Pistorius cries as pathologist testifies

Pistorius interlaced his hands behind his head and sobbed as Professor Gert Saayman described how a bullet entered Steenkamp’s head in the right upper part, and ran under the skull before it exited from a second wound in the head.

The paralympian athlete’s defence lawyer Barry Roux asked for a pause to allow his client to compose himself, then told Judge Thokozile Masipa the testimony could continue.

“He is very emotional. It is not going to change… He says he is willing that the evidence must proceed.”

When Saayman resumed his testimony and described how the bullet had shattered portions of bone in Steenkamp’s skull, Pistorius blocked his ears and gagged.

Before the pathologist took the stand, Masipa banned live broadcasts of his testimony at his request.

Saayman said the explicit nature of testimony would almost certainly compromise the dignity of the deceased.

However, print media were allowed to remain in court and report it.

“Let me apologise for the inconvenience I may have caused,” Saayman told the High Court in Pretoria, where Pistorius’s trial is now in its second week.

Saayman said he was bound by ethical rules and would be uncomfortable with live unfiltered streaming of his evidence.

“I think that the very personal nature of findings that are made at an autopsy examination as well as the very graphic details… have the potential to compromise the dignity of the deceased and… I believe it is our duty to preserve the dignity of the deceased.”

It would be unfair to make such explicit information indiscriminately available to vulnerable viewers, like children, he added.

“I think it goes against the good morals of society to make information of the nature available to vulnerable and unsuspecting people such as children if they are not timeously informed.”

The trial is receiving unprecedented media coverage and Saayman has been the first witness to object to his testimony being aired live, though others have refused to have their faces shown on television and only allowed their voices to be aired.

Saayman said he had no objection to print media coverage of his testimony, because “it would be paraphrased or filtered and people could choose to disengage”.

After Pistorius’s defence raised the issue, the judge also banned reporters from issuing immediate Twitter and blogsite on the testimony.

“There shall be no live broadcast now…. That [also] applies to Twitter.”

Later she added: “When I referred to Twitter I failed to refer to blogging as well. So Twitter is not allowed, blogging is not allowed.”

Masipa rejected, at the urging of both the State and the defence, a proposal by the media that they be allowed to air segments of the testimony later, if those chosen met with the approval of the court.

Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos criticised the court ruling, as confusing and impracticable.

“It sounds unenforceable. I wasn’t there to hear her [the judge’s] exact words, but in other court cases, people and journalists use Twitter so I don’t know why they are doing this in this case. What makes this case so special?”

The court has already heard graphic accounts of Steenkamp’s injuries from neighbours and from Roux, who said the severe brain damage caused by a head wound meant their testimony that they heard her cry for help was not feasible.

Roux has relentlessly questioned the credibility of all State witnesses, and so was the case on Monday morning with security guard Pieter Baba, who was on duty at Pistorius’s townhouse complex on the night he shot Steenkamp.

Baba told the court Pistorius sobbed but said everything was “fine” when the guard called him shortly after the shooting. Pistorius called back a short while later and sobbed wordlessly, Baba said.

Roux produced cellphone records which he argued proved that in fact Pistorius had made the first call.

“Pistorius called you first at 3.21am, and he will tell the court that he could not speak and very shortly after that at 3.22am you called him back to find out if he is all right,” Roux said.

“My Lady, this is not true that he called me first, I called him first. I am the one who made that first call to him.”

As with other witnesses, Roux suggested that Baba had over time amended his recollection to incriminate Pistorius. He had contradicted himself on the details he noticed when he arrived at Pistorius’s home and saw him carry Steenkamp down the stairs.

Again, Baba firmly disagreed. He pointed Roux to his exact testimony on Friday, and suggested any misunderstanding was the lawyer’s.

– Sapa