I’m making this post today, because I am bound to forget a few things if I leave it ’till the end of the week.  As factual evidence is being led, there are many more small facts coming out, that is starting to cast serious doubt on the defence version. The main problem is that the defence was so ready, able and willing to give out information through their various statements and even their press officers and now it seems they would have to try and to tweak those versions to match the state’s evidence.

Let’s just look at a few points. The first witnesses mentioned that there were screams that “faded” after the fourth/last shot rang out. They were confronted with the question about the deceased being able to scream immediately following the shot to the head. This week the pathologist clarified that she would have been able to scream and that it was most probable that she would have done so.

Added to that, with today’s evidence regarding the number of strikes with the bat on the door, which would include two reasonably hard blows and possibly a third scraping blow.  It seems that the four gunshots can hardly be confused with the strikes from the cricket bat.

If we then look at the evidence, regarding the height of the strikes with the cricket bat, it is quite obvious that a person would attempt to strike the door from the most comfortable and natural position, in order to generate the most amount of power, to be able to break the door. On this point, it is important that Pistorius is an athlete. In training, they focus on form, specifically so that the most amount of power is generated. So perfect form and posture is important to minimise or prevent injuries.  Because of this training, it is therefore even more likely that the athlete would have natural position in relation to the generation of power. So, I think one can judge from this for oneself.

What is however important in relation to the trial, is that a number of aspects in the version of the defence is being disproved, even before testimony for the defence is led.  If the state witness testimony is not properly torn apart, it leaves a lot for the defence to try and explain away. Because of the bad position the defence find themselves in, the defence had to also resort to addressing the chain of evidence and the possibility of other damage being caused to the exhibit. Desperate times call for desperate measures. (The fact is however that additional damage to the door would actually favour the defence – for example, more bat strikes would suit their version better – four to be exact)

The biggest problem for the defence remains that they have volunteered a too detailed version at an early stage, in an attempt to protect a public image. Now it seems that the version does not fully align with the physical evidence in the case.

—

In terms of the other witness, for one of the lesser charges, it is clear that although the evidence in respect of this charge is patchy, at best, the evidence gives an insight to the character of the accused in general and paints a picture for the court.

Tough times ahead!