MS. LURIE: As far as I knew, he was being forced to open his safe by the sixth man. But then the sixth man was in the room too. The others stood back and let him take his turn raping me. I was numb and exhausted by then. I had been in that position for so long that I couldn’t feel much any more. That was when I opened my eyes and saw my father looking at me, at what was happening to me.

KHUMALO SC: And what did you see in his eyes, Miss Lurie?

DESHEN SC: Objection, M’Lady. Counsel is asking the witness to speculate about the significance of the defendant’s facial expressions. That is well beyond the scope of the witness’s expertise.

MKHWANE J: Your objection is sustained, Mr. Deshen. Mr. Khumalo, kindly limit your questioning to matters within the direct scope of this witness’s knowledge.

KHUMALO SC: As your ladyship pleases. Miss Lurie, what was your father doing while you were being assaulted?

MS. LURIE: I used to think he was staring in horror at what was happening to me—that his inaction was caused by the paralysis of shock. But in recent months I have come to realise that he was simply . . . watching.

DESHEN SC: Objection, M’Lady. Counsel has sneaked this speculation into the record under the guise of legitimate observation. It is entirely groundless. The witness has no way of knowing what the defendant was thinking or feeling during this terrible assault.

MKHWANE J: Sustained again, Mr. Deshen. The witness’s testimony with regard to what the defendant was doing during the rape will be struck from the record.

If Lucy Lurie thought she had a tough time during Advocate Khumalo’s examination-in-chief, she soon discovered what a tough time really meant when counsel for the defence, Advocate Imraan Deshen, began his cross-examination of her. Examination-in-chief is a much friendlier and more rule-bound process. There are strict limits on how counsel may phrase his or her questions, and the extent to which he or she may put words in the witness’s mouth.

Examination-in-chief is to cross-examination as a civilised tea party is to the Wild West. During cross-examination, almost anything goes. Counsel can be as hostile as he likes. He can interrupt the witness, badger her, put words in her mouth, express disbelief at what she is saying, and call her a straight-up liar if he wants.

This was the part where the prosecution’s legal team should have taken great care in preparing Ms. Lurie for what was to come. Perhaps they did, but it was difficult anyway. No amount of preparation can steel you for the process of having your integrity, your character, your very being flayed alive in open court.

DESHEN SC: What were you wearing to have dinner with your father, Miss Lurie?

MS. LURIE: What was I wearing? Gosh, it must be on record somewhere. Jeans, I think, and . . .