This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/oscar-pistorius-heartbroken-killing-reeva-steenkamp-trial

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Oscar Pistorius heartbroken after killing Reeva Steenkamp, trial hears Oscar Pistorius heartbroken after killing Reeva Steenkamp, trial hears
(about 3 hours later)
Oscar Pistorius was heartbroken after he killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, a court in South Africa has heard. A surprise witness came forward at Oscar Pistorius's murder trial on Thursday to refute claims that the Paralympian received "acting training" for his emotional breakdowns in court.
As the South African Paralympian's murder trial continued in Pretoria on Thursday, the defence team called a social worker and probation officer who visited Pistorius in a police cell a day after he fatally shot Steenkamp. Yvette van Schalkwyk said she observed an emotionally devastated Pistorius who was grieving for his girlfriend and concerned for her parents. Yvette van Schalkwyk, a social worker and probation officer assigned to Pistorius after he shot dead his girlfriend, testified that he was sincerely heartbroken and sorry for what Reeva Steenkamp's parents were going through.
"I saw a heartbroken man," she told the court. "He cried 80% of the time. He talked to me about what they planned for the future, his future with her," said Van Schalkwyk. The 27-year-old is accused of murdering Steenkamp, 29, by shooting four times through a locked toilet door after the couple had an argument at his home in Pretoria, South Africa, on Valentine's day last year. He claims that he thought he heard an intruder in the bathroom and opened fire in a panic.
She told the court that she had decided only two days ago to testify because she was upset by suggestions that Pistorius was feigning grief to sway the judge in his favour. One of many remarkable aspects of the trial at the high court in Pretoria has been Pistorius's emotional outbursts including crying, howling and vomiting. Prosecutor Gerrie Nel accused him of using his emotions "as an escape", while Steenkamp's mother June told an interviewer "I don't know whether he's acting," and journalist Jani Allen alleged that Pistorius had taken acting lessons, prompting a vehement denial from his spokesperson.
The prosecution maintains Pistorius killed Steenkamp intentionally by shooting her through a toilet door in the early hours of 14 February 2013 after a fight. Van Schalkwyk told the court on Thursday that she had not intended be a witness but came forward this week because she was very upset by what she read about Pistorius allegedly having "acting training and putting on a show" when he sobbed in court. "I wanted to come and give my observation of what I saw," she explained.
Gerrie Nel, the chief prosecutor, objected to Van Schalkwyk's testimony, saying it was not relevant to the charges against Pistorius. But Judge Thokozile Masipa allowed her to proceed, noting that Nel had asked Pistorius during the runner's own testimony if he was trying to use his emotions to his advantage. Pistorius has cried and broken down sobbing on numerous occasions during the trial. She said that in February 2013 she was asked to assist Pistorius in his first court appearance when applying for bail and sat with him in the cells, where he vomited twice. "What I saw from the first time I saw him was a man who was heartbroken," she recalled. "He cried, he was in mourning, he suffered emotionally. He was very sorry for the loss, especially for the parents, what they were going through."
Nel said it was hardly surprising that Pistorius would be traumatised immediately after killing his girlfriend amid intense global interest in the case. He pushed Van Schalkwyk to acknowledge that Pistorius never specifically said to her he was sorry for killing Steenkamp. That omission, according to Nel, supported his contention that Pistorius was feeling sorry for himself and was unwilling to take responsibility. Pistorius told her that he missed Steenkamp a great deal and was crying "80% of the time", she continued. "He loved her. .. He couldn't think what her parents must be going through, that was also his consideration."
"It's all about him," the prosecutor said. Nel asked her whether Pistorius ever said he was sorry for what he had done. Van Schalkwyk replied: "He was sorry for his loss, he was sorry for her parents."
Van Schalkwyk's evidence followed that of Professor Aina Christina Lundgren, an anaesthetist who testified at the start of the 28th day of the trial. Nel pressed: "But he never said he was sorry he killed her?"
Lundgren's evidence related to an autopsy report on Steenkamp's body that said she still had food in her stomach after she was killed by Pistorius, leading prosecutors to challenge his story that the couple last ate around eight hours before he shot her. An expert testifying for the prosecution said a person's stomach is normally empty of food six hours after eating and Steenkamp ate much later on the night of the killing. Van Schalkwyk conceded: "No."
Prosecutors say Pistorius is lying about events and that the couple were up arguing late into the night before Pistorius shot Steenkamp multiple times. Pistorius testified that the couple ate dinner at around 7pm on the night she was killed, and they were in bed around 10pm. Pistorius shot Steenkamp soon after 3am. Nel asserted: "It's all about him. It's not, 'Sorry for what I've done'."
Lundgren, who described herself as a specialist anaesthetist, said there were several factors that could have delayed the digestion process and explain the food found in Steenkamp's stomach, including that she was a pre-menopausal woman and had been sleeping. Van Schalkwyk responded: "I can't say that it was all about him. He was in a relationship with her."
Lundgren was presented by the defence to try to undermine the testimony of the pathologist Professor Gert Saayman, who said he believed Steenkamp ate much later than Pistorius says, possibly even at around 1am when the runner claims they were in bed. Lundgren said it was difficult to be exact about the rate of digestion and it was "speculative to attempt to estimate when she had last eaten". But Nel persisted: "Surely as a probation officer, the first thing you look for is someone saying they're sorry for what they've done?"
Nel pointed to Saayman's findings that he could even identify vegetable and cheese matter in Steenkamp's stomach. She replied: "What I saw was a heartbroken man. I was there for emotional support. I didn't look for remorse. He said he missed Reeva so much. Those were his first words. He said he was barely coping."
Nel then asked: "The same man that shot and killed her the day before, does that make sense?"
She replied: "He said he accidentally shot and killed her."
Nel seized on her comment, telling van Schalkwyk that Pistorius told the court he had believed he was in danger from an intruder.
Earlier the defence called an anaesthesiologist, professor Christina Lundgren, to cast doubt on the state's timeline of events. The professor testified that gastric emptying, the speed at which the stomach digests food, is an "inexact science".
Nel alleges that Pistorius and his girlfriend argued during the night and that she ate after waking at 1am. But Lundgren said various factors including drinking, sleeping and whether a woman is premenopausal can affect the speed of the process.
The chicken stir fry dinner that Steenkamp ate contained vegetables with "insoluble fibres" that may have not been digestible, she added, describing any attempt to establish when the deceased ate as "purely speculative".
The case continues.