Make-or-break for Pistorius as he testifies in court

It has been a long time coming, but finally South Africans and those watching this trial around the world should get to hear Oscar Pistorius tell the court in his own words exactly what his intention was when he fired four shots through his locked toilet door, writes Debora Patta.

Before he takes the stand he needs to consider the more compelling aspects of the prosecution’s case against him.

Four different neighbours testified that they heard gunshots and the haunting sounds of a woman screaming. Apparently so blood-curdling were the screams that neighbour Michelle Burger said she is still cannot get them out of her mind. And neighbour Anette Stipp said the screams were clearly those of woman who was terrified.

The WhatsApp communications between Steenkamp and Pistorius provided the only opportunity to heart Steenkamp’s voice from beyond the grave.

Then there was the ballistic evidence by Captain Chris Mangena – a more assured and composed witness would be hard to find. He told the court that Reeva Steenkamp was facing the door when Pistorius started shooting. The first bullet shattered her hip, the second ricocheted and missed her, causing bruising on her back, and the third and fourth bullets shattered her arm and pierced her hand and then shattered her skull.

Crucially, Mangena said while he could not say which order the last two bullets were fired, he is adamant the first one struck her hip and that the shooter then changed positions, allowing for a short pause between shots.

This ties in with evidence given by pathologist Prof Gert Saayman, who said that if the first shot hit her hip then there is absolutely no doubt that Steenkamp would have screamed involuntarily from the pain.

Gun-obsessed

The court also heard that Pistorius was reckless and gun-obsessed. He wanted to purchase seven firearms – a purchase which was cancelled after he shot his girlfriend. He laughingly fired a shot through an open sunroof on another occasion and discharged a loaded gun in a crowded restaurant with children nearby, albeit by accident.

The final part of the prosecution’s evidence was the WhatsApp communications between Steenkamp and Pistorius downloaded from their mobile phones. The only opportunity the court had really to hear Steenkamp’s voice from beyond the grave. In these messages she painted a picture of Pistorius as jealous, possessive and controlling, a man she was at times “scared of”.

While most of the messages were indeed those of a normal, loving couple, gender activists were quick to point out in South Africa that at the very least alarm bells should have been ringing about Pistorius’s behaviour so early on in their relationship.

Loving couple?

But then there was the testimony that was unimpressive, as three separate police officers were hauled over the coals by the defence for inept and shoddy police work that resulted in bungling the crime scene. At one point the police ballistic work was so poor that officers actually picked up Pistorius’s gun without wearing hand gloves. The judge may have to discard this evidence altogether because of the contamination of the crime scene and issues around the preservation of the chain of evidence.

The prosecution also – contrary to expectation – did not provide much in the way of a motive for the killing other than the hint of a relationship under strain in the cellphone messages just a few weeks before the shooting. The defence moved swiftly to counter this by providing footage of the couple shot on security cameras at a local grocery store just 10 days before Steenkamp died. It shows a happy, affectionate young couple in the first stages of young love.

The defence cross-examination was conducted by Barry Roux, whose water-torture style of interrogation turned him into a reluctant celebrity.

The defence will lead experts to counter the above evidence. They intend proving the screams were those of Pistorius himself, that when he realised that he had not shot an intruder by his girlfriend, he screamed in mortified horror and sounded like a girl.

They also have their own ballistic experts who will offer an alternative view of the order of the gunshots as they desperately need to counter the evidence that there was time for Steenkamp to scream.

The defence cross-examination was conducted by advocate Barry Roux, whose water-torture style of interrogation turned him into a reluctant celebrity in South Africa and a viral sensation including a rap song in his name.

Merciless cross-examinations

But it all rests really on Pistorius’s performance in the dock. He has retched and sobbed his way through some of the more bloody and grisly testimony, particularly when hearing testimony and seeing photos of how Steenkamp died.

But he will have no empathy from the hard-nosed public prosecutor Gerrie Nel, who is known for his merciless cross-examinations. He is the man who put South Africa’s police commissioner behind bars for corruption and this earned him the nickname “the bulldog”. Nel is known to keep his cards close to his chest and for throwing out bombshells during his cross-examination of witnesses. Expect fireworks in court and a few surprises along the way.

Central to the cross-examination will be key questions Pistorius still has to answer on the basis of his version given during his bail application, that he mistook his girlfriend for an intruder.

Debora Patta is a South African broadcast journalist and TV producer. She reports regularly for Channel 4 News