Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

though it wouldn't make sense that he would use the bat to smash his way in if he had the key all the time so I guess that't why it's probably not a possibility.

I am just watching the first bits of the trial as I missed them and hadn't realised that Michelle Burger and her husband hadn't wanted to testify or be involved because they assumed there would be people closer to the house who would have heard the shouting and screaming. it was only when they saw the bail application hearings and realised that they were saying it was just Oscar who screamed that they felt a 'moral obligation' to say what they had heard.

Unless he used the bat before the gun in a fit of temper!

though it wouldn't make sense that he would use the bat to smash his way in if he had the key all the time

Uh, duh! You're right, of course! Like I say - I'm really not firing on all cylinders today.

I've only been here a couple of days, but I'm really going to miss this thread over the next few weeks.

YNK - both sides agree that the bat must have been used following the gunshots.

Jill, I don't think it's that experts don't want to be associated with the case per se, just not with the defence. Doesn't that tell us something?

Maybe they knew Nel v Roux, or the force of public opinion, or that they would be on the back foot.... Yes,...

Does the defence have to believe the defendant's case, where there may be many grey areas, or do they suspend belief to get the job done?

Thanks for the link BeCool , so the pathologist had made the decision before the mauling of Mr Dixon. Can any other defence witnesses opt out at this stage?

Does the defence have to believe the defendant's case, where there may be many grey areas, or do they suspend belief to get the job done?

Gobbolino did an earlier post about how a lawyer has to refuse to act for somebody who is accused if they've confessed.

I would think that ethically, if you disbelieve your client, that you should probably withdraw from representing them. Nobody can prove your unethical if you don't voice your belief that the accused is guilty, so I guess there are some who suspend disbelief till the job is done?

Okay, I hope I don't take a huge backlashing for this but I am going to throw a major bomb on things. I have always had an issue with the fact that RS would have eaten at 1am. I am trying to see this thing from every angle and this thought popped into my head. I read where the 2 Pathologists at the autopsy have to pretty much agree before leaving the autopsy as it is their only chance. What if Private forensic pathologist Reggie Perumal -- who joined Pistorius's hand-picked team soon after Reeva Steenkamp was killed on Valentine's Day morning 2013 agreed to disagree at the autopsy and was going to go on the stand to admit it. Because of pressure from outside sources he decided it would be in his best interest to withdraw. Am I just totally full of shit with this line of questioning?

What outside sources though?

Wouldn't it be more likely that he doesn't agree with the defence and his future earning and reputation is more important to him the op?

Outside sources could be colleagues, the police II don't know, I was just spouting hoping you fine people could help me roll it around. I just thought it was odd that he waited until kinda the last minute to withdraw when he joined the OP defence team right after the murder.

But fr what reason?

We don't know that he has withdrawn though, do we? (Or do we? I've been flitting in and out the past couple of days.) I thought he had just said that he's not giving testimony. Perhaps it hasn't been his choice and Roux hasn't called him.

Maybe his evidence is not solid enough and Roux has withdrawn him as to not make things worse for OP.

I'm not sure whether we know he's withdrawn. I was thinking maybe it's just he's no longer free, it's been going on so much longer than expected.

I think it's more likely that if it was a last minute substitution, it came up when Pistorius was on the stand. And if (IF! Pure conjecture here) there was a point at which he thought 'there's no way it could have happened this way...' it was possibly to do with the order of bullets.

Pistorius said that it was very quick, rapid fire, and it started and ended before he even knew it. The gun virtually went off on its own in his hand.

Dixon says yes - the order of the bullets were such that it was a sudden fall, and the head wound happened while she was still falling. It was that fast.

The witnesses, and the prosecution say no - it was a single, then a three. Bang. Bang-bang-bang. There was thinking, hearing and screaming time between the gunshots. There might even have been a change in aim.

This was the point which Roux spent the most time on during his initial examining of Dixon. How did the bullets happen - what was the timing, how did she start off (reaching for the doorhandle) and not facing straight and possibly talking to Pistorius.

This is utterly critical to Pistorius' argument of him not intending to kill anyone. The gun went off. It wasn't intended.

The food thing - it's not irrelevant, but all the experts have said that it's not an exact science, and even the prosecution one says you can only hope to get it accurate to within an hour either way, and it depends on metabolism. So no massive crime to disagree there.

I'm not intending to backlash you (and I really hope it doesn't read that way)! You're completely entitled to your opinion, and it was rationally and politely expressed! I just think it's a bit far-fetched that a crack pathologist would be worried out of the witness box. It's his job. I would imagine he's disagreed with opposition pathologists when he genuinely has disagreed with him -he's done thousands of autopsies, apparently, and they can't all be perfectly straightforward. Apart from anything else, it would be wholly unprofessional to say he totally agreed with something if he didn't, and that would look much worse for him.

He undoubtedly knew who Pistorius was when he asked him to come and work for him (and if he didn't, he could surely have googled). I think the even if the television was a surprise, the media interest wouldn't be.

Maybe withdrawn from the case isn't the proper word but he decided not to testify and apparently let it out today or recently. If the autopsy was not consistent with the story OP was saying why did he not take himself out of the game that very day? He instead waited until the trial a year late to get a conscience. Like I said before, the eating at 1a doesn't wash with me. If they weren't arguing and everything was okay between them and it was a tragic accident that he shot RS then why would she eat at 1a? If it was a argument that caused the problem would RS stop and eat in the middle of it? So I say maybe everything was okay until 3a and he got totally pissed off about t he fans when he woke up chased he into the bathroom and killed her. Then it brings me back to why would she eat a 1a. I wouldn't think she would be up at that time. OP is pretty adamant what time they ate. Why not say oh right she did get up to have a snack I forgot rather than say it is possible but I don't think she did. I just can't get that resolved in my head.

Roux didn't withdraw Dixon though and his testimony had more holes than a colander!

I think it's highly telling that Dixon took the stand when it can be clearly seen on facebook that he has been looking for work.

^Perumal's unusual decision not to testify has attracted the attention of his fellow forensic pathologists.

"I have heard that it might be because he refused to amend his version," said Steve Naidoo, a Durban-based private forensic pathologist. "If so, and if Dr Perumal is not willing to twist the truth, then it's to his tremendous credit."

Naidoo, who said he has not talked directly to Perumal about the Pistorius case, said: "An expert forensic pathologist, independent or otherwise, must remember his function is firstly toward the court."

If an expert tailors his version, then he risks ruining his credibility, said Naidoo, who worked as a pathologist for the State for 28 years before starting his private practise.

"That would be a hired gun approach," said Naidoo, "and you've got to avoid that."^

That's what it says in the link (apologies if everyone has read it)

Did Prof Botha agree with Dr Saayman's findings? He said last week that Perumal's report said the same, but in less detail. (I think )

Mane he isn't testifying because he doesn't need to? What are the major differences from the autopsy?

Perhaps he has been watching the trial and doesn't think op is telling the truth

Yes Dixon's desperation for work might mean he wouldn't have got his fee if he hadn't got in the witness box.

Okay everyone, I am not arguing, I was typing a response to Anyaknowit and voiceofgodit while all of your responses came in. I will have a look to see what everyone has to say. Thanks for the input.

Hope I didnt come across as arguing

Sorry!