So today we're off on cross examination of Mr. Johnson by Mr.  Roux for a second time.  Mr. Roux reminded Mr. Johnson about how similar his testimony was to his wife's.  Mr. Roux apologized on the record for reading Mr. Johnson's phone number out loud in court.  He said he  had not realized what the consequences would be.   He then moves on to the notes Mr. Johnson  made of the details of teh night in question.  He had been advised by a lawyer friend to write it all down while it was fresh so he could refresh his memory if necessary.  He and his wife both made such notes.  Now Mr. Roux is going to have at those notes.  Why hadn't Mr. Johnson given those notes to the polive when he gave his "version?" (statement) Johnson gave teh notes to the lawyer.    Johnson is asked to read his notes (statement) aloud.  He then reads from his statement that the screams did not sound like fighting but distinctly like the distressed cries of someone under attack.    Roux says Johnson created a designed statement.  It's a design on Johnson's part to incriminate Pistorius and Roux says, that's unfortunate but We'll deal with it.  He's completely dismissive of what Johnson says.  Johnson strongly denies he meant to incriminate Pistorius, rather he was just recording the events while they were fresh. Roux charges "You are now trying desperately to extricate your version from your wife's."  Not so says Johnson.   Both Johnson and teh judge Thokozie Masipa, are confused by Roux's cross-exam about his wife's version.  The judge said she wasn't following the thread.    By now Roux has asked teh same question about the design to incriminate by Johnson and his wife four or five times.  Finally, finally the prosecutor Mr. Nell struggles up to his feet and asks Can we move on?   (Asked and answered it's called here.)  What Roux is going for is the idea that Johnson's notes are a "template" for his wife's statement.  At one point in the notes Johnson states that he did not count the shots he heard.  Then he states "but my wife counted four or five."  Johnson denies he is changing his story but only that he didn't count the shots and his wife did.  Johnson really has a hard time with this rough questioning.  Roux is like a circus master.  All he needs is a silk ha and a whipt.  Johnson insists the notes are a rough guideline.  Roux pounces on Johnson saying definitely "four or five shots" but the notes say "about" four or five.   Johnson is pretty frustrated about it.  He and his wife sought legal help because they had wanted to remain anonymous.  He says they are private people.  Johnson had wanted to make a neutral statement and give it to both sides so they called a layer for advise.  He insists he had not made up his mind about Pistorius' guilt or innocense when he gave teh statement.  He felt it was his moral duty to be a neutral witness and to tell it like it happened.   Roux says teh notes were given to an attorney who knew the prosecutor and that they are "inconsistant."  He accuses Johnson of long explainations to try and justify his incinsistancies.  

From the notes Roux turns to discussion of Johnson's experience with firearms.  Mr. Johnson says he owns a 9mm and has fired weapons before.  So Roux saks about his experience in hearing firearms being fired.  10 meters, a hundred meters away, house to house, between houses.   Johnson is confident he could identify a gunshot from all those distances and places.  

Finally, Roux wants to compare the time stamps of Johnson's call to security with the time stamps of Pistorius' phone call to security for the proposition that what Johnson heard was teh cricket bat and not the gunshots telling Johnson that "this hard evidence proves" he could not have heard shots.  Johnson patiently responds that the shots were too fast to have been a cricket bat striking anything.   Now Roux cracks about the different between Johnson's "sharp and acute senses"  and teh notes which say that he could not recall the time between shots and the sounds of screaming,  So, "I put it to you it was Mr. Pistorius screaming."  No, It was a woman says Johnson.  He's convinced of that.