How 120 seconds could decide fate of Pistorius

A TIMEFRAME of 120 seconds will be a critical factor in the argument over Oscar Pistorius's guilt or innocence.

If the defence is right, it will prove that the state's witnesses are compromised and unreliable.

But if the state is correct, it will indicate that Pistorius's version of events which led to the death of Reeva Steenkamp cannot be true and could prove guilt.

Pistorius, 27, is on trial for the murder of the 29-year-old former Port Elizabeth model, who was shot dead through a toilet door at his Pretoria home on February 14 last year.

He is also facing three firearm and ammunition related charges.

The third day of the trial opened yesterday with the state announcing that a witness had received threats after his cellphone number was revealed in court by Pistorius's defence team.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel questioned the witness, Charl Johnson, the husband of witness Michelle Burger, about what had happened on Tuesday night.

"I got a phone call ... I told the person not to ask me about what happened in court ... I turned my phone off ... when I turned it on there were hundreds of messages. I received a message from an international number ... accusing me of lying in court ... it was threatening ... this is my personal number."

Defence advocate Barry Roux, later questioning Johnson on his reliability, said: "You heard screams, ran to the balcony, heard the 'shots' and phoned security. What time was that?

"Do you know what time the accused phoned for help – 3:19:37. You phoned at 3:17 – 120 seconds earlier – to your security.

"Are you absolutely sure you heard gunshots?

"Only one thing could possibly have happened and it coincides with Pistorius bashing down the toilet door with a cricket bat to help Reeva ... the source of the sound of the gunshots."

Roux continued: "You heard the sound of a woman screaming, you heard noises believing them to be gunshots not a cricket bat against a door ... the knowledge you have cements your beliefs until they are concrete ... a man's life is at stake here. In all fairness, there are a lot of other possibilities as to what you heard, but one thing that doesn't fit is a man screaming for help ... strange, especially after shooting his girlfriend, don't you think?

"You thought house robbery, you never thought domestic violence, did you?"

Roux, taking on Johnson following his testimony on Tuesday, questioned him on where he had been when his wife was testifying. Roux got Johnson to confirm he had met his wife during breaks in proceedings and had spoken in part about her testimony.

"Sir, I suggest you stop," Roux said. "You claim you avoided TV footage, newspapers and radio ... that you refrained from discussing evidence ... Can I assume that you did not read your wife's statement?"

When Johnson said yes, Roux questioned him aboutthe evidence and phrases used by the husband and wife were "particularly striking" as being similar.

An angry Roux said: "The court is entitled to uncontaminated witnesses ... not what you are. You might as well have stood together in the witness box."

Pistorius appeared calm, taking notes and talking quietly to family members during breaks.

At times, he rubbed his hand over his face tiredly.

In earlier evidence yesterday, it emerged that a child was nearby when a gun went off in a busy restaurant in January last year, allegedly while in the hands of Pistorius.

Maria Loupis, of Tasha's restaurant in Melrose Arch, Johannesburg, testified that a child had been sitting at the table next to Pistorius and three friends when the shooting took place.

Kevin Lerena, an acquaintance of Pistorius, had told the court how the shot grazed his toe.

Lerena related how Darren Fresco, also on the state's witness list, handed Pistorius a firearm under the table and told him "one up", which Lerena understood as meaning there was a bullet in the chamber.

"A shot went off in the restaurant and there was complete silence. I was shocked.

"I looked down and exactly where my foot had been, there was a hole in the floor."

He said Pistorius was very apologetic and said he did not know how the shot was fired.

Lerena said Pistorius had asked Fresco to say it was him to avoid media attention, but during cross-examination he was not sure whether it was Pistorius or someone else who had suggested Fresco take the blame.

Jason Loupis, owner of the restaurant, testified that Fresco had told him the gun fell out of his tracksuit pocket. - Graeme Hosken and Marzanne van den Berg