:00:00. > :00:00.test both. I had shorts on without a shirt. Where Hello.
:00:00. > :00:12.This is BBC World News. Our top stories.
:00:13. > :00:17.Oscar Pistorius is being cross-examined by the prosecution,
:00:18. > :00:23.at the trial for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. The
:00:24. > :00:29.prosecution has been questioning him over his character.
:00:30. > :00:33.Brisk voting is reported in some states in the third day of polling
:00:34. > :00:47.in India. More than 100 million people can vote today in 14 states.
:00:48. > :00:52.The search for MH370 is improving significantly. There have been for
:00:53. > :00:57.acoustic signals heard earlier this week.
:00:58. > :01:01.Researchers in Britain say governments are wasting money
:01:02. > :01:20.stockpiling medicines against flu. We can now go back to Pretoria,
:01:21. > :01:26.where Oscar Pistorius is being questioned by the chief prosecutor.
:01:27. > :01:32.We saw him a moment ago, Jerry now. I do not remember even now where the
:01:33. > :01:37.place was where I met him. -- Gerrie Nel.
:01:38. > :01:43.So you are criticising her for not knowing, but you do not know.
:01:44. > :01:54.The question was put if Samantha Taylor knew him. I do not know if he
:01:55. > :01:59.-- we have been to his house. There was an occasion where you met
:02:00. > :02:02.him at the residential place? That is correct.
:02:03. > :02:08.But you cannot tell the court where it is, you have no idea.
:02:09. > :02:11.I do not know the area, I would have put it in my sat nav and driven
:02:12. > :02:16.there. If Sam was there, we cannot
:02:17. > :02:28.criticise her for not remembering, because she wasn't driving. Some of
:02:29. > :02:36.the Taylor. -- Samantha Taylor. Can we criticise her for not knowing?
:02:37. > :02:40.I do not believe if she was with me. You have to look at the context and
:02:41. > :02:51.if she comes up here and says she went to a place in the Vaal River.
:02:52. > :02:54.Whether she knew where it was or did not know is of no relevance if she
:02:55. > :03:00.wasn't there. The question is, let us say she was
:03:01. > :03:04.that that place was with you, you cannot criticise her for not knowing
:03:05. > :03:09.where it was, that is all I am asking you.
:03:10. > :03:19.If that is the case, no, I couldn't. How would she know, that you met him
:03:20. > :03:27.at a residential place to talk about guns? I have no idea. She said, you
:03:28. > :03:32.met somebody to sign gun papers. That is what she thought.
:03:33. > :03:40.I know Samantha Taylor was with me on another occasion when I signed
:03:41. > :03:44.papers pertaining to a fire arm. I know she was with me there. I
:03:45. > :03:49.discussed things, we were in a relationship, I told her where I was
:03:50. > :03:58.on many occasions. I do not know if... My lady.
:03:59. > :04:02.You do, because you are giving me the opportunity to ask. Are you
:04:03. > :04:08.saying that she is making it up? Yes, my lady. She is lying? She lied
:04:09. > :04:13.in her statement and when she was up here, my lady.
:04:14. > :04:16.About being with you at somebody's house that day?
:04:17. > :04:22.Or I am saying is I cannot remember anybody being with me. I remember
:04:23. > :04:26.meeting to sign papers in a residential area. I can't recall in
:04:27. > :04:33.which residential area it was, I think it was in October. This was
:04:34. > :04:41.two years, a year and a half ago. You see, that is significant. If
:04:42. > :04:46.there is an indication you were there on the 30th, you cannot deny
:04:47. > :04:49.that, the 30th of September, you cannot deny it because you can
:04:50. > :04:56.remember. That is correct. If shares -- if she says she went
:04:57. > :05:01.with you on that day to sign gun papers, she is just making that up?
:05:02. > :05:09.I do not know, but I do not remember Samantha Taylor accompanying me. If
:05:10. > :05:12.that is what she says, then I cannot say she is lying. What I can say is
:05:13. > :05:18.I do not remember anyone accompanying me.
:05:19. > :05:23.She is not the only one making it up, it must also be Mr Fresco making
:05:24. > :05:27.it up. I did not say she made it up, I said
:05:28. > :05:33.I do not remember that. So, the two of them, Mr Fresco and
:05:34. > :05:38.Samantha Taylor can remember at least going to a residential place
:05:39. > :05:43.with you to sign gun papers. I lady, if you look at the evidence
:05:44. > :05:50.of Samantha Taylor and Mr Fresco, that is what they both say. But they
:05:51. > :05:54.don't agree upon the charge, upon how it happened, where or why it
:05:55. > :06:00.happened. So if they say they were there with me on a day when this
:06:01. > :06:06.happens, I cannot definitely say they want with me. I can't say that
:06:07. > :06:10.I was there in September. If there is evidence that shows that, then I
:06:11. > :06:15.can say that if that is what that was, then I was there. But I cannot
:06:16. > :06:20.remember, it is not an event I remember, I don't remember signing
:06:21. > :06:29.the papers, or the house. That is all I can remember.
:06:30. > :06:37.But, you see, I would like to use this in an argument. You are arguing
:06:38. > :06:44.the case as if, as a council. Have you seen their statements? I have
:06:45. > :06:49.seen Samantha Taylor's statement, and Mr Fresco's statement. And you
:06:50. > :06:54.have heard them testify. They both said they went with you on that day
:06:55. > :06:59.to a residential place where you signed gun papers. That is correct.
:07:00. > :07:07.You can't remember. If two of them can, they must be correct. I do not
:07:08. > :07:14.remember, my lady. If that is what they said, but I cannot remember.
:07:15. > :07:19.Let us argue, if three people, two of them know they were there and one
:07:20. > :07:27.does not double picked the two. I do not want to argue. I am so glad to
:07:28. > :07:32.remember that answer. But I am putting to it Gracnar putting it to
:07:33. > :07:48.you, you are not willing to concede anything. -- I am putting it to you.
:07:49. > :07:52.Is that a question? Yes. No, my lady. I have conceded on several
:07:53. > :07:56.occasions. I cannot agree with the statement that is put to me if I do
:07:57. > :07:59.not have ever collection of that event.
:08:00. > :08:06.Both of them indicated that you fired through the sunroof. That is
:08:07. > :08:10.definitely a knife. That is a lie. Both of them independently would
:08:11. > :08:13.tell that like? They both took the stand, they both are different
:08:14. > :08:23.stories as to why it happened, where it happened, how it happened, as to
:08:24. > :08:26.the reaction. That story was fabricated, it has never happened.
:08:27. > :08:29.It is not the truth. It is a bad fabrication, because they never
:08:30. > :08:34.spoke to each other. They have different reasons why it happened,
:08:35. > :08:42.where it happened. It was a terrible fabrication between the two of them.
:08:43. > :08:45.They have been in contact. Although they said they have not spoken to
:08:46. > :08:50.each other, they have been in contact with each other, they have
:08:51. > :08:54.been seen at the same events. So, I do not know what the connection
:08:55. > :09:02.would be between some of the Taylor and Mr Fresco. For all I know, they
:09:03. > :09:10.have kept communication open. Now, again, we have two say, when
:09:11. > :09:21.they say they haven't had communication, Barry Roux, he never
:09:22. > :09:25.challenge them on that. My lady, I do not remember if Mr Roux challenge
:09:26. > :09:33.them on it. He did not, take it from me. He will chop off if -- jump up
:09:34. > :09:41.if I say something wrong. What I have heard is they have had
:09:42. > :09:47.communication with each other. You are the person who volunteered the
:09:48. > :09:53.fact that they said they didn't have communication, but they have. Let me
:09:54. > :09:58.rephrase. You are the one who said, in evidence, they said they did not
:09:59. > :10:06.have communication. That is correct. But you know that they did. I beg
:10:07. > :10:10.your pardon? But you know they had communication. I am not saying that,
:10:11. > :10:17.I said I heard. You have heard from people? That is
:10:18. > :10:23.correct. It was put to them that Mr Pistorius
:10:24. > :10:33.had heard you had communication, that wasn't important? Who told you?
:10:34. > :10:37.I do not recall, my lady. No. I apologise for the offing, I won't do
:10:38. > :10:45.it again, but I was surprised by the answer. I hope it doesn't happen
:10:46. > :10:50.again. I also want to say something to
:10:51. > :10:57.people out there. You possibly think this is entertainment. It is not.
:10:58. > :11:03.So, please restrain yourselves. Is that the gallery? The gallery, yes.
:11:04. > :11:12.Thank you. So, you tell me that somebody giving
:11:13. > :11:17.evidence, since then, they gave you that information but you cannot top
:11:18. > :11:24.court who it was? I do not recall. I speak to many people in the
:11:25. > :11:29.afternoon. I beg your pardon. Because it is not true, that is the
:11:30. > :11:32.only reason you cannot remember. Because it is not true. You would
:11:33. > :11:39.remember who gave you that information.
:11:40. > :11:47.My lady, was that a question? Yes, because it was untrue. That is
:11:48. > :11:52.incorrect. If somebody would say, I had my gun
:11:53. > :11:59.in that car between my legs, that person would be lying. If somebody
:12:00. > :12:03.would say, Mr Pistorius had his gun in the car between his legs, that
:12:04. > :12:10.person would be lying. That is correct, Mr Fresco did testify to
:12:11. > :12:15.that and it was not the truth. And nobody challenged him.
:12:16. > :12:22.I can't remember if anyone challenged it or not. I did not
:12:23. > :12:26.discuss, when I discussed this charge with my counsel, I did not
:12:27. > :12:31.discuss things that didn't happen, so I could not have said to them I
:12:32. > :12:35.can foresee what Mr Fresco will say on the stand. And tell them that he
:12:36. > :12:40.might say I had my gun between my legs, when that didn't happen. If
:12:41. > :12:44.they didn't challenge it, my faith is in them, my lady. I cannot say
:12:45. > :12:51.why they did or did not challenge it. Now, whilst we are busy with
:12:52. > :12:59.this, I see we have 15 minutes before lunch and I want to deal with
:13:00. > :13:05.something. At least, I don't want to get you
:13:06. > :13:10.confused so I'm going to recede. The early morning of the 4th of
:13:11. > :13:16.February, in the bathroom, you were firing shots. How many shots did you
:13:17. > :13:25.fire? I fired four shots, my lady. In what sequence, was it to double
:13:26. > :13:32.taps? No, in quick succession, my lady.
:13:33. > :13:38.You know that for a fact? That is correct, my lady. Because you can
:13:39. > :13:46.remember it. That is correct. It is not a reconstruction? No, my lady.
:13:47. > :13:58.And it was definitely not two double taps? That is correct, my lady. Why
:13:59. > :14:05.would Mr Roux think and put to the officer that you fired double taps?
:14:06. > :14:09.I am not quite sure. That is what he put, and in the first break I
:14:10. > :14:15.corrected him and I said to him it wasn't a double tap. But, before we
:14:16. > :14:22.go to you correcting him, why would he say that? I am not sure, my lady.
:14:23. > :14:28.It is impossible... Mr Roux will not say something, forget the
:14:29. > :14:31.correction, Mr Roux will not put something to witness that is not
:14:32. > :14:36.your version. Why would he say two double taps? The only destination I
:14:37. > :14:44.could think of is, when we spoke about training in firearm training,
:14:45. > :14:52.you learn to fired two shots which is in a double tap, it is called a
:14:53. > :14:55.double tap. And I think maybe Mr Roux, I cannot say why he did, but I
:14:56. > :15:07.corrected him. You said it is your version that you
:15:08. > :15:14.fired two double taps. It wasn't that, is it possible, he put it as a
:15:15. > :15:20.version. I understand that, my lady. Mr Nel, he has answered. All he mows
:15:21. > :15:28.is he corrected Mr Roux. May I ask a follow up question. The
:15:29. > :15:33.only reason is if you told him That is incorrect. My lady. I didn't say
:15:34. > :15:40.that. I didn't tell Mr Roux I fired a double tap at any point. But you
:15:41. > :15:46.know that it was in quick succession. Yes. How do you know
:15:47. > :15:53.that? Because that is what I remember. How do you know? I don't
:15:54. > :15:57.really understand how, how I am meant to explain how I am supposed
:15:58. > :16:00.to remember something. Stewed stew at that point, we have
:16:01. > :16:06.-- STUDIO: At that point we have lost
:16:07. > :16:14.the sound from Oscar Pistorius's trial in Pretoria, and you can see
:16:15. > :16:18.there, how the chief prosecutor keeps pressing Oscar Pistorius about
:16:19. > :16:23.the credibility of all that he has been saying, including how he uses
:16:24. > :16:31.his gun, where he keeps his gun, where he keeps ammunition, as well.
:16:32. > :16:37.And the kind of way in which he handles the weaponry that he has,
:16:38. > :16:43.which was essentially a pistol. That pressure is on from Mr Nel, and you
:16:44. > :16:52.can see there that it is relentless pressure. Trying to test Oscar
:16:53. > :16:56.Pistorius on what he said, and Oscar Pistorius remaining very measured in
:16:57. > :17:01.all his replies, and even challenging the chief prosecutor.
:17:02. > :17:14.Back to the coverage. At page 1475. Before I knew it I had
:17:15. > :17:21.fired four shots at the door. My ears were ringing. That's correct,
:17:22. > :17:27.my lady. So, again, is that a reconstruction? It is taking the
:17:28. > :17:31.facts into account. There are four shots fired. I don't remember
:17:32. > :17:35.specifically firing four shot, I remember them being fired in quick
:17:36. > :17:39.succession, I said I fire four shots. I did fire them, when
:17:40. > :17:44.describing the manner I fired them in quick succession. Do I remember
:17:45. > :17:50.firing four? No, I don't. At the door. Correct at the door, my lady.
:17:51. > :17:55.Do you remember firing at the door? Yes. Yesterday when we ended you
:17:56. > :18:02.said you don't. You can't remember. That is incorrect my lady. You did.
:18:03. > :18:06.That is incorrect. When put to me if I remember firing at the door I said
:18:07. > :18:11.yes, I remember firing at the door, I wasn't at the time I fired the
:18:12. > :18:17.pistol was pointed at the door. When I heard the noise I fired the --
:18:18. > :18:23.pistol. I refiring at the door. I never said I don't remember firing
:18:24. > :18:30.at the door. Let me just get it, and we luckily have the record. This is
:18:31. > :18:36.your evidence. I remember firing four shots at the door. That's
:18:37. > :18:43.correct my lady. Because you remember aiming at the door. I
:18:44. > :18:53.remember pulling the trirks and the rounds going into the door, my lady.
:18:54. > :18:57.Unfortunately -- I remember pulling the trigger and rounds going into
:18:58. > :19:03.the door. That's correct. How do you remember the rounds going into the
:19:04. > :19:06.door? I don't understand... Did you hear them go into the door, did you
:19:07. > :19:11.see them going through the door? That is where the firearm was
:19:12. > :19:28.pointed, my lady. That is my remembrance is I saw them going into
:19:29. > :19:36.the door. That is where I fired. So... Now we can go back to where we
:19:37. > :19:44.stopped yesterday. You fired, did you fire deliberately? No, my lady
:19:45. > :19:50.did not fire deliberately. You are still with accidentally? I am still
:19:51. > :19:57.with the fact that I fired the gun out of fear, that at a time I
:19:58. > :20:01.didn't, I interpreted it, I am not trying to argue, I am saying, I
:20:02. > :20:08.didn't mean to pull the trigger, so in that sense it was an accident. I
:20:09. > :20:14.just want us not to again get this confused.
:20:15. > :20:26."I never meant to pull the trigger." That's correct. My lady.
:20:27. > :20:32.So, you never wanted to shoot at intruders coming out of the
:20:33. > :20:37.bathroom? I didn't have time to think about it my lady. Whether I
:20:38. > :20:42.didn't want... I wouldn't have wanted to shoot at someone. No,
:20:43. > :20:49.answer the question. You never deliberately pulled the trigger, so
:20:50. > :20:54.you never wanted to shoot at robbers, intruder, coming out of the
:20:55. > :21:00.toilet. That's correct my lady. So whatever happened in that bathroom,
:21:01. > :21:07.noises, what happened that whole night, never caused you to pull the
:21:08. > :21:13.trigger it went off accidentally? That is the opposite of what I am
:21:14. > :21:17.saying. No, it is not. What I said was that the noise coming from the
:21:18. > :21:23.bathroom made me pull the trigger from the toilet. So it is not what
:21:24. > :21:28.Mr Nel is putting to me my lady. But you can't remember pulling the
:21:29. > :21:34.trigger. Can you? I can remember pulling the trigger my lady. You
:21:35. > :21:38.didn't aim at it? The firearm was aimed at door. Did you want to shoot
:21:39. > :21:42.the people coming out the door or not? I didn't have time to think
:21:43. > :21:54.about whether I wanted to or not. I heard a noise and I discharged the
:21:55. > :22:01.firearm. So, you never wanted to shoot the intruders coming out the
:22:02. > :22:04.door. That's correct. But we know weren't intruders in there Reeva was
:22:05. > :22:08.in there. There was no reason for you to shoot. After the fact, as
:22:09. > :22:15.which stand here today, you had no reason to shoot. That's correct my
:22:16. > :22:20.lady. If you waited a second, to see if the door would open, you would
:22:21. > :22:27.not have fireded. It's a possibility my lady. She was in there, we know
:22:28. > :22:35.it know, she was in there. If you waited, you would not have fire
:22:36. > :22:42.fired. Am I right? I am not sure, if Reeva had come out or if she had
:22:43. > :22:49.spoken to me, or... Then I wouldn't have fired. Let us go. We know for a
:22:50. > :22:53.fact that there were no intruders in your house that night. That's
:22:54. > :22:57.correct my lady. We know for a fact there was no ladder against the
:22:58. > :23:03.wall. That's correct Mill. We know for fact it was Reeva in there.
:23:04. > :23:09.That's correct. We know for a fact... That's correct. We know you
:23:10. > :23:28.had no reason to shoot. Objectively. That's correct, my lady.
:23:29. > :23:34.Now, it is not your version you aimed at the door, because you
:23:35. > :23:41.thought the robbers were coming out, and you have to protect yourself. It
:23:42. > :23:46.is my version, that is what I said in my chief, I said I thought the
:23:47. > :23:52.robber were in the toilet, or they were on the ladder. My firearm was
:23:53. > :23:59.pointed at the toilet. My eyes were going between the window and the
:24:00. > :24:03.toilet door. But why did you fire? Because I heard a noise coming from
:24:04. > :24:07.inside the toilet, that I interpreted at that time split
:24:08. > :24:14.moment as somebody coming out to attack me my lady.
:24:15. > :24:22.Luckily, it is all on record. When you heard that, the, you just
:24:23. > :24:25.started shooting. That's... Or accidentally your finger pulled the
:24:26. > :24:31.trigger. I started shooting at that point. At the intruders. At the
:24:32. > :24:36.door. But in your mind the intruders. What I perceived was the
:24:37. > :24:41.intruder. So it wasn't accidentally. My Lord my lady I am getting
:24:42. > :24:45.confused with accidentally and not accidentally. I am told to say it is
:24:46. > :24:50.either an accident or not. I have said time and time again, what I
:24:51. > :24:54.perceived and what I thought. I don't understand if it is not, it
:24:55. > :24:58.was put to me yesterday it was by accident and now it is put it wasn't
:24:59. > :25:03.by accident. I don't understand, my lady. I am saying that I didn't
:25:04. > :25:06.intend to shoot, I was pointing my firearm was pointing at the door,
:25:07. > :25:12.that is where I believed somebody was. When I heard a noise, didn't
:25:13. > :25:23.have time to think and I fired my weapon. It was an accident.
:25:24. > :25:32.My lady would this be an opportune moment, it is five to one, if we
:25:33. > :25:38.take an adjournment for tea, lunch adjournment now? We will be back at
:25:39. > :25:47.2.00. Court will adjourn. STUDIO: So, there you have the court
:25:48. > :25:53.in Pretoria in South Africa, adjourning for a one hour lunch
:25:54. > :25:59.brain, with Oscar Pistorius, who has been on the stand for the last
:26:00. > :26:03.three-and-a-half hour, being put under relentless pressure by the
:26:04. > :26:12.chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel. He has been cross-examined by him over the
:26:13. > :26:15.death of his girlfriend Arriva. He painted a -- Reeva Steenkamp. He
:26:16. > :26:20.painted a picture of Oscar Pistorius adds a man who bullied his
:26:21. > :26:25.girlfriend. Text messages have been examined in detail as was an
:26:26. > :26:29.incident in a restaurant in which Mr Pistorius set off a fireroom a. The
:26:30. > :26:32.athlete claims he's did not kill her intentionally and Mr Pistorius said
:26:33. > :26:39.he had not been wear that the gun he was holding was loaded, but insisted
:26:40. > :26:45.he had not pulled the trigger. He was put under intense pressure by Mr
:26:46. > :26:48.Nel "You fired that gun, there is no other way that bullet could have
:26:49. > :26:59.been discharged without you pulling the trigger. You are lying. " Mr
:27:00. > :27:00.Pistorius "I respect that comment but I did not pull the trigger