I’m only writing this in reaction to some of the comments that I saw on twitter regarding the trial. The comments I saw clearly indicated that those who made the comments have never attended a real court case, nor have they ever been part of court proceedings.

Some of the comments I read included the following:

“The witness is falling apart under cross-examination”
“Counsel is badgering the witness, why doesn’t the prosecutor object”
“It is too repetitive”
“Why does she address the defence counsel as milady?”

Just to answer some of theses comments first of all.
Firstly, the witness was very far away from falling apart. She was in fact very strong in her answers and actually answered some of the questions better than most witnesses would. She was trying to answer as she remembered and came across as a very competent and a reliable witness. She was attacked on semantics, interpretation and phrases, more than on the facts.

Secondly counsel was merely doing his job. He is searching for clarity in the answers and even if it means repeating certain things, in different ways, he can get past any meanings of things that may have been said in testimony sub-consciously. The same applies to the repetition.

Thirdly, objecting to every little thing is more likely to show that the witness is weak. If the witness can stand up for himself/herself, it is better.

Lastly, You always address the presiding officer in court and not counsel. Counsel merely asks the questions on behalf of the court and the witness addresses the court when the answer is given. It is even better to not even look at counsel, but to look at the presiding officer in order to remember this fact. You are talking directly to the judge, after all.

Because of the above, I thought it would be good to compile a short guide so that you understand a little better what is happening as the trial unfolds. So here it is. Your guidelines for the Oscar Pistorius trial.

• This is not Hollywood, or according to a script. Don’t expect a highlights package! It takes long to go through the testimony of one witness and it gets really boring at times. They won’t be able to fit 100 plus witness in in 96 minutes…

• There will be a lot of procedural schlep that will take up time and it is not “action all the time…” – Repeat point 1: It is not Hollywood
• Under cross-examination you version will be tested by all means necessary. (Semantics, twisting your words around, repetition of questions in different ways, “Interpreting” your answers to questions incorrectly and attacking you on interpretation)

• Opposing Counsel will not jump up continuously to object, it points to a weak witness. Repeat point 1: It is not Hollywood

• The court is addressed as M’Lady or M’Lord (High court) and all answers are directed towards the presiding officer, not to the counsel asking the questions (In the lower courts, it is “Your worship”

• Both counsel (Roux and Nel) are very detailed in their preparations and cross-examinations and it will take long. It will also give the judge and the assessors a lot of evidence to work through when it comes to making a finding

• When counsel indicates that you did not answer a specific question, it is in many cases meaningless (or a compliment). It only means you did not answer in a way he/she would have liked you to answer.

• The short adjournment (tea time) will be at approximately 11:00 and will be anything from 15 minutes to 30 minutes

• The long adjournment (lunch) will be at about 13:00 and will be for approximately 1 hour

• When it gets to close to 16:00, it’s time to go home

• There may be other short breaks for consultation between the experts and counsel to make sure no questions are left unasked

As the trial continues, there may be other things that I may think of and I might add some points later on.