And the Oscar Trial Goes On and On and On…

For everyone’s sake, let’s hope the trial winds down soon. What started off as a showcase of our legal expertise has turned into Comedy Central.

In a nutshell, this was the week that:

• The father and daughter who were first on the scene said Oscar was screaming, crying and praying;

• Reeva’s ‘best friend’ Kim Myers accused Oscar of making a sinister remark to her;

• Previously unmentioned neighbours were called on to wail “like Oscar did that night’;

• A social worker phoned the defence on Tuesday to volunteer to tell the court Oscar wasn’t acting and appeared as a witness on Thursday;

• More so-called experts fell under the gaze of Gerrie Nel; and

• Four-hour days have become the norm.

There seems to be a dip in interest in the Oscar Pistorius trial for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day, 2013.

No doubt, it was a combination of the 2½ weeks’ break in proceedings and Wednesday’s elections that contributed to a drop in social media activity.

But dare I say it’s felt a little samey round Courtroom GD in Pretoria’s North Gauteng High Court? Gerrie Nel’s attack mode is effective but the repetitiveness is tiresome. With a hypothetical expert witness score of 3-0, there’s a weak joke circulating that Oscar should ask his defence team for his money back.

At the beginning, the anti-Oscar brigade saw Advocate Barry Roux as Enemy No. 1 as he dissected, deconstructed and delved into every shred of evidence in defence of the accused.

While Gerrie Nel bided his time, the daily diet of Roux idiosyncrasies seeped into the public consciousness and suddenly he was less persona non grata and more cause célèbre. His legal innuendo gave birth to a whole new lexicon of SA expressions, topped by “I put it to you…” (in other words, you’re talking horse manure).

Then the tables were turned and Roux took a backseat to Nel’s pitbull method of cross-examination, which, in retrospect, makes Roux seem like a honey. The difference in approach between the two advocates is that Nel doesn’t even pretend to be polite – he’s downright rude and has been rebuked several times by Judge Thokozile Masipa.

So when proceedings began this past Monday, Nel was barking mad and Roux’s defence team looked sheepish (well, they ought to have done) under pressure of expert witnesses who’re not doing their job.

On Monday, Oscar’s former estate manager and friends Johan Stander and his daughter presented a picture that was meant to smooth some ruffled feathers but probably only smoothed the way for Nel to have another go at them down the line.

On Tuesday, fur was flying when the defendant added to his woe.

According to Reeva’s friend Kim Myers, Oscar sidled up to her and in a sinister fashion asked: “How can you sleep at night?”

With the way things appear to be going for him, would Oscar really have taken this risk? Reports said journalists witnessed the exchange but despite a search, I found none. With Oscar denying Myers’ claim, lawyers for both families entered the fray, but both sides were silenced when SA’s National Prosecuting Authority said they would not be acting on the report.

Back in court, one couldn’t help feeling the defence was scraping the bottom of the barrel when they called two women who lived on either side of Oscar’s house. Rita Motshuane and Eontle Hillary Nhlengethwa were asked to wail in a high-pitch like Oscar had done. Bizarrely, this was meant to demonstrate that Oscar’s cries on the night of the shooting could be confused with a woman’s screams.

To refresh our memories: early witnesses testified they heard a woman’s screams and gunshots; the defence will have us believe it was Oscar who screamed first at an intruder and then when he saw who he’d shot through the toilet door.

We’d previously been led to believe that only Oscar and Reeva were home that Valentine’s night in 2013, but this week we heard that Oscar’s longtime housekeeper Frank Chiziweni – whose room was off the kitchen – at the time told police that he “heard nothing” as he was asleep.

The defence’s headaches were to continue on Thursday after another day off – this time because of the elections.

First up was an expert witness to support Oscar’s claim that they had not eaten and that Reeva was asleep when he pursued the intruder.

Anaesthetist Christina Lundgren was supposed to disprove the findings of state pathologist Prof. Gert Saayman, who had testified that a person’s stomach is usually empty after six hours. He found partly digested vegetable matter and a white, cheese-like substance in Reeva’s stomach, which meant that she’d eaten no more than about two hours before her death.

In Lundgren’s book, the rate of digestion could be influenced by various factors including that Reeva was premenopausal, exercised before she went to bed and was asleep, but she didn’t say Saayman was wrong.

In fact, she conceded that determining time of death was an inexact science.

The next witness was hardly any better for the defence. Oscar’s probation officer Yvette van Schalkwyk is a social worker who was originally appointed to provide emotional support for him. She first met Oscar in a police cell the day after the shooting last February, when he cried “80% of the time”.

Van Schalkwyk revealed she contacted Oscar’s lawyers on Tuesday this past week, because she was upset that members of the media had published assertions (made by Jani Allan) that Oscar had taken acting lessons.

“I saw a heartbroken man that’s suffering emotionally,” she told the court. And later, “And one time, when he came out of court, he just sat down and started crying and crying.”

Based on his belief that Oscar simply felt sorry for himself, Nel objected to Van Schalkwyk’s testimony but Judge Masipa allowed it. By the time her testimony was over, Nel must have realised she was a godsend for the prosecution and announced he was keeping his options open to recall her.

In the afternoon, the much-heralded third witness took the stand.

At last we were to meet Wollie Wolmarans, who we’d been led to believe would present credible evidence contrary to that delivered by the State.

Wolmarans, billed as top notch in forensics and ballistics, began on a high. He confidently shared his know-how of the machinations of guns and other technical expertise.

He explained that he’d deduced that the police tests might have caused variations in results by constantly probing the bullet holes in their reconstruction of the bathroom door. This in turn could impact on findings about Reeva’s position, her reaction to each bullet and the order of the bullets fired.

Wolmarans concluded that Reeva might have been reaching out with her arm to open the cubicle door when she was hit, while Mangena had placed her further away from the closed door as she fell back in the toilet cubicle and protectively covered her head with her arms.

Whatever self-confidence he had at the start, Wolmarans like the other experts wilted with each question from Nel. Needless to say Nel had a field day cutting his evidence down to size.

Gerrie Nel berated Wolmarans – as he had done forensic geologist Roger Dixon before him – for not keeping records.

With another so-called expert for the defence reduced to less than reliable, Nel must laugh into his beer when court adjourns each day.

Poor Barry Roux must be cringing that his last-hope expert witnesses instead of saving the day, undermine all the work he did at the beginning. How about someone putting it to Roux that maybe it’s time to call it a day? And give Oscar some of his money back.

* Wolmarans will still be on the stand when the trial resumes on Monday.