(Warning: Because this is a summary, we had to leave stuff out. Please don’t get mad – it’s still really long. We hope all the important bits are in here.)

Witness 1: Jan Botha

Position: Forensic pathologist

Testimony summary: Cast doubt on state pathologist Gert Saayman’s testimony that Reeva Steenkamp had last eaten around 1am, saying her last meal could have been eaten “considerably longer” before her death. Contested state ballistics evidence, saying Steenkamp would have been positioned too high if she had fallen onto magazine rack as claimed by Captain Mangena. Said it would be “highly unlikely” for Steenkamp to have been able to cry out during bullets.

Questions arising: The first – but not the last – defence witness to seemingly overstep his area of expertise, having testified about ballistics despite admitting that he was not a ballistician. Conceded under cross-examination that Steenkamp may have emptied her bladder as much as 15 minutes before death – begging the question of what she was doing in toilet thereafter.

State says: Timing of last meal is an inexact science, which means Saayman could still be right. There were blood spatters on wall behind magazine rack.

Witness 2: Oscar Pistorius

Position: The accused

Testimony summary: Testified to his anxiety and grief after the shooting; his upbringing, including having inherited security concerns from his mother; his previous exposure to crime, including claims to have been followed on the highway; and his 2009 Vaal River boating accident. Testified that he was aware that building was going on around his complex at the time of the shooting, and that he had heard of an incident involving the use of a ladder to gain access to a house. Described his relationship with Steenkamp as loving and mutually supportive.

On the night of the shooting, said he had dinner with Steenkamp at 7pm and that he did not believe it would have been possible for her to have gone downstairs to eat later without his knowledge. Before they went to sleep, said that he propped his cricket bar against his bedroom door for extra security because his lock was weak. Was aware that his outdoor security beams were not functioning properly. He asked Steenkamp to bring in the fans from the balcony before she fell asleep, which she clearly failed to do for unexplained reasons.

Says that when he woke up in early hours of 14 February, Steenkamp was awake too and they had an exchange about Pistorius inability to sleep. Moved fans inside, locked sliding door and drew curtains. Picked up a pair of jeans from the floor and placed them over a flashing amplifier light. Heard what he thought was the sound of a window closing in the bathroom and immediately thought it was a burglar who had entered the bathroom through a ladder he believed to be leaning against the window.

Grabbed his gun and whispered for Reeva to get down and phone police. Made way down passage screaming at burglar to get out of his house and for Reeva to call police. Just before bathroom heard what he thought was slam of toilet door.

Reaching toilet, he saw it was closed and then heard what he thought was someone coming out. Fired four shots through door and again shouted to Reeva to call police. Walked back to bedroom and felt for Reeva on bed. Not finding her, he searched behind bedroom curtains. Returning to toilet, he tried handle and found it locked. Screamed for help. Rushed back, put on prosthetic legs, ran to bathroom, tried to kick open toilet door, ran back to bedroom to grab cricket bat, ran back to toilet and began hitting door with bat.

He found Steenkamp still breathing in the bathroom and tried to pick her up. Called estate manager Johan Stander and security. Ran downstairs to open front door, then returned to carry Steenkamp down. Stander and daughter then arrived and informed him ambulance was en route. Pistorius put his fingers in Steenkamp’s mouth to help her breathe and his hand on her hip to stem bleeding.

The Stipps said that they had seen a man walk across Pistorius’ bathroom; Pistorius said that given the angle of the bedroom window they could only have seen him if he was wearing his prosthetic legs.

Under cross-examination Pistorius said he fired at the door “by accident”. Later, he denied firing at an attacker: “I fired at the door”, he said. Re-questioned at the end of his time on the stand, he said he did not consciously pull his gun’s trigger.

With regards to the three minor charges Pistorius faces: Pistorius flatly denied the incident when he allegedly discharged a firearm through the roof of Darren Fresco’s car when driving back from the Vaal River. Denied discharging a firearm at Tasha’s restaurant and asking his friends to take the blame, though admitted firearm was in his possession when it went off. Said he believed it was not illegal to store his father’s ammunition in his safe.

Questions arising: Pistorius’s testimony about what happened during his 2009 boating accident has been called into doubt by eye-witnesses to the immediate aftermath. Pistorius testified in tears that he saved Steenkamp’s Valentine’s present to open on Reeva’s birthday, 8 August, but her birthday was 19 August. His denial of the shooting incident in Fresco’s car, and his version of the shooting incident at Tasha’s, contradicts the testimony of eye-witnesses in both cases. The reason why Reeva Steenkamp brought her cellphone into the bathroom was not addressed by either prosecution or defence. Pistorius at one stage said “I can barely stand on my stumps”, which has been disproved by re-enactment footage shown by Australian TV. Pistorius said his and Steenkamp’s last meal was chicken stirfry, but state pathologist Gert Saayman said the contents of Steenkamp’s last meal looked to be vegetables and cheese.

State says: There are discrepancies between Pistorius’ bail affidavit and his testimony; in the former there was only one fan on his balcony, the latter specified two. Bail affidavit said Pistorius went “on to balcony” to fetch a fan; on stand Pistorius said he was within room. Bail affidavit also made no mention of Pistorius having exchanged words with Steenkamp in the early morning, and did not mention Pistorius’s claim to have heard the toilet door slamming. State showed a photo of plugs which seemed to show there was only space to plug in one, not two, fans. WhatsApp messages from Steenkamp to Pistorius were read out to suggest Pistorius was controlling and narcissistic within the relationship. Police photos of crime scene show a duvet on the floor, which may have made the absence of Steenkamp easier to see (Pistorius says police moved it). State says a man as security paranoid as Pistorius would surely have ensured his alarm system was working and a broken window fixed. Why would Reeva Steenkamp pack all her clothes neatly in a togbag except her jeans, discarded on the floor? State suggests Steenkamp was in the process of putting them on, ready to leave after an argument.

Sideshow: Pistorius began his evidence with an emotional apology to the family of Reeva Steenkamp. State played a video, originally obtained by Sky, of Pistorius firing at watermelons at a shooting range. Gerrie Nel attempted to force Pistorius to look at a picture of Steenkamp’s wounded head.

Witness 3: Roger Dixon

Position: Forensic scientist (trace evidence expert)

Testimony summary: Carried out tests in Pistorius’s bedroom and found it was pitch dark; carried out tests from the Stipps’ house and found nothing was visible from Pistorius’ bathroom with the lights off. Carried out tests as to sounds made by cricket bat striking door vs. gunshots. Said marks on Pistorius’ prosthetic foot were consistent with attempts to kick in door. Said contusions on Steenkamp’s back were caused by falling against magazine rack and not bullet ricochet as state claimed. This led him to contradict Pistorius’s own account of where the magazine rack was positioned in the toilet.

Questions arising: Dixon gave evidence on a bizarre range of subjects which he lacked formal expertise in, given that he is actually a geologist by training and not currently attached to any forensic body. The highly precise instrument he used to determine darkness levels in Pistorius’ room was “his eyes”. The gunshots used in his sound test were recorded individually and edited together by a sound engineer because the gun kept jamming. Dixon said the Black Talon ammunition used by Pistorius was “hard to come by”, while Pistorius said it was simply the type of ammo used for his firearm.

State says: Gert Saayman is more qualified than Dixon to comment on bruises and contusions. The recording of cricket bat bangs made by defence sounded like it had been amplified. Dixon’s visibility tests from the Stipps’ were carried out from the street, not the Stipps’ balcony.

Sideshow: The unfortunate Dixon was nicknamed ‘ContraDixon’ by social media users. While on the stand Dixon took to social media himself to express his disappointment at how he was being treated in court and beyond, announcing that he was looking forward to “beer o’clock”.

Witness 4: Johan Stander

Position: Manager of Pistorius’ Pretoria estate

Testimony summary: Heard neither shots nor screams. Was called by Pistorius who told him he had shot Steenkamp thinking she was an intruder; arrived at Pistorius’s house with his daughter while Pistorius was coming downstairs with Steenkamp in his arms. Went to call ambulance after being given number by Johan Stipp. Described Pistorius’ “commitment” to saving Steenkamp’s life. Told court of three crime incidents at Silverwoods Estate which he said Pistorius would have been made aware of.

Questions raised: N/A

State says: Not much. Insinuated that Stander couldn’t be objective due to close relationship with Pistorius.

Witness 5: Carice Stander

Position: Johan Stander’s daughter, a legal assessor who lived on estate at time of shooting

Testimony summary: Went to sleep with balcony window open and was woken by her dog barking. Then heard person shouting ‘help’ three times. Went to parents’ room and was informed Pistorius had shot Steenkamp. Drove with father to Pistorius’s house, where Malawian housekeeper Frank Chiziweni was outside. Tried to fashion tourniquet to stem Steenkamp’s bleeding. When Pistorius went upstairs to fetch Reeva’s ID for police she was worried he might shoot himself. Helped Pistorius’ sister Aimee to pack clothes for Oscar.

Questions raised: The mysterious Frank Chiziweni mentioned by Carice Stander, Pistorius’ live-in housekeeper, was staying at Pistorius’ house on the night of the shooting but claimed to have heard nothing and hence was not called to testify by either defence or state.

State says: Not much. Tried to suggest that Pistorius’ pleas to Carice to help stem bleeding were a sign that he was in control.

Witness 6: Michael Nhlengethwa

Position: Pistorius’ immediate neighbours

Testimony summary: Was woken by wife, who said she heard a bang. He himself heard no bangs. Once awake, said he then heard man crying as if in danger and needed help. At no point heard woman screaming. Phoned estate security. Went to Pistorius’ house and found him kneeling over Steenkamp in shock and distress.

Questions raised: Claims Pistorius introduced Steenkamp as his “fiancée”, though this point was not pursued by state or defence.

State says: Extracted acknowledgement that Nhlengethwa had been following case and knew what other neighbours had claimed to have heard. Nhlengethwa conceded that differences between what he heard and what the Stipps heard might be explained by his being asleep while Stipps were hearing bangs.

Witness 7: Eontle Nhlengethwa

Position: Pistorius’s immediate neighbour; Michael’s wife

Testimony summary: Was woken by loud bang. Heard someone saying “help, help, help” and the sound of a man crying. At no point heard woman screaming.

Questions raised: Said she had been watching trial on TV virtually continuously.

State says: If she heard only one bang followed by Pistorius’ cries for help, the bang she heard must have been Pistorius’ final blow on toilet door with cricket bat.

Witness 8: Ricca Motshwane

Position: Pistorius’s neighbour across the road

Testimony summary: Went to bed around 10pm. Was woken in early hours of 14 February by sound of man crying “a cry of pain”. Woke husband up, who confirmed what she heard. Was adamant she heard only a man crying, not a woman. Heard no bangs. Estimated that not more than ten minutes elapsed between hearing crying and seeing Johan Stander’s car pull up outside Pistorius’ house.

Questions raised: Motshwane was the final neighbour witness called by either state or defence, and like all others before her, she said her first instinct on hearing a strange noise was to confer with her partner – an instinct apparently not shared by Pistorius.

State says: Not much.

Witness 9: Christina Lundgren

Position: University of the Witwatersrand anaesthetist

Testimony summary: Called to testify on the issue of gastric emptying (when Steenkamp ate last meal), because anaesthetists have to be very careful about food contents of stomachs. Even if Steenkamp ate her last meal at 19h00, factors which might have led Steenkamp’s stomach not to be empty at time of shooting could be: vegetables take longer to digest; pre-menopausal women have delayed gastric emptying; use of slimming drugs can delay it.

Questions raised: A point returned to by everyone who testified on the timing of last meals is that it’s virtually impossible for science to pinpoint this precisely.

State says: Many anaesthetists would consider it “normal” for a stomach to be empty six hours after eating. Anxiety after food is consumed can also delay gastric emptying.

Witness 10: Yvette van Schalkwyk

Position: Social worker who assessed Pistorius after he was arrested post-shooting.

Testimony summary: Pistorius was heartbroken after the shooting. She supervised him weekly and wrote reports. Pistorius participated in art therapy after shooting. She saw Pistorius vomit twice from distress while in police cells.

Questions raised: Van Schalkwyk approached defence just 72 hours before being put on the stand because she was “upset” by claims she read in media that Pistorius was play-acting his distress on the stand.

State says: Van Schalkwyk is in a poor position to determine whether Pistorius’s post-arrest behaviour was normal or not because she had never previously worked with any accused directly after their arrest.

Witness 11: Wollie Wolmarans

Position: Independent forensic ballistics expert

Testimony summary: Wolmarans first visited Pistorius’s house on 17 February 2013. Though toilet door had already been removed by police, Wolmarans found bullet fragment left behind in toilet bowl. Said that state findings as to bullet trajectory were questionable because they hadn’t considered the deflection potential of the door. Disputed state’s claims that bruising on Steenkamp’s back was caused by bullet ricochet, supporting Dixon’s magazine rack theory. Disputed state claim that Steenkamp was cowering with hand against head when shot, saying there should be secondary wounds on inside of hand in that case. Said Steenkamp fell back after being struck on the hip and was hit by other bullets in such close succession that had no chance to scream. Participated in sound tests and said gunshots and cricket bat bangs “resembled each other”, although gunshots were louder. Said Pistorius did not use “Black Talon” ammunition but similar ranger-style ammo.

Questions raised: Wolmarans took part in sound tests despite admitting being hard of hearing. Said he had had a beer with Roger Dixon after Dixon’s stint on the stand. The two enjoyed T-bone steaks, but what Wolmarans wanted was pork chops.

State says: Wolmarans and Dixon may have conferred to make their ballistics evidence match, since Wolmarans only submitted his report in late April. If Wolmarans account of how Steenkamp fell backwards after being shot was correct, state claims she could not have ended with her head on the toilet. State says second bullet missed Steenkamp, allowing window for her to have screamed.

Witness 12: Merryl Vorster

Position: Forensic psychiatrist contracted to evaluate Pistorius

Testimony summary: Pistorius suffers from a “generalised anxiety disorder” (GAD) originally stemming from operation to remove legs, later heightened by absorbing his mother’s anxiety. Testified that Pistorius was hyper-vigilant as to threats in his environment and took “excessive” security precautions. Introduced the notion of the “fight or flight” response to threat; said Pistorius would be unable to flee and would have to fight. Said it was possible that Pistorius’s GAD could have affected his capacity to act on the distinction between right and wrong.

Questions raised: Vorster only interviewed Pistorius twice, just a week before her testimony.

State says: “Excessive” security precautions taken by Pistorius were quite normal for many South Africans. It would be natural for Pistorius to experience anxiety in response to objectively traumatic life experiences like the loss of his mother. If Pistorius is diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, the court has to have him independently mentally evaluated.

Sideshow: Dr. Vorster will go down as the woman who halted the trial, after Judge Masipa ruled that her testimony did indeed necessitate Pistorius’ independent mental evaluation due to the possibility that GAD may have compromised Pistorius’ ability to act on his awareness of right and wrong on the night of the shooting. Pistorius was duly packed off to Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital for 30 days’ evaluation as an in-patient. The panel of experts evaluating him there found that he did not have GAD and it did not affect his ability to perceive the wrongfulness of his actions on the night of the shooting.

Witness 13: Gerald Versfeld

Position: Orthopaedic surgeon who amputated Pistorius’ legs as a baby and continues to treat him

Testimony summary: Testified that Pistorius has limited and painful mobility on his stumps and his ability to flee from danger is greatly impaired. Pistorius would not have been able to strike the bathroom door with a cricket bat on his stumps (as claimed by state) because he would fall down. Pistorius needs sight to help him balance.

Questions raised: N/A

State says: If Pistorius needs sight to help him balance, how could he have made his way around his bedroom without falling if it was as pitch dark as claimed?

Witness 14: Ivan Lin

Position: Acoustics expert

Testimony summary: Undertook sound tests for defence. One cannot always reliably differentiate between a man and a woman screaming. At a distance of 177m (the distance from the Stipps’ house to Pistorius&rsquo, it is unlikely one could hear a scream from a locked toilet. From a distance it is difficult to accurately interpret screams at all.

Questions raised: Lin, like many other defence witnesses, compiled his report only days before taking the stand. He repeatedly conceded that it is extremely difficult to accurately replicate conditions in a sound test because even something as small as the grass length can affect how sound is heard. Why was the only dedicated sound expert called by the defence not asked to give testimony on whether cricket bat blows do indeed sound like a gunshots (the defence’s claim)?

State says: Topography of Pistorius estate has changed considerably between the shooting and when Lin visited the estate, affecting perception of sound. It is common sense that more often than not, people can tell male from female screams.

Witness 15: Peet van Zyl

Position: Pistorius’ agent/manager

Testimony summary: Pistorius was easily startled and hyper-vigilant. Pistorius only lost his temper on two occasions in van Zyl’s presence. His relationship with Steenkamp was more serious than any previously, because he asked van Zyl for the first time if he could bring her with him to an overseas athletics fixture.

Questions raised: N/A

State says: There were a number of media reports about other incidents on which Pistorius lost his temper over the last few years. Pistorius had also told ex-girlfriend Sam Taylor that he was instructing Van Zyl to find her a ticket to come overseas with him.

Sideshow: One of the temper incidents Gerrie Nel referred to was based on an article written by local broadcaster David O’Sullivan, who wrote that Paralympic athlete Arnu Fourie had told him he asked to move rooms before the London Games because Pistorius was always shouting at people on the phone. Van Zyl denied being aware of this. After the matter was raised in court, Fourie released a Twitter statement saying that he “wanted to rest and recover” in his own room before an important race (though neither denying or confirming the shouty phonecalls). Witness Wayne Derman then said on the stand that Fourie had moved rooms because he had the beginnings of a viral infection. O’Sullivan, meanwhile, has maintained his version.

Witness 16: Wayne Derman

Position: Sports Medicine Professor; Paralympic team doctor

Testimony summary: Pistorius was more anxious than other disabled athletes. Disabled people justifiably fear more for their personal safety than able-bodied people because they are more frequently the victims of attacks. People with high levels of anxiety have less control over the amygdala, governing automatic responses, during stressful situations. The “startle” reflex, heightened in anxious individuals, would trigger a “fight or flight” response in which Pistorius would choose fight due to his inability to flee. Pistorius experienced three “startles” leading up to the shooting, each of which was a noise he perceived as indicating a threat. Pistorius is not capable of running on his stumps.

Questions raised: Derman seemed unwilling to entertain any scenarios outside that which Pistorius specified happened.

State says: Derman is surely biased due to being Pistorius’ physician. Derman also overreached his expertise by veering into the territory of psychologists. Pistorius’s actions before shooting into the toilet door – finding his gun, unholstering it etc. – surely suggested more conscious thought over a longer period than would be explained by the fight/flight reflex. Won the concession from Derman that Pistorius must have “intended” to shoot someone. DM

Witness 1: Michelle Burger

Position: Pistorius neighbour, 177 metres away.

Testimony summary: Heard a woman’s screams and yells for help, a man’s yells for help, followed by four gunshots: Bang…bang bang bang.

Questions arising: Why would a man shout for help before he shoots his girlfriend? Claims to have heard screams continuing after shots fired; later pathologist evidence reveals that Steenkamp would almost certainly have been unable to scream.

Defence says: Burger couldn’t have heard clearly at such a distance; Burger mistook the sound of gunshots for a cricket bat attacking the door; Burger mistook a woman screaming for Oscar screaming.

Sideshow: Had pics of her face broadcast/published without permission.

Witness 2: Estelle van der Merwe

Position: Pistorius neighbour, 98 metres away.

Testimony summary: Heard voices talking shortly before 2am, and four “bang bang” explosion sounds at around 3am; after this she heard crying, which she believed was a woman but her husband said was Oscar.

Questions arising: Claimed to have heard two people in what could have been an argument before bangs, but admitted she couldn’t hear clearly enough to even make out the language.

Defence says: Sounds can’t carry far enough to be heard clearly at Van der Merwe’s house.

Witness 3: Charl Johnson

Position: Husband of Michelle Burger, Pistorius neighbour, 177 metres away.

Testimony summary: Woken by sound of screams, male and female voices yelling for help, a woman screaming, shots and more screams.

Questions arising: Called security after hearing “shots” at 3.19.30; Pistorius phoned estate manager Johan Stander almost exactly the same time, allegedly after breaking down door – did Johnson hear shots or the cricket bat?

Defence says: Johnson mistook cricket bat sounds for gunshots.

Sideshow: Had his cellphone number read out in court by Barry Roux, earning him abusive messages.

Witness 4: Kevin Lerena

Position: Pro-boxer, friend of Pistorius.

Testimony summary: Met Pistorius, Darren Fresco and another friend in Tasha’s. Fresco passed Pistorius a gun and informed him there was a bullet in the chamber. Gun went off narrowly missing Lerena’s foot. Pistorius asked Fresco to take the fall.

Questions arising: N/A

Defence says: (Later, in response to Fresco) Pistorius didn’t know the gun was loaded.

Sideshow: First witness in a South African criminal trial whose testimony was broadcast live.

Witness 5: Jason Loupis

Position: Franchisee of Tasha’s Melrose Arch

Testimony summary: Heard what he feared was gunshot but hoped was balloon popping from Pistorius’ table; approached group, Fresco told him his gun fell out of his tracksuit pants.

Questions arising: Fresco later testified he was wearing shorts.

Defence says: Pistorius apologised and offered to pay for damages (something Loupis didn’t recall).

Witness 6: Maria Loupis

Position: Franchisee of Tasha’s, wife of Jason.

Testimony summary: As per husband; rebuked Fresco for lack of safety; also pointed out how close by a child had been sitting to Pistorius when his gun went off.

Questions arising: N/A

Defence says: There was a wall between Pistorius and the child.

Witness 7: Johan Stipp

Position: Radiologist, Pistorius neighbour, lived 72 metres away

Testimony summary: Woken by 3 or 4 loud bangs, saw lights on at Pistorius’, and heard woman screaming, 3 or 4 more bangs, man’s voice crying for help. Went to scene to assist medically and found Pistorius trying to resuscitate Steenkamp. Pistorius told him “I shot her, I thought it was a burglar”, and prayed to God to save her.

Questions arising: Stipp heard what he thought were gunshots, then called security at 3.17am, then heard what he thought were further shots. Pistorius called estate manager Stander at 3.19am allegedly after bashing door down. This timeframe would leave little time for everything to make sense.

Defence says: The timeline means that any screaming Stipp heard after the first set of shots would have to have been Pistorius’, because Stipp agreed that after bullet struck her head, Steenkamp would have been unable to scream. Also say screams from Steenkamp could not have travelled through locked toilet to Stipp’s house.

Witness 8: Sam Taylor

Position: Pistorius’ ex-girlfriend

Testimony summary: Pistorius carried a gun at all times. Pistorius was in a car with Fresco and Taylor in 2012 on way back from Vaal. The car was stopped for speeding; a policeman rebuked Pistorius for careless gun-handling; when they set off, Pistorius fired a gun through car’s sunroof. Claims Pistorius cheated on her with Steenkamp. Said she had heard Pistorius scream and did not sound like a woman; also said on certain occasions he had believed he heard an intruder during the night, and woke her each time.

Questions arising: Was unable to pinpoint location of shooting incident with any precision.

Defence says: She never heard Pistorius scream when his life was in danger.

Sideshow: Multiple adjournments for crying when testifying about infidelity.

Witness 9: Pieter Baba

Position: Security guard, Pistorius’ estate.

Testimony summary: Received calls from neighbours who had heard bangs from Pistorius. Says he called Pistorius and Pistorius said “Everything is okay”, but he could hear Pistorius crying. Also pointed out that Pistorius had full alarm system and could have pressed panic button if felt himself under threat.

Questions arising: Pistorius’s phone records show that Pistorius phoned security first.

Defence says: Pistorius said “I am okay”, not “everything is okay”.

Witness 10: Gert Saayman

Position: State pathologist.

Testimony summary: This was the stuff that Oscar puked throughout. Pistorius used particularly damaging Black Talon ammunition, expanding on contact with moist tissue. Shots to right hip and arm could have killed Steenkamp on their own. Shot to hip would have shattered her hipbone, causing her to collapse. Steenkamp would have been unlikely to be able to scream after bullet hit head, but would be “abnormal” not to scream after other shots. Steenkamp had eaten a small amount of food at 1am.

Questions arising: Pistorius says they went to bed around 10pm; why did she eat at 1?

Defence says: Forensic pathology is inexact on the time of eating before death.

Sideshow: Judge Masipa acceded to a request from Saayman not to have his graphic testimony broadcast. The judge also briefly instituted a rule against courtroom tweeting.

Witness 11: Darren Fresco

Position: Pistorius’ ex-friend.

Testimony summary: Pistorius fired a shot out of Fresco’s sunroof after day on the Vaal with Sam Taylor. Fresco passed Pistorius a gun at Tasha’s and told him it had a bullet in its chambers; it went off while Pistorius was handling it and Pistorius asked Fresco to take the blame.

Questions arising: Fresco’s initial statement contained no mention of being asked to take blame; Fresco could remember nothing of the evening after the sunroof shooting incident; Fresco claimed to have taken a photo of the speedometer while Pistorius was speeding when in fact the photo was taken while Fresco himself was speeding.

Defence says: Pistorius didn’t hear Fresco tell him the gun was loaded.

Witness 12: Johannes Vermeulen

Position: State forensic analyst.

Testimony summary: Toilet door was brought in and Vermeulen demonstrated angle at which a cricket bat was most likely swung at it, which produced marks consistent with Pistorius not having his prosthetic limbs on. Evidence consistent with shots being fired through door before door was broken down by cricket bat.

Questions arising: Door sustained new marks while in police custody; chips from the door were missing; police failed to investigate mark which defence claimed was caused by Pistorius trying to kick in door with prosthesis.

Defence says: Pistorius had his legs on while using the bat, and produced a higher mark on the door; Pistorius would have been unable to maintain necessary balance to swing bat on his stumps.

Witness 13: Schoombie van Rensburg

Position: Former commander of Boschkop police station.

Testimony summary: First policeman on the scene; Steenkamp dead before arrival, Pistorius in tears. Showed detailed photos of Pistorius house and bloodstained bathroom, location of guns, phones etc. Photos of Pistorius topless, with shorts, legs and arms smeared with blood. One of Pistorius’s watches went missing while police worked. Also found ballistics expert handling gun without gloves.

Questions arising: Was Hilton Botha allowed to blunder around crime scene unchaperoned?

Defence says: Van Rensburg was called to the witness stand to prevent need to call Hilton Botha; Two watches, not one, went missing.

Witness 14: Sean Rens

Position: Firearms trainer

Testimony summary: Pistorius had ordered a Smith & Wesson 500 “handcannon” and other powerful guns before Steenkamp’s shooting, subsequently cancelled; Pistorius had successfully passed a written test during which he demonstrated his awareness of lawful gun use and permissible force against intruders.

Questions arising: Rens told Roux Black Talon ammo was “less lethal”, but presumably only in the sense that they’re unlikely to go through one person and hit another.

Defence says: There’s no link between firearm collecting and reckless gun use.

Witness 15: Bennie van Staden

Position: Police crime scene photographer.

Testimony summary: Showed album after album of crime scene photos.

Questions arising: Blood smatters photographed above Pistorius’ bed never dealt with; Damage to Pistorius’ bedroom main door never dealt with. Van Staden claims he was operating alone, but metadata from photos seem to show another police photographer working at same time.

Defence says: Pistorius says van Staden took more photos of him than were in the album; things were moved around on the scene; suggestion Van Staden was told by Vermeulen to only include photos which backed up state’s version of Pistorius on stumps.

Witness 16: Christian Mangena

Position: Police ballistics expert.

Testimony summary: Used steel rod and laser to work out trajectory of how and where bullets went through door. Based on shots analysis, Steenkamp was standing facing door when first shot struck hip, fell into semi-seated position on magazine rack; crossed her hands above her head; shot in the head; slumped next to toilet. Most likely angle of shots suggested Pistorius not wearing prosthetics.

Questions arising: Why did state claim at bail hearing that Pistorius was wearing his prosthetics, and now say he wasn’t?

Defence says: Pistorius fired ‘double-tap’ - pair of shots in rapid succession. (Mangena said in that case bullet holes and wounds to Steenkamp’s body would be closer together.)

Witness 17: Ian van der Nest

Position: Police blood spatter expert.

Testimony summary: Steenkamp’s death was caused by gunshots, not bludgeoning by cricket bat; hair and blood in toilet bowl mean Steenkamp’s head wound must have been sustained around toilet; blood trail consistent with Steenkamp being lifted up and carried downstairs.

Questions arising: N/A

Defence says: Not much.

Witness 18: Mike Sales

Position: Police computer expert.

Testimony summary: Downloaded browsing history from two iPads; last browsing done at around 9:19pm; user browsed expensive car websites.

Questions arising: iPad had been briefly used to surf porn website on the evening in question, but state did not make formal mention of this aspect.

Defence says: You can’t determine with any certainty who was using the iPads at any time.

Witness 19: Annette Stipp

Position: Pistorius neighbor, lived 72 metres away, wife of Johan Stipp

Testimony summary: Woke up coughing, saw it was 03.02 (but clock 3 or 4 mins fast), heard three loud bangs, heard “terrified” woman screaming, saw lights on in Pistorius’ house. Returned inside, saw it was 03.17 on fast clock, heard three more bangs. Heard man’s voice screaming before second set of bangs.

Questions arising: Stipp believes she heard 6 gunshots, but we know only 4 were fired. She thinks maybe she missed hearing one bang in second set of shots, but this doesn’t explain what first set was.

Defence says: Impossible for Stipp to have seen lights in Pistorius’ toilet, because it was broken; second volley of shots must have been cricket bat.

Witness 20: Francois Moller

Position: Police phone expert

Testimony summary: Downloaded data on Pistorius’ two phones and Steenkamp’s phones. Over 1,700 WhatsApp messages swapped by the two. One message told Steenkamp not to tell anyone about Tasha’s incident because “Darren told everyone it was his fault”. In others Steenkamp complained of Pistorius being jealous, controlling and critical, and wrote “I am scared of u sometimes”. Pistorius’s phone records show he first called estate manager Johan Stander, then ambulance, then estate security, then to best friend Justin Divaris, then brother Carl.

Questions arising: Pistorius’ phone connected to the internet at 01.48, but witness conceded under defence questioning that this could be an automatic update.

Defence says: Moller cherry-picked just four out of thousands of messages to show bad relationship; countless others show loving, warm relationship with numerous terms of endearment.

Witness 21: Adriaan Maritz

Position: Warrant officer in Boschkop crime information office

Testimony summary: Crime at Silverwoods estate was relatively low, with 8 crimes between 2011 and 2013, of which only one was a house robbery and only one a shooting (Steenkamp’s).

Questions arising: Pistorius was not on the Boschkop system, despite having been arrested after a 2009 assault charge.

Defence says: Pistorius was the victim of crimes on numerous occasions, even though he never opened any cases at the Boschkop station.

Final witness: Johannes Vermeulen (return)

Position: State forensics expert

Testimony summary: He’d been called back by the defence to see whether a high mark on the toilet door could have been caused by Pistorius swinging a cricket bat while wearing his prosthetics, but said he still considered it unlikely.

Questions arising: Vermeulen said he’d never tried to match the top mark on the door with a cricket bat, but defence brought out photos showing him doing just that.

Defence says: Vermeulen didn’t countenance any evidence or theories that would run against the state’s case. DM