Gerrie Nel is going through Johnson's statement again. He says he's not going to read every line.
Barry Roux's only question relates to the date and time Johnson made the note on his laptop. Nel begins his re-examination of the witness.
Judge Masipa addresses the media saying that someone used a flashlight while Charl Johnson was testifying. The judge says she's not "going on a witch-hunt" but there will be an investigation to see who violated the court order against taking photographs.
And we're back after the tea break.
Taking a break for tea. Back shortly.
Roux is alerted to something from a lawyer on Pistorius' legal team and asks for an adjournment to consider it.
Johnson says that sound travels "extremely far" in their neighborhood because there's a lot of open space around them. He says "one of the scars" from experiencing the trauma from that night is that they hear the jackals call at night. Johnson says the calls remind him of Steenkamp's screams.
But then Roux has one more question.
Roux: If your version is correct, at the time you heard her screams the deceased would've been in a locked toilet with the window closed. I put it to you that there's no way you could've heard it at your house.
Nel objects to the vagueness of the question.
With that, Mr. Roux has no questions. It's back to Nel who asks for an early tea.
Roux: Did you heard the male and the female voice at the same time? Johnson did not.
Roux puts it to Johnson that he heard Pistorius screaming that night, not Steenkamp. Johnson says he definitely heard a woman screaming.
And now back to the number of shots.
Roux: What is it that caused your inability to know the number of shots?
Mr. Roux takes a long pause, changes direction. Asks Johnson if he knows what Pistorius sounds like when he screams.
Johnson: Mr. Roux I hope that answers your question.
Roux: I'm sorry to disappoint you, no.
Johnson responds with: Which sense do I use to count with - touch, taste, smell?
Johnson: It's difficult for me to accept Mr. Roux's version.
He says that he can't see how someone would have time to repeatedly pull back a cricket bat and hit a door to match the quick succession of bangs he heard. He's adamant he heard gun shots.
Johnson is pulling a page out of Roux's book and asking for specifics. He wants to know if the time Roux has for the phone call Johnson made to the security company indicates the start or the end of the phone call.
Johnson is having a hard time with Roux's questions. The judge asks Roux to be more specific. Roux is asking if Johnson considered that the sound he heard could've been that of a cricket bat hitting a door.
Johnson says "it's quite easy to identify" the sound of a gun shot no matter what distance.
Roux asks what experience Johnson has with firearms. Johnson says he owns a 9 mm pistol.
Roux wants to know if Johnson gave a copy to Advocate Maritz because Mr. Maritz told Johnson he knew advocate Gerrie Nel and would talk to him. Johnson says he had no contact with Advocate Nel before the investigative team reached out to them.
Johnson: I wanted to present a neutral version of events
Johnson says it's a coincidence that the same day he made the notes, the police visited his house. Johnson says he and his wife sat down together to talk to the police - up until they've both maintained that they spoke to police separately.
Maritz is a lawyer friend of Johnson and his wife.
From his voice, Johnson has remained very patient during cross-examination.
Now we're on to the second version of the notes Johnson made. He edited the word "about" out of the sentence referring to how many shots his wife heard. Johnson says that English isn't is first language and he wanted to make sure the facts were accurate as he recalled them.
Johnson's notes say his wife, Michelle Burger, heard "4 or 5 shots." That's different from the 4 she says she clearly remembers hearing and testified to.
Johnson didn't make note of how many shots he heard. Roux says there's no reference to the "5 or 6 shots" Johnson's previously testified to hearing.
Gerrie Nel objects to Roux's repeatedly asking the same question and getting the same answer. The judge disagrees saying Roux hadn't finished asking the question. Nel says he's waiting with his objection, the court laughs.
Roux says that Johnson's interpretation of his notes is "designed to incriminate" Pistorius. Johnson says he has no reason to do so.
Johnson says that the male voice sounded "embarrassed" to be calling for help. That observation was not in his notes or his statement.
Johnson reads a paragraph from his notes: "The screams did not sound like fighting."