Lay man are not allowed to give their opinions in court cases…only experts are !
Maybe a good question for Roux to ask when he gets to speak next is:
"How many times have you given evidence for the state in murder cases, in particular cases handled by Gerrie Nel" and see what his response is, because apparently he's appeared for Nel before. Good enough then... not good enough now.
I wanted to Dixon to say, "listen, Hairy, how many times have you relied on my evidence for trials in the past? How many times did the state submit work I'd overseen and worked on without any issue with my qualifications whatsoever?"
How do you know what kind of expert testimony Dixon has given in the past ?
Maybe it was dirt sample analysis and identification…. this would be in his field of expertise.
Maybe this is the first time he has tried to give "expert opinion" on pathology, ballistics, etc… and failed miserably IMO
2 "expert" witnesses for the Defence down the crapper… Dr. Botha, strike one… Dr. Dixon, strike two !
[QUOTE/ Originally Posted by smacka
A one sided argument, Nellie can posture and pose and belittle people without that person being given the right to do so back.
Any one of them should be allowed to ask what qualifications Nellie has in the field of forensics or otherwise, they should be allowed to quote how many cases Nellie has failed in, they should be allowed to tell Nellie that his whole case is built on circumstantial evidence and that he hasn't proved what he set out to do, but they're not are they?
[/QUOTE]
If Nel was testifying as a witness in a murder charge and his professional credentials potentially impacted the evidence presented to the court then they could ask him any of the above questions and challenge his replies, that would be their job as prosecution or defence.
Here's a better idea, why don't you spend some time researching how many times in the past Nellie has relied on Mr Dixons opinions to successfully prosecute a case?
I sincerely hope that he has never used him as a ballistic expert, or a sound expert or a pathologist/wound expert. I have no problem with him using him in the past as an expert geologist.
I actually have no problem with Dixon correcting Nel's translation of the sound, after all Nel's first language is not English AFAICR.
To show how Dixons long and rambling "expert evidence" was anything but. Why shouldnt Nel discredit rubbish? As long as it takes! Thats his job and hes doing it admirably well.
Again Mr Dixon said many times he's not an expert in certain fields, but of course you choose to ignore that.
If Nellie wants or needs to discredit the opinions put forward then by all means do so, no need to try to belittle a witness, concentrate on what the guy is saying not who he is.
Nellie is just a plain and simple bully and his victims have no opportunity to tell him what they really think of him.
Maybe a good question for Roux to ask when he gets to speak next is:
"How many times have you given evidence for the state in murder cases, in particular cases handled by Gerrie Nel" and see what his response is, because apparently he's appeared for Nel before. Good enough then... not good enough now.
Yes… see post 13038 above
Plus, Dixon referred himself as being a lay man giving his opinion !
Didn't see the evidence or the expert but notice his qualifications appear to be causing debate , I've just seen a forensics expert on 517 absolutely hammering Dixon , if that's his name , basically saying he's unqualified and if accounts are true seemed ill-prepared .
Effectively the TV expert claimed his evidence will probably be completely discounted , I can't really comment further but thought it may add to the debate.
David Dadic is in complete agreement with this....he said RD's testimony was shambolic and that he gave evidence far from his area of expertise. He seems confident that all his evidence will e discarded. also said he thinks it suggests defense can't find experts prepared to testify!
LOL… if this was a sarcastic commentary on Dixie's testimony it would be very funny
Lay man are not allowed to give their opinions in court cases…only experts are !
what inane piffle, laymen can be experts too, if you wanted to know what type of female midge one would expect to find on Muckle Flugga in September you'd employ a person well known to be an expert in that field, be he a hobbyist or professional .
Only last night on Medical Detectives a strange man whose hobby was knowing everything about glitter [ the glittery stuff not the pop star ] testified as an expert and helped put a scumbag behind bars for a long time.
Again Mr Dixon said many times he's not an expert in certain fields, but of course you choose to ignore that.
If Nellie wants or needs to discredit the opinions put forward then by all means do so, no need to try to belittle a witness, concentrate on what the guy is saying not who he is.
Nellie is just a plain and simple bully and his victims have no opportunity to tell him what they really think of him.
There is no just thing as an expert on everything !
Dixie can be an expert in geology, map drawing, knitting and surfing the Internet… that doesn't mean his opinions on someone else's pathology report are relevant or even pertinent to a criminal case...
Again Mr Dixon said many times he's not an expert in certain fields, but of course you choose to ignore that.
If Nellie wants or needs to discredit the opinions put forward then by all means do so, no need to try to belittle a witness, concentrate on what the guy is saying not who he is.
Nellie is just a plain and simple bully and his victims have no opportunity to tell him what they really think of him.
if he concedes that he's not an expert in these fields why is he presenting evidence requiring a knowledge of these disciplines....why would he try to discredit the evidence of pathologists and ballistics if he admits it's not his specialism. This is too important for him just to offer a common sense supposition (which is what he said he was doing, at one point)
It all fits.
That's why the gun was in the bathroom.
He didn't have to go back for the bat after shooting.
He picked up the bat that was already in the bathroom and just levered off the damaged door panel.
Yes.
See I don't think that in the bit of his brain that was still working he was even directly shooting at Reeva by this stage - he was killing the door. Off his head with rage, no concern for the consequences of his madness. But hardly a credible defence, so we get the other nonsense.
His underlying personality is built around "I'm not to blame" - Nel sought to drag out some apportioning of blame from OP but he wasn't having it.
I think that if he was telling HIS truth on the blame it would be "Well if Reeva had just done what I said none of this would have happened - not that I'm blaming her - but she stood right behind the door I was shooting."
Again Mr Dixon said many times he's not an expert in certain fields, but of course you choose to ignore that.
If Nellie wants or needs to discredit the opinions put forward then by all means do so, no need to try to belittle a witness, concentrate on what the guy is saying not who he is.
Nellie is just a plain and simple bully and his victims have no opportunity to tell him what they really think of him.
I did think that Dixon, as an all round investigator was merely collating the defence expertise, and that was fine.
However, having watched some of his evidence, seen the way he has professed expertise and seen the terrible PM mistake which frankly looked arrogant, I think he is really there to make submissions and conclusions that are really Roux's job, and that doing it under the guise of an expert is cheeky instructions by the defence. The defence deserves to look silly for allowing him to comment and opine on such a vast range of issues.
As for Nel bullying the witness, that's such an odd and patently incorrect thing yo say IMO. This guy is an ex copper who gives evidence regularly. He's taken OP's dollar and knows what he is in for. To describe him as a victim is bizarre.
what inane piffle, laymen can be experts too, if you wanted to know what type of female midge one would expect to find on Muckle Flugga in September you'd employ a person well known to be an expert in that field, be he a hobbyist or professional .
Only last night on Medical Detectives a strange man whose hobby was knowing everything about glitter [ the glittery stuff not the pop star ] testified as an expert and helped put a scumbag behind bars for a long time.
You don't have to possess a Phd to be an expert…the court can deem a high school dropout as being an expert on glitter…. and nobody has a problem with that.
But if that glitter expert says the pathology expert is wrong and gives his opinion about how a bruise on the body was caused by a magazine rack and not bullet fragments…then we have a problem…
If Mr Dixon is so pointless why is Nellie spending so long and trying so hard to discredit him?
Ermm you keep being rude to people on here but your points are often wrong.
Why is Nel working to discredit the defence witness? Because it is what he is being paid to do. It isn't some horrible evil scheme. He is paid to represent the state. And he's doing his job.
The reliability of defence witnesses and the testing of the evidence they bring is very important. You seem to believe that the judicial process should not allow for that.
The issue is that so far Pistorius himself and then Dixon have not been able to answer questions very well and have not come across as credible witnesses.
Trying to pass a guy off as an "all round expert" has backfired on the defence. Why not hire audio experts, recording experts, visual experts etc etc to make the individual points they wanted to? All those people are out there, but the conclusion the legal experts on twitter make is that it was hard to find people to say what the defence want them to.
The state's case has provided expert analysis of several factors and the defence essentially have to say "no that is not right" with their own experts. Plus they can use expert evidence to show other aspects of the Pistorius version could be or are true. The state did not need to do this, but the defence could.
However, putting this guy up to try and provide expert testimony over a wide range of issues is asking for trouble. Especially given some of the stupid things he has said.
Nel has picked up on this, because HE IS PAID TO DO SO. The expert has to explain his credentials, explain his methods and backup his statements. He is struggling to do so.
I really don't see how that is unfair, or unjust or in any way not entirely what you'd expect from a trial process.
You seem to think that anything that isn't favouring Mr Pistorius is unfair. That is not the case.
If Mr Dixon is so pointless why is Nellie spending so long and trying so hard to discredit him?
I'll agree with that. I have no idea why Nell hasn't just said that he is an expert in nothing to do with this trial and leave the court to decide on the value of his testament.
Nel never gave expert evidence…he has the whole team of REAL experts sitting behind him in Court that gives him their analysis about Dixie's statements[/QUOTE]
With all due respect AJ that's pretty much what Mr Dixon seems to be doing...
"What I have testified on now was information gained as a result of reports gained by other expert witnesses who are specialists in their area and putting together that plus my own investigation of the door, looking at bullet fragments, looking at all the photographs that were at my disposal and the scene...what I did I reconstructed the logical, for myself, based on my knowledge and experience, the logical sequence of events trying to take every aspect into consideration to give the conclusion.
If you catch my drift that is.
But roger is on the stand... in a very high profile murder case giving "excpert|" testimony on a whole range of things.... He has no expertise to analyse reevas wounds for a start and the shots through the door, I was amazed that Roux put him up there... the expert should be on the stand not the sidekick...
if he concedes that he's not an expert in these fields why is he presenting evidence requiring a knowledge of these disciplines....why would he try to discredit the evidence of pathologists and ballistics if he admits it's not his specialism. This is too important for him just to offer a common sense supposition (which is what he said he was doing, at one point)
He has a knowledge in the fields he speaks of and 18 years of experience working for the state in these areas, he just can't call himself a technical expert in court. He is calling upon his experience and his knowledge. You don't go from knowing nothing to knowing everything and calling yourself an expert. There is a lot in between. He is using that in between to give his opinion to the court. It must be admissible otherwise the judge wouldn't allow him to speak nor would the prosecution.
I must admit I'm surprised at how much anger there is here to him. People attacking his choice of job, his personal interests, his manner, his voice... it's very negative. As if anyone who dares offer an alternative scenario or sequence of events for consideration is somehow a target. I don't understand it.
Here's a better idea, why don't you spend some time researching how many times in the past Nellie has relied on Mr Dixons opinions to successfully prosecute a case?
Why don't you do the research and share your findings with the group ?
And while Roger is pontificating with a load of nothingness... Little baby Oscar is covering his face and ears as the very mention of a photo of a small wound being shown....
He really is being "hoist by his own petard" now......
overdoing it to the point that we can all see it is totally fake... and unbelievable that he has to cover up at the mention of any wound, it really is pathetic that he thinks this ploy will still work for him.
Comments
Maybe a good question for Roux to ask when he gets to speak next is:
"How many times have you given evidence for the state in murder cases, in particular cases handled by Gerrie Nel" and see what his response is, because apparently he's appeared for Nel before. Good enough then... not good enough now.
How do you know what kind of expert testimony Dixon has given in the past ?
Maybe it was dirt sample analysis and identification…. this would be in his field of expertise.
Maybe this is the first time he has tried to give "expert opinion" on pathology, ballistics, etc… and failed miserably IMO
2 "expert" witnesses for the Defence down the crapper… Dr. Botha, strike one… Dr. Dixon, strike two !
It would not matter what way or how Nel conducted himself in court, you wouldn`t be happy.
A one sided argument, Nellie can posture and pose and belittle people without that person being given the right to do so back.
Any one of them should be allowed to ask what qualifications Nellie has in the field of forensics or otherwise, they should be allowed to quote how many cases Nellie has failed in, they should be allowed to tell Nellie that his whole case is built on circumstantial evidence and that he hasn't proved what he set out to do, but they're not are they?
[/QUOTE]
If Nel was testifying as a witness in a murder charge and his professional credentials potentially impacted the evidence presented to the court then they could ask him any of the above questions and challenge his replies, that would be their job as prosecution or defence.
wow! Top sleuthing
I sincerely hope that he has never used him as a ballistic expert, or a sound expert or a pathologist/wound expert. I have no problem with him using him in the past as an expert geologist.
I actually have no problem with Dixon correcting Nel's translation of the sound, after all Nel's first language is not English AFAICR.
Again Mr Dixon said many times he's not an expert in certain fields, but of course you choose to ignore that.
If Nellie wants or needs to discredit the opinions put forward then by all means do so, no need to try to belittle a witness, concentrate on what the guy is saying not who he is.
Nellie is just a plain and simple bully and his victims have no opportunity to tell him what they really think of him.
Yes… see post 13038 above
Plus, Dixon referred himself as being a lay man giving his opinion !
David Dadic is in complete agreement with this....he said RD's testimony was shambolic and that he gave evidence far from his area of expertise. He seems confident that all his evidence will e discarded. also said he thinks it suggests defense can't find experts prepared to testify!
what inane piffle, laymen can be experts too, if you wanted to know what type of female midge one would expect to find on Muckle Flugga in September you'd employ a person well known to be an expert in that field, be he a hobbyist or professional .
Only last night on Medical Detectives a strange man whose hobby was knowing everything about glitter [ the glittery stuff not the pop star ] testified as an expert and helped put a scumbag behind bars for a long time.
There is no just thing as an expert on everything !
Dixie can be an expert in geology, map drawing, knitting and surfing the Internet… that doesn't mean his opinions on someone else's pathology report are relevant or even pertinent to a criminal case...
if he concedes that he's not an expert in these fields why is he presenting evidence requiring a knowledge of these disciplines....why would he try to discredit the evidence of pathologists and ballistics if he admits it's not his specialism. This is too important for him just to offer a common sense supposition (which is what he said he was doing, at one point)
Yes.
See I don't think that in the bit of his brain that was still working he was even directly shooting at Reeva by this stage - he was killing the door. Off his head with rage, no concern for the consequences of his madness. But hardly a credible defence, so we get the other nonsense.
His underlying personality is built around "I'm not to blame" - Nel sought to drag out some apportioning of blame from OP but he wasn't having it.
I think that if he was telling HIS truth on the blame it would be "Well if Reeva had just done what I said none of this would have happened - not that I'm blaming her - but she stood right behind the door I was shooting."
Yes I would if he mocked the evidence not the person so your statement is totally wrong.
I did think that Dixon, as an all round investigator was merely collating the defence expertise, and that was fine.
However, having watched some of his evidence, seen the way he has professed expertise and seen the terrible PM mistake which frankly looked arrogant, I think he is really there to make submissions and conclusions that are really Roux's job, and that doing it under the guise of an expert is cheeky instructions by the defence. The defence deserves to look silly for allowing him to comment and opine on such a vast range of issues.
As for Nel bullying the witness, that's such an odd and patently incorrect thing yo say IMO. This guy is an ex copper who gives evidence regularly. He's taken OP's dollar and knows what he is in for. To describe him as a victim is bizarre.
You don't have to possess a Phd to be an expert…the court can deem a high school dropout as being an expert on glitter…. and nobody has a problem with that.
But if that glitter expert says the pathology expert is wrong and gives his opinion about how a bruise on the body was caused by a magazine rack and not bullet fragments…then we have a problem…
Do you see the difference ?
Ermm you keep being rude to people on here but your points are often wrong.
Why is Nel working to discredit the defence witness? Because it is what he is being paid to do. It isn't some horrible evil scheme. He is paid to represent the state. And he's doing his job.
The reliability of defence witnesses and the testing of the evidence they bring is very important. You seem to believe that the judicial process should not allow for that.
The issue is that so far Pistorius himself and then Dixon have not been able to answer questions very well and have not come across as credible witnesses.
Trying to pass a guy off as an "all round expert" has backfired on the defence. Why not hire audio experts, recording experts, visual experts etc etc to make the individual points they wanted to? All those people are out there, but the conclusion the legal experts on twitter make is that it was hard to find people to say what the defence want them to.
The state's case has provided expert analysis of several factors and the defence essentially have to say "no that is not right" with their own experts. Plus they can use expert evidence to show other aspects of the Pistorius version could be or are true. The state did not need to do this, but the defence could.
However, putting this guy up to try and provide expert testimony over a wide range of issues is asking for trouble. Especially given some of the stupid things he has said.
Nel has picked up on this, because HE IS PAID TO DO SO. The expert has to explain his credentials, explain his methods and backup his statements. He is struggling to do so.
I really don't see how that is unfair, or unjust or in any way not entirely what you'd expect from a trial process.
You seem to think that anything that isn't favouring Mr Pistorius is unfair. That is not the case.
I'll agree with that. I have no idea why Nell hasn't just said that he is an expert in nothing to do with this trial and leave the court to decide on the value of his testament.
Just a waste of court time. IMO of course.
Good post!
He has a knowledge in the fields he speaks of and 18 years of experience working for the state in these areas, he just can't call himself a technical expert in court. He is calling upon his experience and his knowledge. You don't go from knowing nothing to knowing everything and calling yourself an expert. There is a lot in between. He is using that in between to give his opinion to the court. It must be admissible otherwise the judge wouldn't allow him to speak nor would the prosecution.
I must admit I'm surprised at how much anger there is here to him. People attacking his choice of job, his personal interests, his manner, his voice... it's very negative. As if anyone who dares offer an alternative scenario or sequence of events for consideration is somehow a target. I don't understand it.
I find your obsession with 'dirt' quite disturbing!
Why don't you do the research and share your findings with the group ?
He really is being "hoist by his own petard" now......
overdoing it to the point that we can all see it is totally fake... and unbelievable that he has to cover up at the mention of any wound, it really is pathetic that he thinks this ploy will still work for him.