High Court refers Blade Runner to Weskoppies

The North Gauteng High Court on Tuesday 20 May heard that murder accused Oscar Pistorius will undergo medical observation at the Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital in Pretoria as of 26 May.

“The accused must present himself as an outpatient to the Medical Superintendent of the Weskoppies Hospital on 26 May 2014 at 9am and on every weekday thereafter for a period not exceeding 30 days,” Judge Masipa said.

“The accused will remain there until 4pm daily or, until such time he has been excused formally by the Medical Superintendent of the hospital or, person designated by the Medical Superintendent,” Masipa added.

Psychiatrists and psychologists appointed include Dr Alfine on behalf of the defence, Prof HW Pretorius on behalf of the court, clinical psychologist Prof J Scholtz and an unknown psychiatrist appointed in terms of Section 79 subsection 1b.

Judge Masipa continued: “They will inquire into whether the accused by reason of mental illness or mental defect was at the time of the offence criminally responsible for the offences charged, whether he was capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his act or of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his act.

“The psychiatrist and psychologist will submit their reports to the court as soon as it is concluded. The record of the court proceedings must be made available to them also.”

The trial was postponed to 30 June.

Day 32 – Blade runner to face psychiatric evaluation

Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled that murder accused Oscar Pistorius must undergo psychiatric evaluation on day 32 of the trial in the North Gauteng High Court on Wednesday.

This after the state brought forward an application the day before that Pistorius should be referred, following defence witness and psychiatrist Dr Foster’s testimony.

Masipa made it clear: “I shall grant this order. The aim of referral is not to punish the accused twice, but if there is a possibility of making sure he (Pistorius) is an outpatient, that would be preferable. I was persuaded that there is a reasonable possibility Pistorius was affected by a mental illness at the time of the incident. It is so that a referral means more delays, but this is not about anyone’s convenience but that justice is served.

“An application of this nature is never to be taken lightly.”

Court was adjourned until Tuesday 20 May when Judge Masipa will give her formal ruling.

Some of Judge Masipa’s most important quotes during today’s proceedings:

• The state launched an application for a referral of the accused for observation in terms of Section 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The application is brought in terms of Section 78, subsection 2 of the Act. Council referred this court to a number of former cases which I found useful; strangely the application is opposed on behalf of the accused.

• Section 78 subsection 2 of the Act reads as follows: If it is alleged at criminal proceedings that the accused is by reason of mental illness or mental defect or for any other reason not criminally responsible for the offence charged, or if it appears to the court at criminal proceedings that the accused might for such a reason not be so responsible, the court shall, in the case of an allegation or appearance of mental illness or mental defect, and may, in any other case, direct that the matter be inquired into and be reported on in accordance with the provisions of Section 79. (Source: www.gov.za)

• From the above it is clear the keywords are, if it is alleged or appears that due to mental defect/ mental illness the accused might not be criminally responsible then a referral is in order.

• The trigger of the application came after defence witness Dr Foster was called. She made it clear that the accused suffered from Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) at the stage of the proceedings.

• I however, do not agree that in this case there are no allegations that the accused may not have raised the issue that he was not criminally responsible at the time of the incident in so many words, but evidence led on his behalf clearly raises an issue and cannot be ignored, not only that but allegations have been properly substantiated by the evidence of Dr Foster.

• Dr Foster compiled a detailed report shaping the accused’s personality, past medical history, habits, history of the incident, mental state and diagnosis.

• Dr Foster’s focus was on her diagnosis and findings that the accused suffered from GAD, which may have affected his conduct on 14 February 2013. She also repeated this under oath.

• Dr Foster mentioned the accused was hyper-vigilant – she stated this type of person as somebody not able to relax, who is over-vigilant, meaning constantly looking around and scanning their surroundings.

• Dr Foster’s opening remarks were that the accused told her that he believed he heard an intruder, became scared and had escalated levels of anxiety.

• Dr Foster also said his physical vulnerability makes him more anxious and anxiety makes him want to conceal his physical vulnerability. She stated more than once he had a long history of GAD, and that it had increased in time. She put out factors, and these factors were operating at the time of the offence and would have been compounded by his physical vulnerability and additional pressure of perceiving his environment as unsafe. She said that when exposed to a threat, the accused is most likely to respond with a fight response rather than flight response as his physical capability is limited.

• Dr Foster added that in the accused’s instance, he would have been more likely to fight as his capacity to flee was compromised. His reaction to the perceived threat on 14 February 2013 would be considered in light of his physical vulnerability and GAD. She elaborated on two aspects that were operating at the time of the incident: 1. His physical ability was compromised and he was not able to move around easily. 2. His GAD would be present on the day.

• The effect of the evidence by Dr Foster is that a doubt has been created that Pistorius may possibly have another defence relating to his criminal responsibility. Dr Foster’s evidence have not been contradicted nor can it be in the absence of other psychiatric evidence. This court is ill equipped to deal with the issue raised by her at this stage. Her views also have substance.

• Dr Foster only had two interviews with the accused and seeing that the duration was not stated, she may have had little time to compile her report.

• Council for the defence said the application by the state was premature as they intended to call another witness who would give evidence on the flight and fight response. This witness would explain it in detail.

Experts reckon that should Pistorius be found mentally ill during his psychiatric assessment, he will not be found guilty as he did not know what he was doing that fateful morning. Should Pistorius be found fit or not mentally ill, he could be liable to have known what he was doing at the time and then face the possibility of sentencing.

Pistorius is accused of the murder of his former model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. Pistorius shot her through the toilet door three times in the early hours of the morning on Valentine’s Day 2013. Pistorius in his defence said he thought there was an intruder and fired four shots in self-defence.

Day 31 – “Oscar could be lying”

Psychiatrist Dr Merril Foster agreed with the state that the accused could be lying when day 31 of the Oscar Pistorius trial continued in the North Gauteng High Court.

State prosecutor Gerrie Nel continued cross-examining the psychiatrist who evaluated Pistorius nearly three weeks after he had shot dead his girlfriend on Valentine’s Day last year.

Dr Foster: “His version to me was that he certainly armed himself, walked towards the danger and certainly fired shots at the noise as he was scared.”

Nel: “He fired at the noise? This was not his version to the court, he denied having fired at the noise. In court he never said he fired at the noise. There must be red lights flickering as far as his version is concerned.”

Dr Foster: “It would appear that there are inconsistencies yes.”

Nel then put it to her that she had based her finding on Oscar’s version, but asked her that if his version should change, her findings also would change.

Dr Foster responded, “No, it doesn’t change, he still describes having been extremely frightened by the threat, so the fear of the threat in Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) would go together. Whether he remembered firing the shots, may be a little difficult … so clearly being so frightened. If he fired at the noise or just fired randomly, I wouldn’t be that concerned in terms of his mental state because of his GAD and because his version that he was afraid at the time. I wouldn’t expect him to remember absolutely with crystal clarity what happened at the time if he had GAD and a trigger of fear of an intruder.”

Nel: “But, he never said he fired at the noise to the court?”

Dr Foster: “I’m saying one wouldn’t expect him to remember.”

Nel: “But to you he said he fired at the noise, then there is an inconsistency.”

Dr. Foster: “The inconsistency could be explained on the basis that as a psychiatrist being faced with an individual with GAD in a fear situation, I wouldn’t expect [the person] to remember every detail.”

Nel: “Except if he’s been through cross-examination; there could be another explanation, maybe he could be lying?”

Dr Foster: “Yes, he could then just be lying yes, there’s no other explanation.”

Dr Foster made it clear that GAD is a very common phenomenon and can be seen as a mental illness. She even said that several people in the courtroom could suffer from GAD.

She explained, however that, “These individuals see situations in a more serious light than they actually are. The reaction to anxiety is associated with various symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhoea, sweating, inability to concentrate, lack of sleep and irritability. There is a whole host of symptoms ongoing in an anxiety disorder.

“There are of course different levels of GAD – some less severe and some more severe. It can be mild or severe. I wouldn’t say if your levels of GAD are severe it impacts the person in a severe manner and that it could be seen as a mental illness; but if one has GAD and it is severe, it may impact your capacity to live a normal life.

“In this sense one can say it is a mental illness, but one has to look at its impact on the individuals to live and socialise.”

Nel then argued that at least four witnesses/ friends of Pistorius as well as a former girlfriend had testified already, but none of them mentioned that he had abnormal anxiety.

Dr Foster replied: “People with GAD sometimes conceal their anxiety; I also would add that Pistorius and his family were not aware that he had GAD – it’s not something they would have mentioned.”

Nel said the accused went on about how anxious he was about crime – a factor she took into account when making the diagnosis – and that he even took excessive security measures.

Dr Foster: “Yes, after the burglary at his townhouse he increased security, which led to his eventually moving to an estate where he thought he would be more secure. After he found out there had been some burglaries there, he became concerned. Some of the measures were that he would lock himself in his bedroom, had intended to move because he no longer felt safe, the fact that he had an alarm system and beams around the house and purchased dogs. I felt that this security measures were more than those the average South African would take.”

Nel argued that most people in South Africa have dogs, burglar alarms, beams etc. 

“Why say his measures are exceptional?” Nel asked.

Dr Foster: “Because most people would not lock themselves in their own bedrooms.”

Nel: “Why relate it to most people in South Africa; are you not showing a level of bias? To me the security measures are pretty common.”

Dr Foster: “It was my opinion. I thought his concerns for safety were more than that of the average South African. I would say locking yourself in the bedroom is taking security a step further.”

Nel still disagreed and listed a few examples where Pistorius – diagnosed with GAD and anxious about crime – didn’t take further steps to secure his house.

Nel told the court:

• “…despite there being no burglar proofing in his house – which is not allowed in the estate in any case – there was a broken window downstairs. Pistorius wasn’t anxious to fix it and certainly one suffering from GAD would take extra care? Isn’t this strange?”
Dr Foster: “One would expect this person to fix it yes, but it is not really strange.”

• “Pistorius allowed ladders to be on his premises. For someone suffering from GAD one wouldn’t expect him to leave it there?”
Dr Foster again agreed that a person with GAD would lock it away.

• “A person suffering from GAD would make sure his alarm system would work properly. Pistorius didn’t indicate this and wasn’t concerned about his alarm system.”
Dr Foster again agreed that a person with GAD would have done so.

• “What about the sliding doors, one most certainly would expect a person with GAD to close it. This was not the case the night before as he said he went to close the doors the next morning shortly before the shooting.”
Dr Foster disagreed saying that: “No, that person could expect his or her partner to close it.”

During re-examination, defence advocate Barry Roux indicated that …

• Pistorius instructed the contractor who worked in his house at the time to pack away the ladders and waited for him to fit the replacement window, which already was in the house
Dr Foster commented: “Pistorius did make preparations.”

• Pistorius did take extra safety measures when in addition to locking the bedroom door before he and Reeva went to sleep, he had placed the cricket bat in front of the lock mechanism of the door – which wasn’t very strong – to prevent it from being opened

• Pistorius heard the toilet door slamming and the window sliding open, that is why he thought there was an intruder. “The point I want to make is that this wasn’t delusion, that it is actually what he heard”
Dr Foster commented: “I looked for paranoia but couldn’t find it.”

• Dr Foster said Pistorius was a danger to society suffering from GAD and by owning a gun – “there was evidence where he was assaulted from behind and had his firearm but never used it. What does it show?”
Dr Foster commented: “That he maintains a sense of responsibility.”

• Dr Foster mentioned his mother’s death, that he lost his primary parenting figure and how stressful it was on Pistorius but also, he did not have a father
Dr. Foster commented: “His mother’s death would be stressful, and he then had to depend on his aunt and siblings for emotional support.”

• Dr Foster said that she had consulted with Pistorius only after he had given evidence in court, “but you have also consulted with many other accused before this case of Pistorius, does it really matter when you consult with them?”
Dr Foster commented: “No, just being an accused of something provokes anxiety.”

• Pistorius’ version to her was that he fired at the noise “but in his evidence he clearly adds that he heard a noise on the inside of the toilet which he perceived to be someone/ an intruder coming out to attack him” – the defence indicating there’s no real difference

Nel put it to Dr Foster: “If the court finds he (Pistorius) knew Reeva was in the toilet and fired to kill her, would GAD play a role?”

Dr Foster: “Yes, it could, they would be anxious in losing a relationship.”

Nel: “You knew that Pistorius had shot and killed the deceased when you consulted/ interviewed him?”

Dr Foster: “Yes. A person suffering from GAD shouldn’t have firearms as it puts them at risk of becoming involved in violent activities.”

She further believes that Pistorius’ newer friends were not people he could confide in and that his sexual relationships lasted for a short time.

Dr Foster also made it clear that GAD diagnosed in Pistorius qualified as a mental disorder – the state suggested Pistorius should then face 30 days of psychiatric evaluation. Dr Foster is also aware that the court could take into account the diagnosis of GAD in Pistorius and his vulnerability in coming to a conclusion or that the report may be used for sentencing.

Nel made the point that, “My lady, we have now proven a mental illness.

“Dr. Foster argued that the accused is a danger to society and should not have a firearm. He was also diagnosed with GAD – a qualifying mental disorder – and that it may have affected his actions that fateful morning, therefore I ask that the court refer him for psychiatric evaluation for 30 days.

“The defence took a risk calling the witness at this stage of the trial, and I’m sure Mr Roux didn’t intend this but even if he (Pistorius) gets referred, and when we return, this is not the end of the matter.”

Barry Roux argued the state had no merit to bring forward this application and said they were wrong.

High Court Judge Masipa would sleep on it and make a decision tomorrow.

Day 30 – “Oscar a danger to society”: Psychiatrist

Defence witness and forensic psychiatrist doctor Merril Foster told the North Gauteng High Court on Day 30 of the trial that someone suffering from anxiety and owns a gun is a danger to society.

Dr Foster, who has a list of qualifications in psychology including a PhD in forensic psychology testified that she evaluated the accused, Oscar Pistorius on 2 and 7 May to establish his medical condition following the events of 14 February 2013. She also interviewed his friends, colleagues (coach) and family.

Defence advocate Barry Roux asked Dr Foster to read to the court the report she compiled on Oscar.

The report includes that …
• he is the middle child of three
• he was born with an abnormality
• he would not have understood why he underwent surgery. The procedure done on him as an 11-month-old baby can be described as a traumatic assault
• he was fitted with his first prostheses at 17 months old
• his parents encouraged him to participate in any activity
• he never was allowed to be seen as disabled. Over time this could result in an increase in anxiety
• he attended crèche and there were no problems
• he described his mother as a loving person and she was his primary attachment figure
• his mother and father divorced at age six. Soon there were financial problems. Pistorius claims his father was irresponsible
• his mother was an anxious person and at times abused alcohol. She was so anxious, that at times police even had to search the house because she heard noises
• his older brother, Carl, was tasked to look after the younger siblings
• at times his grandmother supported the family financially
• at primary school he did well, was a sociable child but at times was teased because of his prostheses. Carl often had to come to his rescue
• at age 14 he moved to Pretoria to attend high school and lived with his father but there were problems at his father’s home
• he was good at sport, played tennis and rugby, and jogged. There were no problems with his academics
• his mother died unexpectedly when he was in Grade 9, and he was traumatised by her death. Her death meant an increase in Pistorius’ anxiety levels. He describes this as a stressful time in his life. Following her death he continued to attend boarding school and was supported by his family. He had infrequent contact with his father
• at age 16 he sustained a knee injury while playing rugby. Part of his rehabilitation was to start running and within a month, his performance improved. He got a coach and started running competitively
• in Grade 11 he already started earning money by competing internationally and became financially independent 
• after matric he travelled extensively. He had his own coach and manager, and had developed into an international athlete
• he had a few emotional ties. He saw his sister often and had frequent phone contact with his brother Carl
• at age 21, he broke all ties with his father following an argument
• he had spent many months a year in Italy and soon became anxious to the violent crime situation as reported by the SA media. Pistorius then bought himself a firearm to protect himself. His aunt reports he had a burglary at his townhouse, which led to him to increase security at his home
• he had a strict training regime and relied on social media to stay in contact with friends and family
• he would keep on his prostheses during the day, but took them off when he went to bed
• he became the focus of attention as he became increasingly famous
• he described being extremely stressed to cope with the demands of a top athlete
• he thought the Siverwoods Estate would be the perfect environment to live in
• he had a routine to sleep with the bedroom doors locked and admitted to having sleeping disturbances
• he always feared being attacked or his house burgled 
• he became aware that his being a public figure was more reason to fear being attacked
• he did not drink alcohol during his training season, but admitted to drinking excessively, at times being intoxicated. He didn’t use any drugs
• he has a long history of anxiety disorder
• became depressed post the shooting incident on Valentine’s Day, not prior to it

Roux wanted Dr Foster to elaborate on Pistorius’ anxiety.

She replied: “It is my opinion that Oscar is suffering from an anxiety disorder – these individuals work hard to control their environment and level of anxiety. His strict training regime and diet helped him to alleviate his levels of anxiety, but as he came more an more exposed to fame, he had to prepare more and more not to embarrass himself in any way.”

Dr Foster added other events in his medical history besides his legs being amputated and fitted with prostheses as a baby, such as his being admitted to Milpark Hospital following the boating accident in 2009. Dr Foster also picked up that anxiety runs in the family.

Dr Foster said that regarding the incident, Pistorius told her: “He believed he heard an intruder and became scared. He had no intention to shoot Miss Steenkamp.

“In my opinion, his emotions were real. He presented himself as a well-groomed, polite and a well-spoken man. He had no throat disorder and his mood was depressed. He had a few expressions on his face – which is not often a feature on individuals who are depressed – and is currently on medication for it. He also had no cognitive deficits – meaning he had intellectual capacity.

“His capacity to walk without his prosthesis was poor. He is very vulnerable when on his stumps and could be pushed over quite easily. His anxiety makes him conceal his physical vulnerability.”

Dr Foster added that Pistorius retched several times while they discussed the early hours of the morning on 14 February.

“When exposed to a threat, Pistorius is more likely to respond with a fight response rather than a flight response as his physical capacity is limited. In my opinion, Pistorius’ reaction to the perceived threat in the early hours of the morning of 14 February should be considered in light of his physical vulnerability and his diagnosis of anxiety disorder.

“He does however, feel guilty for having caused Reeva’s death.”

In his cross-examining the witness, state prosecutor Gerrie Nel suggested that Pistorius was mentally ill, and that because he was diagnosed with a generalised anxiety disorder, the court should refer him (Pistorius) for mental observation.

This application has not been granted yet.

Nel asked the following:

Nel: “The fact that you diagnosed the accused with anxiety disorder, are you saying it affected his ability at the time of the incident and that he could not differentiate between right and wrong?”

Doctor: “No.”

Nel: “It affected his ability to distinguish between right and wrong then?”

Doctor: “No.”

Nel: “Can you say it is possible that he had diminished responsibility at the time?”

Doctor: “While considering the events of the offence, the court should take into account the factors I mentioned. What makes him different from other offenders is that he had a physical vulnerability and anxiety disorder. His reaction to situations would be different to others based on his anxiety disorder and vulnerability.”

Nel then suggested Pistorius should be evaluated mentally.

Doctor: “The anxiety disorder in Pistorius is not a mental illness as considered in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act. It’s not something to be taken into account. His disorder could affect his reaction, it’s not [because of] a mental illness [that he thought that] somebody was entering his house, which means he lost his touch with reality.”

Nel: “His defence is that he thought there was an intruder and that he was under attack … its relevant and appears to the court that he might suffer from a mental disorder. Your diagnosis is relevant to the facts and because of the relevance, he should be referred.”

Doctor: “It’s for the court to decide.”

Nel: “What then is the purpose of your report?”

Doctor: “To bring psychiatric factors to the court’s attention that may be of relevance to the court for the purpose of conviction, and if required of sentencing.”

Nel: “You have made findings on general anxiety disorder. This disorder is relevant to the fact of the matter and his defence.”

Doctor: “It might, to his defence, yes.”

Nel: “You also said he suffered from this disorder and that it is worsening.”

Doctor: “I believe it is increasing, yes.”

Nel: “For sentencing purposes you mentioned for someone suffering from this disorder it would make him a dangerous person.”

Doctor: “Yes.”

Nel: “Do you agree that a person suffering from the disorder would be a danger to society if he had access to a gun?”

Doctor: “Yes.”

Nel: “If someone is angry and very upset and kills their partner, [is that person] capable of deep remorse [afterwards]?

Doctor: “True.”

Nel: “The way you framed your last sentence was interesting: ‘Pistorius was certainly remorseful about the events’. Can you elaborate?”

Doctor: “He feels remorse having caused the death of Miss Steenkamp and was aware of firing the shots that caused her death. He feels guilty that he caused her death.”

Nel: “He indicated to you that he thought there was an intruder, and armed himself, and approached the danger ‘to sort it out’ . When he armed himself, he must’ve foreseen the possibility that he might have to shoot?”

Doctor: “I agree.”

She added: “Someone suffering from GAD who has a gun, is a danger to society.”

The court then was adjourned until tomorrow as Nel requested more time to prepare questions for the witness.

Day 29 – “Reeva was not standing when shots were fired”

The observations by a defence witness somewhat differed from what the state believes regarding where Reeva Steenkamp was when she was shot through the toilet door as Day 29 of the Oscar Pistorius trial continued in the North Gauteng High Court.

Taking the stand was the defence’s own ballistic expert, Thomas Wolmarans who had done more than 10 000 forensic investigations and had testified in more than 5 000 cases. The state believes Reeva was standing in a defensive position, facing the door when she was shot a second and third time.

Wolmarans has an impressive CV. He matriculated in 1965, did his national service in the army where he gained a lot of experience in firearms in general and then joined the South African Police Force.

According to Wolmarans, “The defence team instructed me to do certain ballistics tests.” He said he first arrived at the crime scene on Sunday 17 Feb 2013 – three days after the fatal shooting.

“I entered the house with protective clothing, did a walk-through of the crime scene and took photographs. Two women from CSI Africa then arrived shortly after, also wearing protective clothing to do a fingerprint investigation. I found that the main bathroom toilet door was removed for safe-keeping by police,” he explained.

Some of his observations:

• Pistorius was not on his stumps when he fired the shots.

• Considering the wound to her upper arm, Reeva was close to the door, approximately between 6 and 20cm from the door.

• Reeva was not in a standing position when she sustained the wounds because the bullet holes were in a lower position. This might be consistent with her falling down.

• Reeva was not closer than 20cm or further than 60cm from the toilet door when she sustained the head wounds.

• Her left hand could not have been against her head considering the wound on the web of her finger.

• The bullet that entered the hip did not exit.

• He excluded the version of the state ballistics expert, Captain Mangena that the bruise on Reeva’s back was caused by the bullet that had missed her, hit the wall and ricocheted off the wall. He says it could have been caused by an object such as the magazine rack.

Concerning the state witnesses testifying that they clearly heard gunshots and to avoid possible confusion with the sounds of the cricket bat when Pistorius banged against the toilet door, Wolmarans said that he positioned himself at 60cm from the door, and later 120cm from the door. From both distances he struck the toilet door with a cricket bat and fired shots.

“Although I’m no sound expert, I can state as a ballistics expert that the sounds caused by the cricket bat hitting the door resembled the sound of the firearm although not as loud.

“I also had ringing in my ears – just like Pistorius said – but it could also be due to my experience with firearms over the years.”

State prosecutor Gerrie Nel then cross-examined Wolmarans.

Nel first of all invited the court to observe the toilet door close up where a laser was set up.

Nel then accused Wolmarans of altering his report to suit the defence’s case.

Wolmarans denied it and added that he neither would take the other defence witness and ballistics expert, Roger Dixon’s advice on ballistics at all, nor would he expect the court to accept his (Dixon’s) testimony on ballistics.

Nel wanted to know if Wolmarans changed his report since Pistorius had taken the stand or if he ever had consulted with him.

Wolmarans: “I personally never consulted with the accused on what happened that night.”

Nel: “Was the shooting incident at least discussed in your and the accused’s presence?”

Wolmarans: “When certain questions were asked by council, I and the accused were there. When I showed a photo of the deceased Pistorius left to go and vomit.”

Nel then interrupted: “Why would you answer this, you are biased.”

Wolmarans in his defence said: “I’ve never lied in the court.”

Nel: “Are you saying a court has never rejected your evidence?”

Wolmarans: “I’m not aware of it, maybe a few times.”

Nel told the court, “I’ll prove it,” and mentioned the Beetge case where his evidence was rejected.

Wolmarans did, however, agree with the state’s ballistics expert, Captain Mangena on certain findings, namely that Pistorius fired in rapid succession and that Reeva’s head was near the toilet lid when she was shot in the head.

Day 28 – Court hears about Oscar’s emotional state after incident

The North Gauteng High Court heard on Day 28 of the trial what Pistorius’ emotional state and mental health were two days after he had shot and killed his girlfriend.

Taking the stand was Pistorius’ probation officer, Yvette van Schalkwyk.

Van Schalkwyk told the court that at first, she did not wish to testify and it was only after she had read allegations in the newspaper that Pistorius was putting up a show that she decided it was time to give her observations.

While the state questions Pistorius sincerity following the shooting, the defence wants to prove that he was remorseful and truly sincere.

Van Schalkwyk told the court the following: “What I saw the first time was a man that was heartbroken about the loss; he was in mourning, suffering emotionally, and very sorry about the loss and the suffering they (Reeva’s family) are going through.

“Mr Pistorius cried at least 80 per cent of the time and kept on telling me about the plans the two of them had for the future and how much he missed her.”

It was when Van Schalkwyk said: “He told me he loved her” that state prosecutor Gerrie Nel objected, saying that was inadmissible.

A discussion between the state and defence followed, but the high court judge said they should continue.

Van Schalkwyk then read out the contents of four weekly reports about Pistorius’ mental health and emotional state.

• 1 March 2013: Pistorius was heartbroken and emotionally drained. He tested negative for prohibited substances and also held his own memorial service at his uncle’s place of residence.

• 8 March 2013: Pistorius still experienced physical and emotional reactions; he saw a psychologist regularly and gave his full co-operation to conditions. Pistorius again tested negative for prohibited substances.

• 15 March 2013: Pistorius is not suicidal as described in newspapers. Although he was heartbroken, he is coping with the situation, but there are lots of aspects to work through. Pistorius was not tested for any prohibited substances as he has tested negative since bail. Pistorius was co-operating very well and gave his full co-operation.

• 22 March 2013: Pistorius is slowly improving and coping with the situation. He again tested negative for prohibited substances. We are satisfied that he complied with the conditions.

Van Schalkwyk added that, “Apart from crying, Mr Pistorius did vomit on two occasions whilst I saw him in the jail cells. We even had to get him up and calm him down.”

State prosecutor Gerrie Nel during cross-examination asked Van Schalkwyk if Pistorius felt sorry for himself, to which she replied: “I didn’t observe that. He kept on telling me how much he missed her.”

Nel wanted to know what else he had told her.

“He told me that he accidentally shot Reeva,” Van Schalkwyk said.

“But this is not the accused’s version. His version is that he thought he was under attack by intruders, that’s why he shot. His version has changed. Would you also not expect from a person who shot a loved one to say ‘sorry, I did it?'” Nel argued.

“Every person is different. People will act differently in different situations. We talked, how he missed Reeva. He said he barely was coping, repeating that he missed her and that he was sorry about Reeva. That day he was heartbroken, confused also.”

Nel: “He said he was sorry about the loss, but never about what he did. Again it’s all about him.”

Van Schalkwyk: “It’s about emotions, what he went through at that stage. He never talked about what was going to happen to him for what he did. I was not there to evaluate or assess him, just to support him.”

During re-examination Advocate Barry Roux for the defence wanted to know if Pistorius elaborated on the accident he referred to.

Van Schalkwyk said: “Yes, he thought there was an intruder so he got his firearm and went to the bathroom where he heard a noise.”

Earlier, the first witness to take the stand was a professor and practicing clinician, Christina Lundgren.

Lundgren has lots of experience in the medical field and holds a basic medical degree from the University of Cape Town, a diploma in medicine and a PhD from the University of the Witwatersrand where she studied anaesthesia.

Roux asked her to give her opinion on what could have caused gastric emptying and the volume of the gastric content in the deceased (Reeva).

According to Pistorius, the couple ate between 7pm and 8pm. The state argued that an expert forensic pathologist, Prof Saayman, was able to identify vegetable matter in her stomach and that Reeva’s last meal was not at 7pm – implying that Reeva got up, ate something and then an argument broke out.

Lundgren: “Firstly I’m not a forensic pathologist. I’m a practicing clinician. The volume of a person’s gastric content does vary from person to person and depends on many factors. The evidence I was given indicates that Reeva had a chicken stir-fry dinner between 7pm and 8pm on 13 February 2013.

“My opinion, based on my expertise on what could have caused gastric emptying is that the meal Reeva ate may have contained insoluble fibre; Reeva was a premenopausal woman; she had performed yoga and exercised; slept. In the ideal world after six hours of fasting (depriving yourself of solid foods) her stomach should have been emptied.

State prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the witness her evidence given in court was very balanced but that she was not willing to say that Prof Saayman’s findings were wrong.

Nel: “Reeva took the food approximately two hours before her death, is there any reason according to you that Prof Saayman is wrong?”

Lundgren: “I have great respect for Prof Saayman, I have no reason to criticise him.”

Nel: “If Reeva was involved in an argument before death, and she was anxious and that would’ve affected gastric emptying?”

Lundgren: “If patients are fearful at the time of eating, yes it would delay gastric emptying, but it depends.”

Nel: “Prof Saayman’s evidence is more probable.”

Lundgren: “Like I said, I’m not a forensic pathologist, it’s speculative to estimate when the last meal was based on the contents of the stomach. I’m not willing to say Prof Saayman is wrong, it is his opinion based on his many years of practice. I’m entitled to my opinion.”

Nel: “You know that the court takes into account all evidence presented to come to a conclusion. Should they reject Prof Saayman’s evidence?”

Lundgren: “That is for the court to decide.”

Day 27: Witnesses demonstrate Oscar’s desperate screams

Yells were heard in the North Gauteng High Court on day 27 of the Oscar Pistorius trial as witnesses demonstrated the desperate cries that had woken them on the morning of Valentine’s Day 2013.

The defence called three witnesses throughout the day, two of them a married couple residing next to Pistorius and the other a woman living nearby. The state indicated that some of the witnesses probably were asleep when Pistorius had fired the gunshots and broken down the door.

The first to be called was Michael Nhlengethwa, a direct neighbour of Pistorius residing at 287 Bushwillow Crescent, Silverwoods Estate since December 2009.

Nhlengethwa told the court that he held a degree in construction management and was self-employed, running an engineering company. Nhlengethwa met Pistorius for the first time when a developer – who designed both their houses – introduced them to each other as Nhlengethwa was looking to buy a house. Pistorius already was living on the Silverwoods Estate.

Asked by Barry Roux for the defence what their relationship was like, Nhlengethwa answered: “Pistorius was the first person to welcome me in the Estate. He was my friendly neighbour and the relationship continued in this manner, but we did not socialise. I saw him on the Estate from time to time. When we did see each other, Oscar would get out of his car and greet me, not just wave – that’s the type of person he was.”

Nhlengethwa added that he and Pistorius also shared a common interest, that of cars.

Roux then asked if he knew Reeva, to which Nhlengethwa replied: “I met Reeva once on a Saturday/ Sunday” – a week before she was shot dead.

“It was when Oscar bought a BMW. He told me he was test-driving it. He then told me he wanted to introduce someone to me, it was Reeva. One thing that struck me about her, when I raised my hand to greet her she opened her arms and hugged me. When a person brings you closer to you it means something. It was the last time I saw her.

“I told Oscar that this one was for keeps. Oscar replied: Mike, I’m planning to move to JHB in March and I would like to inform you about this as well. I could see he really wanted to be closer to Reeva. I then told him if it was for her, I understand. When we said goodbye, Reeva hugged me again.”
Nhlengethwa explained that on the night of 13 February 2013, he and his wife went to bed at between 9pm and 10pm.

“During the early hours of the morning (14 February 2013), I was woken up by my wife. She said she heard a bang. At that point she was not sure if it was inside the house or outside. I decided to get up and told her to listen to sounds. My first concern was to check on my daughter who was on the other side to see if she was ok. At her room I could tell she was asleep and ok as the door was locked – I told my family to keep all doors locked at night. I checked downstairs as well. I then went back to the bedroom and told my wife there’s nothing or no one in the house.”

Nhlengethwa told the court it was while talking to his wife, that he heard a man crying very loudly.

“We went into shock mode and said to each other that something was wrong. There is a difference between someone crying/ weeping of sadness and a person crying because they are in danger – that is the cry I heard as if the person was desperate for help.

“It was very loud. It was a high pitch voice. I told my wife it could be one of my neighbours, but wasn’t sure if it was the house on the left or right. I then wondered if something happened to security. The cry was continuous.”

At the time, Nhlengethwa’s wife didn’t want him to leave the house and they phoned security.

“When my call went through I spoke to a gentleman and informed him that he should come to my house because I heard a man crying and he is desperate for help, also, to check if the neighbours around me were ok. He said to me they would quickly come up. While on the phone the crying was carrying on.

“I then looked through the windows to try and see if something was going on and spotted a vehicle, a bakkie of the security. As it pulled up, I saw security speaking to another resident in another house (that of the Stipps). From there the bakkie turned out of their driveway, and I saw another car pulling out of a driveway coming towards us. They stopped at Oscar’s house.

“There’s no way I would go back to sleep so I got dressed and went to Pistorius’ house. I could identify some vehicles parked there and as I walked closer I heard the crying, which easily can be associated with the crying I heard previously.

“As I approached Oscar’s main entrance, I saw something that is difficult to explain.

“Oscar was kneeling next to the lady who was just lying there, there was blood all over. He was just crying. The situation was quite bad; I couldn’t take watching what I saw and went outside. I stood a distance from the door but I could hear Oscar pleading to Mr Stander for help. Paramedics arrived while I waited outside and I saw them bringing out a stretcher.

“I saw they were struggling to get it through both door panels so I helped them as mine is similar. Then I stood outside again. Stretcher wasn’t in there for more than three minutes and when it came out I could see the lady was no longer more (alive). There was nothing more I could do and went back to my house.”

The witness added he never heard any gunshots, only the crying.
Next to take the stand was Nhlengethwa’s wife.

She told the court that she knew Pistorius as a neighbour only and never met Reeva.

“I was woken up by a sound, a bang, so loud that it woke me up whilst sleeping. I wasn’t sure where it was coming from. I then woke my husband and asked him if he heard what I did. It seemed he didn’t hear anything. By then we were wondering where it was coming from. My husband then stood up, and went out of the bedroom to check if our child was safe. Then he came back again and sat on the bed. Whilst he was out of the room I heard someone crying: “Help, help, help.” It was a male person’s voice.

“Not long after this, I heard a male person crying. The crying was of a person who was very hurt and needed urgent help. The voice was vibrating and very loud, it was a high-pitched voice but I couldn’t hear what the person was saying.

“My husband then peeped through the window and then he called security. I was frightened at that stage.”

When her husband returned from Pistorius’ house, she asked what happened and he replied: “Someone had passed at Oscar’s house.”

This witness made it clear that she never heard a female voice.

The last witness for the day was another neighbour of Pistorius, Rica Motswane who has been residing at 285 Bushwillow Crecent, Silverwoods Estate since 2008.

She told the court she works in Mpumalanga but that she slept at her house the night of 13 February 2013 and was woken up by screams the next morning.

“I heard a man crying, and to me the cry was a cry of pain.

“Immediately I woke up my husband, and asked him: ‘Did you hear it?’ He said yes, but I thought I was dreaming. Realising the crying was real, I started to panic. We were all frightened, the crying was very loud and very close as if that person was in my house.

“Trying to go back to sleep I heard a car passing. After some time, another car passed. I looked outside and spotted the security vehicle and I told my husband to phone the security and ask what happened. Security told him that they were taking care of the situation.”

This witness also never heard gunshots.

The court was adjourned until Thursday, 8 May. It is believed the defence will close their case in a week’s time, that is on Friday 16 May.

Day 26: “I thought Oscar was going to shoot himself”

More tears were shed and other versions were read when the Oscar Pistorius trial continued in the North Gauteng High Court on Monday 5 May after it was postponed in mid-April.

Taking the witness stand on day 26 of the trial were two of the defence witnesses, Johan Stander (212 Summerbrooke Close) and his daughter Careece Viljoen – said to be the first two people to have entered Pistorius’ home after the shooting.

First to take the stand was Mr Stander. Stander told the court that he has been living at Silverwoods Estate since May 2009 and that he had known Pistorius for some time. He occasionally was asked to look after Pistorius’ dogs while he was away.

Stander then explained what had happened on the morning Reeva was killed.

“I was at my house in my bed, asleep when I received a phone call around 3.18am. It was from Oscar and he said: ‘Oom Johan, please, please, please come to my house please. I shot Reeva, I thought she was an intruder, please, please come quick’.

“I then stood up, my wife woke up in the process as well. As I walked out to open the door, my daughter came out of her room and said: ‘I just heard somebody scream for help’.

“My wife then told my daughter: ‘Yes, it must be Mr Pistorius, he called your dad and said he shot Reeva’.

“My daughter and I decided to go to Mr Pistorius’ house as quickly as possible. We left the house, my daughter was driving, we parked the car in the street. Once at the front part of the house we saw that the door was slightly open and that the light was on. My daughter pushed the door open and we then saw Pistorius coming down the stairs with Reeva in his arms.

“I could see she had a head wound, and when he saw us there was relief on his face. When he reached the bottom of the stairs, my daughter asked him to put her down. He was crying, he was really crying and was in pain. He kept asking us please to assist him and put Reeva in the car and take her to the hospital. My daughter asked him rather to put Reeva on the floor, and he did.

“We then tried to calm him down, but he was broken, he was screaming, crying and praying.

“It is not something I would like to experience again, my lady. It was a young man walking down the stairs with a young woman in his arms. The expression of sorrow and pain on his face, his crying, his praying, asking God to help him. He was torn apart, broken, desperate and pleading. It’s difficult to describe and his commitment to saving a young woman’s life – when he put his fingers into her mouth trying to make her breathe, how he begged God to keep her alive.

“After spending some time trying to calm him down I said to him: ‘I will go out and call the ambulance’.

“While outside a gentleman (Dr Stipp) came walking towards me. He introduced himself as Johan Stipp and said to me: ‘I’m a medical doctor’. I asked him to go inside the house to assist. I also asked him for the contact number and he said 082 911.”

“While still speaking on the phone outside, Stipp then came out and spoke to the people on the phone. My daughter came out as well and together we explained the address to paramedics.

“Soon after, an ambulance arrived and the paramedics declared Reeva dead.

“I asked Dr Stipp what happened and he replied: ‘I heard four shots, silence, screams, and four shots again’. Then he mentioned he couldn’t do anything and was going to leave. I asked him for his contact number should the police ask for it. Just before he left, he said Pistorius was going up the stairs. I asked where Pistorius was going and my daughter called him. He, Pistorius was going upstairs to fetch an ID.

“Shortly after that a man introduced himself as Col Van Rensburg from the police. I then took him inside. I phoned Mr Pistorius’ brother and informed him of the accident. I also asked the security staff to radio the gate and phone the police. A number of people –some in police uniform – and vehicles arrived. One could see the people moving up and down the stairs. Police then took over the scene. I never went inside again.”

Stander also said that he was somewhat concerned when Stipp told him that he had heard a number of gunshots, thinking to himself: “Who would shoot so many times even at an intruder?”

Stander continued that when he was asked to look after Pistorius’ home, the dogs were very friendly.

“I had to feed them when he participated overseas. They were kindly mannered and playful dogs. You can go in there and the dogs would start playing with you. They are not aggressive.”

Stander also told the court that when he was on the management committee there had been a number of incidents at the estate but it never was reported to the police.

He mentioned three incidents at Milkwood Way where a woman was tied up, where criminals gained entry to another house by using a ladder and another incident of theft. In another incident the owner of a house in Summerbrooke Close was locked in the garage and robbed of his electronic equipment.

The next witness to be called was Stander’s daughter, Careece Viljoen – who got married post the incident.

Viljoen told the court that she was a legal advisor and that she too knew Pistorius well. She even described Pistorius as a friend, adding that the two of them visited each other quite often.

She explained the events of 14 February 2013 as follows:

“I woke up in the early hours of that morning because my dog was barking and very restless. I also could hear other dogs in the estate barking because my sliding door was open – it was very hot that morning. Just as I rolled out of bed to close the sliding door, I heard a person shouting: ‘Help, help, help’. I then froze and thought: Oh my gosh, something is wrong. The voice I heard was a man shouting; there was terrible trouble, I thought then where was the lady?

“I got up, stood by my sliding doors to try and hear where it came from. To me, it was clear somebody needed help.

“I then went back to bed as I was afraid. I could then see my parents’ bedroom, and that their lights were on, they probably were awake as well. Once I had spoken to my mom she informed me that: ‘Oscar phoned your dad and said he shot his girlfriend, thinking she was an intruder’.

“I immediately went down to the garage, pulled out my car and waited for my dad. He then came running out. We drove to Pistorius’ house and upon our arrival I spotted some people standing in the road. I asked them – a security guard and person called Frank (a person believed to be living at Mr Pistorius house) what had happened but they didn’t know. My dad and I went to the front door.

“I approached the front door, which was slightly open, and once I walked in, the first thing I saw was Oscar carrying Reeva down the stairs. I then proceeded to enter the house. He was walking rather fast and from the second we walked in he was frantic, asking please, please, please, get her to the hospital. I said just put her down, but he begged me to put her in the car.”

The witness then broke into tears, but she felt there was no need to stop and continued.

“The moment he saw me he said: ‘Creece, Creece, please can we take her to the hospital, take my car keys’.

“As we met at the bottom of the stairs, there was blood everywhere. I was kneeling on the one side of Reeva, Oscar on the other. We needed to stop the bleeding and I rushed upstairs to the linen closet, and grabbed a few towels – it was rather dark upstairs.

“Once downstairs, Oscar was praying to God, begging and pleading with Reeva to stay with him: ‘Stay with me my love’ he begged.

“With the towels we attempted to stop the bleeding, but it didn’t work. We then tied the towel around her arm and even lifted up her hip to apply some pressure. In between and most of the time, Oscar had his fingers in her mouth trying to make her breathe, I suppose.

“The whole time he kept on asking: ‘Where is the ambulance, where are they?’ I told him they were coming. While we were busy, I stood up to ask my dad where the ambulance was. There was a gentleman (Dr Stipp) who arrived and Oscar and I were relieved, but he was not there very long. As I went back inside the house while he was coming out, he said: ‘It is very bad’.

“Once inside with Oscar still at Reeva’s side I asked him what had happened. He replied: ‘I thought she was an intruder’.

“Soon after that the ambulance arrived, paramedics came in and I told Oscar to move away as they needed space to work on her. Oscar and I then went to the kitchen area. Oscar was in a state. I then told the paramedics to do whatever they had to to save a life.

“Paramedics then asked for some ID of Reeva. I asked Oscar where her handbag was and replied: ‘Upstairs’ and that he would go up and fetch it, but I didn’t go with him and remained downstairs. It was when my dad asked me where he was that I rushed to the top flight of stairs calling him to bring down the handbag as I thought he was going to shoot himself.”

The court also heard that according to this witness, Reeva was declared dead at 3.50am.

Viljoen also mentioned that when she and her dad entered Pistorius’ home the kitchen light was on. She also added that once police arrived and took control of the scene, she joined Pistorius’ sister upstairs, accompanied by a police officer, to pack a bag of clothing for Pistorius. A watch also was put into the bag.

The trial continues tomorrow.

Oscar Pistorius trial postponed until 5 May

The Oscar Pistorius trial has been postponed until Monday 5 May after the high court judge granted an application brought by the state.

On Day 25 of the trial, state prosecutor Gerrie Nel continued to cross-examine defence witness Roger Dixon.

Nel told the court that Dixon gave evidence in court to certain fields of expertise he did not specialise in. Dixon is known to be a geologist but was a former expert within the South African Police Service (SAPS).

Throughout his two-day cross-examination by the state, Dixon failed to answer key questions, Nel said.The court also heard that Dixon was not involved with the recording of the sounds, and that he never used equipment (machines).

Dixon said he only assisted with measurements and only wielded the bat during the tests. He added however, that the pitch of the gunshots recorded was much higher, and the cricket bat sound recorded was much lower.

He also believed that Reeva was not standing when the bullet hit her in the head, as it hit her while she was falling.

Dixon told the court he had been at the scene (286 Silverwoods Estate) on 22 Feb, 25 Feb, 1 Mar, 27 Sep and 8 Nov 2013 respectively, as well as on 25 Mar and 14 April 2014 when he assisted.

Nel concluded and put it to Dixon that, “The problem is that you give evidence you are not an expert of Mr Dixon.”

Reeva wasn’t facing door — defence witness

On day 24 of the Oscar Pistorius trial defence witness Roger Dixon testified in court that he did not believe that Reeva was facing the toilet door when shots were fired.

The state had argued that Reeva faced the door and was talking to Pistorius when he fired, so he had known that she was on the other side of the door.

Surprisingly, Dixon told the court he didn’t believe that a bullet had missed the deceased. He gave his views on where Reeva had been when the shots were fired.

• The shot through the hip: She was standing close to the door, not facing the door directly but at an angle. The force of the bullets would have caused her to fall backwards; she basically had collapsed after this shot. Nel said it was impossible, its something one would see on TV only.

• The shot through the arm: This wound to the arm would have been like an instant amputation, she could not have lifted her arm – indicating that the state was wrong, that Reeva never lifted her arm in a defensive position like Capt Mangena said was possible.

• The shot to the head: Reeva could not have sat on the magazine rack or leaned forward when she was shot in the head, as the state suggested. This shot hit her head while she was falling/ collapsing.

Dixon also disagreed with the state that the bullet that had missed her caused the bruising on Reeva’s back. He explained that the bruising could have been caused by the magazine rack handle or side panel while she was falling.

At a shooting range Dixon conducted two sound tests from 60 metres and 180 metres respectively to see if it was possible to distinguish between a cricket bat banging against a door and gunshots being fired, and came to the following conclusions:

• Cricket bat striking the door with the bat pulled behind the back striking forward (like Oscar said he did) from 60 metres: Sounds were clear

• Cricket bat striking the door with the bat held like a normal cricketer would in quick succession from 60 metres: Sounds were clear, exactly the same yet a little quicker

• Gunshots going off from both 60 metres and 180 metres could be heard loud and clear. The sounds were, however, much louder than the cricket bat striking the door from both distances, and one did not have to be an expert to distinguish between the two sounds

Roux had no further questions.

Then Dixon had a tough time when state prosecutor Gerrie Nel cross-examined him.

Nel first had a go at Dixon’s character, questioning his qualifications, asking him about his current employment; whether he was affiliated to any forensics body and if he knew what the difference between an expert witness and ordinary witness was.

Dixon answered that he was employed by the University of Pretoria’s Department of Geology where he analysed materials etc. He confirmed not to be a member of a forensics body and knew the difference between the two types of witnesses.

It soon became clear that Nel attempted to prove to the court that the witness was unreliable. Nel suggested that when Dixon gave his evidence the court was not taken through the process he followed to come to all his conclusions.

Dixon explained: “What I testified was information gained through reports by others specialists together with my own investigation; photographs taken and by reconstructing the scene. I reconstructed a logical sequence of events based on my knowledge and experience, trying to take every aspect into consideration. I am neither a ballistics expert nor an expert in a number of other fields.”

Nel told the court that the explanations Dixon had given were too long, and that he wasn’t answering questions.

Dixon: “The tests I undertook with the cricket bat purely were to determine whether the sounds made by the bat striking the door could be confused with the sound of gunshots.”

Dixon also was asked if his ears were ringing (like Pistorius described) after striking the toilet door.

Dixon replied: “I noticed an echoing.”

After gruelling cross-examination by Nel, the court heard that Dixon:

• only relied on his eyes to test the visibility in the bedroom

• neither had the socks in his hand to physically match of fibers, nor did he receive training in blood-spatter analysis

• last did a proficiency test in 2011/2012 – Nel said experts like Dixon should do these tests annually

• did not use the same cricket bat Pistorius used to strike the door during his sound tests

• left some of the reports about the observations he had made on his computer; the state only received three of his reports

• was not the person firing gunshots through the toilet door during the sound tests

• believed no bullets missed the deceased. Nel put it to him that Capt Mangena testified and used a laser to prove that bullet hole marked B missed as it was also the only hole linked to E, which had struck the wall

• neither had been present at the post mortem nor was a ballistics expert

• first got involved in the case on the day of the bail hearing by receiving a phone call from the defence

• in his entire life had been involved in three post mortems only

• relied solely on photographs and reports

• had come to the high court to give evidence without reading the full document prepared by the state pathologist he referred to. Nel then put it to Dixon that he was an irresponsible witness for testifying as an expert in fields he didn’t even specialise in.

State concludes gruelling cross-examination of Pistorius

The state concluded their almost five-day long, emotional and gruelling cross-examination of the accused just before tea on Day 23 of the Oscar Pistorius trial.

State prosecutor Gerrie Nel concluded with the following:

“Mr Pistorius, you and Reeva were the only two people in the house. You are the only person who can give a version of what happened but I say your version is not only untruthful, but so improbable that it cannot be possible.

“Your version from when you broke down the door, where you picked her up and carried her downstairs is not in dispute, there is little probability and actually did happen. It is up until you fired the shots, that your version is untrue.

“Based on the objective facts and circumstantial evidence, my argument is that Reeva ate within two hours of your shooting and killing her. Whilst she was awake and eating, there was an argument and that is what one of the witnesses (Van der Merwe) heard. The screams that other witnesses (Johnson, Burger and both the Stipps) also heard were the blood-curdling screams of Reeva because she wanted to escape from you.

“She then locked herself in the toilet and you then armed yourself with the sole purpose of shooting and killing her; that’s what you did.”

Pistorius denied it.

Nel added, “You said yesterday we should blame you for taking her life, but we shouldn’t blame you for shooting her. Who should we blame then: Reeva; the government?”

Pistorius answered: “I don’t know who one should blame.”

Nel: “Who should we blame for the black talon rounds that ripped through her body? Who fired at her with this ammunition?”

Pistorius didn’t deny it and said: “I did.”

Nel also dealt with some aspects for clarification. Pistorius said in court that he fired through the toilet door as he heard a wood movement, believed to be the magazine rack. Pistorius never described this noise as a wood movement in his bail application where Nel asked “But why fire at a magazine rack?”

Pistorius responded: “I didn’t have time to interpret. The noise I heard was the movement of the magazine rack. I thought it was the door moving, but it only could have been the magazine rack moving as it was the only loose object.”

Nel then told Pistorius that this was just another contradiction in his evidence.

Another aspect was that of Reeva’s pair of jeans being inside out. (The defence argued it was not the case.)

Nel wanted to know why a neat person like Reeva would leave it inside out.

“It only could indicate the fact that she had to take it off quickly, that there was an argument; she wanted to leave quickly because you threatened her and [she] did not have time,” Nel said.

Pistorius: “I do not know why. When I got home on the 13th she was already in her pyjamas. I don’t understand how this makes sense.”

Nel wanted Pistorius to explain further what happened when he could not find Reeva in the room.

“I ran back to bathroom trying to shoulder-charge the door and kick the door. I ran back to the room and fetched the cricket bat. When I got the cricket bat I ran back to the toilet and tried to strike the door. While striking the door I remember screaming. I then hit the frame of the toilet door that shocked my hand, I then hit the toilet door another three times but a little bit to the left and it broke.”

Nel asked: “You mentioned you screamed? What were you screaming?”

Pistorius: “Yes, actually the whole time. I was screaming out loud to the Lord.”

Nel: “Even while breaking down the door?”

Pistorius: “Yes.”

Pistorius added that he even had his firearm in his hand when he attempted to shoulder-charge and kick in the door.

Nel wanted to know why.

“I was overcome with terror and despair.”

Nel: “Were you not screaming at her because she was hiding?”

Pistorius answered: “No.”

Nel then also asked Pistorius to demonstrate the position he was in when he broke down the door. He also had to explain how.

Pistorius answered: “As I struck the door a few times a small piece of the door broke off. I peered into the toilet and saw it was Reeva. When I saw her I ripped off the bigger panel and whilst leaning in I saw the key on the floor and opened it.”

Nel also wanted to know what position Reeva was in when Pistorius spotted her.

In a weeping voice, Pistorius replied: “She was sitting on the floor to the right side of the toilet; she was seated on her right buttocks with her right arm on top of the toilet bowl and her head on her shoulder.”

In the defence’s re-examination of Pistorius, Barry Roux wanted to know what Pistorius meant by describing the shooting as an accident.

Pistorius answered that it wasn’t meant to be.

He further asked him to describe his emotions when he pointed at the door.

Pistorius answered: “I was terrified, I feared for my life. I was scared. I was thinking of what could happen to me and Reeva. I was extremely fearful and overcome with a sense of vulnerability.”

Roux then requested Pistorius to look at a document and that he should explain the court what the document was.

Pistorius said: “It’s the Valentine’s letter/ card from Reeva the day the accident happened. It reads: ‘Ozzy’ with some hearts and kisses ‘Roses are red, violets are blue. The date and then she says; ‘I think of today as a good day to tell you that I love you’ with some hugs and kisses.”

Roux then had no further questions, after which one of the assessors asked Pistorius two questions.

• Assessor: Did she have access to the alarm remote? Pistorius replied yes.

• Assessor: Was the light in the toilet working? Pistorius replied no.

Pistorius then stepped down.

When proceedings continued, Barry Roux called on a witness, Roger Dixon who is a trace evidence specialist.

Dixon has a list of degree qualifications and also worked at the forensic science lab at the South African Police Service (SAPS) from 1994 to the end of 2012. He did many different courses in analytical crime scene examinations and specialist identifications both locally and internationally, even for the FBI.

Dixon was asked by the defence to conduct various tests.

The first was to test the lighting in the bedroom in Pistorius’ home.

According to Dixon, “To examine the room at night we closed the curtains and switched off all lights to see if we could see anything. With everything off, on a dark moonless night, you could see a little bit of light at the entrance of the bathroom, but in the bedroom nothing. It was very dark. I could not see my hand in front of me.”

Roux: “Why on a moonless night?”

Dixon: “Because the 13th of February 2013 was a moonless night.”

Dixon added: “With the CD player on and other smaller LED lights on one could see your hand and with your back to this light I couldn’t see in the darker area of the room, only into the passage. If one stays in the room for a while, one will start picking up objects.”

Day 22 — Pistorius never intended to shoot intruder

The accused testifying that he did not intend to shoot the attacker behind his toilet door on that fateful morning had left the state licking their lips as day 22 of the trial continued in the North Gauteng High Court.

On Monday 14 April state prosecutor Gerrie Nel continued to cross-examine Pistorius for a fourth consecutive day.

The state wanted to know from Pistorius that if he didn’t intend to shoot because he thought the person in the toilet was an intruder, why did he shoot?

“What is your defence then? If you didn’t fire at the perceived attacker, then what do you base your defence on?” Nel asked.

Pistorius: “I heard the noise and didn’t have time to think. I shot out of fear.” (Read more about the cross-examination further down.)

When proceedings first got under way Nel accused Pistorius of tailoring evidence; that his version was untrue and improbable.

Nel put it to Pistorius that Reeva was a tidy person and photographs taken at the scene after the shooting showed that all her clothes were packed away neatly in the overnight bag – the only belonging of hers being out of place was the pair of jeans. Pistorius told the court that he had intended to pick up the jeans to cover the LED light on his amplifier that had bothered him, but Nel argued that this showed that Reeva wanted to leave following an argument. Nel also argued that the couple never went to sleep, which fitted the version of one of the witnesses who said they heard a woman screaming at 2am, as well as the pathologists’ version that Reeva had eaten at least two hours before she died, which meant she had to be awake.

Pistorius didn’t seem to disagree and said it could have been possible that Reeva got up and ate something. Nel argued: But your alarm would have gone off, wouldn’t it as you mentioned before that there was a beam at the top flight of stairs. This is the point Mr Pistorius, you both were never asleep.”

Pistorius said this was not true and added he did not know why the pair of jeans was not neatly packed away. Nel argued that why would only the amplifier light bother him if another photograph showed other smaller lights on the control panel on the amp, disc player and TV being on. Nel believed Pistorius invented this part of his evidence to create a gap between the time Reeva had got up and the shooting.

While Pistorius claimed he had slept on the left side of the bed because of a shoulder injury, Nel suggested that if this be so, why were Reeva’s slops on the left side? Pistorius replied he didn’t know why.

Nel also told Pistorius: “You say you armed yourself and spoke to Reeva, what did you say to her?”

Pistorius: “I told her to get down and phone the police.”

Nel: “In a low tone?”

Pistorius: “Yes.”

Nel: “If someone said you whispered, would they be lying then?”. Pistorius agreed.

Nel then said: “Do you know who that person is?” Pistorius said no and Nel replied: “It’s you. With your evidence in chief you said that you whispered.”

Pistorius said: “I made a mistake then.”

According to Pistorius’ version, as he woke up, Reeva spoke to him and asked: “Can’t you sleep?” but Pistorius said that not at any time did she speak to him again, asking him what he was doing or why he got up. He also didn’t know why she never did.

Nel asked him: “What would you expect? If I argue that every reasonable person would have asked where you were going what would you say?” Pistorius: “I don’t know what to expect.”

Pistorius’ version was that he heard the noise of a window sliding open in the bathroom. There was no doubt in his mind that this was what he had heard at the time and described the noise as being loud. He also remembered that the window had hit the window frame.

Nel argued: “But Reeva would have heard it as well. Would you then expect a response from her?”

Pistorius again said that he did not know what to expect.

Nel also told the court that Pistorius in his bail application never identified the noise he heard in the bathroom. Nel indicated that this was a big issue. “You are a person for detail that you even correct me; why not equally keen on indicating this issue in your bail?”

Pistorius answered: “When my bail was done, I was traumatised and on medication.”

Nel: “This indicates just one thing, that you are tailoring evidence.” Pistorius said it was untrue.

Pistorius also told the court he didn’t extend his arm to fire. “I wanted to chase the people out of my house.”

Nel: “Was your firearm at your side then?”

Pistorius: “My firearm was facing in front of me, my elbow close to my side.”

Nel: “Not like as if you were firing at the watermelon in the video?”

Pistorius: “No.”

Nel: “Where were your eyes while in the passage?”

Pistorius: “On the entrance of the bathroom.”

Nel: “But while busy in the room and if you looked, you would’ve seen her?”

Pistorius: “I started shouting in the passage for the intruders to get out of my house and told Reeva to phone the police.”

Nel: “What did you shout?”

Pistorius: “I screamed twice, get the f!@# out of my house.”

Pistorius then broke down.

Court was adjourned and once proceedings resumed Nel asked Pistorius why he became emotional.

Pistorius answered: “It’s was a dramatic evening for me. I was terrified. I’m traumatised by the event, it reminds me of that morning. I was shouting at them, then at Reeva to phone the police.”

Pistorius then said that it was while walking down the passage, towards the noise that he heard the toilet door slam shut. At that point he thought that someone was entering the toilet and had kicked the door to close it.

Nel then told Pistorius: “Once again it was not in your bail application or plea explanation. Point is you invented the door slamming close.” Pistorius responded: “I’m not sure why I didn’t mention it in those applications.”

Nel: “But you must be sure, it’s your version. It is because you never told your council, that’s why this is made up.”

Nel then wanted to know from Pistorius why he thought someone was in the bathroom before he fired.

“Because I heard the door slam,” Pistorius said.

Nel again interrupted him: “This brings me back to your bail application, where you say: ‘it was pitch dark … the toilet door was closed and did not see anyone in the bathroom’. Why not mention the reason you thought there was an intruder in the toilet because you heard the door slam? What were you thinking once entering the bathroom?” Nel added.

“The window was open, and saw no one else was in the bathroom, the toilet door was closed. There were many thoughts going through my mind. I was scared that someone might come through the window at any time and shoot at me, that someone would come out of the toilet and attack; basically all possibilities of the worse things that could happen. I then heard a noise in the bathroom that sounded like the door opening and wood movement.”

Nel wanted to know what this wood movement was.

Pistorius answered: “The frame of the door. It was a hand-made frame, when you pulled it close it would make a loud noise.”

Nel: “When you heard the sound, what did you do?”

Pistorius: “I discharged the firearm. Didn’t have time to think why I fired. There wasn’t time to think.”

Nel: “What is your defence then? If you didn’t fire at the perceived attacker, then what do you base your defence on?”

Pistorius: “I heard the noise and didn’t have time to think. I shot out of fear.”

Nel: “I don’t understand your defence. You can’t have two. You defence has changed to involuntary action. Your defence is not that you acted in self-defence anymore, it’s now ‘I don’t know why I fired’.”

Pistorius responded: “I didn’t fire to kill anyone. I thought someone was coming out to attack me and fired in the direction I though the danger was coming from.”

Nel: “I put it to you that you know exactly why. You fired at Reeva.”

Pistorius again became emotional.

“It’s not true. I did not fire at Reeva!” Pistorius shouted out in court.

Getting back to the shots fired, Nel said: “You fired four times. Why didn’t you fire a warning shot?”

Pistorius answered: “I don’t know why.”

Nel: “Who do you blame for the accident?”

Pistorius: “For taking Reeva’s life.”

Nel then looked at the door in the court room and the four shots marked A to D. He told the court the only reasonable version was that Reeva was facing Pistorius while she was talking to him from behind the toilet door – this explains bullet hole A as this was the shot through her right hip.

Nel put it to Pistorius: “She was facing you, why would she stand there if she was scared? She was scared of you because you screamed at her. Why was she standing upright?”

Pistorius: “I don’t know.”

The judge then told Nel the witness already answered the question.

Nel then continued to tell the court how Pistorius’ version was improbable, as he only started getting concerned where Reeva was when he fired the shots. Pistorius claimed he then went back to his bedroom, made his way up the bed to feel if Reeva was there, but she wasn’t. He said that he ran his hand along the curtains to see if she was behind the curtains but wasn’t. Only then did it dawn on him that Reeva could have been in the toilet.

Nel disagreed. The state believed that if Pistorius had told Reeva to get down and phone the police, why didn’t he look on the floor, or check if she had left the bedroom, which indicated that he had known where she was all along.

Day 21 — Pistorius’ version impossible says State

The state argued that at no time Pistorius bothered or made any effort to check if Reeva was safe after he had heard noises coming from his bathroom.

What was round three of the state cross-examining Oscar Pistorius face to face, the athlete had to continue testifying about what happened on the fateful morning.

“Why you emotional?” Nel asked Pistorius.

“It’s the night I lost the person I cared about,” Pistorius said.

“If you cared about Reeva you would have made sure you knew exactly where she was that morning. When you heard the noise in the bathroom and got your gun why not converse with her as any normal couple would and ask: “Did you hear that?” and look at her – this would be the reasonable thing to do,” Nel said to Pistorius.

During cross-examination Nel wanted to know from Pistorius if he ever:

• established if she was scared? – No

• waited for a response at all and when he said “Get down and call the police”? – No

• noticed that she was aware of the noise? – No

“The first thought in your mind Mr Pistorius is that you wanted to arm yourself, that’s it. On your version, if you think there was an intruder why not speak to her? The two of you could have taken steps, both of you could’ve gone to the balcony together; hid behind the bed, sit on her side of the bed with your view on the passage or escape through the bedroom door before the passage.”

Pistorius explained that after he had brought in the two fans, closed the curtains and sliding door, he picked up the jeans and as he was about to cover the LED light on the amp – which was bothering him – he heard noises.

Pistorius said that he never heard Reeva getting up or heard a squeak noise as when someone gets out of bed. He says Reeva must’ve got up sometime while his back was towards her either when bringing in the fans, drawing the curtains and closing the doors.

“I heard the window sliding open in the bathroom – the noise that the window makes is much louder than it would be when someone gets out of bed.”

Nel argued saying: “What about the jeans then. We have photographs showing the jeans were on the duvet on the floor in the view of the passage”, indicating Pistorius somehow had to see that she was walking towards the bathroom.

Pistorius claimed it was just another example of police contaminating the scene, that the photo is not how he left the jeans, or that the duvet was ever on the floor. His lawyer, Barry Roux also disagreed with Nel saying that there was a misperception about the photo as there is another photo showing the denim not on top of the duvet.

Nel then asked for the photo to be blown up, and with the angle he was satisfied that the duvet indeed was under the denim. “Therefore my lady, it is clear that the denim is on top of the duvet,” Nel said.

Nel continued, “If this is the case as indicated by the photo I showed, your version cannot be true Mr Pistorius, meaning you had to know Reeva had woken up and was in the bathroom.”

Pistorius agreed to what was put to him.

Answering Nel’s question as to why he didn’t bother to look where Reeva was, Pistorius said: “When I heard the noises in the bathroom, I froze for a moment, then rushed to get my firearm. As I turned to face the passage, I spoke to Reeva in a soft manner to get down and phone the police. I never looked at her as I was keeping my eyes on the passage. I had no doubt that someone in that bathroom was going to attack me and didn’t need confirmation from Reeva. I am sure of what I heard that morning.”

Nel then put it to Pistorius that his version is improbable.

“Why arm yourself and rush to the danger ready to shoot without checking if Reeva was safe?”

“I was never ready to shoot. I didn’t have time to think and had to protect Reeva,” Pistorius answered.

Nel argued again saying: “You even released the safety mechanism on the firearm. If you say you didn’t want to shoot, what were you going to do then?”

Pistorius was sure that he never went to the passage, or bathroom, or aimed at the toilet to take anyone’s life, that he wanted to put himself between the danger and Reeva.

Nel wasn’t satisfied and asked again: “Why when vulnerable, you would approach the danger on your stumps?”

Pistorius: “If I’d stayed in the bedroom, anything could’ve happened. If they had to come down the passage and into the room they could’ve shot Reeva.”

Nel: “But that is the fact Mr Pistorius, if you had stayed in the room, Reeva’s life wouldn’t be lost? Once again, you never made sure where she was. Even if you just remained in the bedroom, while having a clear view of the passage, you are still in a position that should someone came out they would at least have to walk five metres to get to you and Reeva.

“When you shouted and screamed for the intruders to get out, you got no response from Reeva?”

Pistorius didn’t deny it.

Once in the passage just before he entered the bathroom, Pistorius claimed to have heard the door slam closed.

Nel: “Why not check if Reeva was ok?”

“I didn’t want to shout then as I didn’t want to give my position away. I looked around the corner, saw no one was there, proceeded further, saw the window was open and wasn’t sure where they (intruders) were – maybe inside the toilet or still on the ladder.”

Nel asked Pistorius whether after he had fired the first shot: “Are you sure Reeva never screamed?”

While sobbing, Pistorius gave it some thought and couldn’t answer immediately.

Pistorius then answered: “At no point did she shout, I wish she had let me know she was there. When I fired the shots the decibels were too loud, I couldn’t even hear my own voice.”

Pistorius also could not understand how four witnesses, the Stipps and Johnsons could have heard a woman screaming as he said it was impossible.

Nel continued: “We have heard your evidence and how her death affected you and how you felt. Do you agree that for Reeva, being in that small cubicle when shots were fired at her, it had to be horrific. What happened to her was unthinkable.”

Pistorius agreed.

Nel continued saying: “But while giving evidence never did the court hear you say how she would’ve felt.”

Pistorius: “I thought about it many times, I’m haunted by this.”

Nel brought up another point: “What did you actually hear in the toilet?”

Pistorius responded: “Wood moving. I discharged the firearm as I thought someone was going to come out of the toilet.”

Nel argued that: “But it could’ve been anyone, why think someone would attack you?”

Pistorius said: “That is what I perceived at the time.”

Nel concluded: “Your perception is impossible Mr Pistorius, you knew she was behind the door, you shot and killed her.”

Pistorius denied it.

Day 20 — Oscar was selfish in relationship, state suggests

The state suggested that the relationship between Oscar and Reeva was all about him as Day 20 of the trial continued in the North Gauteng High Court.

“What was important to her didn’t matter to you; you brushed her off in public and it was all about Mr Pistorius – that is what your relationship was about,” Nel said referring to the WhatsApp messages in which Oscar and Reeva argued.

Nel continued: “Describe your relationship in January and February of 2013.”

Pistorius: “We were in the foundation phase, still opening up to each other, learning more about each other. There was a difference towards the end of January and beginning of February.”

Nel: “I agree, there were arguments not so?”

Pistorius: “It actually got stronger, we did have arguments, but it never turned into fights.”

Nel: “Apart from ‘I miss u baba’ and ‘boo’ and the kisses, you never wrote long messages about how you felt about her.”

Pistorius didn’t deny it and said: “I’d rather pick up the phone and speak to her. I preferred to discuss things over the phone.”

Nel said that the state had done some searches on all the WhatsApp messages where the phrase “I love u” only came up to twice. Both times were from Reeva to her mother, not to Pistorius or from Pistorius to her.

Pistorius responded to this and said: “I never got the opportunity to say I love her” and acknowledged that the arguments were his fault.

Some of the messages from Reeva:

• “U have picked on me incessantly since u came back from Cape Town.” Nel suggested it meant over days. Pistorius said: “I never picked on her.”

• “I was not flirting with anyone today.” Nel said: “What did you say to her?” Pistorius replied: “We had an argument, I felt that she was flirting with a man and that made me upset. A part of me was jealous and insecure.”

• “U made a scene at the table.” Nel asked: “What was the scene about?” Pistorius replied: “I don’t know, she wanted to spend more time there, I had to go to training, she knew I had training. I had plans that day that I needed to attend to.”

• “I’m disappointed how the day ended and how u left me.” Nel said: “It was not important enough for you to sort it out then?” Pistorius replied: “I was going to sort it out; it was not the time for us to talk as Reeva had a friend with her.” Nel then said: “But it was a big issue for her.” Pistorius replied: “Yes but if you look at the next message I did want to resolve it.”

• “We are living a double standard relationship, u are quick to act offish when u unhappy.” Nel said: “This is not the first time is it?” Pistorius replied: “I was a bit more sensitive to some things.”

• “You throw tantrums in front of everyone.” Nel asked Pistorius to tell the court about the tantrums Reeva was referring to. He replied: “I have never thrown a tantrum in front of anyone.” Nel then said: “Are u saying Reeva is lying?”. Pistorius answered: “Not that she’s lying, but she exaggerated, I actually take it back that I never wanted to say ‘I have never thrown a tantrum’.”

• “I’ve been upset with u for two days now, I’m so upset I left his party early, I’m scared of you sometimes.” Nel: “Why was she scared of you?” Pistorius said: “The feelings she had for me, the way I react to the things she does.” Nel: “But why, what would you do, scream and shout at her?” Pistorius: “No.” Nel: “But you screamed at Samantha Taylor?” Pistorius: “No, I never screamed at her, she (Samantha) told many lies.”

• “I’m also the girl that gets side stepped when you are in a bad mood.” Pistorius said: “I’m not sure what she means, I was tired when coming from training and then went to bed if that’s what she means, the ignoring.”

In one message sent by Reeva on the 27th she said she was snapped at after she made accents and voices and mentioned, “Why try anymore?” Nel said: “This indicates you tried before, now u have her, now you are not trying anymore. You made her feel like that. From this day, and in Reeva’s mind shows how she felt about your relationship, which wasn’t good.”

Pistorius replied: “While having a meal the day before the message was sent she was putting on an accent for a role of some sort that she was preparing for. I told her it was annoying and she took offence to it.”

Another message Reeva says: “I touch your neck to show I care, u told me to stop” and “Tell me I musn’t chew gum”. Nel said: “Why would you say that?” Pistorius: “I did pull away as I was upset that she didn’t introduce me to the person she was talking to. Regarding the gum I told her it doesn’t look good on camera but didn’t snap at her.”

Reeva in another message refers to a song, known to the court as Bitch don’t kill my vibe by Kendrick Lemar, which Oscar played shortly before the couple left a function. Nel said Oscar put on the song and that Reeva took offence.

Pistorius responded: “I just asked him to put on the album, not to play the specific song.”

Nel said that the point is: “She felt you treated her badly, isn’t it?”

Pistorius said: “She always stood up for herself but in the next message the following morning it was sorted out. She at times wasn’t treating me in a way I wanted. There are times where you do things that the other person is not happy with, but I should’ve spoken to her to not make her feel like a lady.”

Nel then went back to when Pistorius started to testify. “You started with an apology more than a year after the event, what did you apologise for?”

Pistorius: “The sorrow that I have caused to the Steenkamp family and the friends; the emptiness they feel.”

Nel: “Do you feel better after this? Why create a spectacle in court?”

Pistorius: “I don’t think I can feel better, I didn’t have the opportunity to apologise, I thought it was the right thing to do. I haven’t had the opportunity to meet the Steenkamps and don’t think they are ready.”

Nel: “Again you never thought about them, that they were sitting in a public gallery but only yourself. Why not humble enough to do it in private?”

Pistorius: “I didn’t think it would be appropriate.”

Nel: “But you’ll do it in front of the world, how appropriate is that?”

Pistorius: “I thought it was best. I’d love to meet Reeva’s parents, I understand where they coming from.”

Nel: “What did you apologise for?”

Pistorius: “Taking their daughter’s life, that I’m terribly sorry.”

Nel also touched on the other charges Pistorius is facing, that of discharging a firearm on two separate occasions, once in a restaurant and another while coming back from the Vaal River with his ex and a friend. Nel added that Pistorius was negligent in handling a firearm, and that he simply did not take responsibility for anything. He wanted to know why he pleaded not guilty to both.

In the Tashas incident, Pistorius claims he never even discharged the firearm.

“I physically didn’t, it went off in my possession, but I didn’t have my finger on the trigger. Mr Fresco and I were both negligent. I was stupid to take a firearm with a round in it from someone who was supposed to make it safe. It was reckless on my behalf.”

Pistorius also denied having fired through the sunroof when returning from the Vaal River after being stopped by police – this after two witnesses testified to seeing Oscar do so. Nel also asked why Pistorius had left his firearm under a towel while going for a swim, stating that it was negligent.

When Nel asked Pistorius why he was in possession of ammunition not belonging to him, Pistorius answered: “It belonged to my father. He asked if he could keep it locked up for safekeeping.” Nel then informed Pistorius it was illegal.

Back to the morning of 14 February, Nel asked Pistorius if he had fired at the door deliberately.

Pistorius replied no, that he had fired out of fear. “At the time I thought somebody came out of the bathroom, I never meant to pull the trigger.”

Nel then said: “We know Reeva was in there. You had no reason to shoot.”

Pistorius agreed. Nel then continued saying: “If you waited a second longer, you would not have fired, correct?”

Pistorius answered: ”I’m not sure; if she’d spoken to me then I wouldn’t have fired.”

Nel said: “We know there were no intruders, or ladder against the wall, that Reeva was in the toilet, that she was not a threat or that you had a reason to shoot.”

Pistorius didn’t deny it and said he fired because he heard a noise, thinking that someone was going to attack.

Nel concluded: “When you heard that noise, you just started shooting, correct?”

Pistorius said yes but added, “I didn’t intend to shoot because I believed somebody was in there, it was an accident”.

Day 19 — Relentless bull terrier has a go at Oscar

State advocate Gerrie Nel pushed the boundaries in what was only the start of his cross-examination of the accused when day 19 of the Oscar Pistorius trial continued in the North Gauteng High Court.

“She’s not alive anymore because of what you did. Stop thinking what the implications would be for you and answer the questions,” Gerrie Nel said shortly before court was adjourned for the day.

From the word go, Nel relentlessly demanded an answer from Pistorius as to why he had shot Reeva. Pistorius referred to the incident in which Reeva was shot dead as ‘a terrible mistake’.

Nel: “Yes, you made a mistake, you shot and killed a person, you killed Reeva Steenkamp didn’t you? Just say it?”

Pistorius: “I did my lady. I made a terrible mistake; I shot and took her life.”

Nel then told Pistorius that people look up to him as a hero and that he should tell the truth.

Pistorius who surprisingly did not seem fully aware of his fame said: “I’m here to tell the truth as much as I can remember. I will not hide things.”

Nel: “You say you live strictly on Christian principles? As a Christian you will not lie?”

Pistorius: “I’m a Christian yes, but I do make mistakes. I do sin.”

Nel then asked Pistorius if he knew what a zombie stopper was. Pistorius then said no and Nel told him: “What if we have video footage (courtesy of Sky News) of you that explains it. Would you be surprised?”

Pistorius responded: “I wouldn’t but if I can see it then I will agree.”

Just before Nel asked for the video to be shown Barry Roux for the defence immediately said that the state was ambushing Pistorius, as this evidence was not part of their case.

“The state must tell us what this is all about; we may not be ambushed and we have constitutional rights. They must show us what it is. You cannot come with this in cross examination; it’s unfair that’s why I object.”

Nel disagreed saying it was the witness who asked to see it.

After a short adjournment the video was shown in court. It shows Pistorius and a group of friends, one of them being Springbok scrumhalf Francois Hougaard at a shooting range. Pistorius fires at a watermelon and once it explodes he says: “It’s not as soft as brains but f!@# it is a zombie stopper.” Someone was laughing in the background.

Nel asked Pistorius if he could recall what happened at the shooting range.

Pistorius in his defence said: “Yes, I’ve seen it before. I was at a friend’s shooting range. Wasn’t me laughing, but I did say the words. To compare the zombie to a human being I can’t see the relevance and can’t put two and two together. If I shoot at a target I don’t compare it to shooting a human.”

Nel: “You did, who else has brains?”

Pistorius: “I was referring to a zombie.”

Nel: “The ammunition used when firing at the watermelon made it explode. You know what happened to Reeva and the shot to her head had the similar effect. Take responsibility for what you did.”

Nel then shocked the court by showing a horrific photograph of Reeva’s wounded head, implying that the watermelon Pistorius shot at was a person’s head, and not a zombie’s.

When Pistorius’ eye caught the image of Reeva’s injuries he broke down again. He looked down, covered his face and in tears said, “I was there that evening”. Nel interrupted him again saying “You must take responsibility”.

Court again was adjourned as Pistorius had to recollect himself.

At the restart of the proceedings Nel suggested that Pistorius’ evidence was reconstructed according to what he had heard in court thus far and what he had read.

Pistorius: “I’ve been telling the truth. Some of it is a reconstruction, actually a mixture of what I remember, but since I had fallen asleep on the night of 13 February until I took Reeva’s life there was no reconstruction, only afterwards – things such as that I can’t recall speaking to Mr Baba (Estate Security), switching on the light and carrying her downstairs. Also, no reconstruction in a physical sense. I wrote my version what happened that night, nothing changed. I never changed my version.”

Nel: “Sir you’ve been given the opportunity to give your version already. Why are you arguing and not answering? It’s interesting to me.”

Nel also got Pistorius to agree that there were some things in his bail application that his defence team did not put in his plea explanation, such as:

• Reeva sitting up and speaking to Pistorius in bed

• Pistorius phoning estate security

Nel then told the court there is some inconsistency in Pistorius’ version.

Nel: “You were never outside on the balcony to fetch the fans or on the balcony at any stage when you heard noises in the bathroom.”

After a long explanation from Pistorius, Nel got him to say “Correct, I was never on the balcony and at the amplifier when I heard the noises.”

Nel added: “You are arguing Mr Pistorius, don’t argue the case, if you argue, you’ll get into trouble.”

“I’m defending for my life, it’s not easy, I’m under a lot of pressure,” Pistorius answered when he also forgot where he had plugged in the fans. One photograph showed there’s no space to plug in two fans.

Nel responded: “Then you are lying?”

Nel then concluded for the day, asking Pistorius: “In your plea explanation you said it was an accident, what was the accident?”

Pistorius: “That I discharged my firearm in the belief that an intruder was coming out to attack me.”

Nel: “Was the discharge accidental?”

Pistorius: “I believed it was someone who had come to take my life. I didn’t intend to shoot anyone. I got a fright.”

Nel: “You never fired at them with intention?”

Pistorius: “I wasn’t meaning to shoot anyone. I placed myself between them and Reeva. I shot because at that moment I believed somebody came out to attack me out of fear.”

Pistorius again broke out in tears and Nel asked him: “ Are you feeling ok?” Pistorius then said no. “My life is on the line and I’m trying to answer as best I can. My finger was on the trigger. It’s an accident, I didn’t intend to shoot anyone, I fired before I could think and believed someone was coming out of the toilet.”

Day 18 – “Can’t you sleep?” Reeva asked Oscar before the shooting

The North Gauteng High Court had to be adjourned earlier on day 18 of the trial after Oscar Pistorius had broken down.

Taking the stand for a second day, Pistorius gave his detailed version of the events of that fateful morning.

During the morning session the defence took their time to show the court that the two former lovebirds had a loving relationship as Pistorius read out a number of messages between him and Reeva.

Testifying, however, got more intense and emotional as he told the court about the events since he arrived at his home on 13 February to find Reeva cooking dinner, to the very last moment he held her in his arms in the bathroom after shooting her.

“Reeva had slept over the night of 13 February, but I had to leave early to skip traffic as I couldn’t be late for my meeting scheduled in Johannesburg. I arrived about an hour before my meeting and met with a friend in Melrose Arch. We had some coffee and I went to my meeting until 12pm. I had no plans for the rest of the day, wasn’t going to train because of my shoulder injury and decided to visit a friend of mine at his work.

“After the meeting and having met with him I declined the offer to join him and his girlfriend for dinner that night. I then phoned Reeva. She asked if she could cook dinner. When I arrived home shortly after 6pm, I parked my car and once at the front door I saw it was locked but there she was preparing dinner in the kitchen. We then chatted for a short period of time. I went upstairs wanting to get out of the clothes, showered, and changed into pajamas.

“I then went down to eat dinner. It was shortly after 7pm. We sat at the dining room table, chatted about my day and her contract she was about to sign. She asked me to go through the contract she was working on and I did, making changes that I thought weren’t applicable or binding her. I then went upstairs at around 8pm.

“She asked if I’d like something to drink and I said yes. Once upstairs I opened the balcony doors as it was a humid evening. I then placed two fans near the entrance to the balcony.

“Once Reeva came into the room, I put down my drink on the bedside table, walked behind her and locked the bedroom door. I also put the cricket bat between the cabinet and the door as the lock mechanism wasn’t very strong. I then sat on the bottom right-hand side of the bed, took off my legs as they needed some air, and put them as close to the bed as I could. I then climbed on the bed, she also jumped on the bed and I started texting my cousin in PE. She [Reeva] also was chatting on some photo application and I then decided to phone my cousin.

“Whilst on the phone lying down on the bed she jumped out of bed and started doing yoga exercises. I had the phone on speaker and she would then stand up every now and then to give me a kiss.

“As my conversation ended with my cousin she went to the bathroom and called me to come brush my teeth. I did so but without my prosthetic legs. Once I was done, I found her lying in the middle of the bed. Earlier on in the evening I had taken my firearm and placed it underneath the bed. I then climbed onto the left-hand side of the bed because of my shoulder injury. Not long after that I started feeling tired. I then lay on Reeva’s stomach and fell asleep some time between 9 and 10pm.

“I then woke up in the early hours of 14 February 2013. It was extremely warm inside the room. I sat up and noticed that the fans were still running and the sliding door was still open. Reeva then rolled over asking me: “Can’t you sleep baba?”

“I then got out on my side of the bed (left-hand side), got both the small and big fans and brought it inside. At the same time I proceeded to lock the sliding doors and then drew the curtains. In the room, the only bit of light was the LED light on the amplifier where the TV cabinet was. I could see a pair of jeans on the floor belonging to Reeva; I picked it up and was going to cover the light of the amplifier.

“At this point I heard a window sliding open in the bathroom; this was the moment that everything changed, my lady …”

Pistorius’ voice then became thinner.

“I thought it was a burglar entering my home. I just froze when I heard this noise and interpreted it as someone climbing into the bathroom. Considering there’s no barrier between the bathroom and the room, I thought somebody could be close, anything between at least three or four metres away from Reeva and me. My first thought was that I needed to protect us. I then ran to my bedside with my hand in front of me and when I got to my bed, I grabbed my firearm from underneath my bed, holding it out in front of me looking at the passage thinking someone would appear any moment. I then stopped, and whispered to Reeva to get down and phone the police.

“As I entered the passage I shouted and screamed to the intruders to get out of my house. I made my way down the passage, aware that this threat or people could come at me anytime. I didn’t have my legs on and just before the wall where the tiles started I heard a door slam, which confirmed that there was someone in the bathroom. I couldn’t look into the bathroom as I would be vulnerable if I stuck out my head.

“When I got to the entrance I made my way to where the carpet and tiles met. I then had my pistol raised to the corner of the bathroom; no lights were on in the bathroom but I could see that the window was open. I was pretty much resting with my back against the wall to balance myself and slowly scuffled along the wall. I wasn’t sure if they were in the toilet or on the ladder used to gain access or in the bathroom, but I still had my firearm pointed out in front of me. I saw no one was in the bathroom but saw that the toilet door was closed.

“I again screamed for Reeva to phone the police, but wasn’t sure where to point the firearm and stood there for some time. I wasn’t sure if someone would come out the door or up the ladder to attack me.

“I then heard a noise in the toilet; before I knew it I had fired shots through the door, and kept shouting to Reeva. At some point I decided to move back into the room. I walked with my hand out with my pistol still raised and shouting to Reeva. When I got to the corner of the bed I tried to lift myself while still talking to Reeva.

“No one responded. I placed my hand backward to the right hand side of the bed but couldn’t feel anything. At that point my first thought was that she was lying on the floor as I had told her to do. When I moved along the bed still raising my firearm towards the passage it dawned on me it could be Reeva [in the toilet].

“I then jumped out of bed hoping she might be behind the curtain.” (Pistorius said that he had put up blackout curtains when he moved into the home in 2008 and when drawn one barely could see anything – it’s virtually pitch-dark.) “But I couldn’t see much in the room. However, I could see where the passage was. Once in the passage and still afraid that someone could attack me or us, I made my way back into the bathroom and tried to push open the toilet door but it was locked.

“I ran back to the room, opened the curtains and shouted help, help, help for someone to help me. Only then did I put on my prosthetic legs, run as fast I could into the bathroom and tried to kick open the door but nothing happened.

“I was panicked and didn’t know what to do. I then again ran back into the room to fetch the cricket bat whilst screaming and shouting the whole time to the Lord and Reeva – I’ve never cried and screamed like this before – and back into the bathroom. The light in the bathroom was on at this stage and I started bashing the toilet door three times. Eventually opening a big enough gap to peep through and see if it was Reeva, there she was. I then hit the door again. I grabbed the loose plank of the door and tried to grab hold of the keys which were on the floor. Once I managed to open the door, I fell over her. I don’t know how long I was there.”

Pistorius then broke down and the High Court judge granted an adjournment.

Day 17 – Pistorius apologises for the pain he caused

“I apologise”, were some of the first words Oscar Pistorius said when he was called to the stand as Day 17 of the trial continued in the North Gauteng High Court on Monday 7 April.

With a rather fearful tone in his voice, Pistorius first of all apologised to the Steenkamp family in court for what he referred to as “the tragic incident”.

“I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to Reeva’s family and those who knew her.

“There hasn’t been a moment since the tragedy happened that I don’t wake up and pray for [the people] I had caused this pain to. No words will ever suffice.

“I tried to protect Reeva and she felt loved when we went to bed that night.”

Barry Roux then wanted Pistorius to explain to the court his background, love of sport, childhood, the effect of his mother’s passing, how he had been a victim of crime and how the shooting of his girlfriend affected him.

Pistorius explained to the court how he had trouble sleeping, was scared to sleep for several reasons, and that he had terrible nightmares about what happened that night.

“I can smell the blood. I continuously wake up terrified and if I hear a noise I’m in a complete state of terror.”

Pistorius added that he had to seek medical advice since April last year, that he has lost weight and is taking medication in order to sleep, including anti-depressants.

“The one night I woke up in a panic, but blessed to have my sister close by my side and sleep next to me. I was so terrified I had to get inside a cupboard and she also sat inside with me.”

Pistorius then explained what it was like for him as a child.

“My parents separated when I was young, six years old. I, my brother (11 months older than Oscar) and sister (25 months younger than Oscar) grew up in a loving home. My father worked away from home a lot. My mother was a caring, soft-natured and fantastic person. Financial means were very difficult. Mother worked at a government school and we had just the holidays with her. We did move around a fair deal. My mother remarried when I was 14. She passed away when I was 15. It was totally unexpected.”

Roux then asked Pistorius to explain to the court his situation as a baby.

“I was born with a defect in the bones between my knee and ankle in both legs. My parents consulted with medical practitioners and a decision was made when I was 11 months old to amputate. I got my first set of prosthetic legs at 14 months old.”

Roux: “What was your mother’s reaction?”

“She was very supportive from the beginning and never treated me different to [the way she treated] my brother and sister. She said to me that I must find a sport to do and that I mustn’t let my disability hold me back.”

Roux: “What was it like at primary school coping with your disability?”

“I wouldn’t say I had difficulty with my prosthetic legs, it actually helped me to overcome many challenges. It is when I don’t have them on that I have no balance and limited mobility. Challenges while attending Constantia Kloof Primary School were that the legs were heavy, but as technology got better so did the legs. It was difficult to adapt and at times I was seen different. There were also one or two occasions when I got bullied and pushed around, but my parents told me to stand up for myself. When it happened again, I got into a physical altercation with another kid and was called to the headmaster’s office. My mother was called in too and we said I was just standing up for myself.”

Pistorius added that he tried out most sports such as football and cricket at school, even tennis and outside of school he enjoyed participating in sports such as canoeing and wrestling. His big calling to prove himself as an athlete came in 2004 following a rugby injury in 2003. Pistorius says that a biokeneticist he had seen in December 2003 told him to see a coach the next year. Later in 2004 Pistorius took part in his first disabled-athletics event.

Roux then wanted Pistorius to explain to the court what his balance was like on his stumps.

“I can’t stand still and balancing [myself] is very hard. There is also a slight difference in height between my left and right leg. During the operation as an infant they removed my heel pad from my foot and attached it to my stumps. It grew to the bone and this made the right stump 1cm longer than the left.”

Roux then wanted Pistorius to elaborate on the boating accident that involved a friend and him crashing the boat on the Vaal River in 2009.

“While cruising with my friend, we were chatting, he then stood up to light a cigarette or phone someone. The sun was setting and a couple of seconds later I remember the sound of the propeller going into the air. Soon the boat was half-filled with water. My friend then grabbed a few things. He looked at me and was shocked, and I eventually phoned my cousin and said that I was in a boat accident. The boat went under and I remember my friend and I swimming alongside each other. I was dragged onto my cousin’s boat following the ordeal and put into an ambulance. As far as I remember blood was coming from my mouth and nose. I then woke up in hospital.”

Roux: “Were you drinking?”

Pistorius: “I wasn’t drinking. I heard in the media I was, but I didn’t. People even made jokes about it.”

Pistorius added that he usually drinks during off-season, usually during Christmas time and from the middle of September to October. From the beginning of January to September, he consumes no alcohol. He also admitted in court to having smoked dagga with a friend on one occasion while at school but never again. As far as prohibited substances are concerned, Pistorius said, “No, nothing that would give me an advantage over my competitors … will only take something that is safe and allowed”.

Roux then asked Pistorius how his competing abroad and being away from home most of the year affected his relationships with friends and family.

Pistorius: “It will have an impact on any athlete. We compete five months away from home. Finding time to speak to friends and family is extremely difficult and makes relationships difficult at times.”

Pistorius also claims to have been a victim of crime on many occasions.

During his childhood his mother’s home was broken into on several occasions; his dad was hijacked twice, as well as his brother and he knows of family members who had been a victim to all sorts of crime.

Pistorius explained how he was exposed to crime as an independent man.

“In the year 2005 while I was in Manchester my home was broken into. My neighbour phoned me to inform me. Once I arrived home [I found that] some of my belongings had been stolen as well as my car’s roof been cut. One night someone got into my yard and kicked my Jack Russel; I’ve been followed on many occasion and even shot at while on the highway. Another night I was on my way home from an interview and a car came up behind me. I made way and in front of me the same car slowed down. I saw a muzzle flash and took the nearest exit for safety. Another occasion was with Miss Taylor (former girlfriend) when a car was following us from Midrand. I phoned security at my estate and told them I was being followed. Once in the estate and at the nearest circle I stopped the car, got out and as I wanted to approach the occupants of the car with my hand on my firearm they sped off.”

Pistorius claimed to have helped people in need and in trouble.

“I once saw a woman being assaulted by two men. I told them to back off and leave her alone. Someone then phoned the police. Another incident took place near my home in Pretoria when a few men attacked a taxi driver with bricks and beat him up. I then drew my firearm and helped the driver who was bleeding profusely.”

Pistorius also told the court that he was in the process of buying a house for him and Reeva.

“In December 2012 I’d been to look at a property in Johannesburg. My relationship with and feelings for Reeva were strong and I was thinking about buying a house. I liked the house and put in an offer. It was successful but before I could buy it there was some maintenance at my house in Pretoria I had to take care of first, such as some issues with damp, and the house had to be repainted.”

Pistorius also made it clear that he was a very religious person.

“Religion is important to me and is what got me through this past year.

“My mother grew up with an Anglican background. She visited Israel. When she passed I struggled with my faith and I didn’t go to church as often as I wanted. In 2012 my religion was back where I wanted it to be. Reeva was a strong Christian; we would pray about everything – all the small things – and prayed before we ate.”

Pistorius again broke into tears, telling the court how much he struggled following the tragedy.

“I’m tired at the moment, I couldn’t sleep last night. I have a lot of things going through my mind. The weight of this is overbearing.”

Court then adjourned as Roux said his client was totally exhausted – the judge granted this.

Earlier, before Pistorius took the stand the defence called on their witness, retired pathologist Johan Botha.

Roux went through Botha’s CV. It was read out in court that Botha was an experienced man in the medical field. Botha has been a registered pathologist since 1975 and has given evidence on approximately 25 000 occasions. Between 5 000 to 6 000 of those involved shootings. Botha said that he was not a ballistics expert yet all pathologists must have a basic understanding of firearms.

Roux then started with his witness and focused on what the state witness, Dr Saayman (first pathologist to testify) had found. He however, was trying to show that Pistorius’ version was not true. Pistorius said he and Reeva went to bed as early as 10pm but Saayman believed that this could not be true because based on the content of her stomach Reeva had eaten a couple of hours earlier, implying that Pistorius’ version didn’t fit.

Botha’s job was to give a most likely scenario as to what he thought had happened on that fateful morning.

Botha responded: “It could have been longer, in my opinion. Based on the gunshot injuries to the deceased, the effects of injuries and photos of the toilet area, the first gunshot struck her on the right hip. She was standing, body slightly flexed forward. She was also close to the door, which accounts for the splinters around the entry wound. What then happened with the injury to the hip, the right hip joint became unstable resulted in her falling down, possibly in a more flexed position, I think the second shot struck her in the right arm. I suspect, not 100 per cent, that the third shot was the one that injured the left hand and hit the toilet wall, ricocheting off the wall. She dropped considerably with her left hand probably over the right side of the body. I think she then fell down against the magazine rack, not on top of it. She was in this position when the fourth shot was fired. Had she been sitting on the magazine rack she would’ve been too high, and I would’ve expected blood splatters on the tiles above the magazine rack but there seemed to be no blood on the wall above the rack, or on the magazine rack.”

Roux asked Botha if he thought that Reeva protected herself, to which Botha replied, “No, the gunshot to the right arm would’ve been like an amputation, she would’ve had no functionality in the arm at all”.

When cross-examining Botha, State Advocate Gerrie Nel challenged everything he said, even indicating that it was difficult to believe him as he didn’t perform the post mortem like Saayman did. Nel also continuously reminded Botha that he was just testing his evidence.

Day 16 – Oscar saved by the bell as assessor falls ill

The Oscar Pistorius trial has been postponed until Monday 7 April due to an assessor being ill.

What would would have been Day 16 of the trial where Pistorius himself is believed to have taken the stand turned into the shortest of court days yet and disappointment after High Court Judge Masipa announced a postponement.

The trial was last in session on Day 15, Tuesday 25 March with Colonel Vermeulen again called to testify on the marks on the bat.

It was also a day in which the state had closed its case. The defence then requested a two-day adjournment as they need time to consult with state witness who have not testified. That is if they are willing.

Pistorius is accused of murdering his then girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp during the early morning hours of Valentine’s Day last year. Pistorius in his defence said he mistook her for an intruder. The state argues he did it with intent.

As he is yet to sit in the hot seat and explain one last time what happened that morning, the following words were posted by The Blade Runner on his official website dated 14 February 2014 – a year after he shot her:

“No words can adequately capture my feelings about the devastating accident that has caused such heartache for everyone who truly loved – and continues to love Reeva. The pain and sadness – especially for Reeva’s parents, family and friends consumes me with sorrow. The loss of Reeva and the complete trauma of that day, I will carry with me for the rest of my life.”

Day 15 – “Reeva and Oscar had a loving relationship”

The North Gauteng High Court on Day 15 of the Oscar Pistorius trial heard that Oscar and Reeva Steenkamp had a loving relationship more than 90 per cent of the time.

Continuing his testimony was Captain Francois Moller, a cellphone analyst.

Yesterday, Moller read to the court various messages showing a variety of arguments between the deceased and accused. Moller said that there were at least 1 704 WhatsApp messages between them and that he read out in court the messages most relevant to the case.

The defence team led by Advocate Barry Roux had a lot to say about this as Roux pointed out that just four of those many messages read out suggested an argument – not all of them.

The following was said during cross examination:

Roux: “You said relevant communications between the two. What was your approach to select the relevance?”

Moller: “If one reads through the conversation entries, one can identify certain messages that stood out. By that I mean not normal conversations.”

Roux: “You found some relevant arguments, but its not that it stood out. Out of all the 1 700 plus messages you found just four.”

Moller: “Correct.”

Roux added: “While you did say that 90 per cent of the messages were of a loving nature, I say it is higher than that.”

Roux then asked Moller to read out in court some such examples (the couple liked to use the names Baba, Boo and Angel):

(9 Jan 2013) Reeva: “You are a very special person you deserved to be looked after.”

Another WhatsApp message by Reeva reads: “Can I wear my leopard dress Boo?”

Oscar responds: “I love that, u look amazing in it. I’m thinking of you. I miss you.”

(29 Jan 2013) Reeva: “I miss you.”

Oscar responds: “I’m missing you so so much!!!”

Another message by Reeva reads: “I love spending time with you and sleeping alongside you. Let me know when you need some Oscar time.”

Oscar replied: “I love having u sleep next to me too.”

Another message from Oscar reads: “Can’t wait to see you.”

Reeva replied: “I really can’t wait to see you Boo. I would love that, Angel.”

(11 Feb 2013) a message from Reeva reads: “I’m always on your side. You are important to me. Lots of hugs, hope u have a super blessed day.”

Oscar replied: “Thank you so much for being strong. This message means a lot to me. Miss you. Ok my Angel. Thinking of you.”

Reeva replied: “Boo, I miss you.”

Oscar replied: “I miss you also. I miss you more than you miss me.”

Reeva replied: “Impossible” (an indication they are having a go at who is missing each other the most)

Before 11pm Oscar sends Reeva a message reading: “Night Baba.”

Reeva replied: “Ok night (with five kisses). I wish you were here cuddling me. I miss you so. I’m sorry I’m not there, Angel. I’ll be there in my heart and mind.”

(12 Feb 2013) Oscar said: “I’m missing her today, she makes my heart happy.”

(13 Feb 2013) – A day before Reeva was shot and killed – she sent a message reading: “Baby can I cook for you?” (referring to Valentine’s Day)

Oscar replied: “I’d love that.”

State advocate Gerrie Nel then asked Moller if any of these WhatsApp messages clearly suggested that they loved each other, suggesting that it was the long messages that really dealt with Reeva’s true feelings.

Moller replied: “Most of these messages were short, one-line messages”.

Nel highlighted one specific message – a message she sent seven days before Pistorius shot her – where she said: “I can’t be attacked by outsiders and you, a person I need protection from”. Nel says Pistorius never responded but Roux added he did, and cellphone records show he could have.

The court also heard that Oscar and Reeva shared a big interest in motor vehicles. According to Moller, Reeva’s web cookies on her cellphone indicate this.

He explained: “When one access a web page it keeps a log of the web pages visited. Cookies will create shortcuts. The web cookies show she visited Motor Mack and Vehicle Traders, to name a few.”

It seems Pistorius’ version that he had a shoulder injury also was confirmed after he messaged Reeva: “I’m just in the physio Baba. I’m not going, my shoulder is stuffed.”

Roux also got Moller to confirm whether Pistorius mentioned in a message at some stage that he should take the blame regarding the Tashas Restaurant shooting incident. Moller said no.

Earlier in the day, State Advocate Gerrie Nel continued questioning his witness, Francois Moller.

Moller then showed the court the times of incoming and outgoing calls the night before and morning of the tragedy.

Some of the confirmed calls according to Moller are:

13 February 2013 (the day before the tragedy)

• Reeva phoned Pistorius and the call lasted 522 seconds.

• Pistorius returned the call to Reeva, which lasted 36 seconds.

• Pistorius phoned Reeva and the call lasted 1 737 seconds – it could be the last known voice call between the two on a cellphone up to the incident.

14 February 2013 (day of the tragedy)

• At 3.19am Pistorius phoned a number on his cellphone, saved as Johan Stander Silverwoods, which lasted 24 seconds.

• At 3.20am Pistorius phoned an ambulance service and the call lasted 66 seconds.

• At 3.21am Pistorius phoned security at the Silverwoods Estate.

• Pistorius dialed his own voice mail and the call lasted 7 seconds – Moller said that this could be accidental as the 121 voice mail and button to dial someone are close to each other.

• At 3.22am Pistorius received a call from the Silverwoods Estate security.

• At 3.55am Pistorius phoned a friend, Justin Defarris, and the call lasted 123 seconds.

• At 4.01am Pistorius phoned a number saved as Deco (Heinrich Pistorius) and the call lasted 54 seconds.

• Pistorius phoned a number, saved as Peet at 4.09am, three times. The first call lasted 11 seconds, the second at 4.09am lasted 13 seconds and the third at 4.10am lasted three seconds.

• Peet returned Pistorius’ call at 4.11am and the call lasted 49 seconds.

Another witness to be called for the day was a police officer whose job it was to search on the police system for any record relating to Pistorius.

According to the witness, he could find nothing, except about the incident on 14 February. The other record is that a case of house robbery was opened regarding the missing watch belonging to Pistorius.

The officer added that besides the tragic incident, theft of a watch and a house robbery on 24 October 2011, there were no house robberies or burglaries at the estate.

The defence said that some police officers who arrived at the scene on 14 February claimed that they had come from a house robbery scene. One of them said that no one was safe, not even in an estate like this one. Pistorius also had been a victim of crime on many occasions.

Nel then argued: “If Pistorius claims he was a victim of crime on many occasions, it would have shown on the system, not so?”

The court was adjourned until Friday 28 March as requested by the defence. The High Court judge granted this considering that they wanted to consult with a few state witnesses who have not testified.

Day 14 – Reeva ‘tells’ court how scared she felt at times

The atmosphere was rather tense when Captain Francois Muller of the South African Police Service (SAPS) read out messages between Reeva and Oscar on Day 14 of the trial in the North Gauteng High Court.

Moller’s job was to extract data from two BlackBerry cellphones, two i-Phones, two i-Pads and a laptop computer.

These items were seized at the murder scene and Muller received them a day after Steenkamp was killed. State advocate Gerrie Nel asked Moller to explain what data he was talking about.

Moller said: “I did two types of extractions, the first being a logical extraction. This is all the data the user can see on the device, for example the call history, text messages, chats, photographs and anything you as user save on the handset. If I had to print out the data I would have printed 2 688 pages for the court.

“The second is what we call jail-breaking the device. We installed a file on the device, which enabled us to recover deleted data. Once again, if I had to print out the data for the court it would be 35 654 pages.”

Nel: “Did you focus on printing certain data applicable to the case?”

Moller: “Yes, we read through all the messages. But the WhatsApp chats alone consisted of 2 731 messages, which we did print. We also picked up that the deceased had two email accounts, one with Hotmail and another with Gmail.”

Nel then asked Moller to read out some the messages between Oscar and Reeva. Moller admitted that there were normal and loving conversations as well. Some of the more argumentative messages between Steenkamp and Pistorius were:

Pistorius: “Angel please don’t say a thing to anyone.”.

Response from Reeva: “I have no idea what u talking about [with smiley face]. But thank you for telling me I appreciate it.”

Another message on 19 January 2013 reads:

Pistorius: “It was just when u got back from Tropica, u make it sound like u only smoked weed once. Don’t know what other things u were on then.”

Reeva: “I’m sorry if it upset you, wasn’t my intention.”

Another message: Reeva: “I wasn’t a stripper or a HO.”

Another message on 27 January after 4pm.

Reeva: “Today was one of my best friends’ engagements, I wanted to stay longer. You have picked on me since coming back. Yesterday wasn’t nice for either of us. I was not flirting with anyone. I felt sick and that you made a scene. I’m disappointed. I must hear every five seconds how u dated another chick but yet u get upset with me if I mention a story of myself with a long term boyfriend. I do everything to make u happy. U show tantrums in front of people. I’m upset with u for two days now. I’m scared of u sometimes and how u will react to me. I’m not some other bitch. I fell in love with u, wanted to tell u this weekend. Why try anymore. U tell me don’t do this don’t do that. We are a struggle, I just want to love and be loved. Maybe we can’t do that for each other, u r not happy, I’m not.”

Response from Oscar: “Please let me know when I can call u?”

Response from Reeva: “I’m here.”

Response from Oscar: “I want to talk to you. I want to sort this out and want nothing less than amazing for us. I’m sorry. I was upset that u just left me after getting food, watching u touch his arm. U just kept on chatting to him. I’m sorry, was hungry and upset. I have a mad headache and should’ve just spoken to you softly.”

Another message on 8 February 2013 just after midnight:

Reeva: “I like to believe that I make you proud when I attend this type of functions with u. I also knew people there tonight. I was saying goodbye to people and was just being cordial while saying goodbye. I can’t rush in the heels I was wearing. I didn’t think u

would criticise me so loud that others could hear. I regard myself a lady. I’m a person too. I appreciate u invited me, I’m trying my best to make u happy – I feel u never are.”

More messages are expected to be read when day 15 continues tomorrow.

Earlier in the day another state witness testified that she was certain to have heard a woman scream on the morning of Valentine’s Day last year.

Sitting in the witness stand is occupational therapist by profession, Anette Stipp and wife of Dr Johan Stipp – the first with medical experience to attend the crime scene.

Stipp told the court that on the evening before the incident (13 February 2013), “We had a normal evening, the kids were put asleep and then went to bed ourselves at around 10.30pm.

“The next morning (14 February 2013) I was woken up by my own cough considering I had a bit of flu. I then looked over at the bed clock that read 3.02am. While awake, I then thought to myself should I drink something or not, I then heard three gunshots …

“I asked my husband: ‘Did you hear that?’ he immediately replied: ‘Yes’. Moments after the gunshots I heard a woman scream terrifyingly. The screams were non-stop, once we both made our way to the balcony, it sounded like the woman’s screams came closer.

“I thought it was a family murder.” Ms Stipp said that her husband then said he should go and see if he could help or assist as there could be kids involved.

At 3.17am the Stipps heard three more gunshots and a man and woman screaming simultaneously.

“It was after the last three shots that it became dead quiet,” Ms Stipp said.

Filling in for Barry Roux for the defence was Kenny Oldwage.

Oldwage argued that the witness’ memory had failed her. On one occasion she couldn’t remember if she heard a dog barking, to which Gerrie Nel for the state objected saying that the defence first should prove that a dog in fact was barking. The second time was when she admitted to having mentioned in her statement something she didn’t observe, but rather what her husband had told her, namely having spotted a man walking in the bathroom area where the light was on.

Oldwage said in court: “Your recollection is not that good. It was not the first time that your memory has failed you.”

Oldwage also argued with the witness about what she heard, being a man and woman screaming.

The defence has performed tests on 21 February 2014 as well as on 17 March 2014 to establish whether it was possible that the witnesses who have taken the stand so far could have heard a woman scream.

On the first date mentioned above Ms Stipp said: “We were woken up by people arguing. It was continuous. The next morning neighbours of ours also heard the same thing, that of people arguing. We assumed it was tests.”

On the second date mentioned above Ms Stipp said: “We were woken up again but this time by screams. I only could hear a man scream but at a high pitch and low pitch.”

Despite the tests, Ms Stipp remained confident saying that, “The screams I heard on February 2013 were not the same as the ones I heard in February and March this year.

“I am sure it was a female and male I had heard on the morning of that incident [referring to February 2013].”

The defence then asked Ms Stipp if she and her husband ever discussed what happened that morning of Valentine’s Day when Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead and if they followed the overwhelming publicity regarding the incident, to which she replied: “We obviously did discuss what happened, but I was not present when my husband did his statements. His first was done alone and the second when I did my first one at our home but we were in separate rooms.”

“In terms of the news it’s difficult not to miss it. It was everywhere but if you ask did I buy a newspaper and sat glued to the TV, then no.”

Oldwage:”You must have heard some of the evidence?”

Witness: “I did not listen to everyone’s evidence, and certainly did not compare their versions to mine. I just heard snippets of versions but never a complete version.”

Oldwage also asked her if it was possible that the sounds she heard could have been from a cricket bat.

The witness replied: “It would be difficult to believe it was a cricket bat; the sounds were way too quick in succession and rapid.”

Court was adjourned.

There is reason to believe that the state is looking to conclude their case within the next day or two. It’s also said that Pistorius’ house is to be sold to cover his legal costs. It has been confirmed that the trial has been extended to May this year in which the defence will call upon their own experts. Pistorius is believed to testify some time this week.

Day 13: Reeva in defensive position when shot — Ballistics expert

The North Gauteng High Court heard on day 13 of the Oscar Pistorius trial that Steenkamp was in a defensive position before she was shot a second and third time.

Ballistics expert Captain Mangena found that, “Four shots were fired. All four bullets went through the door. The deceased was standing in front of the door, facing the door when the first bullet penetrated and broke her hip bone, causing her to fall.

“The second shot missed her. It deflected and the bullet fragments caused the bruising on her back. The bruise was caused by the bullet that had lost speed after it had deflected – therefore no penetration to the body and bruise instead.

“According to my findings the wounds on the deceased indicates that when she was hit in the upper arm, she was in a defensive position holding up her left hand. The last wound to the head suggests that she dropped immediately.”

Mangena further explained to the court how devastating the ammunition was that was used.

“The type of ammo used (black talon) causes maximum damage. The advantage when using this type of ammo is that when a shot is fired and hits a target (human flesh) it opens up and loses most of its speed. When it makes impact with human flesh as in this case of the deceased, it opened up and cut through flesh, which is why it lost its speed. When this ammo goes straight through a hard object like a door it won’t open up as it would when penetrating a moist target (human flesh).

Mangena then gave his findings to what position the accused could have been in when shots were fired through the door.

Although he gave three possible positions, the most probable was that Pistorius was not wearing his prostheses – this is consistent with Pistorius’ version. The impossible position would be that he was lying on the floor.

Roux then had a go at the witness.

His first question was whether he ever had heard of a double tap.

Mangena: “Yes, it is when you pull the trigger twice and in quick succession.”

Roux said that this was his clients’ version. A witness, Dr Stipp, also testified saying that he heard shots in quick succession, which is consistent with Mr Pistorius’ version.

Mangena disagreed saying, “There is clearly a break between the first and second shot … [considering] the wounds the deceased sustained. The rest of the shots were when she was in a seated position.”

Roux then said that the accused said that he was on his stumps and at the back of the wall when he fired the shots.

Mangena didn’t disagree and said: “It is probable.”

Roux then put it to the witness that at the bail application, there was evidence that Pistorius was 1,5 metres away when he fired the shots. Roux wanted to know where this came from, to which Mangena replied: “I don’t know” suggesting that this fact was made up to constitute evidence of premeditated murder.

Advocate Gerrie Nel for the state then argued with the defence about the double-tap issue.

Nel: “Mr Roux gave you a witness’ version that the shots were in quick succession. Let me give you another one. Michelle Burger, who testified first said she heard a shot, a pause, then more shots. It seems to be more consistent with your findings.

Mangena: “Yes this is possible.”

The next witness to be called was Colonel Van der Nest. Van der Nest is said to be a well-educated man and has been involved in over 1 300 investigations. He has given evidence in all courts around South Africa, Swaziland and Namibia.

His job was to explain how the blood on the crime scene got where it was. It seemed that he came to a conclusion that Steenkamp wasn’t hit with a cricket bat and the evidence was consistent with Pistorius’ version.

Van der Nest said that he got involved in the case when his brigadier instructed him to attend the postmortem held on the deceased. He made many observations and notes and assisted in measuring the wounds. He also attended the crime scene on 15 February 2013 with the aim to address several investigative questions posed to him.

According to Van der Nest he had marked each blood-stain area where he found it with a blue Post-it, from the main bedroom all the way down to the ground floor and bathroom where Steenkamp was shot.

In the bathroom he found that the deceased sustained wounds (above the right eye, upper arm and right hip) while being in the toilet. It was consistent with the gunshot wounds. Three of these wounds could have resulted in severe bleeding. The deceased had long hair which was blood soaked. The short pants she had on was also saturated with blood.”

He added that the blood stains from the toilet down the stairs indicated that the deceased was moved in a lifting dragging type of movement, which is consistent with Pistorius’ version. Steenkamp was in a low body position at the time.

The next witness to be called was Colonel Mike Sales from the South African Police Service (SAPS). His job is to download data from cellphones by using a specific forensic tool. He received two of Pistorius’ iPads – an iPad 2 and iPad 3.

Col Sales said although all history before 13 February 2013 was deleted he could, however, access some of the web pages (which were shown in court as he clicked on the documents) accessed by the person who used the iPad. He found that between the two devices there were similarities of websites visited that ranged from car sales to mobile porn.

Roux then asked the colonel just one question.

“Do you know who was responsible for visiting these web pages?”

Sales replied: “No.”

Roux then had nothing further.

The state then requested that the trial be postponed until Monday 24 March as they still need to consult with five remaining witnesses. They want to make use of the two working days to consult with them, considering thsat most people would be going away for the long weekend. Nel added that the state was in the process of wrapping up its case and it should be concluded by the end of next week.

The High Court judge asked for any objections as to why she shouldn’t grant the postponement, to which Roux said: “From our perspective, we want to use as much court time as we can, but on the acceptance that the state will conclude their case next week, and on that basis alone, I have no objections to the request.”

Day 12:

The North Gauteng High Court was left in suspense when day 12 of the Oscar Pistorius trial ended before a ballistics expert could conclude his findings.

The question if Pistorius was on his stumps or wearing his prostheses is yet to be answered when ballistics expert, Captain Christian Mangena continues his testimony on Wednesday 19 March.

The defence said that Pistorius was on his stumps (without his prostheses) when he fired shots through the toilet door, killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp because he had thought that she was an intruder.

The state argued that Pistorius was wearing his prostheses and that he had fired the shots with the intention to kill Steenkamp.

Taking the stand rather late in the day was Captain Mangena who is stationed at the ballistics section of the SAPS science lab. Mangena has 20 years’ experience in the South African Police Service (SAPS) – 19 of which he has worked in the ballistics section.

Advocate Gerrie Nel for the state went through some photographs taken of the wounds the deceased (Steenkamp) had sustained.

(Mangena then answered “This photo shows…):

• there were holes on the right-hand side of the vest of the deceased

• the face of the deceased and position of the wounds of the deceased

• the entrance wound on the upper arm of the deceased, and the exit wound on the back of the same arm of the deceased

• the position of the wound on the hip of the deceased. Another is a close-up of the same wound on the hip

• the bruise on the chest of the deceased; an impact on the deceased’s chest. Another is a close-up of the bruise on chest

• the bruises on the back of the deceased

• the bullet wound between the middle finger and point [index] finger on the left hand of the deceased

• the two wounds on the head of the deceased just above the right ear; the entrance wound and the exit wound at the back

Nel then asked the witness if he was present when Pistorius was measured.

Mangena replied: “For me to reconstruct the crime scene I requested the accused’s version of what happened. He stated that when he fired the shot, he was not wearing prostheses and was on his stumps. I needed to get the height of the accused to determine if he was, or not.”

Measurements as given by Captain Mangena:

• Height of Pistorius with prostheses: 184cm

• Pistorius without prostheses: 155cm

Court was adjourned until 9.30am the next day (19 March).

Earlier in the day, court proceedings were delayed for more than an hour as a result of crime scene photographer WO van Staden’s late arrival. Van Staden was requested by the defence a day before to sort out the pictures he had taken of the crime scene and PR Test photographs taken of Pistorius.

Van Staden said that he first had to get permission from his superior to bring the master copies to court and that he had locked the copies in a cupboard in his office.

Advocate Barry Roux who continuously hammers on the issue that the police has contaminated the crime scene questioned various photographs taken by the crime scene photographer. The defence also will call on other experts in due course to counter experts who already have testified for the state.

Day 12:

The North Gauteng High Court heard on day eleven of the Oscar Pistorius trial that Pistorius had a great love of and enthusiasm for firearms.

Taking the stand was a firearm service provider from the International Firearm Academy, Shaun Rens, who testified that he had kept record of training sessions, assessed and had invoices showing which firearms Pistorius wanted to purchase.

It’s said that Pistorius was interested in purchasing several firearms that include two rifles, three shotguns and two revolvers. All the transactions, however, were cancelled and Pistorius never received any of them following the tragic incident when he shot dead Reeva Steenkamp on 14 February 2013.

Nel then asked the witness to read out some questions posed to and answers given by Pistorius during an assessment when he applied for a firearm. The witness also confirmed that Pistorius did have competency and licence cards before the tests were done. The witness also claimed that Pistorius acknowledged conversations and further requirements by signing forms. The witness suggested that Pistorius seemed very competent when he answered the questions.

Advocate Gerrie Nel for the state also asked the witness to tell the court how many times Pistorius had visited them. The witness replied: “At least 12 times. We would then shoot.”

Some of the questions and answers during Pistorius’ assessment included the following (note that the questions are not word for word as they appear on the assessment form):

Question: You are alone at home. You decide to look out the window and spot two men jump over the wall onto the premises and making their way to your house. You are not expecting any visitors as it is late at night. Is there a reason for you to use force?

• Pistorius’ answer: “No.”

Question: The men come to your house and proceed to break the burglar bars. They go into your lounge, remove your most expensive hi-fi and you find them there. Can you discharge a firearm at them at this point?

• Pistorius’ answer: “No, my life is not in danger.”

Question: You stand behind a security gate and watch what they are doing and they become aware of your presence, can you then discharge a firearm?

• Pistorius’ answer: “No.”

Question: Let’s say there is no security gate between you and the burglars. They are both armed with either a knife or firearm and advance towards you. Can you then discharge a firearm?

• Pistorius’ answer: “Yes.”

Explain legal requirements when using force.

• Pistorius’ answer: “The attack must be against you, a person and must be unlawful.”

Name some safety precautions when handling a firearm.

• Pistorius’ answer: “Always point to a safe direction and treat a firearm as if it is loaded, be careful.”

List some general safety rules.

• Pistorius’ answers: “Be muzzle conscious; firearm to be secure in holster; firearm unloaded when in storage; do not handle firearm unnecessarily; do not modify firearm in any way; alcohol and gun powder don’t mix; never fire your weapon in the air; use only the correct ammunition.”

Explain the importance of target identification.

• Pistorius’ answer: “Know your target and what lies beyond.”

Then surprisingly Advocate Barry Roux for the defence only spent a few minutes with the witness. He wanted to know during his cross examination if the bullets (black talon) used that morning when Steenkamp was shot and killed were relevant to self-defence.

The witness replied: “It’s less lethal”.

Nel then called on witness number 103 on the witness list, Warrant Officer Barnard van Staden who photographed the crime scene on the morning of 14 Feb 2013.

Van Staden has 21 years’ experience in the South African Police Service (SAPS) including eight years as photographer.

He explained to the court that he arrived at the scene around 4.50am that morning of the shooting where he met Warrant Officer Hilton Botha.

Van Staden: “I found Botha outside Pistorius’ house. He then explained to me what had happened, that Pistorius shot his girlfriend.

“I then asked Botha to accompany me through the scene. He showed me the ground level of the house, then the deceased and finally to the first floor in the main bedroom and bathroom. We spent minutes there to familiarise me with the scene. From there, I went back to the ground floor, and into the garage where Pistorius was.”

Roux asked the witness to describe Pistorius’ emotional state.

Witness: “He was very quiet and emotional, crying.”

Roux: “Do you know if he vomited?”

Witness: “No.”

Roux: “What then?”

Witness: “I told Pistorius who I was and what my duty was. I then asked Botha if Pistorius had washed his hands. Botha said no but a few minutes later Botha told me that another officer, Van Rensburg gave Pistorius permission to do so. I then closed the door and asked Pistorius if he had washed his hands. He said yes. I then conducted a residue test on Pistorius, largely on his arms as his hands already were washed. I then proceeded to photograph the crime scene, starting outside.”

Day 10:

The North Gauteng High Court heard another interesting piece of evidence as police investigator Schoombe van Rensburg continued his testimony on day ten of the Oscar Pistorius trial.

According to Van Rensburg, there were no signs of an intruder in Pistorius’ house on the fateful day.

The accused – Pistorius – in his defence said he had shot Steenkamp because he thought she was an intruder.

“I checked to see if there was forced entry and looked through a window in the bathroom to see if it was possible that someone from the outside could gain entry. The window is high and there is no way a person or intruder could gain entry unless they have access to a ladder. Also there were no marks on the wall outside or something that indicated to me that someone or an intruder had been there.”

Nel, the prosecutor, then showed Van Rensburg a photo of Pistorius without a shirt and Van Rensburg confirmed “there was no blood on the front part of his body”.

Van Rensburg explained further what happened when he approached the accused in the kitchen.

“I asked him if he and Reeva were alone in the house and he said yes. In light of what I had seen at the crime scene I told him that I regarded him as a suspect. I warned him but did not arrest him on the spot at that stage because there was still some information to be followed up. I first had to make sure I had the correct facts before I could arrest him and requested him to remain present at the house at all times.”

It then was brought up that evidence had been tampered with, especially with the firearm lying in the bathroom after the shooting.

According to Van Rensburg, “While I was on the phone in the bathroom I heard the firearm being cocked behind me. I saw that a ballistics expert was handling the weapon without gloves. He also took out the magazine and I asked him furiously, “What are you doing?” He just said, “I’m sorry” and put back the magazine. Only then did he take out his gloves, put them on, made the firearm safe and continued his work.”

Nel then asked what happened when Van Rensburg left the scene.

Van Rensburg: “When we finished that particular day, we made sure everything was locked, the windows were closed and the front door was locked with a forensics seal. The keys then were taken to the station where it was booked in. We continued the process throughout the investigation. At no stage the forensic seal was tampered with or did someone tamper with [anything in or at] the house. We had two security guards there to make sure this did not happen.”

Advocate Barry Roux for the defence then had a go at the witness.

Roux first asked Van Rensburg if he was standing in for or was planning to take the place of Warrant Officer Hilton Botha – who had been criticised for making a mess of the investigation – something he could not do. Roux also was adamant that the state was trying to make everyone believe Botha was an unnecessary witness.

Van Rensburg then said: “I’m not standing in for him, I’m just testifying to what I saw.”

Roux disputed it.

Roux then referred to statements being made in which Van Rensburg was very open and honest, stating that there were “small things not mentioned in a statement”. Van Rensburg also confirmed that apart from Pistorius, the paramedics, Dr Stipp, Mr and Ms Stander, he and Botha were the first ones to go upstairs . He made it clear that he arrived at the house at approximately 3.45am, before Botha did.

Roux: “Explain to the court what you observed upstairs.”

Van Rensburg: “Visibility in the main bedroom was good. I spotted things like a pellet gun, an open cabinet with sunglasses, very expensive watches, a hi-fi, the bed, the duvet lying on the side of the bed, trousers, the sandals on the left side of the bed and a bag on the couch. There was a fan standing in front of the door and the curtain was open.”

Roux: “Spot a baseball bat?”

Van Rensburg: “Not at my first observation.”

Roux: “And then?”

Van Rensburg: “I followed the blood trail to the bathroom. Close to the entrance of the bathroom I spotted an empty cartridge. I turned around, went back into the main bedroom past the bed and onto the patio to look for anything suspicious. While there, if you turn left, there were ladders, more than three stacked on top of each other lying flat. I went back into the main bedroom and didn’t pick up anything. Back in the main bedroom, on the right-hand side there were cables, then left-hand side was when I got focused on the sandals, and also noticed a holster lying on the bedside table.”

Roux: “What was Botha doing?”

Van Rensburg: “I don’t know what he was doing.”

Day nine:

The defense have some explaining to do after a witness testified in the North Gauteng High Court on day nine of the Oscar Pistorius trial that Steenkamp’s slops were spotted on the left-hand side of the bed where Pistorius claims he had slept.

Pistorius in his bail application stated that Steenkamp was the one sleeping on the right-hand side of the bed and that he had slept on the left-hand side the morning of the incident. A former girlfriend mentioned that Pistorius prefers sleeping on the right-hand side but that the night of the shooting, he decided to change to the other side due to a shoulder injury.

Testifying is Schoombe van Rensburg, a colonel in the South African Police Service (SAPS) who was at the crime scene on the morning of 14 February after the shooting. A photograph the police officer took clearly shows the slops of Steenkamp on the left side of the bed.

Earlier in the day the court heard as defence lawyer Barry Roux accused the police of being incompetent.

Roux tested the reliability of Vermeulen’s version and asked him whether he was sure he is objective in the case and didn’t take sides.

Vermeulen said, “I didn’t read the version of Mr Pistorius, only parts of it but after I concluded my investigation.”

Advocate Gerrie Nel then again wanted to clarify his findings regarding the cricket bat in which Vermeulen replied, “The angle I demonstrated is the angle at which the bat came to a standstill in the door. According to my observations that is the only position the bat could have been when it hit the door.”

Day eight:

The North Gauteng High Court heard on day eight of the Oscar Pistorious trial how the cricket bat was used to bash the toilet door.

Taking the stand and giving the evidence was witness number 60 on the list, Colonel Johannes Vermeulen. Vermeulen is a control forensic analyst with 29 years’ experience in scientific analysis. He also has an honours degree from the North West University. Vermeulen added that he completed almost 1 400 investigations and has testified in numerous South African courts.

Vermeulen said that he attended the scene on 8 March 2013 at 286 Silverwoods Estate (Pistorius’ house), two weeks after the incident because his brigadier asked him to assist.

He said he was requested to perform two investigations, one on the cricket bat to determine if there were marks on the door that could relate to the cricket bat and to look for steel plate being damaged and bent.

Some his findings were that:

• he saw two distinct marks on the toilet door that drew his attention. After inspecting these marks and comparing it with the cricket bat, he found it to be consistent, which confirmed that a cricket bat was used to broke open the door

• the marks on the door caused by the cricket bat were between 200mm and 300mm above the lock of the door

• the cricket bat went through the door during one of the shots and these marks were created when the person twisted the bat to break open that panel

• the height of the marks on the door is consistent with him (Oscar) not having his prosthetic legs on

• the steel plate he had to examine (unfortunately no photograph available) got bent as a result of an object falling onto the plate. The object had to be hard enough to cause a scratch and the scratch was in a vertical position. It was not possible for him to determine the object that was used to cause it to bend

Earlier in the day, the defence continued cross examining Pistorius’ friend, Darren Fresco.

Fresco admitted to speeding and he mentioned speeds of up to 200km/h when he, Samantha Taylor and Pistorius were in the vehicle.

Advocate Barry Roux for the defence then accused Fresco of giving false evidence.

Roux: “You engineered false evidence regarding the photo of when the accused was driving. What do you say to that?”

Fresco: “I do not remember taking this photo.”

Day seven:

The defence team’s version that it was Oscar who screamed like a woman and not Reeva has taken a bit of a dent.

This after professor and pathologist, Gert Saayman continued to give his findings of the post-mortem of model Reeva Steenkamp on day seven of the Oscar Pistorius trial in the North Gauteng High Court.

Till date, more than three witnesses claim to have heard a woman scream the morning Steenkamp was killed. Pistorius claims he was the one screaming. Pistorius’ defence team suggests further that it was impossible for Reeva to have screamed due to her severe injuries as the last shot to her head damaged vital cognitive functions.

Because Saayman’s findings were not aired live on video or audio, nor were any tweets allowed, the media was unable to give a detailed report. The print media, however, was able to summarize some of the findings.

Findings:

• the three bullets used were designed to cause maximum damage

• Steenkamp ate at least two hours before she died

• Steenkamp was capable of screaming after the last shot

• Steenkamp had a few bruises on her body (upper body, buttocks area and back). She also sustained wounds to her hips and hand

• the wound to Steenkamp’s arm was described as devastating

• any of the head, arm or groin injuries could have caused her death

After court was adjourned, advocate Gerrie Nel for the state called on the next witness.

Taking the stand is a friend of Pistorius, Darren Fresco who was present on two separate incidents where shots were fired involving Pistorius.

Nel: “Do you know the accused?”

Fresco: “Yes, we had met on a breakfast run and became friendly thereafter.”

Nel: “Did you know the deceased, Reeva Steenkamp?”

Fresco: “Yes very well, we had met just after she moved to Joburg.”

Nel: “And Samantha Taylor?”

Fresco: “Yes, through Oscar.”

Nel: “An incident took place while coming from the Vaal River, explain what happened?”

Fresco: “We had come past the Grasmere Toll plaza when we were pulled over by JMPD for speeding. The officer came to my window, asked me for my licence and to step out of the vehicle. Oscar then got out to see what is taking so long. Oscar came to my side which is when the other JMPD officer went to where Oscar was sitting and picked up his gun off the seat. There was then a verbal altercation between Oscar and the officer when Oscar said “You just can’t touch another man’s gun”. They were arguing, and carried on, the officer who then pulled me over went over there to try and defuse (calm) the situation. The officer who had picked up the gun cocked the gun which caused the bullet to be ejected inside the vehicle. Oscar then told the officer “Your fingerprints are on my gun and if anything should happen you will be held liable”. Oscars licence was then handed to officer, the officer couldn’t even read out his surname correctly. I then found the missing bullet and gave it back to Oscar. I think he then put it back in the magazine, but I did not see it. After being issued with a speeding fine, we proceeded to leave. Oscar was furious because someone touched his gun. We then proceeded to go to a house, something to do with one of Oscars’ firearms, we then left. While driving and without warning Oscar shot out of the sunroof. I asked him if he was f@#$%^ mad. He just laughed. It felt as if my ear was bleeding and I had a constant ringing in my left ear.”

Nel then asked the witness to elaborate on the other shooting incident at Tasha’s Restaurant in Melrose Arch where a shot was also fired.

Fresco: “Oscar asked me to pass my firearm to him. It’s a Glock 27, 40 calibre, why I, still do not know. I took it out and passed it to him under the table. Although I could not see under the table, he probably pulled the trigger wanting to make it safe I suppose which is when the shot went off. No one knows where the bullet projected to but almost instantly, the place was dead quiet. I then said carry on as if nothing happened. Oscar then passed the gun back to me and said: “Please, there’s too much media hype around me, please take the rap for it” and I said with pleasure. Shortly thereafter, the sounds in restaurant went back to normal as if nothing happened. Then the owner’s wife came to me and asked what just happened, and I told her “I’m sorry, my gun went off unintentionally.”

During his cross examination, Roux hammered away at Fresco.

Roux found that Fresco did not mention in his statement anything about Oscar asking him (Fresco) to take the blame.

Should Fresco incriminate himself during cross examination, he might find himself liable for the gun chargers.

Day six:

Live broadcasting of a detailed pathology report by a professor was disallowed when day six of the Oscar Pistorius trial continued in the North Gauteng High Court on Monday, 10 March.

This when advocate Gerrie Nel for the state called their next witness in the case, professor Gert Saayman, who performed the post mortem on Reeva Steenkamp.

Due to the graphical and gory evidence as well as the sensitivity attached to it, the High Court Judge, Thokozile Masipa ordered that live broadcasting be cut. She would make the court order clearer tomorrow (11 March).

“There shall be no live broadcasting (audio and video) as well as no twitter feeds when the professor gives his testimony,” the judge made it clear in court.

Professor Saayman objected to give any evidence for the following reasons:

“I am a health practitioner and I am bound to certain ethical rules that guide my profession. I would not be comfortable due to the very nature of the evidence which entails graphic detail on the deceased (Reeva Steenkamp).”

He said that he has good reasons to why his evidence should not be broadcast live.

“Nr1, that the very personal findings in autopsy examination and graphic details to wounds have the potential to compromise the dignity of the deceased. Nr2, I believe that by broadcasting evidence of this nature, it is inevitable that we will harm the relatives and friends of the deceased. Nr3, that it goes against the good morals of society where unexpected people may be exposed to which could do harm, especially children.”

He said further that there are also principals guiding him as practitioner, like:

“I should do no harm; always try to do good and respect the autonomy of the patient”.

During the doc’s testimony, the graphic details took its toll on the accused, Oscar Pistorius as social media tweeted he had vomited.

Earlier in the day, the defense also cross examined the security guard and shift leader who made a call to Pistorius the morning of the incident.

While he (shift leader) testified to have heard Pistorius saying, “Security, everything is fine” when he phoned him to hear if everything was fine, the defence argues that Pistorius meant he was fine, and didn’t refer to the situation.

Day five:

“Security, everything is fine” is what Oscar Pistorius allegedly told the security shift leader on the night the tragic event unfolded.

The witness, Mr Pieter Jacob Baba, who is the shift leader and who has been involved with security at Silverwoods Estate for two years testified in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on Friday 7 March. Mr Baba was on night duty from the night of 13 February 2013 to the next morning 14 February 2013 when model Reeva Steenkamp was killed.

“We work in two shifts, five people in the morning, and five people at night,” Mr Baba told the court.

“One of the guards on bike patrol came to me and reported that he heard gunshots. After a few moments I received two telephone calls from a Mr Stipp and a resident from number 287 also saying they heard gunshots. Myself and the supervisor then decided to go and find out where the gunshots came from. I also ordered the patroller on the bicycle to go and find out as well. Myself and the supervisor arrived at Dr Stipp’s house, he stood on the balcony outside, and pointed at Oscar’s house. Mr Pistorius’ house was very visible from where we were standing. Mr Pistorius’ lights also were on and we drove to his house number 286.

“I then phoned Mr Pistorious from the site cellphone and when I spoke to him asking if everything is fine he replied: ‘Security, everything is fine’. I then realised he was crying and I told the supervisor this cannot be, something is wrong. I then tried to talk him into coming down and prove everything was fine, then the conversation ended.

“Mr Pistorius then called me back, maybe he wasn’t sure, and started crying, then the phone went off. After a few minutes, Mr Stander (another resident) and his daughter arrived in a Blue Mini Cooper and parked the car halfway into the street. I could see on their faces something happened at Pistorius’ house.

“Mr Stander jumped out, never told me what’s going on or greeted me and went straight to the door. Myself and two other patrollers then ran after them. At the door, Pistorius saw us five, he was carrying Reeva. I was shocked and couldn’t think properly for a few moments.

“I was just staring at Pistorius, as he was carrying her (Reeva) down the stairs. Once I came out of shock, I then phoned paramedics and police but I did not go into the house. The lights in the house were also on.”

During their cross examination, the defence argued that the shift leader could have misunderstood Pistorius. Roux asked the witness, did Mr Pistorius not say “He is fine” where the witness made it clear, “My lady, he said Security, everything is fine”.

Earlier in the day, the state called on Samantha Taylor – former girlfriend of the blade runner.

In a tiny voice, Taylor claimed that Pistorius had cheated on her with Steenkamp.

Taylor said that she and Pistorius had been an item in 2011, that she was 17 years old at the time and that they first met at a rugby match in 2010. Thereafter Pistorius added her on facebook and they continued chatting on the social network.

She claimed to have spent a lot of time with Pistorius, about four or five times a week. She also was familiar with the bedroom, testifying that Pistorius had slept on the right hand side when she visited/ slept over at his house and claimed he would place his firearm next to him either on the bedside table or his prosthetic legs on the floor.

Taylor said that she was aware of Pistorius owning a firearm and that he would carry it on him at all times, even when they went to friends. She also testified that Pistorius was on his cellphone frequently. She added Pistorius had two cellphones (one for work and personal and also an iPad) but she never knew what he was doing on it.

Some of the interesting questions by advocate Gerrie Nel to Taylor:

Nel: “Referring to the incident of 14 Feb 2013, the accused (Pistorius) says that he was anxious and it was he who screamed that sounded like a woman, have you heard him scream before?”

Witness: “I’ve heard him scream more than once. I’ve seen him anxious as well and he did not sound like woman, it sounded like a man when he shouted.”

Nel: “Explain to the court about the incident travelling from the Vaal River when you were together.”

Witness: “Myself, Oscar and Darren Fresco were travelling together to the Vaal River. We went to visit some friends. After the function at the Vaal River we got stopped by police because we were speeding. The policeman then asked both (Oscar and Fresco) to step out of the car. Oscar’s gun was on the seat and when a policeman saw it, he said, “It cannot be left on the seat”. She continued: “The policeman cocked the gun, bullets went flying out, they put it back together. Oscar then got angry, shouting at the policeman because they touched his gun. We then got back in the car and drove off. Both (Oscar and Fresco) were anxious and irritated and laughed saying they wanted to shoot a robot. Fresco was driving, Oscar was sitting in the passenger seat, I was sitting in the back seat behind Oscar. After they had said they wanted to shoot the robot, he fired a shot through the open sunroof of the car.”

Nel: “What did the accused then say?”

Witness: “They both laughed.”

Nel: “Where did you then go after this incident?”

Witness: “To go sign gun papers at a friend of Oscar’s, from there we had dinner in Sandton.”

Nel: “You said that Oscar shouted at you before, correct?”

Witness: “Yes, on more than one occasion as well as my friends.”

Nel: “During those occasions could you confuse his voice with a woman’s?”

Witness: “No.”

Nel: “How did your relationship end?”

Witness: “He cheated on me with Reeva Steenkamp.”

The witness then broke out in tears. Nel had no further questions. With advocate Barry Roux’s turn, the witness broke down again.

Roux: “When Pistorius screamed, was it because of an unhappiness between you two or was his life threatened?”

Witness: “No, I never heard him scream when his life was threatened, just when he was angry.”

Roux then went back to the incident at the Vaal River involving the witness, Pistorius and Fresco when a shot was fired in the car on their way back. The witness could not remember the time they drove back or the area they were in. She does however, remember, that Oscar drove to the Vaal River, and Fresco was the one driving back when police stopped them.

During their cross examination, the defence say that they have emails of conversations between their client (Pistorius) and the witness. While the witness believes she and Oscar were a couple, the defence disagrees.

Day four:

“Oscar cried all the time and prayed to God that she must not die,” a witness and doctor by profession testified when day four of the Oscar Pistorius trial continued in the North Gauteng High Court.

His name is Johan Stefanus Stipp, believed to be the first with medical experience to arrive at the scene the day Steenkamp was killed. He is witness number eight on the list and confirmed that he has a view of Pistorius’ house from his bedroom.

Stipp described the events when he arrived inside Oscar’s house as follows:

“I saw a woman lying on the floor. I went nearer and as I bent down, I also noticed a man (Oscar) beside her on his knees. He had his left hand on the groin wound and the other hand trying to open the airway and actively trying to assist her. He (Oscar) than said: “I shot her, I thought she was a burglar and I shot her”.

Nel then showed the court a photograph, the witness then confirmed it to be Reeva and that her body position was the same as what he witnessed and wanted to know what happened next.

“I tried to assist her. There was no pulse in her neck or breathing movements. She was clinching down on his (Oscars’) fingers. I tried to open the airway but during that time there wasn’t any signs of life. I opened her right eyelid, her cornea was milky and already drying out. I noted that she had wounds in her right thy and upper arm. I also saw blood, hair and brain tissue to the right area of her skull.

“During that time, while I was trying to resuscitate her, he (Oscar) cried all the time and prayed to God that she must not die, that he will dedicate his life if she must die.”

Nel then again asked, what happened then?

Stipp continued saying that “She was way too seriously injured. I went outside and asked the man standing outside (a Mr stander) if ambulance is on his way. We eventually phoned Netcare 911, spoke to a dispatcher and explained what just happened as well as the nature of the injuries. I didn’t leave and went back in the house to check how things were going, but her (Reeva’s) condition didn’t change, he (Oscar) stood by her side most of the time.”

Stipp then mentioned that he recalls asking mr Stander where the gun was, and implied that while neither of them (Stipp and Mr Stander) didn’t know where the gun was, they thought Oscar was going to hurt himself.

Stipp then says further, “A few minutes later, Oscar came down the stairs” and it was only then that realized it was Oscar Pistorius.

During his testimony Stipp also testified that he heard a woman screaming – the third witness to have said so. He also testified that he heard a man shouting help, help help and that he heard gunshots.

Nel then asked the witness if he could describe the shots he heard before he came Oscars house when the witness made it clear, “It was gunshots”.

Nel then asked what is his experience with guns the witness replied “I was in the army for two years.”

The defence team, led by advocate Barry Roux then cross examined the witness, although Roux made it clear he was not testing his credibility, he focused on the following (according to the defence): That Reeva could not have screamed as she was fatally wounded; that he (Dr Stipp) just like the other witnesses who testified had mistaken the sounds of a woman screaming to be Oscar and wanted to know Oscar’s state of mind when he (Dr Stipp) arrived on scene.

Roux also mentioned that a part of the witness’ statement was inconsistent.

Roux: “I consulted with three medical specialists. And I’m taking you back to what you observed. What you observed was the fatal wounding of a person, I don’t want to go into graphics with the head wound, but we know that it was a devastating head wound. The medical specialists told me all the same thing, with that injury, that person after the shots would have been unable to scream and unresponsive. On the balcony you say you heard screams, it could not have been the deceased, she was fatally wounded. We know there was shots through the door, ballistic experts will show, that the splinters penetrated some of the body parts of the deceased and know the door was broken down.”

Witness: “I heard a woman”.

Roux: “Could it be that Pistorius was anxious that it resembles a woman screaming?”

Witness: “I don’t know, it is possible.”

Gerrie Nel for the state then argued that what Roux is putting to the witness (that it could not have been Reeva to scream as a fact).

Nel: “He is putting to the witness that the first shot caused the death, and that the deceased was incapable of screaming, but it is their, they cannot put it as a fact.”

Nel continued: “Our case is that Reeva shouted before there were four shots fired around 3.17am, if this witness heard two sets of noises which he believed was gunshots that’s fine – its what he heard.”

Roux then again wanted the witness to share what Oscar’s state of mind was like when the witness arrived at the scene.

Roux: Was he sincere or pretending?

Witness: “He looked sincere. He was kneeling by her side, and crying, was praying, talking to God “Please let her live and not die”. He (Oscar) was distraught. He definitely wanted her to live.”

Earlier in the day Roux had another crack at Charl Johnson.

Roux believes they (Michelle Burger and he) must be mistaken, that they heard a cricket bat and not a gunshot and after going through the notes (the three notes Johnson had on his laptop) Roux came to a conclusion, “Mr Johnson, there’s a design on your side to incriminate the accused.”

Johnson then replied: “I have no such intention.”

During cross examination:

Roux: “Explain the similarities of evidence between your wife and you?”

Johnson: “After the incident, and before we gave any statements to police, we discussed what we observed. Based on her music background she counted the number of shots, and that was our conclusion but we did not discuss her testimony.”

Roux: “There is a striking similarity between your statement and hers made to Captain van Aard.”

Johnson: “When Van Aard came to take our statements. I was not home when he did her’s. Because I’m not familiar with doing statements, I relied on him to take the statements. He would simply ask me something and I would say yes. I can’t testify to how her’s was taken.”

Roux: “Explain the process followed by captain van Aard when you made your statement.”

Johnson: “He asked me to tell him the story from start to end. Then he said lets start at the beginning and asked if this was true.”

Roux: “Did you give him your notes”.

Johnson: “No. I did mention the notes, but he did not request to have them and was satisfied with just my statement.”

Roux then wanted to know that the witness changes his version from “My wife recalls about four or five shots” to “My wife recalls four or five shots.”

Johnson: “I changed it because I wanted the quality of the language to be proper and clear. We at first did not want to get involved in the matter. We are very private people, we knew if we went to Police, that it could lead to us being exposed in public. We then decided to make our version of what we witnessed available and approached the state lawyers (Mr Maritz). He then advised me that we should make notes we can rely on. That’s what I did, and sent it to him. I’m familiar with what she heard when we sat down with police before we gave our statements to Van Aard.”

Roux: “The notes are different to your and your wife’s evidence in court”.

Johnson: “I cannot comment on her statement/ testimony, want to emphasize that the notes were not evidence, but a relocation of my memory.”

Roux then argued that Johnson’s call of 3.16am coincides with what Pistorius said.

Roux: “Mr Pistorius phoned Mr Stander two and half minutes later and told him that the sound he he heard had to be the bashing of the door.”

Johnson: “I’m convinced it was gunshots. I cannot accept your (defense’s version). I can’t understand how you say its a cricket bat – the time it takes to strike at a door similar to when you handle an axe takes more time to strike in succession A gun is quicker. That’s what I heard.”

Roux: “Have u ever heard a cricket bashing a door so hard that it breaks?”

Johnson: “No.”

Roux: “Can you remember how long before the shots you heard the screaming?”

Johnson: “No, but can I refer to my notes as it was done shortly after the events?”

Roux: “You have now just confirmed that your notes is accurate and reflects the events. Do u stand by it?”

Johnson: “I’m comfortable and confident it reflects my version accurately. I’m happy.”

Roux wanted Johnson to again give his version.

Johnson: “I was awoken by a woman screaming, raised my head, when I heard her again I went to the balcony, once the screaming continued, she screamed help and another person shouted help, I phoned, after this I returned to the balcony, and heard the woman scream again, then the shots started.”

Roux: “No. Yesterday when I asked the same question your answer was I can’t remember. Explain”.

Johnson: “It’s difficult for me to explain.”

Roux: have you ever met Mr Pistorius?”

Johnson: “No.”

Roux: “You don’t know what he sounds like when he screams then? The screaming you heard was Mr Pistorius. What do u say to that?”

Johnson: “I’m convinced to hear a woman scream, its easy to distinguish that as they shouted in close succession.”

Day three:

Defence lawyer Barry Roux continued his quest to test state witnesses’ credibility and reliability when the Oscar Pistorius trial continued on day three in the North Gauteng High Court.

Continuing to testify was Michelle Burger’s husband, Mr Johnson who seemed to back his wife’s version that both of them heard two voices, that of a man and woman.

The day, however, got off to a rather surprising start when Johnson told the court that he was ‘threatened’ to some extent when an unknown person, believed to be from overseas, called him and asked him, “Why are you lying in court?”. This happened after Johnson’s cellphone number was read out in court the day before.

When Roux cross-examined Johnson, it was clear that he was trying to prove that the testimonies given by the married couple (Johnson and Burger) were unreliable.

At one stage, the High Court Judge had to ask Roux, “Aren’t you taking it a bit far?”

Here are some of the interesting aspects that emerged during cross-examination.

Johnson: “I am certain and convinced that I heard gunshots and a woman screaming that night. I did not hear the sounds (that of a cricket bat) after the gunshots.”

Roux again indicated that this could not be as this was not Pistorius’ version.

Roux then implied that it was possible that Johnson and Burger could have seen each other’s notes before testifying.

Roux: “After the incident and while you were at work, you and your wife had a telephone conversation. What was it about?”

Johnson: “We discussed what she had heard, and that Oscar Pistorius shot his girlfriend. We both were surprised as we were convinced that it was a house-breaking.”

Roux: “You described it in your evidence as domestic violence.”

Johnson: “This is correct.”

Roux: “Tell the court about the notes that you made before coming to testify.”

Johnson: “We did it separately and didn’t discuss the content.”

Roux: “And the notes? What did you do with it?”

Johnson: “I kept it on my personal laptop.”

Roux then insisted that the notes should be obtained from the laptop and made available to the court as evidence in due course.

The court was adjourned.

State prosecutor Gerrie Nel called the next witness, Kevin Anton Larina, a professional boxer who is number 34 on the witness list.

Nel wanted him to explain what happened during the incident involving Pistorius some time during January 2013 when a gunshot was fired at Tashas Melrose Arch restaurant.

Larina testified that he met Pistorius through his sponsor at the time (the Daytona Group) during a race at a track.

Larina: “I sat down with Oscar, wanting him to help me with my training and a diet for an upcoming fight. He is an icon. At a later stage I and Oscar met at Tashas restaurant together with Darren Fresco and another runner, Martin Rooney.”

Nel then asked for what purpose, to which Larina indicated that Pistorius was the man to go to to get into tip-top shape.

Larina then was asked to look at some photographs in which he pointed out the restaurant, exactly where the four of them were sitting, and at which table.

Nel then asked: “What happened then?”

Larina: “Darren passed the gun to Oscar under the table. Darren then said to Oscar: “I’m one up”. A shot went off, then there was silence. I was in shock. When I looked down there was a hole in the floor and my toe was grazed. I was not hurt and didn’t need medical attention. Oscar apologised and asked whether everything was ok. Oscar also said, ‘Just say it was you (referring to Darren). I don’t want any attention. Please take the blame, there is too much media hype around me.’ Then Darren took the blame.”

Once Nel was done with the witness, advocate Roux asked for the court to be adjourned.

When the proceedings resumed, Roux gave Oscar’s version of what happened

Roux: “The accused (Oscar) said that he was upset with Mr Fresco. ‘Why hand me a loaded gun? What if someone got hurt?'”

Larina couldn’t confirm it but did say that Oscar was very apologetic.

Roux had no further questions.

Nel then had an issue and wanted Larina to explain something.

Nel: “Just after the shot was fired, everybody was shocked, we understand, but what did Mr Pistorius say to Fresco?”

Larina: “Pistorius was in shock, he was apologetic and said ‘I’m sorry Fresco’. Fresco then took the blame.”

Nel: “Did he say anyone should take the blame?”

Larina: “Mr Pistorius spoke to Fresco and then he (Fresco) took the blame.”

The next witness, Jason Lucas and number 66 on the list was called to testify.

Lucas is the owner of the Tashas Melrose Arch restaurant.

Nel: “Are you the owner of Tashas?”

Lucas: “Yes.”

Nel: “Is it open to the public?”

Lucas: “Yes.”

Nel: “Do you know Oscar?

Lucas: “Yes, I can’t recall exactly where and when but I met him on one or two occasions.”

Nel: “Explain what happened in your restaurant during the incident in January 2013.”

Lucas: “It was quite busy around lunch time. The place was quite full, around 220 people. I saw Oscar and Lorina, Fresco and Rooney seated inside the restaurant. I carried on working and heard a loud bang, it sounded like a gun, but hoped it was a balloon. When I got inside to see what happened, I asked the four guys what happened there. They all looked at me, and Fresco said ‘Sorry Jason, my gun fell from my tracksuit pants’. I said, ‘Are you serious? This is not a joke!’ I then walked away, got the place back to normal, and told my wife, ‘Can you believe that was a gun?’ My wife then went to go speak to them at the table, and after that, they paid the bill, apologised and left.”

Lucas’ wife, Maria was the next and 6th witness to be called.

She confirmed her husband’s version but said that she lashed out at the persons responsible for discharging the gun and that she had hit one of them on the head.

Day two:

The defense team wasted no time to get on with proceedings as day two of the Oscar Pistorius trial continued in the North Gauteng High Court on Tuesday 4 March.

Still in the witness box was Michelle Burger, a woman who is adamant that she heard two screams, that of Reeva and Oscar.

Roux says it was Pistorius screaming like a girl but Burger reckons there’s no way and she doesn’t understand how Pistorius’ version differs from hers.

Roux wanted to focus on two aspects, credibility and reliability.

His first question was “I still do not have your answer, before you made your statement you did not believe Oscar’s version that he thought Reeva was an intruder.”

Her reply was, “I don’t understand his version. The person to answer that is Mr Pistorius.”

Roux: “What caused you to realise that Mr Pistorius’ version could not be correct?”

Burger: “His version does not coincide with mine.”

Roux, still not satisfied with Burger’s answer, told the court that he will repeat it for an eight time.

State lawyer Gerrie Nel then jumped on his horse and said it was answered, where the high court judge disagreed and said “I don’t think the question was answered”.

Roux then continued the question: “You heard on the day of the bail application that it was put on Mr Pistorius that Reeva did not scream that evening and it’s from this (bail application) that you decided it could not be?”

Burger replied, “That’s correct my lady”

Roux then told the court, “Yesterday, this is not what we heard”.

Court then suddenly was adjourned after Nel said that “a photograph of the witness’ face was shown on television”.

Talk Radio 702 reports that it was ENCA – a 24-hour news television broadcaster.

After the break, High Court Judge Masipo immediately warned the media that they will not be treated with soft gloves.

“This was disturbing and it is an order to stop photographs of any source regarding any witness who asked not to have their photos published. An investigation is to follow to what exactly is happening and the extent of the violation of the court order.”

Roux then continued to test the credibility of Burger. He believes that there is no way that she could have heard two people.

Roux: “How do you know whether there was an intruder or not? You didn’t know who was living in the house. When I asked you about the screaming yesterday you said: ‘I heard two people, I knew there’s a man and a woman living there.’ How did you know that?”

Burger replied: “As I stated before, because I heard a man and woman screaming”.

Roux then took her back to the actual day that she and her husband took down their statements. Burger says that she did not take a look at her husband’s statement nor did he take a look at hers.

Roux then made it clear that it is not possible for Burger to have heard a woman scream from 177m away.

Roux explained: “What you are telling the court is that you have the ability to hear the fear and emotion from 177m away?”

Burger then said yes.

Roux: “We know that when the shots were fired, Reeva was in the toilet, we know the door was closed and locked as well as the window. What you are saying is that you could hear increased anxiety, fear and emotion in that moment 177m away?

Burger: “Yes.”

Roux: “There is no way, and I want this to be tested”.

Burger: “Construction has been done since the incident, the test will not be possible.”

Roux: “You can then stand even closer and you still won’t hear that person madam. Are you 100 per cent confident that you can hear a woman scream in closed confinement 177m away?”

Burger: “Yes.”
Roux then wanted Burger to elaborate the day that police took down statements.

Burger: “Captain van Aard arrived, I had to leave as my husband gave his statement first. I was called and my husband had to leave. Only myself and Van Aard remained. It was my turn, we first discussed it, he then took down the statement.”

Roux: “Was there any way that your husband’s statement was read or shown to you because there is a similarity? Paragraphs are similar. How is it possible that it is exactly similar? Can you stand there and say that Mr Pistorius is lying?”

Roux said further, according to Pistorius’ version, “When he realised that he might have shot Reeva, he opened his sliding doors and shouted for help. That’s the help that you heard. Any comment?”

Burger: “How’s that possible, just before he shouted for help, a woman shouted for help?”

Roux: “If a man is about to kill his girlfriend with a firearm, she runs away to seek safety in the toilet. He shouts for help but you say something different. That’s all I’m saying. One part of your evidence is inconsistent.”

Burger: “I’m being as honest as I can.”

Roux: “You then mention he (Pistorius) might have shouted for help as if he mocked her”.
The judge then said: “You have exhausted this witness”.

Roux: “All I want to make clear, is when the witness talks about the screaming it cannot be correct. She could not have screamed as medical specialists say that the brain damage is too severe for someone to even make a sound. We will present this evidence.”

Nel then approached the witness, asking her to explain the sequence of the shot.

Burger: “Bang, bang, bang, bang.”

Nel: “The statement you made described your emotions at the time and how you experience it?”

Burger: “It was quite raw.”

Nel: “Captain van Aard saw your emotions, what did he witness?”

Burger then cried.

Nel: “Express your emotions madam.”

Burger: “I told him everything I heard. I told him it was terrible. When I’m in the shower I can still hear the screams.”

Nel: “When you gave your statement, did you have see your husband’s statement?”

Burger: “No, I didn’t.”

Judge: “Thank you Miss Burger for your assistance. You may step down.”

The next witness, said to be number six on the witness list, Estelle van der Merwe was then called to testify.

The judge reminded the media not to take photos of her.

Nel: “Where do you live?”

Van der Merwe: “In Silverwoods Estate, number 180.”

Nel: “Did you know the accused, Mr Pistorius?”

Van der Merwe: “No.”

Nel: “Have you ever met him?”

Van der Merwe: “No.”

Nel: “Do you know what happened on 14 February 2013?”

Van der Merwe: “Yes.”

Nel: “Explain to the court what happened?”

Van der Merwe: “I woke up at 1.56am and heard sounds of two people talking loudly as if they were in an argument. They were talking loudly and carried on for about an hour. I couldn’t hear what they were saying or understand them or what language they spoke.”

Nel: “Explain your experience.”

Van der Merwe: “I was irritated by this because I was suppose to sleep, as my son had exams. I then put a cushion on top of my head, hoping to fall asleep. At one moment I woke up again, to see if I could see something. I saw nothing and got back into bed. At 3am I heard four exploding sounds, plofgeluide – I don’t know how to describe it.”

Nel: “Please try and explain these sounds?”

Van der Merwe: “I asked the police officer, Captain van Aard and he said plofgeluide.”

Nel: “What did you hear?”

Witness: “It sounded like a bang, bang. Sorry but it the best I can do.”

Nel: “The voices you heard, what happened to that?”

Van der Merwe: “After the four sounds, there was total silence.”

Nel: “What then?”

Van der Merwe: “My husband then woke up after the four bangs. I asked him the sounds were, and he said those were gunshots.”

Nel: “And then?”

Van der Merwe: “My husband went to go look what happened? He saw nothing and got back into bed. We then heard a commotion. We phoned the security to hear what’s going on? I couldn’t remember the exact time, but heard somebody crying out loud. My husband said it was Oscar, but it sounded like a woman’s voice.”

Van der Merwe then pointed out on a map where she lived and where Pistorius lived. Nel then mentioned an incident on 21 February of this year where Van der Merwe heard voices again.

Nel: “The first incident in 2013, how many voices did you hear?”

Van der Merwe: “Just one. A female.”

Nel: “And the 21st, a male or female?”

Van der Merwe: “Male.”

Nel: “Going back to the incident of last year, 14 February, you said you heard a voice at around 1.56am, explain what you heard?”

Van der Merwe: “I heard talk, stop, talk, stop, as if two persons were an argument. But I couldn’t hear the other person’s voice.”

Nel: “How do u know it’s Mr Pistorius’ house?”

Van der Merwe: “He always drove out of his driveway and greeted.”

Court then was adjourned.

After the break.

Nel: “Apart from the four sounds, did you hear anything else.”

Van der Merwe: “No.”

Nel: “Dit you hear any screams?”

Van der Merwe: “Not at all.”

Nel: “I have nothing further.”

Roux then had the chance to cross examine the witness.

Roux: “I start with the events you refer to on 21 February this year where you heard two men’s voices. I’ll tell you what it’s about. We tested a man and woman screaming two to three o’clock in the morning. What is interesting, you could not hear the screaming and do you know why you didn’t hear it? I went to where your house is near your balcony, Bus Mr Pistorius’ bedroom is on the opposite side. The important and first thing here is that you were on the wrong side. Could you say if the voice you heard was a female’s voice?”

Van der Merwe: “No.”

Roux: “And arguing?”

Van der Merwe: “I did.”

Roux: “Did you hear someone crying out loudly after the shots?

Van der Merwe: “Yes”

Roux: “A woman?”

Van der Merwe: “Yes.”

Roux: “Did he (your husband) say it was Oscar’s voice?”

Van der Merwe: “Yes.”

Roux then had no further questions which is when Nel cross examined her again.

Nel: “When you heard a woman’s voice, what did you hear?”

Van der Merwe: “There was a big difference between the voices of 14 February 2013 and 21 February this year.”

The last witness to then take the stand for the day was Burger’s husband, Charl Peter Johnson who also said he heard a woman scream.

Day one:

Day one of the Oscar Pistorius murder trial in the North Gauteng High Court saw the first witness take the stand and testify.

Her name is Michelle Burger who lives 177m from Pistorius’ residence in Silverwood Estate.

Pistorius is accused of killing his then girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp inside the bathroom of his mansion on Valentine’s Day last year. The state believes Pistorius did it intentionally and the defense argues that Pistorius had mistaken her for an intruder.

Before Burger took to the stand Pistorius pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder and contraventions under the Firearms Control Act including possession of ammunition without a licence.

Advocate Barry Roux for the defense ripped Burger apart.

Although she swears under oath that she heard a man and woman screaming, Roux begs to differ saying that many other witnesses who lives closer than she does said that they only heard a man screaming. Roux also said that her husband said in a statement that he heard more than four gunshots which is contradictory to what she heard but she did not, however, want to speak on her husband’s behalf.

Burger made it clear in court that she was awoken by the petrifying screams of a woman. She heard four gunshots in total.

She also made it clear that she didn’t hear the cricket bat which Pistorius used to gain entrance to the toilet.

Pistorius in his plea explanation said that he mistakenly believed there was an intruder in his house; that “I approached the bathroom to defend Reeva and I (sic)”; denied that he and Reeva argued before the actual shooting and that only he screamed.

It’s said that more than 100 witnesses will testify.

The judge in charge of matters is Thokozile Masipa – someone who has a reputation for handing down tough sentences in crimes against women and the second black woman in South Africa appointed as a high court judge.

Day two of proceedings will continue this morning at 9.30am. Watch this space for a live twitter feed.

Tweets about “#OscarPistorius”
//