Quotes from an interview with defense lawyer Ulrich Roux, published in the Sunday Times this morning:
How did Oscar fare under cross examination?
He has not fared well. He has come across as being an evasive witness and not giving straightforward answers to very direct questions. Most detrimental, however, is the fact that his version has changed on numerous occasions when tested by Gerrie Nel. this makes it near impossible for the court to accept his version. He has been very selective as to what he remembers and what he does not. This does not bode well for his credibility as a witness and the court will make a negative inference as to his recollection of exactly what happened on that evening. He has also become agitated with Nel, losing his temper somewhat and falling into the traps Nel has set for him. The fact he is blaming his legal representatives, the South African police, as well as his friends for lying all ocmes across in a negative light and indicates he is not prepared to take responsibility for any of his actions.
What did you make of Gerrie Nel's aggressive questioning?
Nel's style is to rattle witnesses, unsettle them emotionally, and in so doing get them to make mistakes. When Pistorius has been emotional and upset, his chain of thoughts and judgmenthas definitely become clouded and that is when Nel has pounced on him. The main function of cross-examination, however, is to test whether a witness's version is the truth and whether it is reasonably and possibly true. Nel must be careful his aggression does not deter from this fact and take away the effect that the contradictions actually have. He has managed to force Pistorius into making numerous concessions, which will be very difficult to recover from. He must continue to focus on these concessions and contradictions for the remainder of Pistorius's cross-examination.
What are the key concessions Pistorius has made?
Pistorius testified he has been a victim of crime his entire life and named a number of occasions, such as the apparent gunshot fired at him on the highway and the apparent assault on him in a public place, yet he has never laid any charges at a police station. He conceded this. He initially testified he could not remember firing the four shots, but later conceded the fact that he clearly remembers he did not fire a double tap. This is a big contradiction and places much doubt over the accuracy of his recollection of how events unfolded on that evening. Further concessions were regarding the apparent contamination of the crime scene and how unlikely it is that the police would indeed move items around without knowing what Pistorius's version is, the length of the fan's power cord, the fact that he did not repair the broken windo in his house immediately, that there was no ladder outside his house, the alarm was activated, and so on. He conceded to the ammunition charge as well as to the fact that it was negligent of both him and Darren Fresco to handle the firearm in the way that they did at Tasha's. The three minor charges are posing a big problem for Pistorius because of the character evidence that was introduced when evidence was heard on the charges. I cannot see him escaping a conviction on any of these charges. His testimony on the ammunition and Tasha's charges have been tantamount to a confession, in my opinion. Just flatly denying that he fired a shot out of hte car's sunroof, after two witnesses have testified that he did, leaves much to be desired.
