One Tragic Night (48 page)

On the other hand, there was the evidence of a man screaming not a woman claims from neighbours living far closer to Oscar's home. There was also the testimony of those who arrived first on the scene, who told of the athlete's distress and insistence that he had believed his girlfriend to be an intruder. Crucially, the defence had now also collected all the building blocks of its timeline, which it would construct to show that the state's version, particularly that of Dr Stipp, was simply impossible.

Both sides were saddled with significant problems – holes poked during cross-examination. The greatest difficulty for the state was to explain the two sets of noises heard at about 3:12am and at about 3:17am – even by the state's own witnesses. According to the defence's version, the first set of noises was, in fact, the gunshots and the second sounds were the cricket bat – this appeared to undermine the state's version, particularly as it failed to explain the first sounds.

Roux was, however, left with the challenge of proving that his client's screams could have been mistaken for Reeva's, an issue that the last three neighbours he called addressed in their testimony. While these people heard screaming, they were adamant it was a man in a high pitch. This would support the claim that the shouts were from Oscar as he desperately tried to break down the bathroom door with his cricket bat in order to save his girlfriend.

It would, however, be left to Judge Masipa and her assessors to decide whether the state's witnesses had convinced them of their version of events beyond a reasonable doubt. If they found that the defence's witnesses gave a version that was reasonably possibly true, it would be difficult to convict Oscar of murder.

Nel's first expert witness, the lanky, wire-haired state pathologist Gert Saayman, presented something of a change in tone after the first week of testimony from neighbours, friends and security guards. Professor Saayman had been listening in on testimony for the first week, sitting amongst the ballistics, forensic and blood spatter analysts behind the prosecution team.

Going in to the trial it was well known that the cause of Reeva's death was several gunshots, but the specifics and the finer details of her last moments remained unknown because the postmortem was one aspect of the investigation that had been kept well under wraps.

A pathologist's job is to study the deceased – both externally and internally, by means of dissection – and describe to the court the nature of the wounds, what impact such wounds would have had on the subject while still alive, and offer an explanation of what might have caused the wound. A study of the organs also provides insight into other factors that may have affected the deceased; in the case of Reeva, a study of her stomach's contents was to prove useful for the state.

A pathologist's report and testimony is by its nature graphic, and includes descriptions of wounds and procedures that leave nothing to the imagination. So when Nel called the professor, he told the judge that there was an objection from the witness to his testimony being broadcast, which was an exception to the order that all state expert witnesses should be televised: ‘He has an ethical issue that he would want to raise about the evidence he is about to give,' said Nel. ‘M'Lady, he will give evidence in graphic detail about the postmortem on the deceased.'

While a temporary blackout had no real bearing on the trial itself, there was however a battle of public opinion worldwide. On one hand, the public who
supported the deceased wanted to know how Reeva had died, while those siding with the accused agreed that such testimony would be an affront to her dignity, and do nothing but fuel the voyeuristic appetite the trial had cultivated.

Reeva's mother hadn't been in court for the last week, but the doctor's concerns went beyond the courtroom to where the world was watching. ‘I believe that by such public and contemporaneous streaming of information of this nature,' said the professor, ‘it is almost inevitable that we will impinge upon, or harm the rights of remaining relatives and friends of the deceased.'

While there was considerable debate as to the merits of this compromise, Judge Mapisa eventually ordered that there would be no live broadcast of Saayman's testimony; a package of Saayman's testimony was to be compiled by the media team and submitted to the prosecution and defence legal teams to approve prior to broadcast.

The judge also provided clarity on her prohibition of social media, showing how unfamiliar she was to this new phenomenon in courtrooms. ‘Someone was kind enough to give me more information about blogging and tweeting. As a result of that, in respect of this witness, blogging and tweeting is allowed.'

‘I hold concurrent appointments as Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the University of Pretoria,' started Professor Saayman. ‘That is an academic and teaching appointment, and concurrently as the Chief Specialist or Head of Forensic Pathology Services in the Gauteng Department of Health in Pretoria.'

The professor, who has more than 30 years' experience and has conducted thousands of postmortems, has held that position since 1998 – he's responsible for wide-ranging investigations of death, whether natural, unnatural, unexplained or sudden and was no stranger to high-profile cases and the glare of the media. In the trial of Fred van der Vyfer – accused of murdering his girlfriend Inge Lotz and controversially acquitted – Saayman testified that it was highly unlikely that an ornamental hammer caused the extensive injuries to the woman's head, neck and chest, as contended by the state. He also testified for the state in the case of Pretoria mother Chanelle Henning, who was shot dead in 2011 by gunmen moments after dropping her son off at school.

Experienced court reporter Zelda Venter says that in the 20-odd years she's been covering the High Court in Pretoria, Saayman has been a regular feature in the biggest cases. ‘He's a no-nonsense professional and very highly regarded.
I can't remember a case where his evidence has been rejected. The professor is respected by the legal fraternity, and counsel very rarely questions his evidence; they tend to accept his findings,' she said.

Saayman conducted the postmortem on Reeva the day after Oscar killed her, before compiling his report, which was signed off on 1 July 2013.

‘M'Lady, I concluded that the deceased had died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds.'

Nel flicked through the professor's report, asking him to confirm what each section entailed – the report was a mere 12 pages, but set out in great detail the types and extent of injuries Reeva sustained.

And then, as the doctor was describing the injuries observed on the corpse, switching between medical jargon and layperson explanations, the sound of someone gagging became audible in the court. Oscar was heaving forward with his head in his hands.

‘My Lady, may I just have a moment?' said Nel, looking back at where the accused was seated. ‘I get a report from there that … My Lady, I understand that the accused got sick in court. May I ask for a short adjournment?' The judge granted the request.

Oscar was inconsolable. Aimee and Carl immediately went to support their brother. Aimee sat down next to him, to his right, and with her left arm over Oscar's shoulder she leaned in to whisper in his ear. When she pulled back, a solitary tear could be seen trickling down the bridge of her nose.

Carl was standing upright on the other side of the wooden barrier, his right hand stroking Oscar's back. There was little they could do, and it was going to get worse as the graphic details of his girlfriend's injuries were read into the court record. A court orderly fetched a bucket from outside the courtroom, probably from the cleaners' storeroom, and placed it on the floor between the athlete's legs. His cheeks and ears were bright red, while beads of sweat stood out on his brow and trickled down his temple to mingle with his tears. Members of the public in the gallery as well as journalists were stunned – more than a year after the incident, these detailed descriptions conjured up raw memories of what Oscar had done to another human being. His reaction appeared sincere, but outside the court his detractors were not convinced, with some critics dismissing the vomiting as part of a stage-managed show to win hearts and minds. It was difficult to watch.

After seven minutes, Oscar was again alone in the dock. Judge Masipa and her assessors re-entered the court. ‘Is your client fine for now?' she asked Roux.

‘My Lady, he is not fine, but it is not going to be fine. So it is a difficulty and I think we should continue.'

‘But what does he say?' Masipa showed concern for the accused. ‘Would he proceed? Can you please find out?'

Roux had been faced with a similar situation during the bail application when Nair questioned the well-being of Oscar, who had broken down when his version of events was read into the record.

The advocate told the magistrate that this was an issue they had become accustomed to, and that the situation was not going to change. It was agreed, after he briefly consulted with Oscar, that the advocate would keep an eye on his client, and that the trial should proceed.

Court was on several occasions interrupted by the retching sounds of Oscar with the bucket gripped between his legs, his body heaving, as Saayman explored in graphic detail how Reeva's body was damaged.

Masipa was at pains to be reassured that the accused was in a position to understand proceedings. Her concern, experienced by some as an indication of ‘softness' towards the accused, was actually more orientated to ensuring he was following what was happening in court.

Having dealt with the external injuries, Saayman turned to his findings upon dissecting the body, starting with the head. He described the type of wound caused by the bullet to the head, which indicated that it hit at a very shallow angle of entry, but further there was a large area of the right side of her skull that was cracked, including on the bone sutures.

‘The base of the skull also had fractures and this is purely because of the explosive nature of the projectile as it enters the skull with a lot of kinetic energy being released and there being energy waves which disbursed through the skull causing fractures in the skull at a point distant from where the bullet had entered the skull.

‘So there were multiple fractures involving virtually the whole skull, both the dome part and the base of the skull.'

Saayman commented that when Reeva's brain was removed from the cranial cavity, the cause of this devastating damage became apparent. He found a jagged piece of projectile lodged into the bone at the base of the skull – Ranger or Black Talon ammunition. The pathologist and prosecutor used the two names interchangeably to refer to hollow-point ammunition. While the particular variety was an issue of contention amongst the ballistics experts later in the trial, we studied crime scene photographs that revealed the headstamp on a spent copper cartridge in the bathroom to bear the lettering ‘WCC +P+', while the bullets in Oscar's pistol magazine showed that the projectiles were black-tipped. Firearm enthusiast websites, mostly in the United States, identify the rounds as
Winchester SXT, a 127-grain hollow-point. The Black Talon round is identified by its nickel-plated cartridge and is a heavier 147-grain bullet.

The pathologist explained that Black Talon was first produced by the US company Winchester, and was later removed from the market but was subsequently replaced and marketed under the brand name Ranger.

‘Have you had experience with this Ranger type ammunition?' asked Nel.

‘It is something which unfortunately we, as forensic pathologists in South Africa,' said Saayman, ‘get to deal with gunshot injuries on a more regular basis I think than most and yes, I have had a number of previous cases where the victim has suffered injury as a result of so-called “Black Talon ammunition”.'

He said manufacturers develop specific kinds of ammunition to perform different purposes – some are built to have a high penetrating value, while others are designed to break up and destroy human tissue. ‘This particular kind of projectile is referred to as an expanding bullet,' the pathologist explained, taking care to note that he was not a wound ballistics expert. ‘It is designed to open up, or to flatten out, or to mushroom upon striking tissue, such as human tissue and in the process, it becomes markedly deformed and larger in frontal or cross-section diameter.

‘So it is a projectile that is designed to cause maximal tissue damage,' he said.

Saayman referred the court to a picture in the album of Reeva's skull cavity with her brain removed, to a section showing where part of the bullet had become lodged in the bone. The next page in the album showed the lead core and jagged slivers of the metal jacket recovered from Reeva's skull.

‘The fundamental feature of this projectile is that as it strikes tissue, the usual result is that it folds out like the petals of a flower; it opens up and in that way presents a much broader front or presenting face to the tissue, which therefore facilitates the transmission of kinetic energy.