Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

Just wanted to clarify some things posters are asking about with regard to the position of the duvet.

As I understand it it is important to support OP's version of the police moving things, etc. If the duvet and jeans were as depicted in the photograph taken at 0548 (I think) then the upright fan could not be where OP states he put it after bringing it in from the balcony and closing the doors. The siting of the fan is crucial because if it was where he says he put it then it corroborates his version of having his back to the bed and therefore not seeing Reeva get out of bed, essentially the duvet on the floor stops the fan being where he said he put it, and the duvet couldn't be where it is in the photo if OP had put the fan where he said he did. Also in the position in the photo the fan impedes access to the windows for him to open and shout for help. If, however, the police moved the fan and threw the duvet on the floor and the jeans on top to discredit his version of events why would they do that when they were at that time unaware of his version of events. It is one of those details that casts doubt on the scenario OP has given.

I thought Nel made mincemeat of the defence expert today, I saw Roux visibly cringe at one point in the testimony I think if he could have put his head in his hands he would have. Also, when the Judge told Nel off she had a slight smirk on her face, and at one point she seemed very annoyed with Mr. Dixon's lack of expertise. I think it is rather disrespectful to the court to produce an expert witness who is clearly no expert, and admits to not being one, and having him make pronouncements on subjects he is not qualified to.

An SA legal expert was saying on Sky News that he thought Roux might cut down the number of defence witnesses he calls due to the mauling Dixon got today.

Maybe they weren't doing it to discredit him, maybe they were just sloppy and therefore mucking up evidence.

Can anyone please copy and paste, I think it was stack who posted, links to testimony from sky? I can't find the post.

Talking about sound at night, it does travel differently so I am led to believe. I hear things at night with doors/windows open that would be indistinguishable during the day and the sounds can come from much further away so I have no problem believing the neighbours even at some distance heard shouts, screams voices, etc., whether they can pinpoint exactly where they came from is a different matter. However, the only house in the estate where a gun was fired was OP's so they can safely deduce that that is the house the shots were heard from, I can't honestly say whether they have then assumed that other shouts or screams before the shots came from that house because they know the gunshots did.

As the crow flies we are about 5 miles outside a village, middle of summer last year a concert was held in the middle of the village and with the doors and windows open (very hot night) at 0400 I could not only hear the music I could hear the lyrics of the songs, admittedly they had microphones and amplifiers but this was a small village concert not Robbie Williams at the MK Bowl!

Yes I would think more sloppy police work than deliberately trying to tamper with evidence.

Have the stolen watches been investigated further?

One of my first thoughts when hearing about this dreadful crime, was "OMG the spotlight is really going to be on the police, evidence handling and forensics and there are likely to be fuck ups everywhere!"

It really is a shame as in a case like this with one witness dead and the other with his life on the line, the integrity of the evidence is so so so important so third parties can reveal and understand what happened.

Sadly CSI is just a tv show, and the reality is, the quality of how the police on the scene handle the evidence is going to be variable.

emotionsecho there isn't any question that the jeans at the very least were moved around, which casts doubt upon the position of practically anything in the bedroom. It's not a conspiracy, frankly they are just incompetent.

As for Mr Dixon, he worked for the police forensic team for 18 years and I would love to know how many times the State used him as an expert during that time. If he was "expert" enough for them to use, he should be "expert" enough for the defence here. I am not, by the way, saying that he didn't get a mauling - he did.

Growing up I often heard the lions at the zoo a mile or so away, roar in the evening. On a still summers night their roars could be extremely clear and feel very close. Other nights we would hear them well in the distance or wouldn't hear a thing - depending on the wind or even a breeze.

The travelling of sound depends on many variables.

It's something that continues to bemuse me. This is high profile, intense media interest, commentary worldwide. You'd think they'd be so careful to have done and do it all just so. And yet it's all so not done with real scrutiny, diligence. Good it's been shown live - I'd like to think it'll drive improvements in scrutiny, care, diligence.

BeCool yes it is appalling about the integrity of the police evidence, it is so damn unprofessional.

I believe the police captain stated that they never found the missing watch despite searching everyone at the scene, he also stated he kept the toilet door in his office to prevent tampering which really beggars belief.

Mind you I watch a fair bit of true crime stuff, courtesy of my DH, and some of the police investigations in America are equally bad, we sit there shaking our heads and find it particularly hard to stomach their incompetence when the accused is likely to face the death penalty.

louise I agree wholeheartedly with you about the continually moving jeans which also turned themselves inside out at one point, I was just trying to clarify for some previous posters why the duvet on the floor was a crucial point laboured by the prosecution.

I did wonder if there was any "history" between Nel and Dixon, someone said they knew each other and I would guess Dixon has been used by the State as an expert on several occasions, do you think Dixon might have thought that Nel would be easier on him because he seems taken aback by Nel's cross examination style?

Although Louise I still think it is disrespectful for someone who never attended the post mortem and who has limited knowledge of post mortems (by his own admittance) to definitively state as fact something related to that evidence when he hasn't the qualifications to do so, and again I question the defence for allowing his testimony to drift into areas he shouldn't be commenting on. I am actually surprised the defence didn't arrange their own post mortem or have someone more professionally qualified to review that evidence, but maybe they have and he/she is yet to appear.

This is quite interesting

time.com/5572/oscar-pistorius-dream-team-murder-trial/

emotions I thought that Professor Botha, the first defence witness, did that

Does anyone know what it was in the post mortem report and photographs that susprised Dixon so much?

I didn't watch it all, but I knew it wasn't going well when I heard Nel ask (I'm paraphrasing) "are you a sound expert?" To which he replied "I'd like to think my evidence is sound" !!

Sorry AmI Professor Botha did what?

FREELIKEABIRD

LINK

time.com/5572/oscar-pistorius-dream-team-murder-trial/

emotions comment on the post mortem

I was thinking the same thing regarding Mr Dixon and his qualifications. I would think 18 years experience would make one pretty knowledgeable. It seems the tactics Nel uses to cross examine people gets those results. whether they know something or not. I believe he could get his mother to say she wasn't his mother even if she was holding a DNA certificate in her hand that proved it. He has mastered the art of arguing but I wonder if he is really getting to the truth of the case. After Mr. Dixon had his time on the stand I would say it shows OP isn't the only one capable of being totally turned up side down by him.

It would be just appalling if he gets another 18 months of freedom if he appeals after a guilty verdict. He's already had over a year with holidays, girlfriends, etc and all the time Reeva has been dead. (Yes, I have already made my mind up.)

Yikes, think op will be after a refund...

I do wonder... If OP is at the least determined to have acted in response to a perceived threat, and the court agrees that this was the reason, would this be easier for the steencamp family to accept than a verdict which says he has lied and made upntheintruder story? Or will it just not be concluded in that way?

Thanks AmI, I'll look up what he said, there has been so much and I have missed the odd day here and there.

upnorth if I had to undergo a Nel cross-examination and he told me I was really a man named Rupert I am sure I would end up agreeing!

Thanks stampy, I really must teach myself to try do links, I'm on my phone though on the app.

Managed to catch up now.

Crikes - that expert witness today was ad much use as the interpreter at Mandela's funeral

If this wasn't so serious and tragic a case it would be hysterical

Can't remember who asked but no - it is absolutely not normal for an expert witness so start basically pontificating about things they don't knot know anything about. In fact, a good expert witness will be very, very careful not to stray outside the terms of their expertise when accepting instructions. As, to do so, massively undermines their credibility. I mean, asking that chap about things he isn't trained in is about about as much use as getting a well meaning random off the street. Completely fucking pointless

God, that was a total car crash. Worse than OP's testimony testimony - something I never thought I'd be saying. We've reached a new low.

As a final point, you usually put your best and most compelling "expert" on first - fuck knows what's coming