by Mandy Wiener
Fresco had known Reeva much longer than Oscar, having met her when she moved to Joburg about seven years earlier. Once Reeva had died, there was no question as to where Fresco’s loyalty lay. He appeared as a state witness in the second week of the trial to testify against his former friend on the two gun-related charges.
With his shoulder-length brown hair, high forehead, scar running across his right cheek and a Twitter bio that reads ‘If It’s got Wheels or a Skirt, it’s Gonna Cost You Money’, Fresco became a target of ridicule by the public, especially for the ‘selective amnesia’ that seemed to characterise his evidence. His testimony did, however, give further insight into the two gun-related incidents and also provided a much clearer picture of the circles in which Oscar moved, the kinds of friends he kept whilst buoyed by fame and the reckless, wild, expensive lifestyle he indulged in.
Oscar glared at Fresco for much of his testimony and laughed when his advocate caught out his former buddy during cross-examination. Despite their seemingly unsalvageable friendship, Oscar still made an attempt to greet Fresco’s new wife, Beatrix Leopold, on the day of Fresco’s evidence. She and Reeva had been close, and she rebuffed Oscar’s awkward overture. Speaking to Fresco in the corridors of the courthouse, it was blatantly clear that he no longer wanted anything to do with the athlete.
Before Fresco was sworn in, Nel told the court that Fresco had been offered a ‘Section 204’ indemnity. According to Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act, he was offered indemnity for prosecution in any crime he might have committed and in exchange he undertook to testify truthfully to the court. Ultimately it would be up to the judge to decide if he should be granted the ‘204’ based on whether or not she thinks he told the truth.
Fresco said Oscar called him in January 2013 because he wanted him to meet his overseas guest, Martyn Rooney. Fresco was at work, but could easily stop in for lunch.
Fresco told the court that during that lunch Oscar had asked to see his Glock 27 and he handed it to him:
I had thought him being competent, I would not have to worry about why he had asked me to see my gun … within a second or so I had taken the weapon out from my carry position and passed it to him under the table … We had been to the shooting range before and I knew he had a big love for weapons and having been around him for a long time, my assumption was that he had competency with it.
Crucially, Fresco corroborated Lerena’s testimony, insisting he had told Oscar that the gun was ‘one-up.’ ‘Having met halfway, M’Lady, at the table, while the gun still … as soon as his hands had touched the weapon whilst leaning forward, I said to him: “There is one-up.”’
Fresco told the court that having warned Oscar there was a bullet in the chamber, he never indicated that he had taken the magazine out of the firearm. ‘Now, having obviously still been watching him, I saw … I cannot say I saw what was done under the table, because I cannot see through tables, but I had seen a shoulder gesture which I had assumed was cycling the existing bullet out of the chamber.’
The Glock is an unusual weapon in that it does not load or fire in the same way most other handguns do. This detail is important because it could show that Oscar had to have made an intentional effort in order for the gun to go off, as Fresco explained: ‘M’Lady, on that weapon there is no specific safety clip. As there is no hammer on the weapon. On the specific trigger itself, in the middle, there is a hairline trigger that you have to decompress and then pull through for the weapon to fire.’ Advocate Nel assured Fresco that the state would lead expert evidence to prove what Fresco was saying.
Indeed, when the police’s firearms expert Chris Mangena took the stand, he testified about the Glock handgun and its unique safety and firing mechanism. ‘If you do not pull the trigger there on the trigger safety, the firing pin lock will remain there and the firing pin safety at the back will keep the firing pin at the back,’ Captain Mangena told the court. ‘So, if you do not pull the trigger, this firearm will not be able to fire a shot or discharge ammunition.’ He further explained that the handgun was also not able to discharge accidentally if it was cocked, even if the user’s finger was on the trigger – after being cocked, the trigger must be released and pulled for the weapon to fire. The defence never questioned this testimony, leaving the evidence open to be accepted by the court.
Fresco continued his testimony, leading the court through what happened after he handed Oscar the gun. ‘After him having [taken] the weapon and having cycled one out, what I do not think he had realised at the time that he had cycled another bullet into the chamber of the gun and at that specific moment, he had pulled the trigger to, at the time supposedly make it safe. Almost instantly, My Lady, there was deafening hush you have ever heard [sic].’
Fresco hoped that other patrons in the restaurant would think a gas canister had exploded. Immediately, Oscar passed the gun back to him. ‘Instantly he had passed the weapon back to me under the table and he said: Please there is too much media hype around me at the moment, please can we take the rap for it. Being a friend, I said: I would with pleasure, M’Lady.’
He again confirmed what Lerena had said – that Oscar had asked his friend to take the fall. ‘The sounds in the restaurant returned back to normal as, basically as if nothing had happened,’ Fresco continued. ‘Then the owner’s wife had come to me and said: What just happened? To which I replied: I am really sorry, my gun had gone off unintentionally. A little while after that the owner had come to our table … And I had said again, I had just repeatedly apologised for what had just happened, M’Lady. I just said my gun had fallen out of my shorts and it had gone off.’
According to Fresco, Oscar never gave him an explanation and they never discussed the incident again. Fresco told the court that he personally had offered to pay for the damage, specifically stating to the owners that because it was his fault, he would happily reimburse them.
Although Fresco had consulted some of the most high-profile criminal lawyers in town, Advocate Mannie Witz and attorney Cliffie Alexander, he had still left crucial elements out of his affidavit. And there’s nothing a defence counsel loves more than inconsistencies between versions.
Roux referred Fresco directly to the statement he provided to the police, which he had written with the help of a lawyer, ‘specifically to make sure that I was not going to put myself in any line of trouble’. But the advocate pointed out that his testified version that Oscar had in fact asked him to take the fall for the shooting incident was not included in that statement. ‘You go to an advocate and you tell them the truth,’ said Roux. ‘You want to protect yourself and I think it is just fair to say that you would share all the bad and the good facts with them, to make sure that you can get your protection.’ While Fresco agreed with the advocate, he could not explain this omission. Roux also pointed out that Fresco did not include his story about the firearm falling out his pants in his statement – a second crucial aspect to his testimony.
And then Fresco slipped up yet again, revealing how he had been following the trial on a variety of media platforms, including Twitter. He had seen and heard what Lerena had told the court a week earlier, and of course Roux was suspicious about whether Fresco was tailoring his version to tie in with that of the boxer. Fresco had told the court that he was wearing shorts on the day of the Tashas incident, but Loupis had testified that he thought Fresco was wearing tracksuit pants. Fresco’s response was, ‘I saw that.’
The advocate turned to Fresco’s testimony about the proximity of his head to Oscar’s head when the firearm was passed to him – another piece of information not mentioned in his initial statement. Roux suggested that the witness had tendered this evidence so Oscar could not hide behind the fact that he did not hear the warning because it was too noisy in the restaurant, implying that Fresco had been told that this would be the defence of the accused. Roux added that another piece of Fresco’s testimony – about the magazine in the firearm – was heard during Lerena’s testimony when Roux put
it to him that one of the reasons Oscar was upset was because the firearm was handed to him with a magazine in it.
It was clear from Roux’s stance that Oscar’s version was that he was entirely unaware that he had been passed a loaded gun. Time and again, he pressed Fresco about just how close his head was to Oscar’s when he allegedly told him that the gun was loaded. Evidently, Oscar would tell the court that he had not heard Fresco’s warning above the din in the restaurant.
Despite the holes punched in Fresco’s evidence about the Tashas incident, he for the most part corroborated Lerena’s version of events. There were only two other men at the table that day – Martyn Rooney had provided a statement and was unlikely to present himself to give evidence, so it would be Oscar’s word against the other two.
The state, however, called two further witnesses to testify about this issue: the couple who own the franchise, Jason and Maria Loupis. This was done to close the circle of evidence, ensuring no gaps were left open. The only new information emerged on re-examination when Maria Loupis revealed that there was a child seated a short distance away from where the firearm had gone off.
Sipping chilled cocktails, the vibrant young couple takes the television presenter and her camera into their confidence, telling the viewers why they have fallen in love with each other. ‘We have something special,’ says Oscar, giggling endearingly, and looking adoringly at his girlfriend of a year and a half, Samantha Taylor. She speaks of how they share a common love for the outdoors, but also enjoy simply watching a movie together and going to the gym.
‘He’s lots of fun and has so much energy,’ she giggles when quizzed by the show’s presenter. ‘I can’t keep up with him,’ says the exuberant young marketing student. In the next insert, they are the picture of happiness – he in a salmon shirt and khaki baggies, she in an emerald-green sundress. The backdrop is a tropical paradise, a golden beach with waves crashing.
It was October 2012, shortly after the London Olympics. Television show Top Billing had flown the couple to the Seychelles as part of the feature. Despite appearances, however, what is not revealed is that the couple had split weeks earlier when Taylor had discovered Oscar had gone on a date with model Anastassia Khozissova.
After returning from the Seychelles, they spent a few days at Sun City and then broke up – this time permanently. Just over a year later, Taylor told the High Court in Pretoria why their relationship had ended. ‘Because he cheated on me with Reeva Steenkamp,’ Taylor revealed. As far as Taylor believed, she and the athlete were still together when he appeared at the South African Sports Awards with Reeva on 4 November 2012. While she acknowledged there was a ‘commotion’ in their relationship, she did not consider it over. However, Oscar believed they had broken up.
Samantha Taylor was called in the first week of the trial to give insight into her relationship with Oscar and to provide the kind of detail only she or Reeva could have known. She had spent nights at Oscar’s Silver Woods home. She knew his habits, where he left his firearm at night, how dark it was in his room, what he sounded like when he shouted. But primarily, she was in court to give her account of the time her boyfriend allegedly shot his gun through the sunroof of a moving car.
Taylor was only 16 when she met Oscar in 2010. They began dating in 2011 and she would spend up to four nights a week at the athlete’s Pretoria home. But their relationship wasn’t always picture-perfect. Taylor spoke of how he would lose his temper and shout at her, her sister and her best friend.
From Taylor’s testimony, a picture emerged that showed Oscar as one who toted his firearm wherever he went and who was quick to rage. She told the court how he kept his gun on him ‘all the time’, even when he went to visit friends. He would place his firearm on his bedside table at night when he slept and his prosthetic legs would be alongside him on the floor. She also confirmed that he had two cellphones and that he often spent a significant amount of time sending messages.
Taylor was able to give the court an account of what the accused sounds like when he screams to counter the defence’s argument that he sounds like a woman.
Nel: Now have you heard him scream?
Taylor: Yes.
Nel: Once or more?
Taylor: A few times, M’Lady.
Nel: But I think they would say that only when he is really anxious. When he screamed, did you see him being anxious?
Taylor: I have seen him being very anxious.
Nel: And he would shout at whom?
Taylor: At myself.
Nel: And did it sound like the shouts or screams of a woman?
Taylor: It sounded like a man, M’Lady.
Nel told Taylor that Oscar would claim that on the morning of the shooting he was anxious, and that he has had it tested that when he is in such a state his screams sound like those of a woman. ‘That is not true. He sounds like a man,’ Taylor responded.
Nel was trying to establish a pattern of behaviour as observed by someone who had prior, intimate knowledge of the accused.
Crucially, under cross-examination, Taylor was forced to make a telling concession about the screaming she had heard from Oscar:
Roux: So when you heard him screaming, it was out of anger but not in situations where he perceived his life to be threatened?
Taylor: No, M’Lady.
Roux: Is that a fair statement that I make to you when you said: ‘no’ … [intervenes]
Taylor: Yes.
Roux: I think I understand what you mean. It means that you have not heard him screaming when he perceived his life to be threatened.
Taylor: No, M’Lady.
Taylor recounted how on 30 September 2012 she had travelled to the Vaal River with Oscar and Darren Fresco to visit some friends. Justin Divaris and Samantha Greyvenstein had travelled in another car.
On the way home, with Fresco at the wheel, the car was stopped by police officials because they were speeding. Taylor recalled that the officer asked the men to step out of the car and Oscar left his gun on the seat:
So Oscar had left his gun on the seat of the car and when the police had a look, he saw the gun was on the seat and he said to Oscar that the gun could not just be left, just be left on the seat there. So the policeman cocked the gun and the bullets flew out of the, out of the gun into the car and then Oscar got very angry and eventually they gathered the bullets, they found all the bullets and they put the gun back together and we drove away.
Taylor elaborated on her ex-boyfriend’s anger:
He shouted at the policeman because he said that he was not allowed to touch his gun. After we left there, Oscar and Darren were pretty anxious and a little bit irritated with the policeman and so they laughed and they said that they wanted to shoot a robot [traffic light] and then Oscar shot a bullet out the sunroof.
She told the court that while she was sitting in the back seat, she saw Oscar take his gun and shoot out of the car. She heard ‘a very, very loud sound’ and both men then laughed.
She claimed that they didn’t talk about the incident and carried on driving. They went to sign papers at the home of a friend of Oscar, but she couldn’t recall where. Then they went to dinner in Sandton.
The pressure of being in the witness box under the world’s gaze was at times too much for Taylor to bear. On two occasions, when asked how she felt about how her relationship with Oscar ended and his infidelity, she burst into tears, prompting the court to be stopped. Taylor was a shaky witness, lacking in confidence. Inevitably, her testimony was met with public scepticism and an assumption that she was a woman scorned, and hell hath no fury like one.
Roux’s line of questioning suggested that the defence team believed her evidence was seated in a desire to get back at Oscar. Under cross-examination, Taylor conceded that after the couple’s first break-up, she had a relationship with mining millionaire and TV producer Quinton van der Burgh while the athlete was at the London Olympics.
In her testimony in court, Taylor couldn’t remember exactly where
the sunroof shooting happened. She also couldn’t say whether it was on a highway or suburban road – just that it took place about 15 minutes after the police had stopped their vehicle for speeding. She also couldn’t recall the location of the friend’s house where Oscar had apparently signed firearm-related papers. And she couldn’t remember the name of the Sandton restaurant the trio went to, only that it was a burger joint at Atholl Square. She further couldn’t recall whether Oscar took her home or whether she slept at his house that night.
Taylor’s only real recollection of the events was that they had been at the Vaal River with friends and at some point on the way home Oscar fired a shot. Was this enough?
Roux questioned Taylor about his client’s emotions at the time of the alleged shooting incident – was he angry, irritated or laughing? Taylor said he displayed all three emotions at different stages: ‘So after we left the cops, he was angry. Before he fired the shots, he was obviously irritated from being stopped. He then joked around to fire shots and after he fired the shots, he laughed about it.’
The advocate was dismantling Taylor’s evidence, casting doubt over her recollection of events. There were simply too many discrepancies and too many details she couldn’t remember.
Roux put it to her that Oscar would testify that the only time he ever signed firearm-related documents in her presence was in Pretoria, and not in Johannesburg as she had testified. He would also claim that he did not fire a shot through the sunroof of the car, as she had told the court. It would be a flat denial.
‘I can clearly say that he shot through the [sun]roof of a car,’ reiterated Taylor, but by this point Roux was done. This meant it would be Taylor’s shaky recollection pitted against Oscar’s blatant dismissal of the allegation. Only Darren Fresco could sway the court.
‘Are you fucking mad?’ Darren Fresco allegedly asked Oscar after he fired his gun through the sunroof of a speeding car. At least, that was the version Fresco presented to the court.
