Tough week and an own goal for Team Oscar
Defence’s expert witnesses buckle under fire from state’s Gerrie Nel
IT is hard being an expert witness for Team Oscar and even harder being a member of a defence team whose client does not know when to keep quiet.
The past week was a torrid time for Oscar Pistorius’s defence in his murder trial, with legal experts left questioning whether they had succeeded in strengthening his version.
The Olympic athlete is on trial for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, whom he shot and killed on Valentine’s Day last year.
He claims to have thought there was an intruder in his bathroom when he opened fire.
Two expert witnesses were left reeling under cross-examination from tenacious prosecutor Gerrie Nel — and a reported throwaway remark by Pistorius to a friend of Steenkamp’s won him no friends in the court of public opinion.
Kim Myers said Pistorius asked her during a recess: “How do you sleep at night?” Her lawyer, Ian Levitt, said the remark was made in a sinister tone.
“We informed the court orderly and the NPA [National Prosecuting Authority] about the remark. We will not take it any further, but find it disturbing that he would make a rather sinister remark to someone who may still be called as a witness later in proceedings,” said Levitt.
Pistorius denied making the remark.
But the real concern for his defence team, led by Barry Roux, would have been the way Nel got their expert witnesses to concede crucial points.
An anaesthetist called to testify on gastric emptying, Professor Christina Lundgren, admitted her testimony was largely based on speculation.
She was asked to give evidence on an important point for the defence — that the state’s assertion that Steenkamp’s last meal was about two hours before her death could not be accepted.
Lundgren agreed that determining the time of a last meal was “not an exact science” and listed factors that could delay the digestion of food. They include pain, anxiety, stress and the use of certain medicines.
Nel, however, pointed out that Lundgren had no evidence to suggest Steenkamp suffered from any of these conditions.
She then also conceded that she did not have the expertise to criticise state pathologist Professor Gert Saayman’s findings. Although also stating it was not an exact science, Saayman said that, based on food found in Steenkamp’s stomach, he deduced her last meal was about two hours before her death.
Ballistics expert Tom “Wollie” Wolmarans also endured tough questions from Nel, who hammered him on whether he altered his final report after hearing evidence in court and at one stage even criticised his lack of a proper filing system.
The grey-haired Wolmarans, a ballistics veteran, testified it was not possible to determine which of the four bullets hit Steenkamp first. He went as far as telling the court: “What happened behind that door we will never know.”
An independent state prosecutor and defence lawyer said the defence seemed to be in some trouble.
The prosecutor, who cannot be named, said: “The entire week looked quite desperate to me. The neighbours added no value and it all looked like a waste of time.”
Defence attorney Ulrich Roux, who has been following the trial closely, said the testimony of estate manager Johan Stander and his daughter must be approached with caution.
“The Standers testified largely to-
The entire week looked quite desperate to me. The neighbours added no value
wards Oscar’s emotional state when they saw him after the shooting, which prompted Nel to allege that they had been coached and that a normal person would not necessarily testify towards the emotional wellbeing of an accused.
“I expect Nel to refer to this during his closing argument, and in particular to the objectivity of the Standers and how much weight and value can be attached to their testimony.”
Ulrich Roux also questioned whether the testimony of social worker Yvette van Schalkwyk, who met Pistorius during his bail hearing, would help his case.
“The problem with this is that she only met him for the first time the day after the incident, so she could not testify about his emotional wellbeing prior to the incident and what effect the incident had on him,” he said.
“She could also not confirm as to why Oscar was remorseful — was it because of Reeva being killed, or was it because he realised that his life will never be the same again as a result of his actions?”
The trial resumes tomorrow.