If he was "expert" enough for them to use, he should be "expert" enough for the defence here.
Louise, from what I could tell, Nel only really tore at the 'expert' moniker when Dixon started to describe himself as a 'layman'. Other than that, his main questioning were to do with the specific tests that he did. Would an 'expert' measure light with no light metre, would an 'expert' deduce that the fibres came from the sock or would they test the ruddy sock.
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
I disagree with this too. Remember both lawyers have the job to do this. Roux desperately tried to get the Berger to say her and her husband's witness statements were compared and adjusted to suit each other. He was equally as doggish about this, asking that same question 6 times until the judge pointed out that she'd answered 6 times now.
I think Dixon got so horribly savaged because he didn't do his initial job well enough in the first place. If he were able to say 'I used a light reading, and the reading was X, and the usual scale for an average person to see silhouettes in the room is Y...' but he couldn't do that.
Not being able to get the Black Talon bullets for example - how hard did he try, because Sky got them in 24 hours.
It's not the man Nel is attacking - it's the work, which was sloppy.
Does anyone know what it was in the post mortem report and photographs that surprised Dixon so much?
Emotionsecho, please note I only think I've got this right, because there was stuff in the room while I was listening, and I'm not a forensic expert.
Dixon claimed that the bruise on Reeva's buttock, the one that was not shown on the screen for her dignity, was caused when she fell onto the magazine rack.
Prosecution say that this bruise was caused by the damage to the inside. That it was discolouration from the bullet that passed through her hip.
Dixon maintained it was a bruise from the outside, and he'd looked at the photos and found it.
What he apparently missed was the fact that the prosecution pathologist had dissected the whole of her buttock, so was able to categorically state that the bullet caused the discolouration, because he found bullet fragments there. Or something along those lines.
Dixon was surprised by that paragraph, as if he'd read it for the first time that day.
What is difficult for the Defence is that then he says he read the post mortum report a long time ago. However, he's been refining his report for the prosecution since.
So what he's saying is that not only was he prepared to state his opinion without having attended the autopsy, which in itself isn't too problematic, but then he refined his report without constantly double checking the report.
Which does, as you say, beg the question about why they put him on the stand in the first place.