistorius showed genuine remorse and his disability would be a problem in jail.The athlete was found guilty of the culpable homicide of Ms Steenkamp last month - but was cleared of murderOn Monday, the prosecutor was angered by a call for the sentence to be house arrest and community service.
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel labelled the suggestion as a "shockingly inappropriate" punishment.
Continue reading the main story
Pistorius faces up to 15 years in jail, although Judge Thokozile Masipa may suspend the sentence or impose a fine.
Continue...
At Tuesday morning's session, Mr Nel tried to show that the athlete's honorary doctorate at the UK's Strathclyde University was for his achievements "from a young age", rather than recent charitable work.
Mr Van Zyl had said that the doctorate was for the athlete's support for prosthetic limb development, but Mr Nel said there was no mention of that in the citation.
And he suggested to Mr Van Zyl that sportsmen often took on charity work for pragmatic reasons.
Later the prosecutor questioned whether Pistorius used his own funds to pay for prosthetics for disadvantaged young people, but Mr Van Zyl insisted that money earned for speaking which he asked to be paid not to himself but to charity was his own funds.
He also asked whether Mr Van Zyl had discussed future plans with the athlete, to which he replied that everything depended on the outcome of the trial.
At Tuesday morning's session, Mr Nel tried to show that the athlete's honorary doctorate at the UK's Strathclyde University was for his achievements "from a young age", rather than recent charitable work.
Mr Van Zyl had said that the doctorate was for the athlete's support for prosthetic limb development, but Mr Nel said there was no mention of that in the citation.
And he suggested to Mr Van Zyl that sportsmen often took on charity work for pragmatic reasons.
Later the prosecutor questioned whether Pistorius used his own funds to pay for prosthetics for disadvantaged young people, but Mr Van Zyl insisted that money earned for speaking which he asked to be paid not to himself but to charity was his own funds.
He also asked whether Mr Van Zyl had discussed future plans with the athlete, to which he replied that everything depended on the outcome of the trial.
Comments