Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

Yes Nel is really dismissing him as not up to the job. He's doing ok though.

He's stated again that he is not a ballistic expert. However, he says that his scientific processes that he uses with Geology map across to his evidence on a body.

And not a sound expert . Hmm.

But he had sound experts with him.

Huh. He says he was not wearing ear protectors while hitting the door with the bat. He did when he shot the gun. His ear did not ring after the bat, but he noticed an echoing.

I think, what Nel's getting at there, is that obviously a gun is louder than a bat.

Jesus! Now he's saying he didn't take a light measurement while stating how dark it was in the room!

I didn't pick up on that before!

So fascinating reading everyone's views on this

Just a point - hope I don't look like I'm bumming when I say I'm a lawyer. I'm not a criminal one (though a litigator as an employment one so appear in the Tribunal a fair bit). Just thought it worth adding to the mix as it might bring an alternative not better point of view.

Re other websites discussing this. I'm following - although not posting on - digital spy's it's pretty good

They have a poster on there called juror13 and this is her blog. Pretty useful for recaps

And he says the fibres on the door was from the sock, without actually examining the sock. It was on the sole of the prosthesis, therefore, he deduced it was the sock.

That was stupid. It's not the action of a professional.

The fibres on the door and the prosthesis may have been transferred to the door at any night.

Nel is horrible! Dixon is holding his own really well!

I'm not sure looking, I'm trying to work out if news points are valid and have meaning or if he is just trying to throw mud.
The fibre on the leg and the fibre on the door match, have varnish attached. So the leg made contact with the door. I suppose making sure it was the same sock would pin it down to that night.

Well, he's not there to make friends with the guy. He's there to point out the inadequacy of his evidence.

Nels not news

I know Nel is doing his job but he is a horrible, horrible little man.

Oh Funky I'm warming to him!

It's not that though, Nerf - I suspect it is the sock like he says. What Nel is doing is pointing out that this guy did not act professionally. Saying the fibre matched the sock, when in reality it matched the fibre on the bottom of the leg, that wasn't professional. Not asking to even hold the sock so that he can test it wasn't professional either.

He's saying he's not proficient.

He's not kept his certificate up to date, because he's no longer part of the forensic lab. To my mind, it begs the question; if they had the experts of the whole of the forensic lab at their disposal, then why did the Defence choose a person who was not a part of that lab, and whose certificate has expired?

I'm not saying the chap's wrong - I'm saying he isn't acting as an expert.

Isn't it funny how we have different perceptions - I don't consider Nel horrible. He's doing his job and I would want him on my side if I needed someone in these circumstances.

This sums it up
Charl du Plessis@CharlduPlessc Retweeted by Aislinn Laing
Summary of response to Nel cross-exams: Oscar Lovers: Nel is grasping at straws Oscar Haters: Nel is tearing him apart

Think the issue that OP will have re proving that it was "reasonable" to shoot 4 bullets through the door is his knowledge and experience with guns

I have never shot a gun in my life. So might think if I shoot just one bullet it might get stuck in the wood, not go through the door and be enough to frighten off the "burglar". But I've never shot or held a gun in my life. I might get a fright when I shot the first bullet and then as a reflex keep shooting the other three (note: I wondered when Barry Roux re-examined he might try and argue that the first shot was a warning shot but the other three were reflex. To try and sort out the horlicks of OP's two defences to culpable homicide. But he didn't)

However, OP has plent of experience of guns, shot them often on ranges and passed an exam on the legal niceties of how to handle them. This is understatement problematic for him.

That all aside, the test for culpable homicide is what a "reasonable person" would have done under the circumstances. I think it will be the failure to shout a clear warning eg "get the fuck out of my house - I've got a gun" that will do for him.

In fact, the failure to shout the warning could be enough to show intent to kill - I.e he didn't shout as he didn't want the person to get out the way etc as he intended to kill them

Either way - the very best scenario I can see is a culpable homicide verdict with a long sentence

I may be being cynical but I can see a shrien dewani "breakdown" in the future. In the hope, at least, of being in a secure mental facility. Not that that will be much better

I'm honestly not able to see Nel as a horrible little man. Maybe I'm immune to lawyers or something. He's doing his job. I suppose in the way that a nurse giving injections isn't horrible for repeatedly stabbing metal needles into the arms of lots of people; she's doing a job.

Looking, you are right, I'm just trying to look at what Nel is trying to achieve iyswim. It's easy to be impressed when he makes a point and I don't want to fall into that.
Totally agree about the choice of witness by the defence.

Certainly, I don't think Nel is being any more horrible to Dixon than Roux was to the witnesses who heard things that night.

Undermining his claimed credentials well & therefore the credibility of his conclusions - it's an obvious tactic & would have thought a professional witness should have been better prepared.

I did not see the earlier parts of the trial to see Roux. Nel is doing an outstanding job. I suppose im looking from it as if I was that Dixon guy id be a wreck!!

It's easy to be impressed when he makes a point and I don't want to fall into that.

I am dreadful for this. 'At 9.30, I was all YY! She totally fell in exactly the way Dixon says! It can't be anything other!'

Now I'm 'Wait; why am I so convinced by this chap, when he has said a number of times he's not a ballistics expert, and that on a number of occasions, hasn't exactly demonstrated sound scientific practises.'

Does the SA legal system have an appeal process - ie could he be found guilty of culpable homicide followed by an immediate and protracted appeal process with no prison term until such time as that appeal process is exhausted?

if I was that Dixon guy id be a wreck!!

Oh, I agree with you there!

Same here. Nel has that confidence and slightly exasperated manner of someone dealing with lying fools.
However, as he applies it to everyone I'm trying to actually listen!
Dixon is making a fair point though about not having been asked to do a final report.