If Dixon based his evidence about the bruise on the right buttock was caused by the rack, Reeva must have fallen to her left first and bounced 2 feet to her right.
The first defence pathologist said the bruise on her back was caused again by the rack, which seems impossible now?
To be honest, I'm not quite clear as to why the bruise couldn't have been caused by the left side of the magazine rack (as we look at it) rather than the right - is it possible she could've landed on the middle of the rack, fallen onto the left side and then onto the floor? I would have thought the bruise would be identical, given that each side of the rack is identical. Did the experts just assume it was the right side because they assumed it was always in the position it's shown to be in the photographs, or did they have another reason for thinking it was the left side? I didn't follow that part of the testimony too well.
I think the main issue, though, is that there seems to be no good reason why Pistorius would lie about it. So in that respect it seems like a fairly neutral point, whichever of the two are wrong (Pistorius or the experts).
The smell of hot cross buns walfting through to the courtroom was too much. M'lady and chums gotta get to the canteen first before the unruly rabble in the overflow room get their mitts on them.
So far whilst Dixon has come across well his methodology is a lot to be desired. Surely the judge will dismiss most of his evidence based on the lack of professionalism?
If they weren't going to be able to get fully through the next witness today, it makes perfect sense to take an adjournment now and start afresh with the witness after the break. It's not skiving.
I know this is "by the way" but we saw and heard about the valentines card and gift Reeva got for OP, I would want to know what he got for her, might go some way to showing his feelings towards her. It grates on me that he was never asked.
But the judge only has to find a tiny bit of doubt and he could walk free going by last nights catch up prog. Unless I heard it wrong.
Everything points to OP shooting to kill whoever was behind that door.
That's not really the case. The tiny little bit of doubt is already factored in. She has to be certain, even taking into account that she can never truly know (that's the reasonable doubt bit) that the prosecution's contention is correct.
At this stage of the game, I fail to see how she couldn't be. But there's some way to go.
Personally, I think the PT have demonstrated that the evidence against Pistorius is sound and, as yet, the defence haven't really managed to adequately dispute any of it.
Just my opinion, of course.
It's interesting that the fans and so on are still in situ in the house. I suppose it's too late for Nel to go back to the house and get the fan cords measured. Annoying that they didn't actually do that in the first place (if they didn't). Because he (Nel) is right - if they can prove that the scene cannot have been the way OP describes, then his version cannot be considered to be true.
ENCA journalist just said not only was Dixon commenting on areas way beyond his field of expertise but that also he managed to unfortunately contradict OP's version in the process of testifying. The end of a not so beautiful friendship I imagine.
The adjournment is a huge advantage to the defence, now the expert witness has chance for coaching.
They can do all the 'coaching' they want, but if the rest of the witnesses and their evidence are as weak as we've seen over the last few days, it's not going to do much good. Nel is too good for that.
I know this is "by the way" but we saw and heard about the valentines card and gift Reeva got for OP, I would want to know what he got for her, might go some way to showing his feelings towards her. It grates on me that he was never asked.
Think that's because he didn't get her anything..I think it was a mistake to get OP to read out the card.
I know this is "by the way" but we saw and heard about the valentines card and gift Reeva got for OP, I would want to know what he got for her, might go some way to showing his feelings towards her. It grates on me that he was never asked.
I was hoping that Nel would have brought that up as it seems he had nothing for her. But no doubt would have lied and said it was a surprise for on the day.
That's not really the case. The tiny little bit of doubt is already factored in. She has to be certain, even taking into account that she can never truly know (that's the reasonable doubt bit) that the prosecution's contention is correct.
At this stage of the game, I fail to see how she couldn't be. But there's some way to go.
Personally, I think the PT have demonstrated that the evidence against Pistorius is sound and, as yet, the defence haven't really managed to adequately dispute any of it.
Just my opinion, of course.
It's interesting that the fans and so on are still in situ in the house. I suppose it's too late for Nel to go back to the house and get the fan cords measured. Annoying that they didn't actually do that in the first place (if they didn't). Because he (Nel) is right - if they can prove that the scene cannot have been the way OP describes, then his version cannot be considered to be true.
I think with the fans that it's probably inconclusive - Nel put that all in as part of his trap for OP, who was DEFINITE that the fans were where the duvet was.
The jeans ON the duvet and the blood spatter from the carpet to the duvet prove that the fans COULDN'T have been there. That's the bit of evidence Nel wanted, and he wanted to trap OP into a provable LIE that blew all of it out of the water.
It may have been the best he could do. I thought it was awesome myself, lead length possible or not.
The witnesses claim to have heard a woman screaming and gunshots. The defence us trying to show they might have been confused by a man screaming and a cricket bat hitting the door.
Who do you believe? The witnesses and common sense or this "expert" on noise comparison who didn't even bother to replicate the conditions accurately? Have the defence introduced any reason to doubt the witnesses evidence?
If not then it is murder as OP shot her dine as she was screaming for help.
But the problem is that witnesses were convinced they heard two sets of shots. As I recall one of them, Mr. Stipp, even has experience with guns (think he was in the army or something?) and yet he was utterly convinced the first set of noises were gunshots. This was before the screaming. If those were the shots which killed Reeva, then clearly the screams afterwards can't have been her.
I don't understand Nel's line of argument on the cricket bat/gunshots, because it's all very well attacking the scientific validity of the tests (with some justification), but what's his alternative scenario, if not that witnesses confused the sounds of bat and gunshots?
I know this is "by the way" but we saw and heard about the valentines card and gift Reeva got for OP, I would want to know what he got for her, might go some way to showing his feelings towards her. It grates on me that he was never asked.
I am pretty sure that if OP had bought Reeva a card and/or gift his DT would have been making a huge song and dance about it.
I believe OP came up with some story about having bought her a bracelet which was still at the jeweller's and that he was going to take her to get some charms put on it on Valentine's Day.
However, i do not believe there has ever been any confirmation from a jewellery shop and given that Reeva was due to do a public speaking event on DV on 14th Feb i give this story just as much credence as his other stories - very very little.
The witnesses claim to have heard a woman screaming and gunshots. The defence us trying to show they might have been confused by a man screaming and a cricket bat hitting the door.
Who do you believe? The witnesses and common sense or this "expert" on noise comparison who didn't even bother to replicate the conditions accurately? Have the defence introduced any reason to doubt the witnesses evidence?
If not then it is murder as OP shot her dine as she was screaming for help.
I personally wanted the witnesses to hear the high pitched scream of Oscar to compare , I think it was right of Nel to ask why this was not proposed.
I know this is "by the way" but we saw and heard about the valentines card and gift Reeva got for OP, I would want to know what he got for her, might go some way to showing his feelings towards her. It grates on me that he was never asked.
He was asked. He said he got her two bracelets and they were going to go to the jewellers together the next day.
That's not really the case. The tiny little bit of doubt is already factored in. She has to be certain, even taking into account that she can never truly know (that's the reasonable doubt bit) that the prosecution's contention is correct.
At this stage of the game, I fail to see how she couldn't be. But there's some way to go.
Personally, I think the PT have demonstrated that the evidence against Pistorius is sound and, as yet, the defence haven't really managed to adequately dispute any of it.
Just my opinion, of course.
It's interesting that the fans and so on are still in situ in the house. I suppose it's too late for Nel to go back to the house and get the fan cords measured. Annoying that they didn't actually do that in the first place (if they didn't). Because he (Nel) is right - if they can prove that the scene cannot have been the way OP describes, then his version cannot be considered to be true.
But the problem is that witnesses were convinced they heard two sets of shots. As I recall one of them, Mr. Stipp, even has experience with guns (think he was in the army or something?) and yet he was utterly convinced the first set of noises were gunshots. This was before the screaming. If those were the shots which killed Reeva, then clearly the screams afterwards can't have been her.
I don't understand Nel's line of argument on the cricket bat/gunshots, because it's all very well attacking the scientific validity of the tests (with some justification), but what's his alternative scenario, if not that witnesses confused the sounds of bat and gunshots?
That most only heard the SHOTS, not the bats, the Stipps were very near and heard both.
The defense would have it that the others would sleep through the shots, but hear the bats.
Comments
To be honest, I'm not quite clear as to why the bruise couldn't have been caused by the left side of the magazine rack (as we look at it) rather than the right - is it possible she could've landed on the middle of the rack, fallen onto the left side and then onto the floor? I would have thought the bruise would be identical, given that each side of the rack is identical. Did the experts just assume it was the right side because they assumed it was always in the position it's shown to be in the photographs, or did they have another reason for thinking it was the left side? I didn't follow that part of the testimony too well.
I think the main issue, though, is that there seems to be no good reason why Pistorius would lie about it. So in that respect it seems like a fairly neutral point, whichever of the two are wrong (Pistorius or the experts).
The smell of hot cross buns walfting through to the courtroom was too much. M'lady and chums gotta get to the canteen first before the unruly rabble in the overflow room get their mitts on them.
Agree, he's a late night glass of whisky man!
If they weren't going to be able to get fully through the next witness today, it makes perfect sense to take an adjournment now and start afresh with the witness after the break. It's not skiving.
Wonder what his next facebook entry will be now
That's not really the case. The tiny little bit of doubt is already factored in. She has to be certain, even taking into account that she can never truly know (that's the reasonable doubt bit) that the prosecution's contention is correct.
At this stage of the game, I fail to see how she couldn't be. But there's some way to go.
Personally, I think the PT have demonstrated that the evidence against Pistorius is sound and, as yet, the defence haven't really managed to adequately dispute any of it.
Just my opinion, of course.
It's interesting that the fans and so on are still in situ in the house. I suppose it's too late for Nel to go back to the house and get the fan cords measured. Annoying that they didn't actually do that in the first place (if they didn't). Because he (Nel) is right - if they can prove that the scene cannot have been the way OP describes, then his version cannot be considered to be true.
Perfectly good enough most of the time. We went to the moon and built Concorde with the slide rule.
They can do all the 'coaching' they want, but if the rest of the witnesses and their evidence are as weak as we've seen over the last few days, it's not going to do much good. Nel is too good for that.
...and is following the trial on Twitter....so he lied under oath!
Think that's because he didn't get her anything..I think it was a mistake to get OP to read out the card.
I was hoping that Nel would have brought that up as it seems he had nothing for her. But no doubt would have lied and said it was a surprise for on the day.
I think with the fans that it's probably inconclusive - Nel put that all in as part of his trap for OP, who was DEFINITE that the fans were where the duvet was.
The jeans ON the duvet and the blood spatter from the carpet to the duvet prove that the fans COULDN'T have been there. That's the bit of evidence Nel wanted, and he wanted to trap OP into a provable LIE that blew all of it out of the water.
It may have been the best he could do. I thought it was awesome myself, lead length possible or not.
But the problem is that witnesses were convinced they heard two sets of shots. As I recall one of them, Mr. Stipp, even has experience with guns (think he was in the army or something?) and yet he was utterly convinced the first set of noises were gunshots. This was before the screaming. If those were the shots which killed Reeva, then clearly the screams afterwards can't have been her.
I don't understand Nel's line of argument on the cricket bat/gunshots, because it's all very well attacking the scientific validity of the tests (with some justification), but what's his alternative scenario, if not that witnesses confused the sounds of bat and gunshots?
I am pretty sure that if OP had bought Reeva a card and/or gift his DT would have been making a huge song and dance about it.
I believe OP came up with some story about having bought her a bracelet which was still at the jeweller's and that he was going to take her to get some charms put on it on Valentine's Day.
However, i do not believe there has ever been any confirmation from a jewellery shop and given that Reeva was due to do a public speaking event on DV on 14th Feb i give this story just as much credence as his other stories - very very little.
I personally wanted the witnesses to hear the high pitched scream of Oscar to compare , I think it was right of Nel to ask why this was not proposed.
Didn't he say something like that he had intended to buy charm/s for a bracelet?
He was asked. He said he got her two bracelets and they were going to go to the jewellers together the next day.
Eta Cross posted. Agree with Mazzy.
But.
OP goes off for another couple of weeks to enjoy the Sun and Life in general.
Dixon won't watch TV or Listen to the Radio so will congratulate himself on a job well done.
Seems so surreal when its over a year ago Reeva was blown away.:(
The only person who knows that is Reeva
That most only heard the SHOTS, not the bats, the Stipps were very near and heard both.
The defense would have it that the others would sleep through the shots, but hear the bats.
Not likely really.
I nodded off