What we know so far:
- Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide, i.e., unlawful killing. The judge says Pistorius had clearly been negligent in his actions.
- Pistorius has been found not guilty of the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day 2013.
- Pistorius has been found not guilty of firing a gun through car sunroof (count 2), but found guilty of firing a gun in a restaurant (count 3).
- Pistorius has not been found guilty of illegal ammunition charge.
- The athlete has been granted bail. A sentencing date has been set for October 13.
- Culpable homicide carries a maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment, with no minimum sentence.
- Pistorius denied killing Steenkamp intentionally.
A live streaming of the verdict can be viewed here:
Pistorius is pictured leaving the High Court building in Pretoria earlier, surrounded by police officers.
Oscar Pistorius' uncle Arnold has read out a statement in the courtroom, stating their gratitude to Judge Masipa for clearing Oscar of murder:
Sentencing date agreed for Oct. 13.
Pistorius' lawyer Barrie Roux had asked for dates between Oct. 13-16. The athlete will continue to live at his uncle's home, where he has been residing for the past 18 months.
Judge Masipa has granted Pistorius bail. He will be a free man until sentencing.
The decision is yet another blow for state prosecutor Gerrie Nel.
Proceedings have resumed.
The judge gives her ruling on Pistorius' bail application.
She outlines the state's reasons for opposing bail.
It looks as though we're approaching the end of another lengthy break, according to reporters in Pretoria.
Pistorius sits in the courtroom during today's verdict.
State prosecutor Gerrie Nel reacts as he listens to the verdict.
Barry Roux says that Pistorius' bail was granted for a charge far more serious than that of culpable homicide.
Roux and Nel discuss the sale of Pistorius' property, and where he is currently residing.
Whether Pistorius is a suicide risk is also being considered.
Nel is arguing that a recent incident involving Pistorius visiting a nightclub is another reason he shouldn't get bail.
Court is back in session.
Pistorius' lawyer, Barry Roux, is arguing that his client's bail should be valid until a sentence is imposed, despite the guilty verdict.
Roux says it's "premature" to consider the sentence Pistorius is likely to receive. Says onus is on state to argue why he shouldn't get bail.
The break in proceedings has gone on significantly longer than five minutes. Reporters in the court are saying that both counsels are talking to the judge.
Culpable homicide carries a maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment in South Africa.
However, Pistorius could avoid jail entirely on this charge.
The Guardian is reporting that the firearms charge he was also found guilty of carries a maximum jail term of five years.
State and defense counsels will be required to make submissions to the judge ahead of her sentencing decision, which is not likely to come today.
The judge is now dealing with the indemnity of Darren Fresco, a witness for the firearms charges.
Fresco has been given indemnity from prosecution.
PISTORIUS GUILTY OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE.
The other charges:
Count 2: relating to the sunroof incident — not guilty.
Count 3: the restaurant shooting — guilty.
Count 4: illegal ammunition possession — not guilty.
Reporters in the court are remarking on the tension as Judge Masipa rattles ever closer to a verdict on culpable homicide.
Judge Masipa says Pistorius' behavior after the killing "was not of that of someone who'd committed murder."
The Steenkamp family are "not happy" with the outcome of the gun-related charges. Reeva's best friend, Gina Myers, was crying in the courtroom as Masipa delivered the verdict.
Judge Masipa has moved on to discussing the murder charges again.
She appears to be recapping the entire verdict.
Pistorius found not guilty of illegal ammunition charge.
She says Pistorius' version of events — that he was looking after the ammunition for his father, Henke, and did not intend to possess it — remained "uncontroverted", despite the lack of evidence to corroborate it.
Judge Masipa is discussing Count 4: illegal possession of ammunition.
She says he did not possess a license for ammunition.
She says the state must prove Pistorius had the necessary mental intention to possess a firearm or ammunition before he can be convicted.
She is now discussing Count 3, relating to when he discharged a firearm in a Johannesburg restaurant.
Masipa says Pistorius didn't intentionally pull the trigger, but this does not mean he is absolved from negligently firing the gun.
Masipa accepts the testimony of boxer Kevin Lerena, a "good witness", who was in the restaurant at the time. She says Pistorius should be convicted of this charge.
The judge is discussing Count 2, relating to Pistorius discharging a firearm in public, when he fired a gun through a car sunroof while with friend Darren Fresco and former girlfriend Samantha Taylor.
He has been acquitted of this charge.
It seems Judge Masipa will go through the additional firearms charges Pistorius faces, ahead of looking at the culpable homicide charge.
Day two of the Oscar Pistorius verdict. The defendant has arrived at court.
Reeva Steenkamp's parents arrived one hour ago.
Pistorius is pictured leaving the court earlier.
He then traveled to his uncle's house in the Pretoria suburb of Waterkloof.
Eyewitness News reporter Mandy Wiener says the judgment comes down to a subjective test.
Dolus eventualis would have meant Oscar Pistorius did foresee the consequences of his actions, whereas culpable homicide means he simply should have foreseen them.
Judge Masipa discusses the "reasonable man" test in relation to Pistorius — whether she believes a reasonable man in Pistorius' circumstances would have acted in the same manner.
The judge says Pistorius failed this test in regard to negligence. "In the circumstances, it is clear that his conduct was negligent," she says.
She says he failed to take the steps he reasonably should have in order to guard against the consequences.
Masipa says the defendant's background must be taken into consideration.
She says Pistorius' sex, education, and background "must be taken into account" when considering his actions.
The two counsels have now returned to the courtroom following their apparent discussion in the judge's chambers, according to The Guardian.
Judge Masipa follows shortly after.
She moves on to discussing culpable homicide.
Reporters in the court say prosecutor Gerrie Nel entered the courtroom after lunch, only to leave once again with lead defense counsel, Barry Roux.
They have both apparently gone to the judge's chambers.
Oscar Pistorius' brother, Carl, has been seated at the front of the courtroom in a wheelchair.
He suffered serious injuries in a recent car crash, the BBC reported.
A protest by the ANC Women's League in support of Reeva Steenkamp has been taking place outside the High Court in Pretoria today.
The organization has supported the Steenkamp family throughout the trial, with members accompanying Reeva's mother, June, to the courtroom, The Guardian reported.
When Masipa returns from lunch, she could decide that Pistorius is guilty of culpable homicide, The Guardian is reporting.
This would occur if she believes he did not mean to kill Steenkamp, but acted recklessly or negligently in firing through the locked bathroom door. There is no minimum sentence for culpable homicide.
As the murder charges have been dismissed, Pistorius could be acquitted if the judge accepts the defense's account that he genuinely feared for his life, or was acting in self-defense.
Pistorius also faces charges on two counts discharging firearms in public, and one more of possessing ammunition illegally.
Masipa says the fact the person behind the door turned out to be Reeva is "irrelevant" and that the question is whether Pistorius had the intention to kill the person behind the door.
Masipa says that the circumstances in which Steenkamp was killed were "peculiar" and did not make sense.
She asks why the accused fired four shots and not one, and why he did not ask Steenkamp if she heard the window opening.
Judge Masipa moves on to Pistorius' own testimony, saying he was a "very poor witness."
Pistorius is described as "evasive" by the judge.
She says he was initially composed under cross-examination, but gradually lost composure.
Judge Masipa says that Pistorius' evidence is "contradictory, in my view."
The essence of Pistorius' defense is that he didn't intend to shoot anyone. However, if he is found to have such an intention, it's because he believed he was under threat from from an intruder, she says.
She says that if the state has argued that he did not have an intention to shoot, he cannot use self-defense as a defense. She says that Pistorius approached the bathroom with a gun.
Judge Thokozile Masipa reads her verdict at the North Guateng High Court in Pretoria.
Pistorius weeps as Judge Masipa reads her verdict.
Barry Steenkamp, Reeva Steenkamp's father, looks at Pistorius in the dock.
Masipa says the accused did not suffer from a mental disorder, saying: "He could act in accordance with understanding the difference between right and wrong."
In May, psychiatrist Dr. Merryll Vorster revealed in court that Pistorius suffered from a general anxiety disorder and "hyper-vigilance," which affects his fight or flight reaction.
Here are the key points from Judge Masipa's ruling so far:
- The judge accepts the defense's timeline of events, saying shots were fired between 3:12 a.m. and 3:14 a.m. Her apparent acceptance of the defense's timeline suggests she's likely to rule out premeditation.
- Masipa says that the evidence around Reeva's last meal is "inconclusive" as the gastric emptying is "not an exact science."
- The witnesses Burger and Johnson may have misinterpreted sounds they thought they heard from the Pistorius house.
- The screams may have come from Pistorius and not Steenkamp, as her injuries may have rendered her unable to scream.
- The claim made by the defense that the police tampered with the scene is not significant when compared to other evidence. The judge also rejects that the WhatsApp messages between the couple prove anything for either side.
The judge has announced an adjournment.
Court will be back in session at 11:30 a.m. local time (5:30 a.m. ET).
Judge Masipa says that WhatsApp messages used by the prosecution to suggest Pistorius and Steenkamp's relation was "on the rocks" are irrelevant.
She says that relationships can be "dynamic" and wants to refrain from "making inferences one way or the other in this regard."
Masipa addresses Reeva's last meal, saying that gastric emptying is "not an exact science" so the evidence is "inconclusive."
The state says that her stomach contents suggest she ate much later than the 7 p.m. claimed by Pistorius. Masipa says that this evidence does not help their case as it is inconclusive.
Screams heard after the first gunshot sounds at 3:12-3:13 a.m. could not have been made by Reeva Steenkamp, Judge Masipa says after a short break.
This casts doubt over state witnesses' (Pistorius' closest neighbors, the Stipps) testimony, in which they claimed they'd heard a woman scream.
Masipa suggests any screams made after this time must have been from Pistorius.
The judge's apparent acceptance of the defense's timeline suggests she's likely to rule out premeditation.
However, Pistorius can still be found guilty of murder if he is deemed to have intended to kill either Steenkamp, or a perceived intruder.
Judge Masipa has addressed a dispute in the chronology between state and defense over the timing of noises made by the gunshots and the cricket bat Pistorius used to break down the bathroom door.
Phone records were used as a basis for resolving this dispute.
The judge accepts the defense's version of events, saying shots were fired between 3:12 a.m. and 3:14 a.m.
Masipa says it would be "unwise to rely on witnesses" without testing against objective evidence.
She adds that the court is lucky to have reliable evidence, such as phone records, as many witnesses “got things wrong.”
Masipa has now moved on to two of the "horrendous" injuries sustained by Reeva Steenkamp. She says that the injuries may have rendered Steenkamp unable to scream.
The defense had claimed that Pistorius' scream sounds like that of a woman.
The judge said it was difficult to know the truth in this instance as no one, including ex-girlfriend Samantha Taylor, had ever heard the athlete scream in a life-threatening situation.