Inconsistent Pistorius may have dug a hole for himself

Oscar Pistorius stepped down from the witness stand this week after enduring tough cross- examination from prosecutor Gerrie Nel. How did the athlete fare? We asked defence attorney Ulrich Roux:

Did Nel manage to prove that Pistorius’s version of events cannot be accepted? Nel exposed numerous inconsistencies and improbabilities in Pistorius’s version. It is, however, still early days in the defence case, as only three witnesses have testified and the defence have indicated that they may call a total of between 14 and 17 witnesses. Nel will continue attempting to poke holes in the defence case, attacking the authority of all expert witnesses called and placing doubt on the methods used upon which they base their opinions. Pistorius is dependent upon these witnesses to prove his version of events is reasonably and possibly true and only after the defence case is closed and the totality of evidence has been placed on record will one be able to evaluate whether they have managed to do this. The state needs to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while Pistorius needs to prove that his version of events is reasonable and possibly true. What do you think Nel could have done better during his cross-examination of Pistorius?

Nel certainly confirmed his reputation as one of the most formidable cross-examiners in the country. While he managed to unsettle him on numerous occasions, one did notice that his aggression at times had an adverse effect, in that it resulted in Pistorius becoming too emotional, starting to cry and thus not being able to answer questions.

While cross-examining, one wants your witness to answer whilst he is emotional and his chain of thought is clouded.

Other than that, one cannot find too much wrong in Nel’s performance. He managed to secure numerous contradictions in Oscar’s version, and also pushed Oscar to a point where he in fact changed his version from having acted in putative self-defence to not having acted with any intent whatsoever. What did you make of defence advocate Barry Roux’s brief re-examination?

The function of re-examination is to clear up inconsistencies which arose during your witness’s cross-examination.

You cannot introduce new evidence during re-examination. In the event that any new evidence was introduced, Judge Masipa would not have allowed it and Nel would have objected.

If Roux put it to Pistorius during re-examination that he provided conflicting versions when he was cross-examined, it would have amounted to a concession on Pistorius’s behalf, which would of course have a detrimental effect on his credibility. In light of this, Roux’s re-examination was 100% correct. He cleared up any confusion which arose regarding Pistorius’s version that he made a mistake, while also referring back to the Valentine’s Day card which Reeva Steenkamp sent to him, confirming that they were in fact, as Pistorius testified, in a loving and caring relationship. Do you think the defence is in trouble?

There certainly are a number of concerns at this stage for Pistorius’s legal team. Nel has succeeded in creating doubt in all three defence witnesses’s versions thus far.

Roger Dixon’s expert testimony has made it difficult for any future expert witnesses who are going to be called, as you cannot have your own experts contradicting each other on technical aspects such as forensics, ballistics and post mortem evaluations.

That said, Roux is one of the country’s top legal minds with vast experience and knowledge and has managed to handle similar situations in the past.

Rest assured that he will be reconsidering his strategy at this stage and will be presenting as strong a case as possible when the matter resumes. What was your overall impression of Pistorius’s time on the stand?

He did not fare well on the stand. He came across as being an evasive witness and gave longwinded, improbable answers to very direct questions.

Most detrimental, however, was the fact that his version changed on numerous occasions when tested by Nel. This makes it near impossible for the court to accept his version.

He was selective as to what he remembered and what he didn’t. This does not bode well for his credibility as a witness and the court will make a negative inference as to his recollection of exactly what happened.

He also became agitated with Nel, losing his temper somewhat and falling into the traps which Nel set for him.

The fact that he blamed his legal representatives, the police, as well as his friends for lying all comes across in a negative light and, of course, indicated that he is not prepared to take responsibility for his actions.

His testimony on the three minor charges left much to be desired and I cannot see him escaping a conviction on any of these charges.