One Tragic Night (74 page)

Edkins declined to do an interview with us. In a brief response to questions sent to her about the nature of her ongoing relationship with Oscar, she commented: ‘I do not wish to respond to mere allegations, for example, the allegations of Oscar calling me when he and Reeva had a fight or the statement given by Samantha are untrue. It is common knowledge that Oscar and I have remained friends over the years and I do not wish to be involved in any media hype around this terrible situation.'

The only mention of Edkins in Oscar's SMS or WhatsApp conversations with Reeva came on 15 January 2013:

On the eve of Valentine's Day, Oscar arrived home to Reeva while still on the phone to Jenna Edkins. It is a conversation the police did not identify and Oscar did not speak about in his evidence – but whatever its substance, Oscar had been in contact with Edkins when he arrived home on the evening of 13 February.

Who was to say what relevance or consequence this could have had to the state's case or if it would have swayed Masipa at all if the police investigations had unearthed it?

With the closing of the state's case, the key question was whether Oscar would take the stand in his own defence. His lawyer Barry Roux had told the court in passing that his client would indeed testify, but there was still some doubt that it would happen. Oscar had been extremely emotional in court over the weeks of the state's case, crying and vomiting as evidence was led, and there was doubt as to whether he would be able to maintain his composure for the duration of intense cross-examination.

In reality, Oscar had no choice but to testify and take the court into his confidence. There were only two people on the scene at the time of the shooting – Reeva and Oscar – and he was the only one remaining, the only one who could give the court an account of the events of that morning. It was also crucial that he explain his state of mind to back up his defence of putative private defence. It was up to him to convince the court of what he was thinking, how he felt he was genuinely under threat and why he took the actions he did. If he failed to take the stand, it would amount to an admission to the charges against him.

University of Cape Town law expert Kelly Phelps agreed it was crucial that Oscar take the stand. ‘Officially, no accused person has to testify (there is always a right to remain silent) but pragmatically he had no choice but to testify. This is because of the defence he has raised – putative private defence. This defence is assessed subjectively by the court – in other words, what that particular accused was actually thinking on the night in question, rather than what he should have or could have thought.'

Phelps adds that in the case of Antonio de Oliveira, the immigrant who shot at his employer and his guests (mentioned in a previous chapter), the courts
made it clear that the only real way for the court to know subjectively what the accused was thinking is to hear from that person.

Professor James Grant agrees it wasn't really an option for Oscar to exercise his constitutional right to silence. ‘Some have commented, rightly in my view, that one may remain silent at one's peril. This means that, while one has the right to remain silent, it is not always in one's best interests … There are situations in which, by virtue of the evidence against you, or by virtue of the nature of your own defence, you would be well-advised to testify. Oscar's (original) defence of putative private defence is one, which places in issue what the accused was thinking at the time of the incident. By its nature, his subjective mental state is all-important and he is the best person to explain what he was thinking,' says Grant.

Comparisons were incorrectly drawn between Oscar's potential decision and that of US football star OJ Simpson, who had chosen not to testify in his trial for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and had been acquitted. Phelps believes the cases are not comparable, other than for dramatic effect.

‘In OJ's case there was an established track record of violence (as opposed to allegations of one in this case, with little or no evidence to back up the claim) and an abusive relationship between he and the deceased (as opposed to allegations of one with little or no evidence to back up the claim). There was also evidence that OJ planned to murder the deceased in a jealous rage in reaction to her moving on with another romantic partner. The case was not won or lost because he didn't testify – most accused persons will not testify if they can help it because a good cross-examiner can unnerve a saint on the stand and make them look guilty or suspicious,' says Phelps. ‘Another key difference between the cases is that OJ tried to evade justice from the outset – Pistorius handed himself over willingly and never denied shooting Steenkamp; it is his explanation of why that differs from the states version.'

And so it was that on 7 April, after defence pathologist Jan Botha had completed his testimony, that Barry Roux announced to the court: ‘I call Mr Pistorius.' It was what the vast majority of the people in the gallery – reporters – wanted to hear. Like a headline act at a show, the accused was the main attraction and had drawn the crowds. The main courtroom was packed to capacity and so was the overflow facility next door. The world was waiting to hear Oscar's version in Oscar's voice. He appeared tense, experiencing a retching episode during the pathologist's testimony, and was given a little time to compose himself.

Oscar packed away several items into a small bag that he left in the dock, clasped his spectacles and a packet of tissues in his right hand and opened the
little wooden swing door of the dock as Aimee mouthed words of support. Steadying himself with his left hand on the dock, he made his way past his bullet-riddled bathroom door towards the witness box in the front right of the courtroom. His gaze was fixed forward, not once glancing over to the gallery where June Steenkamp and her entourage sat. He had chosen not to have his face televised during his evidence so only his quivering voice was audible as he was sworn in. But what the television viewers couldn't see was Oscar trembling, as he raised his right hand and declared, ‘So help me God.'

Before leading Oscar through his version of events around the shooting, Roux invited Oscar to make the opening remarks he had requested to begin with. He wore a black suit, white shirt and black tie that day; sombre attire as an expression of his grief. The athlete tendered a deeply emotional apology directed at Reeva's parents. Her mother, sitting in the public gallery, stared stoically ahead, her jaw tightly clenched, guarding against any emotion. Next to her, her advocate Dup de Bruyn watched as Oscar crumbled. Aimee and Carl were less composed as the tears streaked down their faces while other Pistorius relatives watched on. Judge Masipa listened attentively, her chin resting on her fist as she focused on the accused:

Oscar trailed off. He was overcome with emotion, his voice barely audible, so that Judge Masipa was forced to intervene. ‘Mr Pistorius, I do not like doing this to you, but I can hardly hear you—'

Oscar continued:

As Oscar fumbled on, Barry Roux stepped in, reminding him that although he wanted to look at Reeva's mother while he apologised, he had to face the judge so that the microphone could pick up his voice. Roux was speaking softly, compassionately to his client, as if empathising with him in this solemn moment. But the awkward apology had ended and Roux began leading his client through his evidence.

Day one of Oscar on the stand ended early because, said Roux, his client was exhausted. As the judge left the courtroom at the close of proceedings, Oscar slumped back into the chair, leaned his head on his hand and started crying. With Carl and Aimee consoling their sibling, attempts were made to usher him outside, but he sat down on the step leading to the witness box and continued to cry. His psychologist sat beside him, her arm over his shoulder as she whispered into his ear. Pistorius family members formed a huddle around the pair, using their legs to shield the accused from the eyes of the prying media.

This was the start of seven days on the stand for the Blade Runner, with the world hanging onto his every word.

Oscar had already given a written version of events at the bail application. He then gave another written version during his plea explanation. On the stand as a witness, he spoke in far more detail. Speaking quietly but rapidly, his advocate led him through the events of 13 February and then on to the fatal Valentine's Day morning:

Roux explained that an exhibit would be submitted to show that there was a gap in the website activity from 7:10pm until 8pm. Oscar confirmed this was right.

Judge Masipa intervened to establish which room Oscar was referring to and he confirmed it was located on the first floor. He then picked up where he left off, opening the doors.

Oscar went into great detail about the level of light in the bedroom – this was critical in explaining how he did not see Reeva getting up and going to the bathroom.