What initially seemed to be strong testimony in Oscar Pistorius's defence case began to look uncertain as sports scientist Professor Wayne Derman endured an increasingly fraught cross-examination by prosecutor Gerrie Nel on the 37th day of the Paralympian's murder trial.
Pistorius stands accused of murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp after shooting her in his Pretoria home on Valentine’s Day last year. He claims he mistook her for an intruder.
Derman admitted that this was the first time he had given evidence in a criminal matter and said his report was intended to assist the court, which would ultimately determine its relevance.
Nel argued that Derman's close relationship with Pistorius prevented him giving objective expert testimony.
Nel also argued that Derman's inability to speak about the fight or flight response outside the circumstances of Pistorius's version of events, and not in objective terms, failed to give credence to his testimony as an expert.
Derman grew increasingly uncomfortable during cross-examination and repeatedly appealed to Judge Thokozile Masipa to ask her to tell Nel to rephrase his questions.
Nel asked Derman if the sound of a bathroom window being opened - which Pistorius said he had heard on the morning of the shooting - would have caused a fight or flight response that could account for the shooting.
Derman said that this would not be sufficient.
Derman was unable to offer hypothetical time periods for how long a fight or flight response would last and his inability to conceptualise how such a response might work in circumstances other than the version of events given by Pistorius led Nel to again question his abilities as an expert and make a further accusation of bias.
Nel's cross-examination of Derman will continue after the lunch adjournment.
Oscar Trial: Day 37
Pistorius stands accused of murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp after shooting her in his Pretoria home on Valentine’s Day last year. He claims he mistook her for an intruder.
Derman admitted that this was the first time he had given evidence in a criminal matter and said his report was intended to assist the court, which would ultimately determine its relevance.
Nel argued that Derman's close relationship with Pistorius prevented him giving objective expert testimony.
Nel also argued that Derman's inability to speak about the fight or flight response outside the circumstances of Pistorius's version of events, and not in objective terms, failed to give credence to his testimony as an expert.
Derman grew increasingly uncomfortable during cross-examination and repeatedly appealed to Judge Thokozile Masipa to ask her to tell Nel to rephrase his questions.
Nel asked Derman if the sound of a bathroom window being opened - which Pistorius said he had heard on the morning of the shooting - would have caused a fight or flight response that could account for the shooting.
Derman said that this would not be sufficient.
Derman was unable to offer hypothetical time periods for how long a fight or flight response would last and his inability to conceptualise how such a response might work in circumstances other than the version of events given by Pistorius led Nel to again question his abilities as an expert and make a further accusation of bias.
Nel's cross-examination of Derman will continue after the lunch adjournment.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos