It is a luxury, that I am not really used to. Usually I would be part of a court case as witness and would have to keep my mouth shut. Due to this luxury, I am now able to speculate like so many others. It is for this reason, that I am now making some comments, based on some of the testimony that I heard and also, based on some of the testimony that I had to gather from tweets or the news papers.

The first comment involves all of the witnesses so far. At this stage of the trial, it is clear that the witnesses seem to be very honest in relation to what they could remember, even though that evidence may be influence by personal perception. We have to remember that even when two witnesses stand right next to each other and observe an event, their versions, although similar in general, will contain different descriptions and they may even recall of forget different details. This is as any witness perceives his/her reality, based on a personal frame of reference. For example, I have heard gunshots in the area where I live and sometimes I count and at other times I don’t. It would however be very rare for me to remember the number of shots, at a later stage, if I don’t write it down on a piece of paper. It all depends on the significance for me (or any other person), at that point in time. Well, that aspect merely indicates the unimportance of small inconsistencies in some of the evidence that was presented.

In terms of the facts before the court, so far, it is clear that there is not yet a convincing case for either the state or the defence. A lot more aspects need to be addressed, before we would get to a point where the scales of justice would lean towards either version. I am also not going to reject any evidence for one simple reason. None of the witnesses were shown to be liars or completely at odds with what any other witness said, so far. There are however many unanswered questions that come from the evidence and also from the version presented by the defence.

In terms of the evidence, we know there was screaming of a person that sounded like a woman. We know there were a number of loud noises, similar to gunshots (or a cricket bat against a door?). We know there are aspects in relation to certain times certain things happened. We also know as a fact, that four shots were indeed fired and a person was killed, but I will get to some of the hard facts later.

What we do also know is that the defence has a version that could fit into some of the time frames that are currently known, to some extent that could exclude pre-meditated murder. But as I indicated, this is at this early stage. Because of this, the defence is also able to confront witnesses with aspects relating to those time frames in order to confuse the witnesses. But one thing is sure, if we are to believe the defence version, we would also have to believe that Oscar Pistorius screams like a girl! Nonetheless, make of it what you will, at this early stage there is still reasonable doubt regarding pre-meditation. Most of the evidence to follow would be based on a few aspects that relate to the time-frame and the screaming. What is however clear, is that the prosecution had all the reason in the world to charge Pistorius with pre-meditated murder. Not that it is a foregone conclusion that they will succeed. There is still much evidence to be led, for both the state and the defence.

A few questions already exist that also cast some doubt on the defence version. Can a cricket bat be swung at such a rate that it sounds like a volley of shots? (Especially where enough power is generated to break a door?) Does he scream like a girl? Could a cricket bat hitting a door generate enough noise to be heard clearly over hundreds of metres? Did he fire four shots, to make sure? Of what? But these are all aspects that relate to pre-meditation, but what about the things that are already known to be fact. What about the aspects in the states case and the defence version that are common cause?

The facts are basically the following:

• Oscar Pistorius fired a number of shots from a pistol
• The pistol was aimed at a toilet door and as far as he was aware, there was another person standing behind that door
• The person on the other side of the door was killed
• The person on the other side of the door was not an immediate threat to Pistorius

Even for a murder charge (not pre-meditated), we don’t need much more than that. And even we we look at the lower end of the scale the person shooting would firstly know that a bullet, fired from a gun could kill another person (common knowledge) and he therefore reconciles himself with that fact. He then lifts a firearm, to aim at a door (intent) and squeezes the trigger (intent). And this is of course my opinion

There are however aspects from the evidence so far that seem to be quite disturbing in relation to specific person who had a valid license to own a firearm. But more about that point at another time…