Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

She is just like me when I am desperately trying not to nod off when on courses. I 'just rest my eyes' and then change position to wake myself up. Nothing works! I'm expecting a snore shortly!

What can Roux say in redirect "were you this useless when you testified for the State?"

I think they must get used to the cameras and forget that they are on.

Ooh nice dig by Nel 'Roger Dixon can go grab the beer he mentioned on his Facebook post earlier.'

I'm shocked at the quality of this evidence. It seems anecdotal and amateurish.

Just catching up. How can evidence be 'forgotten'? Where is the forensic evidence? I'm coming to the conclusion that this entire process is a farce, at best, a flawed system, at worst...dodgy as fuck.

"Ooh nice dig by Nel 'Roger Dixon can go grab the beer he mentioned on his Facebook post earlier.'"

:O did he say that! i missed it!

I am distracted by Carlton Heston behind roux.
Roux is very calm though and steering it back.

Stack I got that from a feed. www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Live/LIVE-UPDATE-Day-25-Pistorius-on-trial-20140417

Dixon apparently has explained how he calculated OP's height. Why didn't the team just measure OP?

OP is not well served by this 'expert' witness.

No further questions from Roux. Bet Mr. Dixon is off for that beer now with a whisky chaser

louise - there would have been a plea arrangement between the parties that OP was pleading guilty to CH.

Then off to court for the Judge to sentence - where she will listen to the plea in mitigation fir the accused and the recommendations of both prosecution and defence as to sentencing. Sometimes, as part of the plea bargain, they will agree to recommend the same sentence. But the ultimate decision is down to the judge.

The Judge cannot compel the state to prosecute on any charges. It is for the prosecution (on behalf of the state) to decide what the charges should be and what will be prosecuted, taking into account the evidence, the likelihood of success and matters of public policy.

This is why the DPS is currently getting a kicking regarding all of their recent failed sex abuse cases

Thinking about things last night, I am wondering if a plea bargain was mooted by OP's team but the prosecution felt they had a good chance on the murder conviction

Well, that's it till 5th May

Gobbolino - so the State have to agree to it? Ok, because I have thought all along they were determined to go for maximum charges.

free - the other thing that Dixon said about light, IiRC (making chocolate Easter crispy cakes with 16 month old throughout!) was that when he carried out his "tears" at night, light came in round the curtains to the balcony - even with the balcony light off

Nightmare for OP who says the whole room was in pitch darkness even with the balcony light on.

Yes -the state would have to agree. The fact they say they are going for maximum charges means they would probably only agree a plea deal to murder

To be fair to Roux et al, you may as well have a punt at pleading not guilty to murder on the basis that the Judge will consider a CH verdict in any event if she finds you not guilty of murder

Thanks.

The Judge can't stand Dixon down. It is not for her to interfere in either parties' case for good or ill

Even a raised eyebrow at testimony at the moment would be enough for an immediate retrial on appeal.

If Roux stNds Dixon down(which he can't do during x-exam. You can't just decide you don't like the way the evidence is going and not give the other side the chance to x-exam), then the only way he could do so is to invite the Judge to disregard all of his testimony during his summing up. Which would look dreadful. He could invite the judge to disregard bits of it but that looks awful too - leading ab expert whose not actually an expert but too silly/arrogant not to have the terms of his expertise very clearly set out.

What the judge can do though is completely disregard this evidence - which no doubt Mr Nel will invite her to do and draw an adverse inference that this was the best evidence the defence could come up with. On that basis, Nel's expert evidence should be believed

"Why didn't the team just measure OP?"

This seems so F-ing obvious.

Did Dixon raise any valid points that contradicted the state's case? The only points I seem to be taking away from his evidence are: that Dr Stipp could have seen OP whether he was on his stumps or not; Reeva might have been standing at an angle to the door rather than straight ahead and this would have impacted on how the shots hit meaning she wouldn't have screamed; the room may have been so dark you couldn't see or it might have been possible to see.
It struck me that the toilet looked very dark when the door was closed and the toilet light wasn't on. Was there any evidence to confirm the toilet light was broken on the night Reeva died?

Thanks Gobbolino, my legal knowledge is completely non-expert & a mish mash of UK & USA press/tv!

Was there any evidence to confirm the toilet light was broken on the night Reeva died?

I haven't seen anything specific, but I'm pretty sure if it was working, that would have been spotted during the examination of the scene in the hours immediately afterwards.

With reference to whether Dixon brought any new evidence which wasn't immediately shown up by Nel, I didn't see today's from about 10 (our time), but it strikes me that some 'new stuff' was stuff that Nel hadn't actually disputed.

So, for example, the fibres from the sock/prosthetic/door - this (I think) is new. Dixon introduced it. Nel (from what I have seen) isn't disputing that Pistirius kicked the door.

So we've got:

Dixon: 'But I found that Pistorius kicked the door!'

Nel: 'OK, I wasn't disputing that, but OK then. Let's see if this test was scientifically valid.'

Dixon: 'Ah...'

But then Nel's argument was that Dixon didn't test other doors and didn't scientifically match the fibre so regarding the door kicking we're back where we started aren't we? Ie OP says he did it. The evidence might support that but then again it might not. However the state obviously isn't seeing it as that significant either way as they didn't dispute it.
It just feels like more than a day of testimony to prove very little unless I've been so distracted by Nel's showmanship that I've missed something important.
Maybe Roux thinks that the assertion that Reeva wouldn't have screamed was worth all the other discredited points. (Although personally I'm more inclined to believe the witnesses who heard screaming than to believe Dixon).

But screaming indicates fear so at what point would Reeva have begun screaming? She would have had to be frightened so OP must have had the gun out as the bat was used second. So then what? He chases her down the corridor she locks herself in, turns to face the door to reason with him, and he fires? Changing aim to finish the job?
That's terrifying.
And also , what I find hard is to imagine that amount of emotion after three months - that he would let himself lose everything over a short term relationship when you think of all the self control he has to have for his life.

"Maybe Roux thinks that the assertion that Reeva wouldn't have screamed was worth all the other discredited points. (Although personally I'm more inclined to believe the witnesses who heard screaming than to believe Dixon)"

Yes. I agree on both points.

Nerf that's a good point about when Reeva would have screamed. If there was an argument then she could have screamed at any point and if there was no argument then the only point when she would have screamed would have been between shots.

Regardless of whether OP knew it was Reeva or not, he definitely lost his self control that night with tragic outcomes for everyone involved.