Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

I don't think anyone on this thread disagrees with you Charlie that the whole thing is an absolute tragedy.

I agree - I don't think it's funny at all and I've made that very clear in my other posts.

But Gerrie Nel is just doing his job.

I know that other posters have said that they would be all over the place if Gerrie Nel was x- examining them. And to an extent anyone would be and that's fine. A court or tribunal expect that. But when I'm prepping witnesses, you can tell generally who aka telling the truth. They're not over polished (which can indicate coaching until you start probing below the surface). They will stray and can be shaken on some elements. But they tend to return to the general narrative of their original evidence.

That expert today was a clown. And that was quite clear early doors.

Gerrie Nel has x-examined OP relentlessly but that is his job. SA has an adversarial justice system. Like England and Scotland. Barry Roux for OP could have objected at anytime if he thought that OP was being badgered or unfairly treated. It's telling that he interjected about twice in total by my recollection and one of his interjections was to make sure that a reference to a piece of evidence was put on the record - so just a technical objection really

What I meant to say, but didn't in my long winded post above is that OP had such a bad time under Gerrue Nel ad he wasn't telling the whole truth

The expert evidence today was laughable. Tests were being done as late as last week.

What this tells me (from a bit of experience) is that the defence have spent the best part of a year unsuccessfully trying to find an actually qualified person willing to back up OP's version, doing sound tests that don't "work" etc etc. as a last resort they stump up Mr Dixon who clearly will say anything that suits and doesn't care about his professional integrity and the Defence team put him up with all digits crossed for the cross examination

Oh yes that was totally cringe worthy watch in horror between fingers stuff.

I have to wonder why on earth the defence put Dixon on the stand?

Has court now been adjourned until 5 May?

No Jill there back in tomorrow then adjourned till 5th may.

I do think this kind of thing goes on all the time in courts. It's just that they aren't usually televised for millions to witness first hand.

I think that geology can be a pathway into forensics - that does not excuse this evidence
I was horribly drawn to it and Nel's cross

I still think that he was perhaps the best/only 'expert' option given the evidence that had to be pieced together

Jill I think they are back tomorrow, Nel indicated he would finish with Dixon (he is bringing in photos and reports I believe) then the Court is adjourned until the 5th May.

Thanks, I tought so but just read something saying it was adjourned. I wonder if anyone's been reading the riot act to the defence team....

Tought? No... thought.

Just found this tweet, this was whilst Mr Dixon was being x examined by Nel.

@AlexCrawfordSky: #oscartrial Reeva's family giggle a little and shake their heads as they listen

Agree - that clearly this chap was the only option. But, a bit if prep with him should have made it clear that he really wasn't an "option" at all.

Instead, the defence should t have lead any "expert" forensic evidence but just concentrated on undermining the state's. it's for the state to prove the case

Does anyone watch the round up on sky news? There's an ex policeman on it who speaks a lot of sense

He's just made the excellent point that, when your shot, you tend to scream your head off. So, OP would have heard Reeva after one shot and it should have been clear it was her in the loo then. He said that, even if your ears were ringing, you'd still hear that

"You're" not "your"

I found it interesting that OP said that he couldn't hear above the 'decibels'

not at all scripted

Yes I saw that. He said that when your ears ring after gunshot, you can still hear. Your ears are ringing but you are not deaf.

Experts have a privileged position in a courtroom. They are the only people allowed to give their opinion as evidence - that is because of their expertise.

In an English courtroom if an "expert" admitted that he was a layman the other side would be making an application for the judge to direct the jury to ignore the expert's opinion evidence in those areas in which he was not an "expert" before you could say "he is not an expert"! If that expert was a prosecution witness the defence might even apply for the dismissal of the case on the grounds that the jury had wrongly been exposed to the opinions of a layman presented as expert evidence and couldn't realistically be expected to put those opinions out of their mind.

Of course there is no jury here and the judge will see this for the disaster it is.

Putting him on the stand was a huge mistake by the prosecution. You could go so far as to say that presenting him as an expert on sound, ballistics and forensic pathology was attempting to mislead the court.

Yes I saw the Sky roundup gobbolin. Really interesting. Why didn't the prosecution present that kind of evidence? Re still hearing despite your ears ringing. And also involuntary screaming reaction to being shot.

The prosecution did say Reeva would have screamed.

As for still being able to hear even after firing a gun, perhaps Nel didn't know that OP was going to argue that he hadn't heard any screams because his ears were ringing. Maybe Nel thought OP would say he'd heard the screams but not identified them as Reeva?

The problem with evidence given that 'people' will scream when shot is that it is actually hard to evidence properly
I makes sense of course but I wonder if long term studies have been conducted and even if they have they will have shown that there are a percentage of those who didn't, no matter how small. This percentage will be the group that OP will then say Ms Steenkamp falls within.

It is better that we let the witnesses speak to what they heard, to the best of their abilities
They seemed to be strong and reliable sorts

I would imagine that there are others on that estate who heard plenty and simply didn't come forward. I have wondered if I would have done so as being caught up in it might have an affect on other work that I do.
I want to believe that I'd come forward but I might hang back and hope that someone else did the right thing

It was the defense who put Dixon up, not the prosecution, celeste, hard as it is to imagine!

Even without Dixon opening his mouth, his stunning lack of relevant qualifications or membership of any professional body would have been enough to render him a laughing stock!

OP had an experts team. His pathologist (Dr Perumal(sp?)) was present during autopsy and compiled a report but Dr Botha testified a

OP had an experts team. His pathologist (Dr Perumal(sp?)) was present during autopsy and earlier stages of the trial and compiled a report but did not testify as his other pathologist dr Botha who by the way was not present at the autopsy testfied. It was explained that Dr Botha's report was 'more comprehensive of the two reports' by his defence.

As to using a forensic analyst when he has a ballistics expert who has been present in court up until about a week ago, could it be that he could not find a ballistics expert to accord with his evidence?

His ballistics expert consulted and passed notes to Roux during his cross examination of Mangena the state ballistics expert and I would expect him to testify

Pls ignore previous post as done accidentally