by Mandy Wiener
As the court discussed the possible scenarios and positions Reeva could have been in behind the door as bullets ripped through her body, Oscar assumed his usual position during such testimony. He leaned forward with his elbows on his knees and the palms of his hands on his cheeks in a way that allowed him to block his ears with his index fingers.
Wolmarans also referred to the version that the accused fired in rapid succession, but he could not say for sure what Oscar’s exact firing ability was. He admitted he had not asked Oscar how quickly he had fired and he had never been present when Oscar explained how he had shot his gun. This, of course, raised further questions about his investigation: the expert had access to the accused, so why was he never asked to demonstrate, either by merely handling a gun and pulling the trigger as fast as he could, or at a shooting range? It would be the obvious test to conduct if it formed part of the defence’s case.
Wolmarans testified, too, that he agreed with Dixon on the location of the magazine rack in the first album of the crime scene – that it had not been moved and was in that specific spot when Reeva was bleeding there:
Nel: So it was there when she bled there?
Wolmarans: She was there when she bleed, and I mean that is common sense.
Nel: Although it is common sense, it is not the accused version.
Wolmarans: Well, I do not know what … that is what I am saying. That magazine rack was there when she started bleeding.
Nel: Ja. So then the accused must be wrong?
Wolmarans: He might be wrong.
It was not encouraging for the defence team when its expert witness testified that Oscar could be wrong on any aspect of its evidence.
The magazine rack was of particular importance to the defence’s case – this would later emerge when psychologists and a sports scientist were called to testify about Oscar’s heightened anxiety and elevated startle response. Oscar testified that the sound he heard that caused him to open fire was the magazine rack moving, ‘it sounded like … wood moving’, which at the time he said he interpreted to be the door opening. But with the magazine rack against the back wall next to the toilet – in the location agreed to by all the experts – it could not have been the magazine rack that made a noise.
Nel questioned the ballistics expert about the mechanics and firing mechanism of Oscar’s Taurus 9 mm pistol – what would need to be done for the weapon to discharge? This told the court what Oscar would have had to have done to prepare the weapon before storming the perceived threat.
Wolmarans said, firstly, that there would need to have been a bullet in the chamber. Oscar had indicated he often carried his weapon ‘one-up’, with one bullet in the chamber, so on the night in question this was probably the case. Secondly, said the expert, if the hammer was forward, and not cocked, the trigger would have to be pulled harder for the handgun to fire; however, if it was already cocked and the hammer in the back position, lighter pressure was required to release the trigger.
Oscar testified that he approached the bathroom with the safety mechanism off, but did not say that he had cocked the weapon – this meant he would have had to have applied significant pressure to the trigger for it to fire. And to fire four times, the trigger would have to have been pulled four separate times.
Nel clearly had something up his sleeve when he started asking Wolmarans about meetings he might have had with Dixon after he had been excused from the witness box. Rumours had begun circulating amongst some of the journalists covering the case that there was an audio clip of Wolmarans and Dixon having a conversation at the International Police Association bar on the Friday evening after Dixon’s testimony. The clip was even uploaded onto YouTube. Nel was fishing.
Wolmarans confirmed he had met Dixon at the bar and on another occasion when he dropped by his house to say hello. He said it was highly improbable that the pair did not discuss matters related to the case, but Nel wanted to know whether he had altered anything in his report based on what had emerged in Dixon’s testimony and cross-examination. Wolmarans said it was a possibility, but unlikely. ‘M’Lady, Mr Dixon is not a ballistic expert so I will not even take his advice to change my report,’ said Wolmarans. It was a reckless remark on which Nel was quick to capitalise:
Nel: That is an interesting comment. So you would not take Mr Dixon’s advice on ballistics at all?
Wolmarans: No, I will not take his advice.
Nel: And the court should do the same?
Wolmarans: He is not a ballistic expert.
Nel had successfully managed to cast doubt on the conduct of the defence team and raise questions about when certain tests had been conducted and when Wolmarans’s final report was handed in.
Wolmarans and Dixon were sent to the shooting range in late March 2014 – after Gerhard Vermeulen and Chris Mangena had both testified – with a mandate to establish whether a bat striking a meranti door could sound as loud as and similar to a gunshot. That night, the firearm was jamming so they were unable to record the handgun firing in quick succession. Wolmarans thus returned to the shooting range on 9 April to conduct the tests. ‘Although I am not a sound expert,’ explained Wolmarans, ‘I can state that as a ballistic expert, the sounds caused by the cricket bat hitting the door resembled the sound made by the firearm, although not as loud.’
But, once again, there was a disclaimer from the expert: ‘I must point out, M’Lady, that I have tinnitus. Tinnitus is a ringing in the ears all the time due to a lot of shootings during the course of my career.’ This was hardly reassuring testimony from the expert.
Wolmarans confirmed that the first sound test – to establish whether the sound of a bat striking a door is as loud as and similar to a gunshot – was only conducted as a response to a similar test being conducted and posted on YouTube. He did, however, recall a decibel sound test conducted in about January 2014 at Arnold Pistorius’s Waterkloof house, but it was a failure because when the bat struck the door the door had moved. ‘The whole exercise was a mishap,’ said Wolmarans. Oscar and Arnold were both present at the test, and it was the accused who had struck the door with the bat. Wolmarans said he had seen the test results, but he was unable to interpret them because he is not a sound expert.
The highly experienced ballistics expert left the court with as many answers as questions. Why had he taken part in sound tests when he acknowledged that he could barely hear? Why had he left his own tests for so late, only conducting them once other witnesses had testified? Invariably, this would lead to suggestions that he and Dixon had colluded to dovetail their evidence. And their drink together at the International Police Association bar mid-trial only reinforced that perception.
While this may have mattered in the court of public perception, would it have any sway with Judge Masipa, who might or might not choose to scrutinise any of the forensic testimony in her judgment?
The Sound and the Fury
When it emerged that an acoustics engineer was to be called, the assumption was that he had been brought in to confirm the claim that Oscar sounds like a woman when he is anxious or to back up the argument that a bat hitting a door could be mistaken for gunshots. There was also the possibility he could testify to the dynamics of sound waves as they travel through the air. There was speculation there might be another landmark moment in the case – when audio recordings of Oscar screaming would be played to an expectant courtroom.
Roux’s witness was Ivan Lin, a director at a Joburg-based company of consulting engineers who provide services to broadcasting facilities. Lin studies how sound waves interact and are transmitted in an environment, as well as how human beings perceive sound waves. He was called by the defence to cast doubt over the reliability of the state’s witnesses – the Stipps, Burger and Johnson – who claimed they heard the terrified screams of a woman on the morning Oscar killed Reeva.
Lin arrived at court with the answers to two questions: ‘Can one reliably differentiate between a male and female scream at about 80 metres and 177 metres
away respectively?’ and ‘Can one reliably discern the emotion of a scream from about 80 metres and 177 metres away respectively?’
He explained that hearing is a ‘passive psychological process’ in which sound is simply received by the ears, while listening is a complex process influenced by an individual’s personal experiences and memories that affect how a heard sound is interpreted and perceived. As a result of this interpretation, and depending on a variety of factors, the interpretation is not always an accurate representation of what was actually heard.
‘Does it mean in simple terms that two persons can listen to the same noise over a distance and have different views about the noise?’ asked Roux.
‘That is correct.’
Lin further explained how a variety of factors affect how sound is transmitted, such as physical barriers, air temperature, ambient noise levels, line-of-sight issues and factors related to the source of the sound.
In short, this meant that the neighbours called by the state to testify could not be absolutely certain about what they had heard on the morning of the shooting. However, Lin did not entirely exclude the possibility they had actually heard what they thought they had heard.
There were no absolutes. ‘Typically one can differentiate a male and female scream, but one cannot say reliably without exception one can always say it is a male or female scream,’ he said, adding that he could find no reliable studies or evidence to support the assumption that ‘all male/female screams sound the same’ and that without exception a ‘female scream can sound like a male scream, and vice versa’.
The defence was trying to cast doubt on the reliability of the neighbours’ claims, who were quite adamant, and expressed such certainty, about what they had heard – the blood-curdling screams of a woman in distress. Roux was trying to prove that such certainty is scientifically not possible, and when referenced to the defence’s timeline of events that it had been Oscar screaming, then their version – as opposed to the state’s version – became the most probable scenario.
Lin produced scientific models that took into account various factors on the night in question. Firstly, the source: inside the locked toilet cubicle with the window closed; in the bathroom with the window open; and on the balcony. He also varied the distances of the listener – 80 metres and 177 metres – as well as the location of the listener, from indoors with an open window and outdoors on a balcony.
It was a long process in court, with Lin meticulously reading through his findings. There was no questioning his credentials; he was clearly an expert in the field in which he specialised. But was he an expert fit for the court? State pathologist Professor Gert Saayman has testified in court cases for decades and it is evident in the way he presents his evidence. This was not Lin’s forte – he struggled to make his facts and figures easily interpretable for the court, which is partly what an expert witness is expected to do. As a result, it was difficult to follow exactly what Lin was saying.
Roux had to assist the witness in making his evidence understandable. What Lin found was that the listener might have heard a scream at 80 metres away from the source, irrespective of whether the person screaming was in the toilet or bathroom or on the balcony. But at 177 metres away, if the scream was coming from inside the toilet cubicle, it was very unlikely that the listener could hear it, let alone interpret the source reliably. If the scream emanated from either the bathroom or the balcony, the chances of hearing and interpreting the scream improved, but not by much.
On the issue of whether a person could reliably discern emotions and differentiate between a male and female scream, Lin was not willing to venture an opinion, but stated that he offered scientific models merely to illustrate what could be audible and intelligible at the distances provided.
Just as he had done with previous defence expert witnesses, Nel sought to establish a timeline – when was Lin commissioned to compile his report? The expert told the court he had completed his report the week before, and had been commissioned by the defence team to write the report barely two weeks earlier. This was now more than a month after Dixon and Wolmarans had finished giving their evidence.
Lin said that defence attorney Brian Webber provided him with the variables for his equations – such as the locations of the noise and the listeners – and he also visited the estate to view the area for himself. He acknowledged that since the shooting there had been developments in the suburb and the topography had changed. He also conceded that it was very difficult to replicate the conditions of the morning of the shooting exactly because the smallest difference, even the length of the grass in the estate, could affect how the sound travels.
Lin said he was not provided with specific details related to the source and listener locations; for example, he was not told that at 177 metres the window was wide open. He further relied on the aerial photographs of the estate.
Lin based his calculations using an average scream level of 110 decibels, but Nel reminded the court that there was nothing normal about the night in question. ‘On the state’s version the deceased screamed because she feared for her life. That is an abnormal scream,’ he commented.
‘If somebody screams in absolute fear, would you not put it closer to 120 than 110?’ asked Nel. Neighbours had described hearing the terrified screams of a woman, going as far as to describe them as sounding as though they came from someone who believed their life was in danger.
Lin was careful not to confirm Nel’s suggestion outright. ‘I think one needs to appreciate what 120 means. 120 dB is extremely loud, it is almost hearing a jet taking off at a 100 metres away and that is not … it is a very slight possibility but it is a possibility.Wolmarans also did not dispute Mangena
Nel suggested that the hard tiles in the bathroom would have ‘amplified’ the sound, a claim Lin could not agree with. It appeared the prosecutor was using the incorrect terminology, but Lin tried to explain that the energy – the scream level – could not be increased; however, the reflective properties could allow the energy to be transferred from the enclosure, as opposed to being absorbed.
Frustration emerged at times, as Nel grappled with unfamiliar and complex terminology and concepts. ‘I think we are all trying to understand this very complicated science of yours,’ said Nel.
Nel wasn’t aways satisfied with Lin’s responses. Lin had been called as an expert witness and he would push on certain questions. ‘It is commonly known that woman has high-pitch voice and it is a common perception,’ said the witness.
The state’s argument on this score was that a voice with a particular tonal characteristic would stand out and be more noticeable above ambient noise. In this instance, the terrified screams of a woman whose life was threatened would be unmistakeable.
Nel said four people identified the voice of a woman – with no exceptions – that everybody who heard that sound at that time identified it as a woman’s voice. Lin was not aware of this fact.
Roux objected, suggesting the state should clarify that it was the prosecution witnesses who made the claim, not everybody. To avoid an argument, Nel changed the proposition to include only the state witnesses:
Nel: Two were at 80 and two were at 177, they do not know each other, they have not spoken to each other. It happened independently.
Lin: My Lady, I cannot say they did not hear the sound. I do believe they heard a sound, but I cannot say they were correct or were they incorrect. It is not for me to interpret that.
Nel: No, no you are right. But they did. So as a scientist, that must indicate to you that they all heard … independent people heard a female screaming. So it is possible that what they heard at least was a female.
Lin: I can still cannot say whether they are correct or incorrect.
Nel: But it is possible, you are not excluding the fact that somebody at 177 metres in the bathroom … in the bedroom, would have heard the noise and made intelligible findings about it. Because that is what the witnesses testified. You are not saying the w
itnesses are lying.
Lin: I have never … I am not saying they are lying at all. I am saying they could hear, but I am not saying what they could was correct or incorrect.
Nel: And so credibility finding, that is in the domain of the court, you will not say that they are lying, that they could not have heard.
Lin: Not at all.
The witness could thus not rule out the evidence of the state’s witnesses. Even after all the calculations and possibilities considered, it was still very possible for human ears to hear and make out a woman screaming that morning. Roux had nevertheless cast some doubt. But would it be enough to dispel the claims that the blood-curdling screams of a woman pierced the early morning that Valentine’s day?
Lin had not been asked to testify at all about the comparison between a cricket bat hitting a wooden door and the sound of gunshots. The only evidence that had been led to bolster this claim was that of a largely discredited Roger Dixon and Wollie Wolmarans, who by his own admission, is partially deaf.
Critically, no audio of Oscar screaming had been played. During the course of the trial, Oscar had told the court he was made to scream when he was anxious. But these recordings were never presented, leaving the claim that when anxious and screaming he sounds like a woman unsupported, except for the testimony of those immediate neighbours who had testified for the defence.
Despite this, Judge Masipa would have to come to her own conclusions about whether or not the defence had thrown enough doubt over the state witnesses’ claims that they had heard a woman screaming that Valentine’s Day morning. The onus lay on the state to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, not on the defence to prove its case. If there was enough reasonable doubt in the judge’s mind, then Oscar’s lawyers would have done enough.
Pasta, with a Side of Gunfire
It was early afternoon at the tail end of the summer holidays. The piazza in Melrose Arch, lined with trendy eateries, was teeming with people returned from the country’s beaches. Oscar Pistorius had also been to the coast with the new love in his life for part of the holidays and was catching up with friends at Tashas, the trendiest restaurant of them all.
