First, Oscar apologized to the Steenkamp family for the shooting from the stand while he was under oath, which had the effect of entering said apology into the official court record, and allows the judge the option of considering that public statement as a de facto admission of personal culpability in Reeva's death. What possessed him to do that?

Further, two former friends of Oscar's, under oath and threat of perjury, told the court earlier during the presentation of the State's case that Oscar had deliberately fired a gun into the air through an open sunroof of an automobile.

But when he took the stand, Oscar offered no testimony about the event in question and no explanation as to how it could've been misconstrued by his friends. Instead, he simply issued a flat denial that the incident ever happened, and further accused his friends of lying.

The obvious implication offered by the defendant's testimony is that these two friends somehow got together and conspired against him, knowing full well the potential legal consequences to them, but for reasons which are still wholly unfathomable and perfectly opaque.

What could possibly have been their motive to perjure themselves and lie to the judge about such an incident? Or conversely, just what is it about Oscar Pistorious that makes these now-former friends willing to lie, first to investigators and then in open court under oath, in order to persecute him?

The charge of unlawful use of a firearm, as it relates to firing the gun on the night in question, is really of minor consequence in and of itself, given the far more serious charge of capital murder that's presently leveled against Oscar. But his version of this particular event really strains credulity and further hints of paranoia. A verdict on that murder charge could well hinge in large part on issues concerning the defendant's veracity and credibility. And in that regard, he absolutely did himself no favors here.

Finally, Oscar testified that he had been "scared" and "overcome with fear" on the night he shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp. Yet he could clearly recall much of the events of the next several minutes in rather precise detail regarding when he screamed, how he held his gun, and what he was thinking at various times. Other relatively crucial details he could not recall, such as when he switched on the lights in the bedroom that would have revealed Ms. Steenkamp was not in bed, where he doubtless expected her to be, given his testimony.

The differences between the sequence of events offered in court by the defendant while under oath as a witness on his own behalf, and that which is contained in his detailed plea explanation, which differs further still from his initial March 2013 statement -- and the fact that each of those two versions was more complete and coherent that what he provided at trial -- again raises questions regarding his overall credibility.

That's why the prosecutor Gerrie Nel hammered Oscar so relentlessly on cross over questions concerning his truthfulness and his remorse for the shooting. I know the browbeating upset some people, but except when Nel got too personal and was admonished by the judge for it, his was a perfectly legitimate line of questioning, opened by the defense itself.

I don't think the State proved its case for capital murder. But as for the charge of culpable homicide, the defendant himself voluntarily raised issues regarding his mental stability, his character and conduct, which otherwise might have remained unexplored under the nominal rules and habits that prevail in South African criminal trials.

And now, without that mitigating circumstance of a psychological flaw that precludes his being held responsible for his own actions that night, I believe that Oscar Pistorious will be held criminally liable for his girlfriend's death.

The prosecutor may have just shot himself in the foot with this move. If Oscar's diagnosis of a life-long anxiety disorder due to his physical disability and the pressure put on him by his mother to overachieve is confirmed by the new report, which will be done by a team of experts, there will be two such findings, one of which is by impartial experts who were not hired by the defense.