also following this case...good op ed from the Telegraph and how the case breaks down from the Indy
Battle lines drawn in Oscar Pistorius court fight
The case for the defence...
The first hours following the news of Ms Steenkamps death were dominated by speculation that she had been shot in a Valentines Day surprise gone wrong. Police have insisted that they were not the source for this suggestion but friends and family who spoke to the athlete in the early hours of Thursday morning continue to insist that is what happened. The runners uncle Arnold Pistorius reiterated that the track star had not shot Ms Steenkamp deliberately: We have no doubt there is no substance to the allegation and that the states own case, including its own forensic evidence, strongly refutes any possibility of a premeditated murder or indeed any murder at all.
...and the prosecution
Footage from security cameras at the gated community of Silver Woods has been handed to police. Sources claim it shows the 29-year-old model arriving at Mr Pistoriuss house mid-way through Wednesday evening. Neighbours said there was shouting during the evening. Shots were heard about 3am. Police and paramedics who arrived at the scene reportedly found Ms Steenkamp dead in her nightie on the second floor of the house, suggesting she arrived earlier and stayed the night.
Any other evidence?
Unconfirmed reports suggested that a bloodied cricket bat may have been used in the attack. However, police sources suggested that most items in the bedroom had been spattered with blood. Authorities in South Africa have brought in the same splatter expert who dealt with the murder of right-wing white separatist leader Eugène Terreblanche in 2010.
Diminished responsibility?
In the hours after the killing, Pistorius was taken to hospital for blood tests. If traces of narcotics are found it remains a possibility that his lawyers may argue diminished responsibility. If successful that would reduce the life sentence that would be a minimum were he convicted of premeditated murder.
Now that we know that steroids were found in his home and there was evidence of heavy drinking that night, I think the lawyers will use diminished responsibility to lessen the sentence. Recently, there have been suggestions that due to the inebriated and drugged state he was in, he will claim that he forgot that Reeva was in bed with him and assumed she was an intruder when she got up to go to the toilet.
In the English judicial system, diminished responsibility is the terminology used in reference to a potential defense for a criminal act.
The diminished capacity defense may result from the state of an individual affected with a mental disability, (to some degree). The impairment may be retardation, mental illness or a disease or injury that would affect the individual's ability to reason.
External causes, such as the influence of drug or alcohol use, are not typically a legal defense for one's own actions.
In a case of diminished responsibility, the degree to which the accused is held liable for their own actions is in direct correlation to their state of mind or ability to reason. The mental defect does not completely excuse the defendant's conduct, (such as in an insanity defense), but rather may result in reduced charges or leniency in sentencing.
The presiding judge may use his or her own discretion in these cases to determine the degree to which an individual with a mental defect should be held accountable for a criminal act.
Diminished responsibility and intoxication
3.67 Our reformulation of s 23A provides that self-induced intoxication is to be excluded as a ground for pleading diminished responsibility. That provision is an exception to our general approach in relation to diminished responsibility, which is not to exclude any specific condition automatically as a ground for the defence, in order to allow proper consideration of the merits of each individual case. However, the approach taken in relation to self-induced intoxication is consistent with existing legislative policy on the admissibility of evidence of intoxication in relation to criminal offences. That policy is said to be based on the view that
it is unacceptable to excuse otherwise criminal conduct because the accused is suffering from self-induced intoxication, and that people who voluntarily take the risk of becoming intoxicated should be held responsible for their actions.113
The existing law on intoxication and diminished responsibility
3.68 The courts have consistently refused to regard self-induced intoxication on its own as a condition coming within the defence of diminished responsibility. It has been excluded on the basis that it does not cause damage or destruction of brain cells, but temporarily affects the way in which they function, and is therefore not an injury under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).114 Alternatively, it has been held that there is no evidence of an abnormality of mind arising from self-induced intoxication so as to satisfy the first element of the defence.115
3.69
While the temporary effects of intoxication have been deemed insufficient to amount to diminished responsibility, it is possible under existing law to establish the defence where the accused is intoxicated but also suffers from a pre-existing condition, such as substantial brain damage arising from past substance abuse. Therefore, there is be no defence of diminished responsibility in this situation unless it can be shown that the abnormality of mind exists even when the accused is sober.116 In the case of the brain damaged accused, for example, it must be shown that it is the brain damage, and not simply the temporary state of intoxication, which has caused the accuseds abnormality of mind, and subsequent impairment of mental responsibility.117 Similarly, the English Court of Appeal has held that where a person suffers from a pre-existing condition such as an intellectual disability, and kills while intoxicated, that persons intoxicated state must be ignored in order to establish that diminished responsibility results solely from the pre-existing condition.118
3.70
The law is less clear in the case of a person who is addicted to alcohol or drugs and becomes intoxicated as a result of this addiction. The English Court of Appeal held in R v Tandy119 that cravings from substance addiction can render involuntary the use of alcohol and its consequential impairment of judgment so as to fall within the defence of diminished responsibility. However, it remains questionable whether this view of the defence would be followed in New South Wales.120
3.71 In August 1996, amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) were introduced121 which provide that evidence of self-induced intoxication cannot be taken into account in determining whether an accused had the requisite intention to commit the offence in question, unless that offence is an offence of specific intent.122 Examples of offences of specific intent are listed in the table annexed to s 428B, and include murder. Section 428E of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides:
If the evidence of intoxication at the time of the relevant conduct results in a person being acquitted of murder:
(a) in the case of intoxication that was self-induced - evidence of that intoxication cannot be taken into account in determining whether the person had the requisite mens rea for manslaughter, or
(b) in the case of intoxication that was not self-induced - evidence of that intoxication may be taken into account in determining whether the person had the requisite mens rea for manslaughter.
3.72 Intoxication is defined in s 428A as intoxication because of the influence of alcohol, a drug or any other substance, and self-induced intoxication is defined in the same section as any intoxication except intoxication that:
(a) is involuntary, or
(b) results from fraud, sudden or extraordinary emergency, accident, reasonable mistake, duress or force, or
(c) results from the administration of a drug for which a prescription is required in accordance with the prescription of a medical practitioner or dentist, or of a drug for which no prescription is required to be administered for the purpose, and in accordance with the dosage level recommended, in the manufacturers instructions.
3.73 These amendments relating to intoxication do not appear to cover the defence of diminished responsibility. They relate to the question of the accuseds mens rea or intention in committing the offence, rather than the impact of intoxication on his or her mental responsibility under the test for diminished responsibility as provided for in s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
So IMO he will not get a lesser sentence if he blames his self-induced intoxication of steroids and alcohol and IMO he was not at risk from violence of the intruder. I am also wondering whether he will fall from grace when it is exposed that he might have been a drug cheat. People also murder to stop a secret getting out so did Reeva find out that he was a drug cheat? 
