Updates from Friday, May 9
Oscar Pistorius returned to court on Friday to continue his fight against a charge of premeditated murder after he killed girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Pistorius claims he mistook his girlfriend for an intruder on Valentine's Day 2013, but the prosecution continues to argue that he knowingly fired his gun following an argument.
You can watch the live broadcast right here (subject to your territory):
Forensics expert Wollie Wolmarans—called by the defence—spent all day in the witness box, continuing his analysis of how the bullets were fired, as well as the position of Steenkamp's body upon impact.
Captain Mangena, a state witness, had earlier stated that bullet hole B missed Steenkamp, affording time for her to scream. He also claimed she was hit by a bullet ricochet, causing a contusion on her back.
Wolmarans' findings contradicted those claims, per Eyewitness News' Barry Bateman:
#OscarTrial Wolmarans: refers to bullet hole B which he says relates to the wounds on Reeva’s right arms and chest. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial remember, Mangena testified that bullet B missed Reeva and hit the back wall. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial Wolmarans: says the wounds to Reeva’s back were not caused by a ricocheting bullet, as claimed by Mangena. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
The Guardian's David Smith noted Wolmarans' version of what caused bruising to Steenkamp's back:
Wolmarans: The marks are "consistent with with falling against a hard, blunt surface". #Pistorius— David Smith (@SmithInAfrica) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial Nel looks at his ballistics experts, they all shake their heads. Cross-examinationshould be interesting. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
BBC News' Milton Nkosi highlighted a further contradiction between the findings of Wolmarans and Mangena:
Mangena said Reeva was in huddled position when she was shot. Wolmarans say not so.— Milton Nkosi (@nkosi_milton) May 9, 2014
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel then got his chance to cross-examine the witness, instantly picking holes as he has done with so many others over the past week.
Nel began by asking Wolmarans why his report is dated April 23, when the defence's previous forensics expert, Roger Dixon, was excused from court on April 16, seven days earlier:
#OscarTrial bottom line for Nel - the defence expert only completed his report after previous expert witnesses testified and cross-examined.— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
That will be the argument. RT @hayleyannr: Is this not tailoring evidence to sit the case?— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial Wolmarans I was never asked to change my report to suit the defence case. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial Wolmarans: Dixon is not a ballistics expert, I would not change anything in my report because of what he says. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial Nel: ah, so you wouldn’t take his advice on ballistics, so neither should the court? Wolmarans fumbles. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
Wolmarans then volunteered information that Pistorius vomited when shown a picture of the deceased. Again, Nel was quick to pounce, accusing the witness of showing bias toward Pistorius:
Wolmarans : I never lied in court! I take exception to what Mr. Nel is saying that I'm biased!— Milton Nkosi (@nkosi_milton) May 9, 2014
Focus switched to a series of lasers set up in court by Mangena, which showed the prosecution's analysis of how the bullets were fired. Both Mangena and Wolmarans agreed that the first wound was caused to the hip, and the last was to the head.
However, they disagreed over the position of Steenkamp's body and where she fell. Hole B in the toilet door is crucial. The prosecution claims the bullet fired through hole B missed, whereas the defence claims to the contrary:
#OscarTrial Nel puts it - if you align hole B with the wounds on her arm, her head would be through the wall, there’s no space. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial Wolmarans insists that there would have been enough space for Reeva’s head in the position he has suggested. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial Nel: with that reconstruction she would never handed landed with her head on the toilet. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial Wolmarans: “anything is possible”. Nel: correct, but as an expert we should deal with what is probable. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
Wolmarans then contradicted Pistorius' claims about the positioning of the magazine rack. Pistorius had claimed the rack was not directly next to the toilet, because that's where he found Steenkamp's body:
#OscarTrial Wolmarans: the magazine rack was next to the toilet when the deceased bled. Nel: That’s not accused version. Is he wrong? BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial Wolmarans: that is my opinion. The accused might be wrong. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
Following lunch, Nel and Wolmarans debated further the topic of bullet trajectory, focusing on whether the bullet that travelled through hole B hit Steenkamp or not.
Nel also grilled the witness over his decision not to confer with the defence team's pathologist:
#OscarTrial Nel: you have Pathologist Reggie Perumal on your defence team, he was at the autopsy. Did you consult with him? Wolmarans: No.— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
#OscarTrial why would a defence ballistics expert not consult with the defence pathologist who was present at the autopsy? BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
Wolmarans was then forced to make another admission:
#OscarTrial the hired defence expert never asks the accused what type of ammunition he used when he shot and killed the deceased. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 9, 2014
Court adjourned until Monday.
Updates from Thursday, May 8
Oscar Pistorius' defence team expects to wrap up its case over the next week, and on Thursday more witnesses were called to prove the athlete's shooting of Reeva Steenkamp was not premeditated.
Evidence of food in Steenkamp's stomach, Pistorius' character, and forensics were all under the microscope on a key day in the trial.
The subject of Steenkamp's stomach contents were first to be addressed on Thursday. Professor Christina Lundgren, an anaesthetist who is an expert in gastric emptying, was called to the witness box.
Pistorius claims Steenkamp last ate at around 7pm on the night of her death, some eight hours before she died. However, the prosecution has previously provided evidence that she may have had a meal within two hours of her shooting.
BBC News' Andrew Harding and the Telegraph's Aislinn Laing provided Lundgren's findings:
Lundgren: anaesthetic literature not been able to prove that no food in stomach after 4 to 6 hours. #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 8, 2014
Lundgren says a lot of vegetables are "undigestible" and may delay gastric emptying… #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 8, 2014
Prof Lundgren says one of her "nightmare cases" was a patient who had eaten eight hours before and still had food in her stomach to regurg— Aislinn Laing (@Simmoa) May 8, 2014
Lundgren then commented directly on Steenkamp:
Lundgren: her stomach should probably have been empty (after 6 hours) but can't state that as fact… purely speculative. #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 8, 2014
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel then got his chance to cross-examine Lundgren. He immediately pushed the witness on whether, in all likelihood, Steenkamp's stomach would have been empty eight hours after eating, per Eyewitness News' Barry Bateman:
#OscarTrial Lundgren: no one can categorically state her stomach would be empty after eight hours. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 8, 2014
Nel gets testy. Lundgren, unruffled, repeats insistence that vegetables in stir fry could have remained in stomach longer. #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 8, 2014
Nel pushed harder, insisting Professor Gert Saayman was able to identify the food left in Steenkamp's stomach. He quizzed Lundgren as to whether that is possible after eight hours:
#OscarTrial Lundgren: says she can’t comment on whether the food would be identifiable after eight hours in the stomach. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 8, 2014
Nel highlighted Lundgren's own comment that, after four hours, 10 percent of food would be left in a normal individual.
The prosecutor used simple maths to suggest that figure proves Steenkamp must have eaten much later than 7pm, supporting the State's version that she argued with Pistorius—as heard by several neighbours—prior to her death:
#OscarTrial Nel: if we accept that 10 percent of meal is left in the stomach four hours after the meal… BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 8, 2014
#OscarTrial Nel … based on the 200ml of food found in the stomach, would indicate she consumed 2l of food. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 8, 2014
After an adjournment, defence lawyer Barry Roux called Yvette van Schalkwyk—a social worker—as his next witness. Van Schalkwyk monitored Pistorius' behaviour during his court appearances in February 2013.
She explained that she came forward to testify on Tuesday, after hearing claims Pistorius had taken acting classes ahead of this trial:
#OscarTrial Van Schalkwyk: from the first time I saw him he was heartbroken, he cried, he was in mourning, emotional, sorry… BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 8, 2014
Nel jumps in, saying he can't see the relevance. #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 8, 2014
Roux says it's relevant after Nel accused #OscarPistorius of being insincere etc on the witness stand.— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 8, 2014
Nel received his chance to quiz the witness, moving quickly to show how irrelevant Van Schalkwyk's testimony is. He also pounced on her revelation that Pistorius said he shot Steenkamp by accident:
Nel asks witness to confirm that #OscarPistorius told her he "accidentally" shot RS. She does. Nel says in court OP gave different story.— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 8, 2014
Nel rather gleeful about that last discrepancy. It's a key part of the state's case. #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 8, 2014
You'd expect someone to be traumatised, says Nel, trying to show YVS testimony about #OscarPistorius is, at best, irrelevant.— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 8, 2014
Nel has painted Pistorius as a self-involved character throughout the trial, and he used Van Schalkwyk to add to that picture.
Fixating on her claim that Pistorius was sorry, Nel highlighted a key difference in the context of that emotion:
At issue - #OscarPistorius empathy… Was he sorry for Reeva or for himself? Nel pushing YVS to back his "selfish" theory. She doesn't.— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 8, 2014
#OscarTrial Nel: sincere remorse is accepting what he did? Van Schalkwyk agrees. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 8, 2014
#OscarTrial Nel and on the 15 Feb this accused did not say I’m sorry for killing Reeva? BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 8, 2014
The day's third witness was forensic expert Wollie Wolmarans, who instantly turned attentions to the gunshots fired through the toilet door at Steenkamp.
Wolmarans delivered a highly technical analysis of the bullet trajectories, insisting deflection must be taken into account. He concluded that it was impossible to define the sequence in which the bullets were fired:
#OscarTrial Wolmarans: it’s not possible to state with any accuracy the sequence of the shots and the position of the deceased. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 8, 2014
Court adjourned until Friday morning.
Updates from Tuesday, May 6
Oscar Pistorius' defence team continued its attempt to establish the athlete's credibility on Tuesday, as the accused continues to defend a charge of premeditated murder.
Pistorius claims he mistook girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp for an intruder on the night in which he shot her dead, and on Tuesday defence lawyer Barry Roux began by calling his closest neighbour, Michael Nhlengethwa, to the witness box.
BBC News' Andrew Harding described the proximity of Nhlengethwa's house to Pistorius, and what he heard on the night of the incident:
Aerial photo to establish MN's house. It's right beside #OscarPistorius home - the 2 buildings almost touching.— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 6, 2014
Crucial - MN said he heard "a man crying very loud." Other neighbours insisted it was a woman… #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 6, 2014
For weeks we've heard little but damaging testimony about and from #OscarPistorius Now the defence is starting to build up its case…— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 6, 2014
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel got the chance to cross-examine the witness, and wanted to test his claims that he heard a man crying, not screaming.
After a brief delay while Nel scrabbled to find the exact quote, he highlighted the difference to the court, showing Pistorius said he screamed:
Nel has found the earlier #OscarPistorius quote. "I was screaming and shouting… don't think ever screamed like that." Quibbles from Roux.— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 6, 2014
Nhlengethwa's wife, Eontle, replaced her husband in the stand and gave a very similar version of events, indicating a male's screams for help. Sky News' Alex Crawford noted the significance of the testimony:
#oscartrial This is very different testimony to the evidence heard from neighbours called by the State and who lived further away— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 6, 2014
#oscartrial Seems very curious the prosecution declined to call these two closest neighbours. Am sure Barry Roux will make much of it— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 6, 2014
However, Nel highlighted that Nhlengethwa's version of events contradicts several other accounts given by neighbours of the night in question:
#oscartrial Eontle: First noise she heard was 'bang' then second noise was 'help, help, help', then she heard 'man crying'— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 6, 2014
#oscartrial Nel: Its interesting that more people heard 'help, help, help' and Dr Stipp heard help AFTER 2nd of 'shots' he heard— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 6, 2014
Following an adjournment, a third neighbour—from the other side of Pistorius' house—was called by the defence: Ria Motshuane.
The witness was initially delayed, prompting Roux to assure the judge he intends to wrap up his case inside the next week:
Roux insists "we are well within timeframe" for defence case to finish "perhaps by Tuesday next week." #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 6, 2014
Motshuane delivered a similar account to the Nhlengethwas, claiming only a man screamed, per Crawford. Court then adjourned until Thursday morning.
Updates from Monday, May 5
After an extended adjournment, the trial of Oscar Pistorius resumed on Monday, with the runner's defence team calling in two witnesses for examination.
Pistorius denies a charge of premeditated murder after he shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp dead on Valentine's Day in 2013, insisting that he believed her to be an intruder. The prosecution are looking to prove Pistorius turned the gun on Steenkamp after an argument.
Stander is the estate manager for the area where Pistorius was living when the shooting occurred. He had a consultation with the prosecution in December last year, and said he was going to be called as a state witness for the trial. In the end, he never was.
Stander was questioned by Kenny Oldwage, with defence lawyer Barry Roux choosing to take a back-seat on the first morning following the 18-day break.
Stander, who decided he didn’t want to be televised, recalled the events of Valentine's Day 2013, when he was called by a disturbed Pistorius in the small hours of that morning, documented here by the BBC’s Africa correspondent, Andrew Harding:
Stander: received a call from #OscarPistorius at 3.18. He said "please please come to my house. i shot Reeva. thought she was intruder."— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 5, 2014
Stander says his daughter came out of her room and said she'd just heard somebody scream. #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 5, 2014
On his arrival at Pistorius' premises, Stander said he immediately realised that Steenkamp was badly injured, reported here by Sky News’ Alex Crawford:
#oscartrial Stander says he saw immed Reeva had a head wound and Op 'was really crying, he was in pain and he asked us to please assist him'— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 5, 2014
He then went on to discuss Pistorius’ behaviour on arrival at the house. Stander spoke of how the athlete was beside himself with sorrow, something the witness thought went a long way to proving his innocence:
#oscartrial Stander: The young man walking down with a young lady in his arms and his face...he's crying, praying, asking God to help him'— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 5, 2014
#oscartrial Stander; 'He was torn apart, broken, desperate, pleading (shakes his head) its difficult to describe— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 5, 2014
#oscartrial Stander;' I saw the truth there that morning. I saw it. And i feel it.'— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 5, 2014
Stander was then pulled up by prosecution lawyer Gerrie Nel after their questioning, when the witness claimed that Pistorius said “it was a mistake” whilst on their initial phone call.
Nel was keen to push the witness on this, but Stander seemed reluctant to deviate from his initial statement:
#oscartrial Nel pulls Stander up for saying OP said 'it was a mistake'. 'It was a mistake by me (to say that)— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 5, 2014
#oscartrial But Nel not letting him off so easily. 'Why wd you want to say that he made a mistake? Are you trying to assist Mr Pistorius?'— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 5, 2014
#oscartrial Nel: What was a mistake? Why did you think it was a mistake? How can you, out of that call, take it that the shot was a mistake?— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 5, 2014
Stander was getting an easy ride from Nel. Not any more. #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 5, 2014
Nel went on to press Stander about the light in the house. The prosecution lawyer questioning as to whether or not there was sufficient illumination at that hour to fully gauge the emotions of the athlete. Stander insisted there was.
At this juncture, Nel requested a short recess to enable him to consult his notes. On resumption, Nel retired to the bench and after a few more questions from the defence, Stander was excused.
The next witness sworn into the box was the daughter of Mr Stander, Carice Viljoen.
Examined by Roux, she spoke of how she was awoken on the aforementioned morning by the sound of dogs barking, before making out the screams of somebody looking for help, as documented here by Barry Bateman of Eyewitness News:
#OscarTrial Viljoen: says she woke up on the morning of the 14th with her dogs barking. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 5, 2014
#OscarTrial Viljoen: my sliding door was open. I heard a person call for help three times. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 5, 2014
Viljoen insisted it was a man's voice that she could hear shouting and not long after, her parents told her they'd received a call from Pistorius, claiming he'd shot Reeva.
That prompted Viljoen and her father to drive to Pistorius' home where on arrival, she saw the athlete carrying his girlfriend down the stairs, pleading for help.
She then went on to recount the emotional discussion she had with Pistorius in great detail:
#OscarTrial Viljoen: I told him to put her down. There was blood everywhere. We both knelt over Reeva. He begged me to help. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 5, 2014
#OscarTrial Viljoen: ran up to the first floor linen closet to grab towels. He was begging Reeva to stay with him, not leave him. BB— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) May 5, 2014
This is perhaps the most detailed description we've had of the scene at the foot of #OscarPistorius staircase.— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 5, 2014
Viljoen claimed that once the paramedics arrived, she and Pistorius moved through into the kitchen. The paramedics asked the athlete for Steenkamp's ID, and she followed him upstairs to obtain her handbag, worried that Pistorius may injure himself with the gun that was still upstairs.
Pistorius was seen with his head in his hands as Viljoen recalled the harrowing details:
Nel began his examination of the witness, taking a much friendlier tone with Viljoen than he did with her father. Again, he asked about the illumination in the house, to which she responded that she was unaware what lights were on and which were off.
A short adjournment followed, with the judge asking to see both Roux and Nel. On resumption, Nel questioned Viljoen about the athlete's behaviour, asking her whether he seemed conscious of what was going on around him.
#oscartrial Nel asking about OP's state of mind - re his calling for towels, asking for ambulance etc 'he was following what was going on?— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 5, 2014
#oscartrial Viljoen agrees he seemed to be following what was going on— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) May 5, 2014
Viljoen was excused, and Roux asked for an adjournment, claiming he was unsuccessful in getting hold of other witnesses:
Roux says he's "desperately" trying to get hold of other witnesses… looks like he's failed and may ask for adjournment. #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) May 5, 2014
Court was subsequently adjourned until Tuesday morning.
Oscar Pistorius returned to court on Monday following an 18-day adjournment to the Reeva Steenkamp murder case, which reopened in Pretoria, South Africa.
Pistorius, who is aiming to prove he mistook girlfriend Steenkamp for an intruder before shooting her dead on Valentine's Day 2013, has faced weeks of evidence in the run-up to Judge Thokozile Masipa's final verdict.
Prior to April 17's lengthy break, prosecutor Gerrie Nel continued his masterful grilling of Pistorius' defence team, focusing his efforts on forensic expert Roger Dixon.
The defence and prosecution dispute the speed at which gunshots were fired on the night in question, which is key to establishing whether Steenkamp would have had time to scream. Neighbours heard a range of sounds, both gunfire and the bangs of a cricket bat against a door.
An audio test was played in court to show the similarities of both noises, but Nel dismissed its legitimacy, per Alex Crawford of Sky News:
#oscartrial Nel has listened to the audio recording made comparing gunshots and cricket bat - says bat sounds were amplified— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 17, 2014
#oscartrial Dixon says he doesnt know but if the sound engineer boosted the sound, that maybe what a sound engineer does— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 17, 2014
Many witnesses also believe they heard Steenkamp scream after shots were fired; a potentially vital point if proven true. Dr Johan Stipp and his wife Anette were two such attendees to claim this, reported by Richard Hartley-Parkinson of the Mirror:
"It was moments after the shots I heard a lady screaming, terrified, terrified screaming," said Mrs Stipp. "The screaming just continued. It did not stop." Michelle Burger, another witness, also spoke of the "blood-curdling" screams that have been referenced multiple times in court.
Dixon suggested such noises were impossible due to Steenkamp receiving a fatal wound to the head via bullets that were fired in quick sequence, giving the deceased no time to react.
Nel aimed to disprove Dixon's theory by highlighting him as an amateur, asking the forensic expert how the defence team's story can challenge the accuracy of the autopsy carried out by Professor Saayman. Crawford and BBC News' Andrew Harding provided the details:
#oscartrial Nel: Are you saying that even after Prof Saayman dissected the wound, that he is wrong? ( versus Dixon who didnt attend PM)— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 17, 2014
Nel is looking to show the ("amateur") Dixon is daring to contradict the (expert) state pathologist. Dixon denies it. #OscarPistorius— andrew harding (@BBCAndrewH) April 17, 2014
Dixon proceeded to give his account of where Steenkamp's body was placed via a showing of graphic images. He contradicted Pistorius' suggestion that police had moved the magazine rack—an object which supposedly caused Steenkamp lacerated injuries—noted by Crawford:
#oscartrial So Defence witness No 3 contradicts OP's version; Defence witness no. 1 agreed with State re seq of shots. (Witness 2 was OP)— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 17, 2014
Attention then progressed to the Stipps' claims that Pistorius could be seen walking past the window on the night of Steenkamp's murder, with the bathroom light on. This claim was belittled by the defence, who suggest the light was off and Pistorius would be too short without his prosthetic legs, which he supposedly wasn't wearing before Steenkamp's murder.
Although Dixon carried out visibility tests through the window, Nel asked why he didn't accurately replicate Pistorius' stature with someone of the same height, detailed by Crawford:
#oscartrial Nel insists the pic is irrelevant if the person being photographed is not same height etc. 'Why wd you present that as evidence?— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 17, 2014
#oscartrial Dixon says he took photos from street level. But neighbour Dr Stipp sd he saw figure in bathroom window from his 1st floor— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 17, 2014
#oscartrial OP sd balcony light was on. Nel wants to know why Dixon didnt switch it on for test. 'Why wdnt you do that? Why?— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 17, 2014
A key point arose when Dixon admitted his analysis of Pistorius' legs was completed using photographs. He never physically interacted with the walking apparatus, per Crawford:
#oscartrial Roger Dixon says he made his analysis of the door varnish on the prosthesis from PHOTOS he was supplied of the athlete's leg— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 17, 2014
The defence will now look to repair some of the damage caused by its latest witness. Key to Pistorius' defence is to show Steenkamp had not time to scream amid the gunfire.
Judge Masipa is also likely to base much of her decision on whether Steenkamp's screams can be proven, while Pistorius' team will also seek to prove gunshots were rapidly fired in defence, and not pre-planned.