For five days, Oscar Pistorius endured a withering cross-examination at his murder trial from a prosecutor who pounced on apparent inconsistencies in his testimony. Yet, legal analysts said on Tuesday, expert witnesses who are to testify for the defense could undermine the prosecution’s efforts to prove Pistorius killed girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on purpose after an argument.
The demeanor of the Olympian, often fumbling for answers and occasionally breaking into sobs, contrasted with that of prosecutor Gerrie Nel, who called Pistorius a liar and unleashed volleys of barbed questions.
Social media buzzed that Pistorius is in deep trouble — a South African talk-show host wryly observed that the double-amputee runner had not “covered himself with glory” when his cross-examination ended on Tuesday — but experts said the trial has a long way to go.
“Until the defense presents the rest of their case, you can’t really evaluate the significance of any potential concessions that he may have made,” said Kelly Phelps, a senior lecturer in the public law department at the University of Cape Town.
The trial, which began on March 3 and is expected to hear testimony until the middle of next month, reached a key stage last week when Pistorius took the stand to testify about the circumstances of Steenkamp’s killing in his home before dawn on Feb. 14 last year. The Paralympic champion, 27, says he shot the 29-year-old model through a closed toilet door after mistaking her for an intruder, but Nel catalogued what he said were conflicts in Pistorius’ story that prove he made it up.
The prosecution provided a “very clear narrative for the first time” of what it says happened on the night of Steenkamp’s death, Phelps said. The judge, she said, must decide whether Pistorius’ inconsistencies were a result of his clumsily trying to polish a story that is true in its fundamentals, or instead revealed an “elaborate cover-up plot” after he murdered his lover.
Phelps said the prosecution accused Pistorius of changing his account mostly on “smaller details,” but that he had stuck to the “core parts of his story.”
Some commentators have speculated that Pistorius could face a lesser homicide charge that still carries long prison time in the event of a conviction.
Still, during cross-examination, Pistorius gave a sometimes muddled account of the shooting. He said he feared for his life, but also did not intentionally shoot at anyone, prompting Nel to query if his defense was self-defense or “involuntary action.”
Inconsistencies in the athlete’s testimony include his statement that Steenkamp did not scream when he shot her, but later saying his ears were ringing with the first of four gunshots and he would not have heard screams.
A vital part of the prosecution’s case is the testimony of neighbors who said they heard a woman’s terrified screams on the night that Steenkamp died; the defense says they actually heard Pistorius screaming in a high-pitched voice.
Pistorius’ credibility was further challenged by earlier testimony against him for three unrelated gun charges in which he denied any wrongdoing when questioned by Nel. Possibly in his favor was his lack of anger on the witness stand despite the prosecution’s picture of him as overbearing and arrogant.
Nevertheless, Marius du Toit, a former state prosecutor, magistrate and now criminal defense lawyer in South Africa, said Nel exceeded his goals in his cross-examination, even goading Pistorius into faulting his legal team while trying to clarify testimony. For example, chief defense lawyer Barry Roux said Pistorius fired two quick bursts — the gun owner’s terminology for such a burst is “double tap” — but Pistorius said he fired four shots in rapid succession.