I'm not quite clear what Nel is actually trying to argue here. re. the evidence presented by Dixon.
He is interrogating Dixon's methodology - the way he collected the material evidence - that led to the conclusion he is making. If Nel can show to the court that the method is a little quiffy, then Dixon can't necessarily make or come to conclusions about the evidence that he is presenting to the court. The evidence is not in question here; it's the conclusion that's the problem.
If Dixon, for instance, only had access to the toilet door on 13 Mar, a week after the trial began, he is gathering evidence in a completely different environment/conditions from the one in OP's house. And it sure doesn't help that the cleaners were dusting down the door. Not only has the evidence has been contaminated, Nel is arguing, but the conclusions of that evidence must be inaccurate as well. That's one of the issues Nel wants to raise againsft the defence forsenic work.
It is exactly the same cross-examination techniques Roux used against the State witnesses.
I am utterly confounded that Roux would put on the stand a man with no medical qualifications of any kind, or any ballistics expertise, to contradict the findings of a Pathologist with 30 years experience.
Maybe it's deliberate. Maybe Roux wants to put OP in prison after having to out up with his whiny arrogance for the past year.
Joking, but even so.......:o
Perhaps the idea is to have a whole line of witnesses all saying the same thing, so that it sounds like it must be the truth?
Most people on here aren't commenting on whether a cross-examination is being carried out correctly or not.
You were.
Your final sentence sums it up. You don't wish to discuss your original point because you know it was incorrect.
When you're very first post to me has the opening line... What a load of absolute nonsense. It is a cross-examination. Some people on here seem to have absolutely zero understanding of trial mechanics. it shows me you are not after any form of discussion, you are simply out to start an argument (like many others on here).
You further go on to tell me what I don't wish to discuss and then presume to know what I consider correct or incorrect, that is a narrow point of view and a deliberately inflammatory statement, which leads me to the conclusion that you are a one sided pony not worthy of my debate.
Perhaps the idea is to have a whole line of witnesses all saying the same thing, so that it sounds like it must be the truth?
More like as experts on twitter have suggested, it wasn't easy for the defence to find witnesses who were prepared to back OP's version of events......
He hasn't done any of the forensics on this case though.
He is paid to put forward an alternative to all the prosecution s evidence .
However he is an expert in nothing which does not make him very convincing as he has no expertise in any area but is challenging other experts.
Of course what he is hypotheticaly speculating on is feasible , there are many possible variables he can speculate on.
It's entirely up to the judge whom she believes and which version is the most credible.
I'm not sure that Dixon has produced any evidence, he is just trying to discredit other expert witnesses on the strength that he has looked at photographs and listened to doctored sound recordings.
He's credible on the geology stuff, but not on ballistics and pathology.
Yes, I would pay him to do soil samples and advise on why my plants keep perishing.
I'd never heard of black talon bullets before, but after watching that melon video, christ, I am not surprised they're banned. Why did he have them, does he think he's special? The big melon just split from one bullet, really unnerving to think he fired 3 of those into Reeva
Plus the one that just missed! >:( he seems like a right sicko.
I am utterly confounded that Roux would put on the stand a man with no medical qualifications of any kind, or any ballistics expertise, to contradict the findings of a Pathologist with 30 years experience.
Maybe it's deliberate. Maybe Roux wants to put OP in prison after having to put up with his whiny arrogance for the past year.
Joking, but even so.......:o
I think Roux had a job to persuade anyone to be on the defence side
Do you need to handle a sock to know if fibres have come from it? Surely just looking at it closely would suffice?
He confirmed he saw the bat and did handle it. Nel quickly moved on when he admitted it of course because Nel wasn't expecting him to say that. He even named the date he held the bat and matched it to the mark on the door. He just didn't smash the door with it.. understandably as it would taint the evidence. He used a replica bat and door for that test.
More than the state did.
Sorry, Inspiration - but there's no justification whatsoever for standing in a court of law testifying that x material matches x exhibit when you have never even held the material in your hand, let alone tested it.
That's shocking, actually.
And no, maybe the State didn't stand in OP's bedroom trying to figure out how dark it is with the curtains closed - because they have better things to do, I would imagine.
This has been a disastrous morning for the defence. And it's getting worse.
It makes me feel sick. I mean there are people on here who defend him. Irrespective of what happened that night, he shot through a door and killed someone.
For me taking aside the rest of the argument if you do that you should go to prison for life.
This isn't someone running into the road in front of you, something that isn't your fault.
If you pull the trigger and shoot your wife through a door there shouldn't be any way you aren't imprisoned for life. I don't think there are any excuses in the world for that.
Agreed. there is no excuses . I can't fathom why people defend him too death, ok, he claims it to be an accident, don't believe that but yeah whatever, he STILL pulled that trigger and killed Reeva, and for that he must be punished. Maybe it'll teach him next time in 25+ years to check where his gf is first before shooting like a lunatic. I do not think he should be let off, think of people who will try use his story as an excuse for shooting their gf/wife or husband/boyfriend in cold blood.
Join the club. Just seems to be attacking everything but the evidence at the moment. I've yet to hear Dixon admit he's wrong on anything although the wound to the back issue seems to be in question.
Dixon actually said, 'I am not saying this as an expert but based on logic and my supposition'.......that is no more than what we do on DS!!! He has less integrity than OP.....he gave findings re. fibres on door after it had been cleaned.........that's not just unprofessional but knowingly submitting evidence you know is very probably contaminated and could influence a verdict in a murder trial. Completely unethical and irresponsible!
Dixon actually said, 'I am not saying this as an expert but based on logic and my supposition'.......that is no more than what we do on DS!!! He has less integrity than OP.....he gave findings re. fibres on door after it had been cleaned.........that's not just unprofessional but knowingly submitting evidence you know is very probably contaminated and could influence a verdict in a murder trial. Completely unethical and irresponsible!
Agree 100%
Perhaps dixon would too, but remember, he is "not very good with numbers".
Naughty Straker! Seriously, Black Talon ammo is hard to get hold of, then OP must have gone out of his way to get it, and I ask myself, why did he need such ammo?
I am utterly confounded that Roux would put on the stand a man with no medical qualifications of any kind, or any ballistics expertise, to contradict the findings of a Pathologist with 30 years experience.
Maybe it's deliberate. Maybe Roux wants to put OP in prison after having to put up with his whiny arrogance for the past year.
Joking, but even so.......:o
BiB Especially when the defence had their own qualified expert sit in on the autopsy? Saw someone on twitter saying the defence weren't calling him...wonder if it's true and if so, why not?
Sorry, Inspiration - but there's no justification whatsoever for standing in a court of law testifying that x material matches x exhibit when you have never even held the material in your hand, let alone tested it.
That's shocking, actually.
And no, maybe the State didn't stand in OP's bedroom trying to figure out how dark it is with the curtains closed - because they have better things to do, I would imagine.
This has been a disastrous morning for the defence. And it's getting worse.
Totally agree, if you are any kind of expert in forensics you know how crucial it is to have reliable evidence because it is often subject to accusations of contamination. It can never be enough for to just say, I had a photograph and the fibres looked liked they matched. That makes a mockery of the whole field of forensics.
Dixon actually said, 'I am not saying this as an expert but based on logic and my supposition'.......that is no more than what we do on DS!!!
He has 18 years at the state forensics department and worked with crime scenes. He was the boss of several state witnesses. He is not a poster on DS. He isn't just making this up in his head. This isn't his first trial.. he does a couple per year. You're falling for Nel's tactics of making him seem like he doesn't know what he's talking about just because he doesn't fall into a particular single category that would make him an "expert". He has knowledge in all the areas from his experience
Comments
He is interrogating Dixon's methodology - the way he collected the material evidence - that led to the conclusion he is making. If Nel can show to the court that the method is a little quiffy, then Dixon can't necessarily make or come to conclusions about the evidence that he is presenting to the court. The evidence is not in question here; it's the conclusion that's the problem.
If Dixon, for instance, only had access to the toilet door on 13 Mar, a week after the trial began, he is gathering evidence in a completely different environment/conditions from the one in OP's house. And it sure doesn't help that the cleaners were dusting down the door. Not only has the evidence has been contaminated, Nel is arguing, but the conclusions of that evidence must be inaccurate as well. That's one of the issues Nel wants to raise againsft the defence forsenic work.
It is exactly the same cross-examination techniques Roux used against the State witnesses.
Perhaps the idea is to have a whole line of witnesses all saying the same thing, so that it sounds like it must be the truth?
When you're very first post to me has the opening line... What a load of absolute nonsense. It is a cross-examination. Some people on here seem to have absolutely zero understanding of trial mechanics. it shows me you are not after any form of discussion, you are simply out to start an argument (like many others on here).
You further go on to tell me what I don't wish to discuss and then presume to know what I consider correct or incorrect, that is a narrow point of view and a deliberately inflammatory statement, which leads me to the conclusion that you are a one sided pony not worthy of my debate.
Kap......?????
More like as experts on twitter have suggested, it wasn't easy for the defence to find witnesses who were prepared to back OP's version of events......
He is paid to put forward an alternative to all the prosecution s evidence .
However he is an expert in nothing which does not make him very convincing as he has no expertise in any area but is challenging other experts.
Of course what he is hypotheticaly speculating on is feasible , there are many possible variables he can speculate on.
It's entirely up to the judge whom she believes and which version is the most credible.
Yes, I would pay him to do soil samples and advise on why my plants keep perishing.
Plus the one that just missed! >:( he seems like a right sicko.
I think Roux had a job to persuade anyone to be on the defence side
My point being that he's not just some random bloke picked off the streets because he has a few qualifications.
He's disputing the forensic work done by his former colleagues and his former position of being Vermuelen's Commander gives him credibility.
Sorry, Inspiration - but there's no justification whatsoever for standing in a court of law testifying that x material matches x exhibit when you have never even held the material in your hand, let alone tested it.
That's shocking, actually.
And no, maybe the State didn't stand in OP's bedroom trying to figure out how dark it is with the curtains closed - because they have better things to do, I would imagine.
This has been a disastrous morning for the defence. And it's getting worse.
Thank you both , I obviously misheard. Shoddy!
Eta though Ive forgotten what the relevance / point was with this.
Agreed. there is no excuses . I can't fathom why people defend him too death, ok, he claims it to be an accident, don't believe that but yeah whatever, he STILL pulled that trigger and killed Reeva, and for that he must be punished. Maybe it'll teach him next time in 25+ years to check where his gf is first before shooting like a lunatic. I do not think he should be let off, think of people who will try use his story as an excuse for shooting their gf/wife or husband/boyfriend in cold blood.
Yes, I think it's that exactly.
Dixon actually said, 'I am not saying this as an expert but based on logic and my supposition'.......that is no more than what we do on DS!!! He has less integrity than OP.....he gave findings re. fibres on door after it had been cleaned.........that's not just unprofessional but knowingly submitting evidence you know is very probably contaminated and could influence a verdict in a murder trial. Completely unethical and irresponsible!
Think he said he has roughly two weeks of defence to get through.
That's like suggesting that Richard Branson knows more about flying a passenger plane than a pilot with 30 years experience in the job.
You would need a botanist for that, although Dixon would give it a go in a murder trial.
Im still in shock of the witness, stating he is not a ballistics expert, then giving evidence as if he was a ballistics expert.
Im still in shock of the witness, stating he is not an anatomy expert, then giving evidence as if he was an anatomy expert.
Im still in shock of the witness, stating he is not a photography expert, then giving evidence as if he was a photography expert.
Im still in shock of the witness, stating he is not an audio expert, then giving evidence as if he was an audio expert.
Im still in shock of the witness, stating he is not a physiology expert, then giving evidence as if he was a physiology expert.
All this guy is trained to do is break rocks with a hammer, he gets even the most basic science wrong.
Agree 100%
Perhaps dixon would too, but remember, he is "not very good with numbers".
BiB Especially when the defence had their own qualified expert sit in on the autopsy? Saw someone on twitter saying the defence weren't calling him...wonder if it's true and if so, why not?
PMSL!!
Totally agree, if you are any kind of expert in forensics you know how crucial it is to have reliable evidence because it is often subject to accusations of contamination. It can never be enough for to just say, I had a photograph and the fibres looked liked they matched. That makes a mockery of the whole field of forensics.
He has 18 years at the state forensics department and worked with crime scenes. He was the boss of several state witnesses. He is not a poster on DS. He isn't just making this up in his head. This isn't his first trial.. he does a couple per year. You're falling for Nel's tactics of making him seem like he doesn't know what he's talking about just because he doesn't fall into a particular single category that would make him an "expert". He has knowledge in all the areas from his experience
He may have but that doesn't mean the witnesses will be credible and I assume he would want to start with one of the stronger witnesses.