N: As far as markk on door is concerned - where is the portion of the prosth?
D: I have it at home.
N: Why would you not bring it? That is the basis of your evidence.
D: Milady, I did not think to bring it. I can bring it.....my understanding that after it was handed back to Mr P, the piece was cut out...
N: That's not true. The police cut it out before handing it back.
D; I have no idea...
Since we're discussing an appeal for ineffective counsel...just gotta throw it out there that I've seen an appeal rejected for the same reason when an attorney was literally sleeping in court. It was an American appeal so it may be different in SA. It's always mentioned as a possibility but it's very difficult to prove. Roux has a heckuva lot of experience. And if Oscar worked against advice, or didn't disclose details to his team, I believe it negates such a claim. Not that he still wouldn't try in the event of a conviction, but imo he's very unlikely to be successful.
So don't fret too much.
JMO
Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.
Could Nel have voire dired (sp?) this witness to show whether he is or is not an expert in those fields like is done here in the US? Could Nel have rejected Dixon as an expert? KWIM?
Van Aardt looks like he's slipping in to a coma.
Roux is writing out his thank you note:
"Dear Rog,
I know the last two days have been hard but you are doing great my baba booby. Party at Uncle Arnold's tonight. He has beer.
XXXXXX
Nel seems to be saying that if door was kicked, there should be a larger amount of varnish missing from door, and transfer to the sock.
Not sure what he's getting at now....
Witness says he would expect tiny bits on the sock but he never tested for them.