That's like suggesting that Richard Branson knows more about flying a passenger plane than a pilot with 30 years experience in the job.
No it's not, as Dixon has had experience in the field for years.
I doubt Vermuelen's had any reason to examine cricket bat blows on a door before this case, so can anyone really call him an experienced expert in this field either.
Insinuating a member is a troll because they have a different opinion than you do is trawling the depths of the sewers and is probably against t/cs.
Kappy is certainly no troll and has contributed to this thread hundreds of times, trying to cause forum gossip shows exactly what sort of personality you really have which in my opinion is bred of the gutter.
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?
I know - that is very strange. And very telling.
I suspect what's happened here is that Dixon has told Roux that he's not an expert in these things, but has a good overall knowledge (which he does) because of his career with the police.......and Roux was desperate enough to think that would be enough.
You must be mistaken Hiris, no witness can possibly be credible for the defence here.
I take your point but even from an objective viewpoint I don't think this one in particular has been helpful to the defence's case. If he had been on the prosecution's side I would have felt the same.
No it's not, as Dixon has had experience in the field for years.
I doubt Vermuelen's had any reason to examine cricket bat blows on a door before this case, so can anyone really call him an experienced expert in this field either.
I was thinking more of the pathologist. Dixon has no experience in that discipline, no qualifications and did not attend the autopsy. Then there is the ballistics...he admitted freely that he is not an expert.
Insinuating a member is a troll because they have a different opinion than you do is trawling the depths of the sewers and is probably against t/cs.
Kappy is certainly no troll and has contributed to this thread hundreds of times, trying to cause forum gossip shows exactly what sort of personality you really have which in my opinion is bred of the gutter.
Thanks
As soon as I get called a 'troll' the accuser gets put on ignore anyway.
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
And you think if Dixon was a prosecution witness - a man who admits to not being qualified in certain areas of science and/or whose expertise and knowledge in such areas is not as on a high/deep level as one would expect - that Roux wouldn't rip him apart almost to point of showing the court that the man is a near nipcompoop?
Are you suggesting that Roux would be entitled to interrogate that lack of qualifications of a State forensics witness but not Nel on OP's forensic witness?
You must be mistaken Hiris, no witness can possibly be credible for the defence here.
You can't really take that tone, can you, given that you have been exactly the same regarding the State witnesses.
Like it or not, this chap with NO relevant experience has been put on the stand to contradict a Professor of Pathology with 15,000 autopsies under his belt. That is just insane. And shows how desperate the defence are.
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
Exactly, all Roux has to do ,on reexamination, is ask him about previous trials where the state has relied on his expertise.
Wouldn't that put all those trials into question, if Nel insists he has no credibility.
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
does having some unspecified role in a department and being present at crime scenes constitute knowledge??? I disagree....otherwise you could have a police officer up there saying that their attendance at scenes gives them some authority to state opinions on specialised fields. The ballistics expert would work very closely with pathologists etc. be would never be presumptuous to state that their close working proximity made them experts in pathology. Dixon isn't even affiliated to any forensic professional body which requires him to keep areast of current developemnts and training in this field...it's nonsensical. In my work, if I let my membership/affiliation with my professional body lapse I'm not allowed to practice...and rightly so!
You can't really take that tone, can you, given that you have been exactly the same regarding the State witnesses.
Like it or not, this chap with NO relevant experience has been out in the stand to contradict a Professor of Pathology with 15,000 autopsies under his belt. That is just insane. And shows how desperate the defence are.
I don't think i've ever suggested any of the state witnesses weren't fit to take the stand and testify.
What do you mean no relevant experience? He spent 18 years at the state forensics department doing crime scenes and was the boss of some of the very people testifying for the state. How is that not relevant to what he is talking about?
If it's so wrong for him to be taking part in this trial why has no one objected? Why has Nel allowed him to speak? Why has the judge allowed him?
Exactly, all Roux has to do ,on reexamination, is ask him about previous trials where the state has relied on his expertise.
Wouldn't that put all those trials into question, if Nel insists he has no credibility.
How many times is that?
At the start of his evidence he stated that he had not been in court many times.
Dixon is straying way beyond his area of expertise, and it begs the question as to why Roux has led him. He is propounding on several expert disciplines with no expert specialist knowledge . Perhaps Roux was struggling to find any expert who was prepared to come up with unbelievable incredible evidence.
does having some unspecified role in a department and being present at crime scenes constitute knowledge???
He was the Head of Materials Analysis at the State Forensic Science Lab.. the same place the state witnesses work at. He had the rank of Colonel and was above some of the state witnesses. So he didn't have some "unspecified role". He worked there for 18 years and took part in a couple of trials per year as I presume a state witness.
So we've had a defence pathologist who said deducing exactly when someone ate was difficult but agreed he would expect gastric emptying in 4-6 hours. Yet Reeva had eaten 8 hours before her death.
Now we have a mutli-tasking expert didn't measure sound levels, doesn't know who recorded the sounds and wasn't there. Doesn't use a light meter to measure the light.
Is this buy 2 and get 5 experts in one week at Tesco?
So we've had a defence pathologist who said deducing exactly when someone ate was difficult but agreed he would expect gastric emptying in 4-6 hours. Yet Reeva had eaten 8 hours before her death.
Now we have a mutli-tasking expert didn't measure sound levels, doesn't know who recorded the sounds and wasn't there. Doesn't use a light meter to measure the light.
Is this buy 2 and get 5 experts in one week at Tesco?
Does that therefore make the audio evidence completely invalid?
Comments
No it's not, as Dixon has had experience in the field for years.
I doubt Vermuelen's had any reason to examine cricket bat blows on a door before this case, so can anyone really call him an experienced expert in this field either.
You must be mistaken Hiris, no witness can possibly be credible for the defence here.
Insinuating a member is a troll because they have a different opinion than you do is trawling the depths of the sewers and is probably against t/cs.
Kappy is certainly no troll and has contributed to this thread hundreds of times, trying to cause forum gossip shows exactly what sort of personality you really have which in my opinion is bred of the gutter.
Trying to prove OP had kicked the door.
I know - that is very strange. And very telling.
I suspect what's happened here is that Dixon has told Roux that he's not an expert in these things, but has a good overall knowledge (which he does) because of his career with the police.......and Roux was desperate enough to think that would be enough.
I take your point but even from an objective viewpoint I don't think this one in particular has been helpful to the defence's case. If he had been on the prosecution's side I would have felt the same.
I was thinking more of the pathologist. Dixon has no experience in that discipline, no qualifications and did not attend the autopsy. Then there is the ballistics...he admitted freely that he is not an expert.
Thanks
As soon as I get called a 'troll' the accuser gets put on ignore anyway.
And you think if Dixon was a prosecution witness - a man who admits to not being qualified in certain areas of science and/or whose expertise and knowledge in such areas is not as on a high/deep level as one would expect - that Roux wouldn't rip him apart almost to point of showing the court that the man is a near nipcompoop?
Are you suggesting that Roux would be entitled to interrogate that lack of qualifications of a State forensics witness but not Nel on OP's forensic witness?
You can't really take that tone, can you, given that you have been exactly the same regarding the State witnesses.
Like it or not, this chap with NO relevant experience has been put on the stand to contradict a Professor of Pathology with 15,000 autopsies under his belt. That is just insane. And shows how desperate the defence are.
Oh I see, do these socks go over the leg then?
Exactly, all Roux has to do ,on reexamination, is ask him about previous trials where the state has relied on his expertise.
Wouldn't that put all those trials into question, if Nel insists he has no credibility.
does having some unspecified role in a department and being present at crime scenes constitute knowledge??? I disagree....otherwise you could have a police officer up there saying that their attendance at scenes gives them some authority to state opinions on specialised fields. The ballistics expert would work very closely with pathologists etc. be would never be presumptuous to state that their close working proximity made them experts in pathology. Dixon isn't even affiliated to any forensic professional body which requires him to keep areast of current developemnts and training in this field...it's nonsensical. In my work, if I let my membership/affiliation with my professional body lapse I'm not allowed to practice...and rightly so!
Yes, uh...on the foot, like a sock.
The testimony given by Dixon yesterday re. the sock mark on the door was compelling, despite Nel's attempts to claim otherwise.
I don't think i've ever suggested any of the state witnesses weren't fit to take the stand and testify.
What do you mean no relevant experience? He spent 18 years at the state forensics department doing crime scenes and was the boss of some of the very people testifying for the state. How is that not relevant to what he is talking about?
If it's so wrong for him to be taking part in this trial why has no one objected? Why has Nel allowed him to speak? Why has the judge allowed him?
Just remind me what evidence can we dismiss?
How many times is that?
At the start of his evidence he stated that he had not been in court many times.
why is this?
Sorry, the testimony of his, and any "science he has conducted".
The photographs
The audio of the cricket bat
etc
He was the Head of Materials Analysis at the State Forensic Science Lab.. the same place the state witnesses work at. He had the rank of Colonel and was above some of the state witnesses. So he didn't have some "unspecified role". He worked there for 18 years and took part in a couple of trials per year as I presume a state witness.
Well that was charming ...
Again - The judge doesn`t vet defence witnesses. Neither does Nel so there`s no question of "allowing". Sheesh!
He`s a gift for Nel and I`m sure he`s hoping for more of these quality "experts" to come.
Now we have a mutli-tasking expert didn't measure sound levels, doesn't know who recorded the sounds and wasn't there. Doesn't use a light meter to measure the light.
Is this buy 2 and get 5 experts in one week at Tesco?
Does that therefore make the audio evidence completely invalid?