objectively speaking i as a matter of fact had no reason to shoot was probably a wise concession to make. otherwise he would risk looking be lidge rent and uncoop roofb becau -- belligerent and uncooperative. >> what do you make of the prosecution's approach? if people were watching yesterday, you saw nel bounce from text messages, messages from reeva to the gun charge, discharging a fire weapon in a restaurant to the allegation that he fired his weapon through the roof of a car and then back to the incident on that fateful night. what do we make of that? >> reporter: well, actually that was a display of gerry nel's secludeness and skill as a -- shrewd not and skill as a prosecutor. he started out with character evidence. it's not the strongest evidence for him legally speaking, but it certainly is the evidence that is most likely to get under pistorius' skin. it also sets the backdrop for his narrative.

he jumped between the different charges which is quite overwhelming for a witness in the witness box to have to consistently think all the way between all these different charge. and when pistorius was essentially likely to be at his most tired, he then zoomed in and went in on the very padantic of the murder charge. clever lawyering tactics. >> considering we haven't seen necessarily slam-dunk evidence, evidence for each side, should we expect today to see more of that, the prosecutor trying to get under pistorius' skin and get him to be vulnerable? i mean, what does that really accomplish as far as convincing the judge the state's version of the events over the defense? >> reporter: we should absolutely expect that. essentially because the case is so circumstantial, not based on much direct evidence or any direct evidence actually to support one other version of events, what gerry nel needs to

do is to try to convince the judge that pistorius has shown a track record of dishonesty and lying. the way that the judge will make a decision in a case that is circumstantial is that she needs to be in a position where the only reasonable inference or deduction that she can draw of the argument is that he must be lying and if he is lying, he must be guilty because there's no other reasonable deduction. and that's a very high standard of proof for gerry nel to try to have achieved on a circumstantial case. he certainly will be placing all of his focus and really trying to grill pistorius and set up not one or two inconsistencies or mistruths but a track record of inconsistencies or mistruths. >> as we wait for the testimony to begin, which we will cross to as soon as it does, what's your professional assessment, your expert assessment here? has the prosecution reached that threshold yet? and if not, what will he need to do today to get there?

>> reporter: in my opinion, i don't think he's reached the threshold yet. what he has done is set up a clear narrative for the argument he's making. he managed to enter that into the record yet in a very clear and coherent way. he has always started laying the groundwork in order to meet that burden of proof. as we know in this trial, the burden does rest with the state. and it is to beyond a reasonable doubt. therefore, it's not sufficient that there's just one or two inconsistencies that are shown. if we look back at other circumstantial cases, it's been a litany of lies so that the judge essentially has no choice but to reach that conclusion. so he still has quite a bit of ground to cover today. i expect he's not worried about this. this isn't his first time in a courtroom or with a srm or controversial -- circumstantial

or controversial case. >> gerry nel was scolded by the judge yesterday for points when he was laughing at pistorius' response in answer to questions. he'll need to look out for that, right? >> reporter: absolutely. you never want to cross the line from an aggressive and searing cross-examination to coming across as if you're badgering the witness and starting to seem disingenuous to the court. he has stepped over the line on one or two occasions. i don't think we should overhead the significance. after all, the judge is far more familiar with the attorneys than any of us are. she will be familiar with their styles, manner, and tactics. she will pull them into place when need be. she's also capable to read through white noise and apply her mind to the pertinent fact and argument presented. >> what's your sense of the pace of all of this? are we likely to see cross-examination end today? >> reporter: i think there's a

small chance it may end today, but it's more likely to continue into early next week, not necessarily much longer. again, as i said, in my professional opinion from yesterday, gerry nel still had a bit of ground that he needed to make up. in terms of not just putting his argument forward clearly, but actually getting pistorius to supply sufficient testimony that backs that argument up. and in a sense the longer pistorius is on the stand for nel, the better the position for him. a witness gets tired as time goes on. and if someone is covering something up, they're much more likely to slip up when they're tired and have had enough of croak than earlier on in -- cross-examination than earlier on in cross-examination. i would expect it to last today and potential oh monday or tuesday next week. >> we've seen pistorius emotionally drained and worn down. as soon as testimony begins, we'll cross to it live. yesterday we saw after lunch

break, oscar pistorius was much more composed. what likely is it that his defense said to him during the break to pull him back together? >> reporter: actually, that's an interesting point you raise. his defense cannot say anything to him at this point. so once a witness has taken the stand, the legal team does not have access to them. and that's for a very important reason -- because the court is conducting in a trial a truth-finding mission. if a witness can continually confer with their legal team once they've started testimony, it's more likely that their testimony will become tailored and coached and not natural. when testimony is unnatural, it's much harder for the court, for the judge, to discern what is fact from fiction, what is truth versus preparation. so pistorius has not been able to converse with his legal team over the last few days. that composure that we saw from him in the afternoon session in court yesterday, he would have been needing to rely on his own resources entirely to find that

more quiet space which clearly he was successful at doing in the afternoon. >> it also helps us understand just how delicate, fragile, or unhinged pistorius must feel in the box with the prosecutor coming at him so aggressively. at one point the prosecutor questioned his version of events with the gun in the restaurant saying, yes, it was handed to me, yes, it went off, but i did not pull the trigger. nel said, well, why then -- we had this expert say it's impossible for these gun to go off unless you pulled the trigger. are you calling your own lawyer a liar for not across examining him? what did you think of that part of the trial? >> reporter: i think in terms of the moment in isolation, it was one of pistorius' weaker moments in the sense that it was difficult to discern what he was trying to argue and why he was so doggedly sticking to that argument. having said that, i think one has to put this in context and remember that this is only went two in the defense's case.

we know they have expert witnesses. i have though doubt more witnesses will take the stand to add more substance around the skeleton version of these charge that pistorius is putting on the record. we can evaluate that testimony in its own right for how it appeared yesterday. we really have to reserve final judgments on the significance and implication until we've seen the whole case presented because we don't know yet how the evidence pistorius is giving will fit in and relate to the evidence that the subsequent witnesses will be giving later in the trail. >> and that's key. how will what's been said already fit in to the strategy that we'll see unfold in the weeks ahead, as i say, for viewers joining us, we're waiting for testimony to begin in pretoria, south africa. that's beginning now. we'll take you there live right

now. >> you are still under oath, mr. pistorius. >> thank you, my lady. >> thank you. yes, mr. nel? >> mr. pistorius, my lady, i received a request, and that's why i have my cell phone in my hand. from mrs. steenkamp that after the adjournment yesterday, she informed me through her advocate that mr. pistorius did in fact request a meeting with the steenkamp family prior to the trial, but they were not ready for such a meeting. i'm putting that in the record. >> thank you very much. so it's confirmation of what mr.

pistorius -- >> said that yesterday, and mrs. steenkamp felt that it was important that it be put in the record. i didn't know about that before yesterday. >> thank you for letting us know. >> you've also heard that, i'm sure, mr. pistorius. >> i have, my lady. >> mr. pistorius, because i went back there, there's one other aspect that i have to deal with. and in your evidence in chief, you indicated how important your religion is to you, an important -- how important that your christianity is to you. can i confirm that? >> that's correct, my lady. >> also said that you've always wanted to have a partner that was a christian. is that correct? >> that's correct. my lady.

>> my lady, page 1396 of the record. now was reeva then your first christian partner? >> no, she wasn't, my lady. >> i didn't hear that -- >> i beg your pardon. she was not, my lady. >> you have to speak a little louder. >> i beg your pardon. >> the questions that i'm going ask you now has got nothing to do with your faith. it has to do with your relationship. so although it deals with the religion, i'm not challenging your faith. you understand that? >> i understand, my lady. >> good. you see, mr. pistorius, i find the way that you gave your evidence interesting. you said that reeva was a very strong christian. you appreciated that. >> yes, she was, my lady. she prayed with me. she prayed for me. she tried to be a better person.

she liked to listen to christian music. >> you've cut my cross-examination in half. she prayed for me, it's about me. your evidence of the same -- she would pray for me at night. we would pray about my training. pray about all the small things i had in my life. that's true. because she prayed for you, that -- >> that's true, my lady. >> now, i'm going to deal with your exposure to crime and how you've been a victim of crime. now, just deal with yourself. had you ever reported a crime at

a police station? >> any crime that i reported at a police station, my lady, or had a case against -- i had a case against the south african police service for wrongful arrest in 2009. it wasn't a reported crime, but there was docket that had been opened. >> but the question is different. did you ever go into a police station and complain about anything? >> no, i did not, my lady. >> now, i will go through all the exposure. why did you not do that if you'd been exposed to crime before? >> my lady, we can go through the list of the crimes that i've been exposed to. the house break-ins, when i got back to south africa, as i said, the house break-in was a week or -- week or more earlier. there was a tv missing. i didn't think anything could be

done about it. i didn't have insurance at the time. there was no reason for me to open up or to go to the police station and report the crime. when i was shot at on the highway, i didn't want to go to the plampgz i didn't think they'd be able to do anything about it. when i was assaulted in december, 2012, i didn't want to go to the police station because the person that was -- who was on the phone with me before the assault, i'd heard that he'd had connections at the police station. so i was fearful to go to the police station. so a friend of mine organized a meeting, and we went straight to them. >> now we have it. you've been a victim of a burglary where they stole items from your house, you never reported that to the police. >> that's correct, my lady. >> you had a -- an incident in

your yard, you never reported that to the police? >> the police came out on that occasion, my lady, but there was never a report or docket opened. it was seen as there was no burglary or break-in. >> now, that happened while you stayed somewhere else, not -- correct? >> that's correct, my lady. >> now, then you moved into silver woods. when was that again? >> it was in may, 2008 about, my lady. >> in silver woods, while you were there, you were never the victim of crime at your house. >> that's correct, my lady. >> no burglaries or anything at your specific house?

>> that's correct, my lady. except for the police stealing my watches -- that was a victim of crime i had at my house. >> what also happened at silver woods is that -- i know that it was early in 2012 that they increased the security at silver woods. is that correct? >> on several occasions, they increased the security, my lady. i'm not sure at which periods. i was often away for month, and i heard from other residents that -- security measures, and those measures didn't work. then they tried to reinforce new measures, and those measures were breached. then they employed some new security company, and there were

problems with those security companies. so at different times, there were different increasing measures that were taken. i'm not sure what the measures were. >> and you -- you felt it was safe enough to leave your cars outside and not in a garage? >> that's correct, my lady. >> so you never thought that somebody would break into your car? >> i never thought that somebody would break into my car, my lady. >> you thought that it was safe enough not to immediately fix a broken window downstairs? >> my lady, as i said, i bought the glass for the broken window, and it was in the process of getting repaired. so i was in the process of fixing it.

>> but it had been broken for a while before then. >> that's correct. there's a latch at the top where the whole of the window was and a latch t bottom of the window which one wouldn't be able to reach. but it was important for me that i got the door -- the window fixed, and i had gone through the process of doing so. >> no burglar-proofing in that particular window that was broken? >> there's no burglar-proofing on any of my windows, my lady. you said they'd been busy working at your house, for how long before the incident were they busy working there? >> about a week, my lady. >> and you were not concerned

about the ladders that the workers would leave in your yard every night? >> i was concerned motorcycle lady. -- concerned, my lady. i asked the contractor if he would mind putting the ladders in the garage at night. i don't remember checking it every night, but i checked, and on one occasion they were in the garage at night. >> but this -- this night you didn't check. >> no, that night i did not check, my lady. >> so let me just say that -- why did you not check? was that not important? >> it was important to me, my lady. it was -- i don't know why i didn't check it. >> but you were -- kept up to date about the security measures at silver woods, meaning the guards would be patrolling. how many guards there would be, and that they would be

controlled at the gates. >> i wasn't up to date. i knew that there were improvements made from other neighbors, but i wasn't up to date into what security measures had been increased. >> interesting because if somebody's so concerned like you, i would have expected that person to find out exactly what they're doing. why did you not do that if you're so concerned? >> as i said, my lady, i spoke to various neighbors in the estates. they informed me various things can be done. i can't remember now as to what was done and when it was done. i was aware that improvements were constantly being rectified. the estate obviously had a fund or treasury to afford these things. at times when i spoke to mr. sunder, he told me i think the homeowners association, he told me about certain thing that happened whilst i was away, certain incidents.

on an odd occasion i'd get an incident report when i drove in at the gate when i would read, but i wasn't aware of specifically which improvements had been made and how many guards were patrolling and that sort of thing. >> but -- rather, did you at any time ask people to do specific things that you indicated how concerned you were about security at the homeowners association? >> i've never been to a homeowners association meeting, my lady. i'm often overseas. i don't know when the meetings are held. i wouldn't be at home for more than half of the year. and even if i was in south africa, i was assembly doll -- seldom at my house, so i didn't follow the homeowners association meetings. i kept in contact with some of the members. mr. stunder would relay the messages if i asked him. >> would you please just explain

your alarm system because i tried to read it again, and i don't understand your alarm system. >> my alarm system comprises of internal sensors. it comprises of external sensors. and it works through a monitoring box like a normal alarm system with a battery, backup battery pack. if there's power failure, it's got a remote, my lady. so there's one button that you can arm and one button that you can disarm, and then one button if you're staying in at the house and you only want the outside sensors to be activated so that you can still walk around the house so that if a guest is staying over our staying downstairs, that you can activate the larks were outside. and that you would still be able to walk inside. >> so what did you activate that senate. >> i activated the alarm. house, so the inside and the outside of the house.

>> so before that particular night, you satisfied that there was enough alarm systems and sensors outside that if somebody were to come up to your premises, you would pick it up? >> that's not what i said, my lady. i said that they were bolting at the house. it's possible for them to take alarm beak an off the outside wall, sensor off the wall, but they're not -- they're not bolted on to the wall. you can take them off. when they painted the house the previous time, when they were doing maintenance work, they took some of the beacons off the beacon doesn't have the memory of what it saw last time it was activated. so if you took that beacon and placed it somewhere else in the house, or if you lift it off and the alarm was activated, it would just monitor what it saw, and it would alert to any

disturbance. i wasn't confident that there was -- i didn't know what work they'd done at that time on my house, but i knew that at the point of them painting that there was a possibility that they would take the beacons off the wall. >> okay. there's quite a few thing we have to just look at here. firstly, this happened in 2010. when you painted the house the previous time -- >> i don't remember, my lady. >> no, tell me what you remember when. when did this happen? >> i remember that they painted my house. may have been 2010, my lady. the paint that the developer used wasn't of high quality, so the paint of running, and it formed cracks. to get the house repainted it was probably 2009 or 2010. >> can we now agree that it's in all probability in 2010?

>> we can believe that in probability it was probably 2009 or 2010, it may have even been 2011, my lady. >> see, that is not good enough because you've got evidence. when you've got evidence, you knew when it was. it is important that we get an idea when that was. >> i think about the time i moved into my house, if it was within a year of moving into my house, it would have covered by the building contractor. there was a year warranty on the list. it makes sense that if it was within a year, so may, 2009, i would have got the builder to redo the work that was done on the house. so it must have after that period that i got it done because it was done independently. it wasn't done by the building contractor. it could have been any period. i don't remember what date it was. it could have been 2009, it could have been 2010. >> what i hear today, though, is

you said there was a possibility that they could have taken off some of the sensors -- that was now when they painted the house? >> that's correct, my lady. >> you said it's a possibility that you checked up on that? >> i said i didn't check up on it, my lady. >> you don't know that they took some of it off or they did -- you don't know? >> i don't know, my lady. >> okay. now if you knew that they took off some of the sensors, you would have checked up on it -- you were security conscious. >> i didn't know if they had taken some off or on, my lady. i knew they were both in the process of painting the house and there was a possibility that they may have taken some off or one or some or more of the sensors off the walls. >> you see, i didn't think it was so significant, but unfortunately i have to show you that you've changed your evidence to what you said in

chief today about the alarm. >> i don't remember me changing my evidence, my lady. if you want to show me -- >> i will. gladly. my lady, i'm referring to page 1464. >> page 1 -- >> 1464 of the record, my lady. >> thank you. >> i'll start reading from line 14. "they did not work with wiring, so when they painted the house -- >> you're watching the careful and methodical cross-examination of oscar pistorius at his murder trial. for those of you in the united states, "early start" is next. for everyone else, we'll return you to testimony underway. >> why would you change it today? >> i said --

breaking news this morning. new confidence from australia that search crews have detected black boxes at the bottom of the ocean for missing malaysia airlines flight 370. right now the search area dramatically narrowed, as we learn new information about what may have happened inside the cockpit before that plane vanished. we'll bring you live, team coverage on what is happening right now. good morning, everyone. welcome to "early start." it's friday. i'm john berman. >> and i'm christine romans. i'll repeat, it is friday. it is april 11th. it is 4:00 a.m. in the east. we s