Nastasya Tay, reporting from Courtroom GD in Pretoria, South Africa, contributed to this report.

Oscar Pistorius has been found not guilty of murdering Reeva Steenkamp.

The stunning development was revealed as Judge Thokozile Masipa read her summation of the evidence Thursday in front of a packed courthouse in Pretoria, South Africa, and a worldwide television audience.

Masipa has yet to hand down her final decision, which will come Friday. She did reveal in the waning moments of Thursday's summation that she determined Pistorious to have been "negligent," which means he could still be found guilty of culpable homicide, a conviction that comes with a maximum of 15 years in prison but carries no mandatory jail sentence.

"He acted too hastily and used excessive force," Masipa said.



Pistorius also faces gun charges that carry potential prison sentences.

View photos Oscar Pistorius reacts during judgment at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria. (REUTERS) More

But a murder charge is out, for the time being anyway. The prosecution can appeal the decision and, if they do, Pistorius could still be convicted of murder, according to legal experts contacted by Yahoo Sports.

All along, the prosecution pressed for a conviction for murder. But the Blade Runner has always maintained it was a tragic accident, that he shot his girlfriend in the pre-dawn hours of Valentine's morning last year in a moment of terror, believing that he was protecting them both from an intruder locked behind a bathroom door.

In her summation, Masipa said the prosecution "failed to show requisite intention to kill the deceased, let alone premeditation." She also ruled out dolus eventualis – the grey area between premeditated murder and culpable homicide.

Under dolus eventualis, if Pistorius should have foreseen that his actions could result in death, yet recklessly proceeded anyway, it still would have been considered murder in South African law. That would have come with a minimum sentence of 15 years.

Masipa ruled out any murder conviction based on several key factors:

• Phone records support Pistorius' timeline of events.

Relying on phone records and "objective evidence," including the timings of the Guard Track facility outside Pistorius’ home, Masipa appeared to accept the defense’s timeline of events, based on the athlete’s account of the evening.

• Witness testimony that Pistorius and Steenkamp were heard arguing prior to the shooting was not supported by the established timeline.

Masipa dismissed much of the testimony delivered by Pistorius' neighbors, saying that many witnesses "got things wrong," potentially because of media coverage of the trial and the fallibility of human memory. She determined that witnesses had been mistaken in their interpretation of sounds – confusing the sound of gunshots with the cricket bat breaking the toilet door, and Pistorius’ screams with those of a woman.

Story continues