Why? If other witnesses living further away said they heard certain things then a witness living closer is likely to heard something as well?
Was Reeva killed by sound waves?
Not if they can't tell the difference between cricket bats and gunshots. That's why Dixon produced evidence relating to the different sounds a bat and a gun makes. The recording demonstrate that the bat/gun gave different sounds at different distances.
On Sky they just said Dixon is rattled by Nels questions. Good.
Why good?
He's not commenting on the innocence or guilt of Oscar, he's simply giving his opinions on tests they've done that the prosecution didn't think of doing.
Well it's important when you have some witnesses saying they heard six gun shots and some witnesses refusing to accept they heard a cricket bat. It's important because if these witnesses are placing screams before or after what they believe to be gun shots.. then it needs to be shown that they can't be mistaken. If the defence is going to prove you CAN be mistaken between a bat and a gun... then that becomes quite important because it calls into question the placement of "female screams". It's a key part of the case.
Not if they can't tell the difference between cricket bats and gunshots. That's why Dixon produced evidence relating to the different sounds a bat and a gun makes. The recording demonstrate that the bat/gun gave different sounds at different distances.
Some witnesses heard both sets of sounds on the night. Without all the money being spent the evidence of these witnesses would have been enough, as there are only two sets of sounds agreed by both sides.
He's not commenting on the innocence or guilt of Oscar, he's simply giving his opinions on tests they've done that the prosecution didn't think of doing.
Exactly .. His opinions. Not true fact. He is a poor witness and Nel has found this out.
The prosecution did not need to carry out tests, they had hearing witnesses, it's up to the defense to disprove it.
Hearing witnesses who heard things that, according to both state and prosecution, they couldn't possibly have heard. If the prosecution case is that Pistorius shot at least six shots on two separate occasions, as witnesses indicated, then I guess they don't need to try to explain what the sounds were. If their case is anything else, then trying to support that theory with evidence would help them.
Comments
Not unless she bounced across the room to where Osacr said she was.
Not if they can't tell the difference between cricket bats and gunshots. That's why Dixon produced evidence relating to the different sounds a bat and a gun makes. The recording demonstrate that the bat/gun gave different sounds at different distances.
Sorry
Why good?
He's not commenting on the innocence or guilt of Oscar, he's simply giving his opinions on tests they've done that the prosecution didn't think of doing.
Yeah, that^^^:)
Some witnesses heard both sets of sounds on the night. Without all the money being spent the evidence of these witnesses would have been enough, as there are only two sets of sounds agreed by both sides.
Exactly .. His opinions. Not true fact. He is a poor witness and Nel has found this out.
Exactly
Agree and Nel should have had the test shots recording or I would have thought so as Roux has brought them up as evidence
Oscar could`ve let you have some. He has a full box with only four missing.
Hearing witnesses who heard things that, according to both state and prosecution, they couldn't possibly have heard. If the prosecution case is that Pistorius shot at least six shots on two separate occasions, as witnesses indicated, then I guess they don't need to try to explain what the sounds were. If their case is anything else, then trying to support that theory with evidence would help them.
Oscar has used up most of it
I'm surprised the defence did not have to give the prosecution copies of the evidence.
Five missing
He drop OP right in it there