The tactics currently by Gerrie Nel seems to be working, kind of a rapid succession of questions is taking place not giving Pistorius proper opportunity, time to think of his answers, and that’s the reason why he’s contradicting himself every now and then. So, as far as demeanour is concerned I’m afraid not a good impression as a witness, and ultimately demeanor is one of the key aspects that a Court must consider when evaluating your evidence and the reliability of it.
So if the Judge sees it as we see it, as I see it at this stage, and obviously that’s not the only witness before Court, and has testified thus far, but then she should make a negative inference from the fact that he is making a deviance from his initial stance of defence suggesting that he is trying to hide something.
Thomson
His original defence is self-defence. Today we heard variations on these and that has got Mr Nel going?
Curlewis
Of course it’s straightforward. Either you were lying in January in your bail application under oath or you are lying under oath right now because you can’t have two of the same versions and both are the correct versions and truthful situations. So it’s either or situations here.
By now we’ve got at least, by what we’ve gathered this morning, three or four different versions.
At one stage he was relying on self- defence thinking that he was trying to facilitate the situation, that he was trying to protect his own interests and that of Reeva Steenkamp. Then we have one where he said ‘but listen it was a terrible mistake’ and that’s it, no other proper explanation for it. Then we have the version where he suggests that before he knew it, it randomly went off so to speak. And then at some stage he also remarked well he couldn’t remember quite clearly why he did it.
Also, just shortly before the lunch hour you’ll remember the question that was asked by Gerrie Nel, quite a good question. I was looking for this question all along - ‘So why did you not shoot a warning shot in advance?’
And then the issue regarding the ricochet or possible ricochet of the bullet, then came into play. Almost immediately Gerrie Nel then proceeded -‘But so you foresaw the possibility that the bullet could ricochet you thought about it?’ But 5 minutes before that he testified he didn’t think about it. So another contradiction! And if you foresee something it is expected by our Law that you should do something in anticipation to prohibit it from happening. Otherwise you are acting intentionally, in one of its forms, what we call dolus eventualis. And that is suggestive of a possible murder charge and that is precisely what Gerrie Nel is looking for.
Thomson
Pistorius said ‘I only thought now that it would richochet now that you put it to me’ but his first reaction being ‘I thought I might endanger myself because of ricochet.’ So they will look at the first answer, not the qualification he came back with later.
Curlewis
My gut feeling was that he got the…immediately, when he testified, he immediately found out what the implications of this sudden answer was and he wanted to retract on that and that’s why he gave that explanation. But cleverly by Gerrie Nel he immediately once again put the same question towards Oscar Pistorius and asked him ‘Well let’s get back to the original question – So why did you not fire a warning shot?’ and then there was no direct answer.
Thomson
And we’ve gone back time and time to this thing - If you were shouting before you fired the shots why was it that she didn’t shout back? Why didn’t she say ‘it’s me in here?’
Curlewis
The requirement in our law for self- defence to be successfully raised as a proper defence to get an acquittal it must be an IMMINENT DANGER and you must not be allowed to use more force than is absolutely necessary under the circumstances than to prohibit that from happening.