Oscar Pistorius

We know defence's objective is to discredit witnesses accounts of a woman's blood culling scream.
That does not distract from the pivotal point Defence shot their own foot with their excuse that witnesses got it wrong.

If there is no gun shot involved you can argue the object involved that caused the sound, but between sound of 4 gun shot and cricket bat hitting door defence argument as to which of the two can be heard then the defence's stance has no leg to stand on. It just cannot be true that decibels of cricket bat hitting door sound is louder than gun shot sound.

I agree with you,but from what I saw a few weeks back, the defence are focusing on four or so noises following screams.  They have not acknowledged different or louder/softer noises, so a comparison has not been made.  I'm probably not explaining myself very well but it seems to me they have chosen to ignore there should have been screaming, shots, screams, bat.  They focus on screams, bat (mistaken for gun).

plebgate wrote:Hi Aiyoyo.   Long thread, not enough time to read all of posts, but I was interested to know why OP moved Reeva's body and whether he was questioned about why he did that.    

When I heard that he had picked her up and moved her I could not believe what I was hearing.   Very odd I thought - especially given the condition of her body after being shot.

I was surprised too that Prosecutor did not make more of OP tampering of the crime scene.
I suspect Nel knew he has nailed the case, confident he "will" get the murder conviction, hence no need to prove anything more as he has proven his case irrefutably beyond reasonable doubt.

During cross examination it was revealed OP first call was to security-guy hanging up after saying nothing, when security guy called him back OP allegedly told him everything was fine. Nel sussed out and proclaimed so that OP did not want the security to come to his apt. The inference seems sufficient and Nel did not make anymore of the crime scene tampering.

sami wrote:I agree with you,but from what I saw a few weeks back, the defence are focusing on four or so noises following screams.  They have not acknowledged different or louder/softer noises, so a comparison has not been made.  I'm probably not explaining myself very well but it seems to me they have chosen to ignore there should have been screaming, shots, screams, bat.  They focus on screams, bat (mistaken for gun).

Ah, now I get it.
They're trying to convince Court that the screams were that of OP's in high pitched tone; and not that of Reeva's - inferring Reeva did not let OP know she was inside the toilet.

Bet they did not reckon for Nel's quick thinking.  Nel jumped on that, concluding OP screamed and shouted at Reeva and Reeva fled for her. It was him screaming and shouting all the while she was in the toilet talking to him.  He must be screaming and shouting for her to come out and when she refused.......that was it..........pang pang pang pang....

When Nel asked him the burning question on everyone's lip how he immediately knew it was Reeva inside the toilet even before a thorough search, I was dying for him to ask OP why that thought did not occur to him earlier equally immediately when he had no response from her to call the police, but Nel never put that to OP.

When tailoring evidence, trying to anticipate Nel's questions and thought processes, OP goofed up big time when he said he'd his loaded uncocked gun in hand running back and forth between bedroom and toilet even in his revelation moment and rescue mode moment.  I thought wtf ....he blew it... and sure enough....Nel jumped on it.

Jack of all trades Roger Dixon taking on more than he could chew and ended up being chewed by Nel.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Nel summing up State's case against OP.

At the start of this video Op fans with white balloons in hands ambushed him telling him "we love you", christian group I get the impression they were .
Wonder whether they will write to him in prison?
Some people do that don't they, write to complete strangers in prison?

Pistorius also broke down before tea, when Nel asked him what he screamed at the supposed intruders: “I said: ‘Get the f*** out of my house, get the f*** out!’”, squealed a near hysterical Pistorius.

Opinion Poll:
What will you shout out if you think an intruder is in your house ?


With those words was OP shouting at intruder or Reeva?
NEL concludes he was shouting that at Reeva, and he has my vote.

Mine too.

Me too.  If there`s an intruder in your house, the last thing you do is make a noise of any sort.

Yes I believe he was shouting at her.

His advocate said " I am ducking and diving".......HA HA HA sense of humour (and honesty)
Bet OP isn't going to be impressed with that !

Priceless, where did they find the basement bargain rock expert from ?

@Aiyoyo, thanks for reply to my question.

Nina wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:His advocate said " I am ducking and diving".......HA HA HA sense of humour (and honesty)
Bet OP isn't going to be impressed with that !

Priceless, where did they find the basement bargain rock expert from ?  

How very rude aiyoyo, 'basement bargain rock expert'.

Yeah, conceded maybe a tad, sorry if that offends you.  
I only meant he mustn't be expensive to hire.

Also, when you take on a case beyond your expertise, just to help the defence fit their case, it is not ethical IMO.
He conceded in Court he's a layman giving his interpretations.

Have you watch the trial?

Gerrie Nel did mash this particular expert witness (Dixon) yesterday. This 'expert' has apparently only ever attended 3 autopsies, has no expertise in the area of ballistics, hadn't checked out the credentials of the sound engineer and wasn't present at a full reconstruction of the rapid fire of bullets from a gun as during the first reconstruction the gun jammed so he used the findings of a sound engineer who turned out to be a music person with no particular expertise and he (Dixon) used the reproduced firing of one shot, clicked his computer successively three more times to give his findings on the rapid fire of four bullets.

How much was this guy paid?

Why weren't better experts available?

Maybe because all the real experts agree with the prosecution's experts?

ETA and if that's the case then OP is in big trouble

Garrincha wrote:Maybe because all the real experts agree with the prosecution's experts?

ETA and if that's the case then OP is in big trouble

Maybe it can be argued that because the trial is televised worldwide that experts proper are not prepared to stand in the dock.

A one-off fee isn't worth the flack?

aquila wrote:Gerrie Nel did mash this particular expert witness (Dixon) yesterday. This 'expert' has apparently only ever attended 3 autopsies, has no expertise in the area of ballistics, hadn't checked out the credentials of the sound engineer and wasn't present at a full reconstruction of the rapid fire of bullets from a gun as during the first reconstruction the gun jammed so he used the findings of a sound engineer who turned out to be a music person with no particular expertise and he (Dixon) used the reproduced firing of one shot, clicked his computer successively three more times to give his findings on the rapid fire of four bullets.

How much was this guy paid?

Why weren't better experts available?

Sounds like a McCann libel trial witness.   

Nina wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Nina wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:His advocate said " I am ducking and diving".......HA HA HA sense of humour (and honesty)
Bet OP isn't going to be impressed with that !

Priceless, where did they find the basement bargain rock expert from ?  

How very rude aiyoyo, 'basement bargain rock expert'.

Yeah, conceded maybe a tad, sorry if that offends you.  
I only meant he mustn't be expensive to hire.

Also, when you take on a case beyond your expertise,  just to help the defence fit their case, it is not ethical IMO.
He conceded in Court he's a layman giving his interpretations.

Have you watch the trial?

Hi aiyoyo, thank you for the apology, and it is graciously accepted   I was hurt as our son is a Geologist and it has taken him years of study and experience to be a full blown Geologist. And a 'real one' IS expensive to hire   
Each to his own area of expertise and for the life in me I cannot fathom why one was employed. No I have not watched the trial, just read up on here about it and keep seeing snippets on the News.

Ah I see, finally  light .....!
I didn't expect anyone here to take it personal or out of context.  
Of course tertiary and higher education doesn't come free and professionals/experts are expensive to hire.

The remark I made was specific to Roger Dixon, who is defence witness, testifying outside of his specialised field ,  who incidentally concedes in Court he is a layman in the areas he's asked to testify, ie on acoustic, ballistics and pathologist forensics.
 When I say he mustn't be expensive to hire I am referring to this one particular commissioning of his service as a one-off (outside of his regular job) for OP case.

He was shown to be totally out of his depth under cross examination by the State.

Reports of his blundering testimonies can be read on below links, in just you're inclined.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (this one is easy to follow because it is a live blog)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One part of his evidence contradicts his client (OP's) version, and he IS a witness for the Defence.

Nina wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Nina wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:His advocate said " I am ducking and diving".......HA HA HA sense of humour (and honesty)
Bet OP isn't going to be impressed with that !

Priceless, where did they find the basement bargain rock expert from ?  

How very rude aiyoyo, 'basement bargain rock expert'.

Yeah, conceded maybe a tad, sorry if that offends you.  
I only meant he mustn't be expensive to hire.

Also, when you take on a case beyond your expertise,  just to help the defence fit their case, it is not ethical IMO.
He conceded in Court he's a layman giving his interpretations.

Have you watch the trial?

Hi aiyoyo, thank you for the apology, and it is graciously accepted   I was hurt as our son is a Geologist and it has taken him years of study and experience to be a full blown Geologist. And a 'real one' IS expensive to hire   
Each to his own area of expertise and for the life in me I cannot fathom why one was employed. No I have not watched the trial, just read up on here about it and keep seeing snippets on the News.

A lone wolf myself, I cannot help remarking how bonding between us all is going on. Good

Dee Coy wrote:

aquila wrote:Gerrie Nel did mash this particular expert witness (Dixon) yesterday. This 'expert' has apparently only ever attended 3 autopsies, has no expertise in the area of ballistics, hadn't checked out the credentials of the sound engineer and wasn't present at a full reconstruction of the rapid fire of bullets from a gun as during the first reconstruction the gun jammed so he used the findings of a sound engineer who turned out to be a music person with no particular expertise and he (Dixon) used the reproduced firing of one shot, clicked his computer successively three more times to give his findings on the rapid fire of four bullets.

How much was this guy paid?

Why weren't better experts available?

Sounds like a McCann libel trial witness.   

A.k.a. ' a Mec Witless'

Saw this today:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Top pathologist hired by Pistorius won't testify
AFP - 8 hrs ago

A star pathologist hired by Oscar Pistorius told AFP on Thursday he will not testify at the athlete's murder trial, another blow for his defence after a week of savage cross-examination.

Private forensic pathologist Reggie Perumal -- who joined Pistorius's hand-picked team soon after Reeva Steenkamp was killed on Valentine's Day morning 2013 -- will not take the stand, amid suggestions his post-mortem findings support key parts of the prosecution's case.

Perumal has appeared in many high-profile cases in South Africa, where a private pathologist can cost upwards of $2,000 a day.

He was hired by Pistorius in time to attend the model's autopsy.

When asked if he would testify, the Durban-based pathologist told AFP "no, ma'am."

"I think you're aware that I can't say anything right now."

Perumal's absence from the witness box casts further doubt on the believability of Pistorius's story, after a week which saw the Paralympic star and one of his hired experts torn to shreds by prosecutor Gerrie Nel.

Nel drew a number of concessions during his cross-examination of Pistorius, who was at times argumentative, evasive and emotional on the witness stand.

On Thursday Nel hammered defence expert Roger Dixon, a forensic geologist who testified on key elements of the Pistorius crime scene, including the order of the bullets that hit Steenkamp.

Nel, a legal veteran known as the "Pit Bull", derided the quality of the expert's testimony, accusing him of "misleading" the court.

"I am not trying to mislead the court," said Dixon.

- 'Hired gun' -

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."

- 'In agreement' at autopsy -

Pistorius has pleaded not guilty to intentionally killing Steenkamp, a 29-year-old law graduate and aspiring reality television star, saying he mistook her for an intruder in his upmarket Pretoria villa.

The state alleges Pistorius and Steenkamp were arguing and that the 27-year-old Olympian and Paralympic gold medallist shot his girlfriend in a fit of rage.

Yet state pathologist Gert Saayman said vegetable matter in Steenkamp's stomach suggested she ate around two hours prior to her death at 3:17 am, a finding that conflicts with Pistorius's version of events that the couple were peacefully asleep at that time.

"To the best of my recollection he was in agreement," said Saayman about Perumal.

"We must be, so to speak, on the same page before we leave the autopsy room," he said. "We don't have the opportunity to go back."

Instead of Perumal, the defence called Jan Botha, a former state pathologist who has carried out approximately 25,000 autopsies.

Botha disputed Saayman's conclusion, saying that determining the time of death through gastric emptying is guesswork, calling it a "highly controversial and inexact science".

In an interview with local media last year, Perumal outlined his work philosophically, saying he is first and foremost a scientist.

"It doesn't matter what the case is, if it is big or small," he told the Mercury, a newspaper in Durban. "What is most rewarding is when the truth is presented and justice is done."

Pistorius, whose legs were amputated below the knee after he was born without calf bones, gained worldwide fame for running on two carbon fibre blades at the Paralympics and 2012 London Olympics.

The trial has been adjourned until May 5.

*****
Oh dear - not looking great for Oscar!

Yet state pathologist Gert Saayman said vegetable matter in Steenkamp's stomach suggested she ate around two hours prior to her death at 3:17 am, a finding that conflicts with Pistorius's version of events that the couple were peacefully asleep at that time.

"To the best of my recollection he was in agreement," said Saayman about Perumal.

OP pathologist Perumal is caught between a rock and very hard place, no wonder he backs out.
He can't testify against his paying client, and he can't lie to court or that will be career suicide.

Garrincha wrote:A further thought: if it is normal to put your strongest witnesses up first, then going by Dixon’s performance things are going to get much, much worse for OP

In terms of expert witnesses I think they are nearly done. Maybe one more who did the experience with Dixon.
Apart from that, the rest of them are just peripheral witnesses.

The two-week respite buys them time if they should change their mind and decide to do a plea bargain with Prosecutor.

Two good reads


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

l-azzeri has summed up some of the rock man's evidence.

I'll leave you with a little round up of Rocky's best bits:
"I’m not a ballistic expert I cannot comment on that My Lady."
"I have been to three post- mortems in my life My Lady, that is all."
"I am not a wound ballistic expert."
" I am not a pathologist."
" My Lady I admit absolutely that I am not a forensic pathologist and I’m not wound ballistics expert"
"In my layman’s understanding"
And of course I am not an expert in the exact precise measurement of light levels.
(of course you're not)
I have received no training in blood spatter. I am not an expert.
(No?)
I am not an expert in ballistics or an expert in a number of different fields.
(what in hell does that mean- NOT an expert in a number of different fields? Think he means 'Jack of all Trades, Master of...)
And I must finish with the magnificent Gerrie Nel

Gerrie Nel:
And you would know the difference between a normal general witness and an EXPERT witness?
Dixon:
The difference is the layman does not have expert knowledge in the area in which they are doing the examination.
END
I can only suggest that in future, Dixon, sticks with stones.

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com

Priceless!  Dixon comes across as a bumbling liability.  

OP comes across as a poor witness; but Dixon deserves an Oscar for dropping Oscar into in it when he contradicts OP's version of where the magazine rack was.  Dixon's version accords with the Prosecutor's side.

Nel pointed out OP did not warn the intruder he was armed and was going to shoot, but I feel Nel could have made a better impact had he also asked OP why he did not ask who was inside the toilet, why did he not ask the intruder/person inside the toilet to identify him/herself.
OP had a gun in hand, door was closed/locked he was not in immediate danger at all.  

On top of that, Nel did not ask him why he did not stay in a safe position and wait for the Police to arrive since he'd asked Reeva to phone the police - did he not expect Reeve to have rang the Police?

OP story has no leg to stand on.  I will be VERY surprised if he walks.  Even with a plea bargain now to a lesser charge he will still end up in jail.  If he refuses Counsel advice to do a plea bargain because he does not want to go to jail, a plea of temporary insanity may be the only card out of jail.  But he would have difficulty convincing the Court of that, since he has proven during cross examination he was in total control on that night.