Pistorius trial: 'Silver Woods crime trends low'
Adriaan Maritz says Oscar Pistorius had no reason to be paranoid about intruders.
- Oscar Pistorius
- Reeva Steenkamp
- Oscar Pistorius murder trial
- Oscar Pistorius trial
- Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
- Oscar Pistorius in court
- Gerrie Nel
- Barry Roux
- Oscar Pistorius lawyer
- Oscar Pistorious
- Oscar Pistorius house
- Judge Thokozile Masipa
- Prosecutor Gerrie Nel
- Barry and June Steenkamp
- June Steenkamp
- Why did Oscar Pistorius kill our daughter
- Kenny Oldwadge
- Francois Moller
PRETORIA - Before the court adjourned for lunch, the state briefly obtained testimony from Warrant Officer Adriaan Maritz, who is responsible for monitoring crime trends and statistics at the Boschkop Police Station, which is where Oscar Pistorius was taken after his arrest.
The witness stated Pistorius had no reason to be paranoid about intruders, with the only murder reported at the estate that of Steenkamp.
Maritz also checked police files using Pistorius's identity number and established that he was never a complainant in a matter.
This showed that Pistorius never reported any crimes at his home.
However, a theft reported on Pistorius's street was that of his watch.
Roux began a quick cross-examination and asked whether the officer relied solely on police records.
Maritz replied that he did not.
Roux reminded the court that former Boschkop station commander Colonel Schoombie van Rensburg, who testified earlier in the trial, said there was no guarantee that living in a secure estate meant one was immune to crime.
Maritz agreed with the point.
Roux said Pistorius had been the victim of crime on numerous occasions, and rested his cross-examination.
Nel re-examined Maritz and asked if Pistorius had reported any of these "numerous crimes", would they be on the system?
Maritz agreed, but said clerical errors could mean they didn't come up in a search.
Nel concluded that more details from Pistorius could help, and Maritz agreed.
CELLPHONES, INTERNET AND DATA ANALYSED
Roux referred to one of the documents, titled web history, which showed how Steenkamp looked at web pages related to cars.
"If you go through those documents you will see that it deals with WhatsApp messages between Oscar and Reeva about cars," he said.
He showed that the couple shared a passion for cars.
Roux moved on to show a CCTV clip of Steenkamp and Pistorius in a convenience store which was first aired on Sky News.
The video was played in court and showed the couple was close and even embraced at times.
While the video was shown to the court, Steenkamp's mother June was seen crying as a friend put her arm on her shoulders.
Roux then slowly closed in on 14 February and referred to it as the "unfortunate date".
He showed the court that WhatsApp messages between the two from the day before had plenty of affection in them.
State prosecutor Gerrie Nel began his re-examination by asking Moller if there "were any long messages discussing their relationship in a positive way? Long like the ones we heard yesterday about the problems?".
Moller responded that the majority of the messages were short.
Nel referred to a message seven days before the shooting in which Steenkamp complained about being attacked by outsiders and wanted to know if was there a response to the message.
Moller concluded there was no response and she greeted him good morning.
With that, Roux placed on the record that there were a number of calls between Pistorius and Steenkamp after that message.
CELLPHONE ANALYSIS REVEALED
Earlier during cross-examination, Roux went through the chart covering Steenkamp's communications.
The defence established that cellphone applications can continue making internet connections even when the phone isn't in use by the owner.
He used this to explain how Pistorius's phone connected to the internet at 1:48 am when he claimed to have been asleep.
Roux then moved on to call records from the estate security's landline as well as Pistorius's call records.
During the trial there has been some dispute about the timing and order of calls between estate security and Pistorius.
State witness Pieter Baba had previously told the court he placed a call to Pistorius before the athlete called security, but the defence claimed that Pistorius made the first call.
Roux asked Moller to read the listings and it was established that Baba's version of events seemed to be incorrect as Pistorius made the first call.
Roux then led Moller to admit that his analysis showed which phone was used for making a call, but doesn't prove which person made the call.
The advocate suggested that anyone could have picked up Pistorius's phone and made a call.
Roux and Moller then discussed the messages on Steenkamp's phone.
Roux established that Moller found only four conversations among the 1,700 messages on the phone which revealed arguments between the couple.
Roux took the court through various messages showing the loving nature of the couple's relationship.
His line of questioning pointed out that if the state believed showing some messages involving fighting had any relevance, then so should messages involving love and affection.