Oscar Pistorius

At Oscar Pistorius' bail application, the prosecution asserted that there had been an hour-long argument, non-stop fighting and loud talking between Oscar and Reeva before the shots that so tragically ended Reeva's life. The prosecution pursued that assertion as the truth during the trial. What if there was no evidence to support that scenario? The prosecution further pursued that assertion during the five days of Oscar's cross-examination. There are legal, procedural and ethical boundaries limiting what a prosecution is permitted to do when cross-examining an accused. What if those boundaries were exceeded during Oscar's trial? And what if his evidence about his state of mind was undermined by impermissible cross-examination, resulting in the Supreme Court of Appeal upgrading his conviction to murder? What if the Supreme Court of Appeal committed a string of errors of fact, logic and law in convicting Oscar of murder? Were the country's foremost criminal law professors right when they disagreed with the murder verdict? Finally, what was the Big Lie in the title of the book? The answers to these troubling questions are given by Chris Marnewick SC, an experienced senior advocate, author and educator, after an extensive analysis of the record of the trial, the evidence given by the witnesses, the judgments of the courts, and the legal principles applying to a criminal trial.