by Mandy Wiener
‘That is correct, My Lady,’ confirmed the witness. Could it be this was the first time Roux and the defence team were hearing these claims? ‘You see, Mr Pistorius,’ said Nel, ‘It was never moved … Nobody moved anything.’
Nel used two markers to prove the duvet had to have been on the floor where it was found by the police. The first was the location of the pair of inside-out jeans. Pointing to a photograph, Nel said it appeared that part of the jeans had come to rest on top of the corner of the grey duvet – these were the pants Oscar said he picked up to block a blue LED light that was bothering him, but dropped them when he heard a noise in the bathroom. For the jeans to be on the top of the duvet, the duvet had to be there first. Oscar didn’t see this as a problem, claiming that if various items had been moved around the room, it wouldn’t be surprising if the jeans were also moved.
Roux also objected, saying it merely appeared that the jeans were on the duvet, but this was not necessarily so. It appeared he may have identified a parallax error, but one not as obvious as the cricket bat in the bathroom.
The second marker was found in the same photograph. When Oscar was carrying Reeva, a jet of blood had spurted from a wound at about 90 degrees out to her left – which meant it was squirting forward relative to the way she was being carried. This spurt trail is most visible on the walls down the flight of the stairs and in the kitchen, where it sprayed from her location at the base of the stairwell. But it appeared that when Oscar carried Reeva down the bathroom passage, her heart pumped, sending a jet of blood into the bedroom towards the balcony door. Nel asked Van Staden to magnify the picture, and there on the carpet were the fine drops in a line leading up and onto the duvet. The blood on the bedding lined up with the blood on the floor, which to Nel was irrefutable proof that the duvet must have been on the floor at least from the time Oscar passed there with his dying girlfriend in his arms. Oscar said the blood could have transferred to the duvet when he went to collect his phones from the bedside table, like the blood that transferred to the wall above the bedside table.
Oscar accepted that if the items depicted in the pictures were in an unaltered location, then his version of events could not be true.
The state’s argument was that for Oscar’s version to be true, a policeman would have had to:
• move the duvet to the carpet
• move the bigger and smaller fans
• move the curtain
• place the denim jeans on top of the duvet.
And this would have had to have been done without knowing what the accused’s subsequent story would be in terms of how events in the early morning had unfolded. In the end, Oscar had offered possible explanations for the location of the items, like the possibility that he might have kicked the fan or tripped over the cable, but admitted that he simply couldn’t remember.
‘Ja. It is because it never happened. That is why you cannot remember it,’ said Nel, goading the witness.
‘In the beginning of my evidence, I said that I remember everything from when I woke up to the time that I discharged my firearm, my memory after that is not very clear. There are things that I do not remember. This is one of them. So I am not looking for an excuse.’
Before Nel could respond, Oscar continued talking. His speech picked up pace and his voice trembled. ‘If I do not remember it, I do not remember it, My Lady.’
‘Mr Pistorius, are you okay? You are not emotional?’ asked Nel, hinting at his suggestion that the accused used his apparent anguish to avoid difficult questions.
‘No, I am fine, My Lady …’ said Oscar, belying what was evident to the court. ‘If I kicked the fan it would have been in my favour to say I kicked the fan, to explain where the small fan landed up. But I cannot say that because I do not remember it.’
Again, the prosecutor tried to get a word in, but the witness continued his emotional gallop. ‘… So there are things that are in my favour if I say them, but I do not remember.’
‘Are you getting emotional?’ asked Nel, finally able to speak to the accused who sat flustered, trembling in the box.
Accused: Yes, I am very emotional, My Lady.
Nel: Why?
Accused: Because it is a difficult time for me to remember.
Nel: But why would this question make you emotional?
Accused: Because this was the night I lost the person that I cared about. I do not know how people do not understand that.
Oscar was exasperated and frustrated at the prosecutor’s stubbornness and unwillingness to believe him. The accused turned his gaze from Masipa and dropped his head forward as he continued to cry.
The judge called for an adjournment and Aimee rushed to support her brother.
Oscar had spoken with confidence about the ‘experts’ and ‘specialists’ who had pored over the photos and identified clear evidence that the scene had been tampered with. He listed Wollie Wolmarans as one of the witnesses who would present this evidence to the court. But when Wolmarans testified, he never said a word about the crime scene being ‘contaminated, disturbed and tampered with’. And neither did the defence team’s other expert, Roger Dixon.
In fact, Oscar was the only defence witness to make any mention of the police’s alleged mishandling of the crime scene. And with no expert to support his claims that items had been moved, and himself further conceding that for the most part he had no independent recollection of where he had left certain items, the defence’s position had fallen flat. Roux and Oldwadge would have to focus their attention elsewhere – on vulnerability and Oscar’s psychology.
But Oscar had made what was thought to be a significant concession: if the duvet on the floor was in its true location, with the denim jeans lying on top of it and if the curtains were wide open, with the fan in front of the door and the light switched on – as depicted in the official photographs – his version of events could not possibly be true.
Zombie Stopper
Picture 136 was minimised, ready to be expanded and displayed across the computer screens in the courtroom when the cue came from the prosecutor. ‘What we can see there is the effect the ammunition had on a watermelon. It exploded. Am I right?’ asked Nel.
‘That is correct, My Lady,’ agreed Oscar, having just watched a video of himself shooting a high-powered revolver at the red and mushy-centred fruit, before declaring on tape, ‘It’s a lot softer than brain, but fuck it’s like a zombie stopper.’
The Smith & Wesson 500 he was using that day is touted by the manufacturer as ‘the world’s most powerful handgun’. A camera placed beside the target shows how the .50 calibre bullet, equivalent to 12.7 mm in diameter, caused the watermelon to explode, sending chunks of the fruit and fine spray in every direction.
‘You know that the same happened to Reeva’s head? It exploded,’ spat Nel, with his gaze fixed firmly on the accused. He had a menacing tone to his voice. ‘Have a look. I am going to show you, Mr Pistorius, it had the exact same effect. The bullet that went into her head.’
The close-up picture of the right side of Reeva’s face flashed across the courtroom screens. Brain matter spoilt her blood-soaked hair. A collective gasp of disbelief broke the stunned silence as the prosecutor waited for an answer. Hands reflexively shot up to cover mouths. While Aimee and Carl shook their heads with tears rolling down their cheeks, unable to protect their sibling from the state’s opening salvo, June Steenkamp and her entourage sat with their heads bowed, not looking up. They had been fully briefed about what was to come and knew to keep their eyes away from the screens. The live television feed from Court GD featured the banner ‘Graphic Evidence. Viewer discretion is advised’. It was 12:03pm on 9 April when the world was shown what Oscar did to Reeva.
‘Have a look there, Mister Pistorius,’ said Nel, his tempo and aggression increasing as he goaded the witness. ‘I know you do not want to, because you do not want to take responsibility, but it is time that you look at it! Take responsibility for what you have done, Mr Pistorius!’
The witness snapped. ‘My Lady, I have taken responsibility. By me waiting … I am not wanting to live my life, but waiting for my time on this stand to tell my story for the respect of Reeva and for myself, I have taken the responsibility,’ said Oscar, with his head and eyes pointed directly at the judge, unwilling to look at Nel or the image of his dead girlfriend on the screen.
‘I will not look at a picture where I am tormented by what I saw and felt that night! As I picked Reeva up, my fingers touched her head, I remember. I do not have to look at a picture! I was there!’ His voice had reached a crescendo of tempo and pitch, lending credence to his counsel’s claim that when anxious he sounds like a woman.
‘It is the same thing as the watermelon! You had it now in practice, Mister Pistorius,’ said an unrelenting Nel, as Roux stood to object to the line of questioning. The defence advocate was not objecting to Nel’s style, but rather that the suggestion that watermelon was the same as brains was ‘unfair’ and ‘there was no evidence that it had the same effect’.
Oscar broke down in the dock as Masipa asked that the picture be removed from the screen. His sobs turned to loud wails when court was adjourned to allow him to regain his composure. Aimee rushed across the courtroom to comfort her brother, making a remark in the direction of Advocate Johnson as she passed the prosecution bench – it’s not known what she said, but her disdain was unmistakeable.
Members of the defence team were similarly disgusted at Gerrie Nel’s conduct during the trial and the approach he took with the accused. Says one member: ‘I was very upset, totally upset, I couldn’t even speak at how upset I was. To make a comparison between a human head, a watermelon and that of a zombie! I think it worked because it would have upset me as well. I’ve got great respect for both Gerrie Nel and Barry Roux, but with this tactic of Nel I was shocked and very disappointed with his line of attack.’
A relative of the athlete voiced his disgust at Nel’s astonishing tactic. ‘Do you know what is a lunatic? That is a lunatic!’ said the family member about Nel and the watermelon incident.
Despite the vociferous criticism, this approach was a carefully orchestrated opening act from the prosecution team. And Nel succeeded in doing precisely what he intended: rattling the witness. No amount of consultation and rehearsing of questions and answers could have prepared Oscar for that. And now, under cross-examination, he was alone. He could not speak to Roux, Oldwadge or his attorneys.
It was no coincidence that the team managing the live broadcast had changed the banner to display the graphic image warning. An investigator said that the prosecution team had met with June Steenkamp during the 11am tea break, warning her about what was to come. It’s understood that she told them to do whatever they felt was in the best interests of the case and that she trusted them. The plan to show Oscar the photo was conceived when the video footage of the accused shooting the watermelon and making the ‘zombie stopper’ statement was broadcast on Sky News.
The challenge for Nel was to convince the court to allow the state to play the video. When the prosecutor had earlier asked Oscar whether he knew what a zombie stopper was, he said he had no idea:
Nel: Have you never been in the presence of any person using the word ‘zombie stopper’?
Accused: Not that I can recall, M’Lady.
Nel: Have you ever seen a video of yourself in the presence of people, referring to a ‘zombie stopper’?
Accused: I have never seen a video of myself where someone in the video has referred to a ‘zombie stopper’ in my … as far as I can remember, M’Lady.
Nel: If there was such a video on Sky News, showing you shooting and somebody saying, talking about a ‘zombie stopper’, would you be surprised?
Accused: I am … I would not be surprised. I am saying I cannot remember. You can show me a video like that and I am in the presence of that person, then I can agree with that.
Nel: Gladly. Can we show that video please?
Nel’s response to the witness’s request to watch the video was as quick as an angler’s backward jerk on his rod when a darting line indicates the fish has taken the bait. The prosecutor and Roux sparred over the admissibility of the video, but it was eventually allowed to be played.
Introducing the video of Oscar at the shooting range served a dual purpose. Not only did it allow the prosecutor to rattle Oscar, it also showed his attitude towards firearms. In the footage, he and his friends appeared flippant, revelling in the sight of the aftermath of the exploded melon. This was contrary to the claim he presented to the court, that he bought a firearm to protect himself. He was fearful of crime and felt particularly vulnerable and wanted to be in a position to ward off a threat if he was ever placed in such a situation. But his desire to own a firearm extended beyond protection. He was in the process of amassing an assortment of weapons as a collector. So did his love of weapons and eagerness to use them feed off his vulnerability? Or was this vulnerability merely an excuse to try to explain why he fired four shots through a closed toilet door?
Full Combat Recon Mode
It was at Sean Rens’s shooting range that Oscar was filmed shooting the Smith & Wesson revolver at the watermelon. Rens was also the arms dealer who had procured the same model of firearm for Oscar, along with five other guns. Oscar was in the process of obtaining a firearm collector’s licence. Rens said Oscar had approached him requesting a specific type of revolver – the S&M 500 – and they discussed firearms in general. ‘He had a great love and enthusiasm for them, My Lady.’
An invoice submitted to the court listed the items of which Oscar was waiting to take delivery. The document showed that R48 500 had already been paid towards the R52 500 bill for six firearms and 580 rounds of ammunition:
• Smith & Wesson 500 revolver
• Vector LM6 (a civilian and law-enforcement semi-automatic variant of the R6 assault rifle)
• Winchester Defender pump-action shotgun
• Mossberg Maverick pistol-gripped pump-action shotgun
• Mossberg semi-automatic shotgun
• Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolver.
The deal was cancelled after the shooting of Reeva.
Rens also handled Oscar’s competency exams for his firearms, in which he was required to fill out a questionnaire that proposed several scenarios to the future gun-owner and tested how the person understood he or she should act in relation to the law. In one scenario:
You are at home alone in an isolated area far from police or security services. You happen to look out of your window, and you see two strange men jumping over your wall and make their way towards your house. You do not know these men and you are not expecting any form of visitor, because it is very late at night. Have they committed an offence that justifies the use of lethal force against them?
Oscar correctly answered ‘No’, he would not be justified to use lethal force.
The scenario was then changed, putting the intruders inside the gun-owner’s home and in the process of stealing personal items. Could lethal force be used? Oscar, again, correctly answered ‘No’.
The scenario went even further, that the burglars threaten to kill the home-owner who is standing behind a locked security gate. ‘Can you discharge a firearm at them because you fear for your life?’ Once again, the athlete correctly answered ‘No’.
Only when the scenario changed to put the home-owner in direct contact with the intruders, with no security gate to protect him, and the assailants armed with a knife and a firearm and advancing towards the home-owner, did Oscar correctly state that he may discharge his firearm and use lethal force to defend himself.
The hypothetical scenario had an uncanny resemblance to the situation Oscar claimed he had found himself in on the morning he shot and killed Reeva. Of course, this immediately raised questions about his conduct in relation to the law. It was not in dispute that Oscar fired his weapon blindly through the locked toilet door. He made no attempt to establish the identity of the in
truder and he was not under any direct threat of attack. It was quickly noted in public discourse that it’s a lot easier to know the law when sitting for an exam; it’s considerably different when faced with a perceived threat in one’s home.
In his competency exam, Oscar also correctly listed some of the legal requirements that must be met to justify using lethal force. Nel asked Rens to read them in to the record. ‘Attack must be against you, it must be unlawful. It must be against a person.’ None of these requirements had been met in the shooting in question.
Rens discussed various other aspects related to the exam that required the future firearm owner to understand the terms of the law and the safe operation of a weapon. By all indications, Oscar was a competent and knowledgeable firearm owner who met the requirements to acquire more weapons.
But, as Rens would confirm, Valentine’s Day was not the first time Oscar had unholstered his firearm and prepared to confront an intruder in his house. This incident was further confirmed by Oscar’s tweet on 27 November 2012, which was deleted from the athlete’s account after the shooting:
Nothing like getting home to hear the washing machine on and thinking its an intruder to go into full combat recon mode into the pantry! waa
With Rens in the witness box, Nel wanted to know what Oscar had told him about the washing machine incident he had tweeted about. ‘He went to what we call code red or combat mode. In other words, draw his gun and go and clear the house as anyone would if they heard a noise inside the house, and when he came to the source of the noise, it was the laundry or something in the laundry, M’Lady,’ he said. Rens said he taught self-defence and how to clear a house from room to room in a series of colour codes.
