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?
Good job the sound expert is next up then isn't it i4u! Not that anything he will say will be discussed here. Oh no. Can't be having that now can we.
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.
Exactly...he worked in materials analysis.....not pathology, not ballistics....not audio forensics........just because you share a building with these other professional fields does not mean you share their knowledge!!
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.
I'd imagine Dixon is just one of the witnesses that will dispute the states case.
His previous position of being a commander in the police gives him credibility in lots of areas. Other expert witnesses might go into more details on each subject and back him up.
They don't have to prove anything, just show that the states case is questionable.
To be fair, Roux was trying to play a recording in Court with M'Lady's permission…but couldn't because of technical difficulties…then "Ta-Da" the laptop busted out a loud sound indicating it was finally working.
Maybe M'Lady was also in a good mood that morning
Agree but it should have been on Mute to start with.
Maybe the saying goes with Judge and Nel .. they bicker they luv
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?
I thought it was the prosecution pathologist who said that about the stomach emptying?
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.
What was his role in the science lab? apart from being head of materials, administrative, scientific, other.
A grey haired old block whacks a door and says it hurt, the killer was a young athlete with a slightly dodgy shoulder....their physical fitness is amazingly similar.
Same with the pitch black eye test. Dixon's a machine!
I'd imagine Dixon is just one of the witnesses that will dispute the states case.
His previous position of being a commander in the police gives him credibility in lots of areas. Other expert witnesses might go into more details on each subject and back him up.
They don't have to prove anything, just show that the states case is questionable.
Yes this is what I suspect also. I think he's been picked to counter the state witnesses due to his previous position above them and his findings contradict their findings. They'll then produce the experts to testify and I'm guessing they'll say the same things and when viewed together as a package it might form an argument against the state. Enough to perhaps put enough doubt into the mind of the judge.
many of the journos on twitter are commenting on the lack of credibility of this expert witness......surprising, as normally they're reticent to let their own opinion creep into their tweets.
Dixon reminds me of my grandson, I asked him which part of fridge was coldest, he put his hand in first top then bottom and said "don't know". Now if he had read a pamphlet or even put a jigsaw puzzle together or used his ears whilst hearing a bang on a recording or used his eyes in a "wheres wally" maybe he could be an expert witness.
To be non flappant I find Dixon a waste of space at best and offensive with his comments about cleaned wounds etc (as a non wound expert) at worst.
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.
I'd imagine Dixon is just one of the witnesses that will dispute the states case.
His previous position of being a commander in the police gives him credibility in lots of areas. Other expert witnesses might go into more details on each subject and back him up.
They don't have to prove anything, just show that the states case is questionable.
Yes, and I believe Dixon has certainly succeeded in raising doubt about the evidence given by some of the state's expert witnesses.
I do hope Nel goes back to the light test in the bedroom where the (expert) witness used his eyes as his equipment and found the room very dark...couldn't see hand in front of face
It's a bit farcical. Surely the defence could have got more credible experts using more scientific methods? Or is it that they tried and their findings weren't helpful to the defence?
It's a bit farcical. Surely the defence could have got more credible experts using more scientific methods? Or is it that they tried and their findings weren't helpful to the defence?
Well the state didn't test light levels or sounds so they didn't really have much to top really in terms of quality.
I thought it was the prosecution pathologist who said that about the stomach emptying?
The defence pathologist was only disputing the claim of Reeva having eaten upto 2 hrs earlier but he agreed with Nel he would expect gastric emptying between 4-6 hours.
The defence were attempting to fog the issue, if there is a 2 hour error it only gets Reeva last eating at 11pm not 7pm.
I do hope Nel goes back to the light test in the bedroom where the (expert) witness used his eyes as his equipment and found the room very dark...couldn't see hand in front of face
It's a bit farcical. Surely the defence could have got more credible experts using more scientific methods? Or is it that they tried and their findings weren't helpful to the defence?
And this from the state that i) never conducted a sound test ii) never conducted an audio test iii) never measured the cords on the fans iv) never analysed the pattern of the blood trail on the duvet or carpet v) that stomped all over the crime scene vi) that never ensured the bathroom door was free from tampering, etc. etc.?
many of the journos on twitter are commenting on the lack of credibility of this expert witness......surprising, as normally they're reticent to let their own opinion creep into their tweets.
and the legal experts too ... yet some have it that we're purposefully dismissive of him.
Yes this is what I suspect also. I think he's been picked to counter the state witnesses due to his previous position above them and his findings contradict their findings. They'll then produce the experts to testify and I'm guessing they'll say the same things and when viewed together as a package it might form an argument against the state. Enough to perhaps put enough doubt into the mind of the judge.
I think this is some almighty defense cock-up.........there's no way Roux would think his qualifications and level of expertise would go unquestioned....I think maybe one of his team oversaw this and by the time Roux was aware of his quals and that there were no formalised reports etc submitted by Dixon, it was too late.
I've attended many crown court trials and never seen anything bordering on this....I'm incredulous that this could happen in such a high profile case.
Comments
Good job the sound expert is next up then isn't it i4u! Not that anything he will say will be discussed here. Oh no. Can't be having that now can we.
In a way it does, he cannot swear to how the procedure was carried out as he wasn't in attendance.
Exactly...he worked in materials analysis.....not pathology, not ballistics....not audio forensics........just because you share a building with these other professional fields does not mean you share their knowledge!!
I'd imagine Dixon is just one of the witnesses that will dispute the states case.
His previous position of being a commander in the police gives him credibility in lots of areas. Other expert witnesses might go into more details on each subject and back him up.
They don't have to prove anything, just show that the states case is questionable.
Agree but it should have been on Mute to start with.
Maybe the saying goes with Judge and Nel .. they bicker they luv
I thought it was the prosecution pathologist who said that about the stomach emptying?
What was his role in the science lab? apart from being head of materials, administrative, scientific, other.
Same with the pitch black eye test. Dixon's a machine!
The defense first witness also said it.
Is he an expert because he works in a hi-fi shop or does just owning a tape recorder make him one?
I'm sure the judge said this morning they had 2000 pages of the trial
Yes this is what I suspect also. I think he's been picked to counter the state witnesses due to his previous position above them and his findings contradict their findings. They'll then produce the experts to testify and I'm guessing they'll say the same things and when viewed together as a package it might form an argument against the state. Enough to perhaps put enough doubt into the mind of the judge.
To be non flappant I find Dixon a waste of space at best and offensive with his comments about cleaned wounds etc (as a non wound expert) at worst.
He just counters everything u say
I think you need to sit down and get a drink lol
Yes, and I believe Dixon has certainly succeeded in raising doubt about the evidence given by some of the state's expert witnesses.
It's a bit farcical. Surely the defence could have got more credible experts using more scientific methods? Or is it that they tried and their findings weren't helpful to the defence?
No, you don`t and no, he hasn`t.
Well the state didn't test light levels or sounds so they didn't really have much to top really in terms of quality.
The defence pathologist was only disputing the claim of Reeva having eaten upto 2 hrs earlier but he agreed with Nel he would expect gastric emptying between 4-6 hours.
The defence were attempting to fog the issue, if there is a 2 hour error it only gets Reeva last eating at 11pm not 7pm.
I noticed they gave each other a wide smile when court adjourned.:D
And this from the state that i) never conducted a sound test ii) never conducted an audio test iii) never measured the cords on the fans iv) never analysed the pattern of the blood trail on the duvet or carpet v) that stomped all over the crime scene vi) that never ensured the bathroom door was free from tampering, etc. etc.?
I think this is some almighty defense cock-up.........there's no way Roux would think his qualifications and level of expertise would go unquestioned....I think maybe one of his team oversaw this and by the time Roux was aware of his quals and that there were no formalised reports etc submitted by Dixon, it was too late.
I've attended many crown court trials and never seen anything bordering on this....I'm incredulous that this could happen in such a high profile case.
Ignore is an excellent personal & Digital Spy option. ;-)