Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

Regarding the eating, were any checks done on what dirty plates were in the kitchen, what was in the bin, etc? And there has been no mention of sex, which I find puzzling for a 'loving' couple together for a few months. Did they make love? If so, when and, if not, why not?

I agree to a point there, Nerf. On the other hand, it's a fine line between that and the evasion.

So, for example, when asked if he examined the actual sock, he said he examined the sample from the prosthetic. When he asked if he'd ever held the sock in his hand, he said he was aware of the sock being in the lab when he was.

I can understand qualification if it was 'no, I did not; I was told I must not handle the sock'.

Or 'No, I did not, I had the fibre analysis from the rest of the team and use that.'

I think that would be fair enough.

Has everyone else found that Channel 4 aren't showing it anymore?

Cringing like mad today. Oh lord

I'm cringing too. Dixon must know Nel from his time working for the state, surely to God he knew what Nel would be like?

Oh Lord. Nel is now demonstrating that Dixon has based his findings on the autopsy report as he was not at the autopsy. However, he has not read the full report.

If that's true, that's very bad.

Dixon is now referring to himself as a 'layman' rather than an expert.

Yes, just coming on to say can't get it on Ch4 - seems as though most of the media just streamed for OP's time on stand.

Got it on Telegraph site

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10668819/Watch-live-Oscar-Pistorius-murder-trial.html

I find myself chuckling at the lady sat behind the witness stand... She looks so bored and has her eyes closed a lot!

It's also live on the Sky website.

I feel that the defence team must have spent a long time trying to get an expert and expert analysis that might seem to agree with the version that they have been presented by Pistorius and that is contraindicated by the events witnessed by neighbours

That is not to say that Pistorius or the neighbours are lying. Witnesses and defendants have their own take on what occurred and the way that they experienced it...even when they have no reason whatsoever to lie.

The news channel with exclusive broadcast rights to this trial ran public opinions surveys on some aspects of this trial.

One of the questions was, if you could choose who to face on this trial, who would you choose to be your defence lawyer and your prosecutor between Nel and Roux.

Who would you choose and why?

Nel! All the way.

I'd choose him because he's damn good! I can't describe why, he just seems to have the edge over Roux. Maybe it's because he will go there if he needs to

(So Nel for defence, Roux for pros)

Nel - without a doubt. Roux is a showman, a salesman, whereas Nel is tenacious, has an eye for absolute detail and lets nothing get past him.

I haven't been watching the live proceedings, but have just seen a report that says the case has been adjourned until the start of May - why??

Sky's Alex Crawford says Sky did a shooting test with the black talon ammunition & were supplied with them within a day which again indicates defence's inattention to detail during reconstruction.

It's a tricky question. I can't tell whether Roux is doing his best under difficult circumstances.

If their roles were reversed and Nel was defending, how would he look to us then? We can only assume that Pistorius rejected some of Roux's council as suggested above by Gobbolino. Is it possible that Nel would have provided the same advice and had it rejected to?

Would Nel have been able to find a better expert witness? Or is Roux in this position because nobody else would do it, and if so, where does that leave Pisotrius.

Sir Chenjin because both legal teams have other cases to attend to &personal arrangements over the bank holiday weekends coming up

Did anyone see that the judge had asked if anyone was on holiday during the two week layoff they should take "homework" with them?

SirChenjin I think counsel have some other cases to deal with that require urgent attention. Judge wants them to take the time to read the record also

X post with louise, yep I saw that

You know what, I'm being wishy-washy because I'd like to think that the decision will be made based on the evidence presented - not on the characters of the two presenting it.

If I were in court, I'd want the same. Someone who is prepared to unearth the truth fully, who would be thorough in his examinations, and would tease out every inconsistency. I think that's how you get justice.

I think we've seen Nel doing that, but we haven't necessarily seen Roux doing that, but that might just be on account of where the evidence needs teasing out.

Roux though is supposed to be the best defence lawyer in SA isn't he? Maybe that's if the client listens to his advice. Of course we don't actually know that OP ignored any advice.

Maybe it's a case of you can only work with what you've been given, and if what you've been given is a stretch...

I don't doubt that Roux is ferocious when needed

I've not seen Roux in full flow as I came late to the trial & suspect the defence side may be looking weaker because of OP's arrogance. I like Nel's attention to detail & perhaps the fact that he may be more motivated to see justice served than monetary reward; he commands much less money as a State lawyer than Roux in private practice.