The prosecutor then read into the record a list of agreed to exhibits (photos from the autopsy, photos from the crime scene, a report showing Oscar had no drugs or steroids in his system, etc.)

Then he said he was calling his first witness, and the Judge, sounding a bit surprised, asked him whether he wanted to make an opening statement. He responded something like, "If you want me to, I will." He proceeded to then give a very short and very weak statement. He said there were no eyewitnesses to the crime and his case was based on circumstantial evidence and inferences. He said from the inferences and circumstances, Oscar's version couldn't be true. That was it. Then he called the first witness.

The witness, a teacher named Michelle Burger who lives in the complex next to the complex where Oscar lives, said she was asleep and woke up. She heard a woman scream. Then she heard a man scream three times. Her husband went out to the balcony, and she told him to come in and call security because she thought the people screaming were being robbed. They called the security office for their complex and asked them to call the security for the complex next door. Then she heard four shots. There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than between the second and third and third and fourth shot. Then she heard the woman scream again. The woman's second scream sounded like she was very scared. She described it as "a climax." She didn't hear the man scream after the shot.

She went back to sleep. She woke up in the morning and went to work. On the way to work, she called a friend and told her what she had heard, and asked her to find out what happened. At work, she told a male colleague and a female colleague. Then her husband called and told her it was on the news and Oscar was saying he thought there was an intruder and shot his girlfriend by mistake. They discussed whether they remembered what they heard.

They didn't call the police because they left town shortly after the incident. While they were on the road traveling, they heard about Oscar's bail hearing on the radio. They heard about a witness who was 600 meters away, and she realized it was important for her to come forward because their house was closer. She was shown an aerial photo and her house is 171 meters away.

She talked to a lawyer to get advice, and was going to write out her statement for the police, but they knocked on her door before she had the opportunity. They discussed her giving an interview and she asked for a police captain to come to the house. She said she and her husband aren't "media people" so she wanted to be interviewed at home.

The captain came and separately interviewed her and her husband.

On direct examination, the witness testified through an interpreter. She speaks both English and Afrikaans, so the questions were in English, without translation, but she answered in Afrikaans, which was then translated. At some point, she complained the translater wasn't properly translating her answers, the translater got all emotional, and then they didn't use a translater. Both the questions and answers were in English.

She seems like the classic case of an eye or ear witness who isn't lying, just mistaken. In her case it sounds like her memory has been tainted by post-event information and from pooling information with others. Memories weaken with the passage of time. When the person receives post-event information from other sources, such as the media, or discusses the incident with third persons, it becomes almost impossible to distinguish between their original memory of the event and the blended memory that is created by what they heard, observed or later learned from others.

The cross examination has focused on pointing out inconsistencies in her written statement and her version in court.

The cross-examination the second day got a bit more focused. The defense pointed out it was unlikely she could hear the woman screaming when she was in a locked toilet inside a room with a closed window and their houses were 171 meters apart. (The witness said her window was open because they didn't have air-conditioning.)

The defense asked her over and over whether it might not have been Oscar screaming, not a woman, but she was adamant she heard two voices, one woman and one man, and the woman's voice was anxious and increasingly emotional. The defense said Oscar's voice rises when he's upset or yelling. Also, she was more likely to have heard Oscar who was outside the door screaming, and not in the locked toilet.

The defense also kept asking her whether she might not have confused the last shot with Oscar's banging down the door with a cricket bat. She said she didn't think so.

Then the defense reads the medical report of the bullets, there were four shots including one to the brain. It said it will present expert testimony Reeva would have been incapable of screaming after the shot to the brain. The witness changes her story a bit to say the fourth shot could have been at the same time as the last shot. But yesterday she said it was few moments later, and that it increased in intensity from her earlier scream.

The defense says she's made up her mind not to change her version (i.e., she's biased.) There was no last scream from the woman, there couldn't have been. The last shot she thought she heard was the cricket bat. The person she heard screaming was Oscar. She was too far away to hear the emotion and increased anxiety in the person's voice.

Her experience with bullet sounds was limited to one or two times years ago when she went to a shooting range. She's never heard a cricket bat.

She's so intractable and unwilling to consider she might have gotten anything wrong, her testimony lacks credibility. She clearly believes what she is saying, but she's most likely wrong on the important parts.

Another example of how she hasn't been willing to give an inch: When asked how long it took her to fall asleep after the incident, she wasn't sure. The defense suggested the shooting (which she said was traumatizing) would have kept her up for a few few minutes. She wouldn't agree. She said her sister's baby died Friday and she fell right asleep.

Cross is done, and redirect begins. The witness breaks down and cries. When she's in the shower, she relives the terrifying scream. She says the shooting filled her with raw emotion. The redirect is very short and the witness is excused.

The state calls its second witness, another neighbor named Estelle Van Der Merwe. She too is asked questions in English and responds in Afrikaans. (Different interpreter.) She lives across the street and about a house down from Oscar (the screen says 95 meters. The first witness was 171 meters away.)

She says she heard loud voices for about an hour and then heard four shots that sounded like bang bang, and then silence. Then she heard someone crying loudly, it sounded like a woman, but her husband told her it was Oscar (a bit odd, since they didn't know Oscar then.) They saw ambulances and police and called security. Security said Oscar had shot his girlfriend. (This witness backs up the points Oscar's lawyer was making with the first witness, that the post-shot screams couldn't have been Reeva and the high pitched voice might have been Oscar in anguish.)

She didn't wake her husband up immediately to tell him what she heard.

It turns out the witness has been talking about two different events, one in 2013 the night of the shooting, and another when she saw lights and activity at Oscar's in 2014, and the prosecutor asks for a recess. That's it for me.

South Africa not only has the presumption of innocence, it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that the state said in its opening that its case was built on inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, I think it will have a tough time. There's no jury, just a judge, aided by two "assessors."

Some photos:

Oscar's lawyer questioning the witness.

For more coverage, I recommend following these reporters on Twitter, rather than news articles, since they are reporting unfiltered in real time: Barry Bateman; David Smith; Andrew Harding; Karen Maughan and Aislinn Laing.