Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[Britlaws]

An interesting connection from a previous case involving Roger Dixon, Dup de Bruyn (Steenkamp family lawyer) and autopsy pathologist Gert Saayman :-

Link

Here's another link re that case http://www.truth4inge.com/roger_dixon.html

questions the same issues as we've seen here - chain of custody/contamination, lateness of testing, scientific basis to his conclusions etc.

 

[BabaJ]

IMO Almost all of the experts have given testimony way beyond the scope of their expertise. Part of that is the attorneys asking them their opinions about things that are not part of the expertise - both Roux and Nel have done it while cross examining witnesses, and they have both gotten experts to make observations and give opinions that are really the province of fact witnesses or lay witnesses. It is baffling and also intriguing to me.

What many of the "guilty" crowd are seeing in Dixon, I was seeing in Vermuelen - astounded that an "expert" in materials (i.e., a geologist and chemist) would be doing a demonstration of body position in such a non-scientific and haphazard way and giving tool mark opinions without being certified in tool mark examination. There was nothing exact about his process at all. Same with Van Staden and the whole business with taking crime scene photos while others were mucking about with the evidence.

Even Mangena trotted into territory that was beyond his field when he started giving opinions about pathology.

This must be something that is common in South Africa -- and obviously it is great fodder for the opposing counsel on cross examination.

But I read a legal article the other day that might shed some light on this phenomenon. The SA judicial process was described as part adversarial and part inquiry ...meaning that information is presented to inform the judge as much as possible. I think this is why there are not so many rules of evidence and pre-trial challenges to experts and such; no hearsay objections, etc. Since it's a bench trial and no jury, the judge can sift through the evidence and give it the proper weight without being prejudiced.

With that in mind, it makes more sense that a witness might give testimony or do demonstrations that are not precise or exactly replicative of the night in question. The sound test wasn't meant to demonstrate that those sounds were exactly what witnesses heard on that night - the purpose was simply to inform the judge that a cricket bat hitting the door is very loud and could be interpreted as a gunshot. That's it. And for that purpose, the defense accomplished its goal through Dixon.

The judge has now at least heard a demonstration that provided enough information for her to put the cricket bat sounds in context with the witness testimony.

I have not had time to listen in full to the entire testimony and agree with you that seems that some of the prosecution witnesses dipped into the areas outside their expertise - have to go back and re-check the experience, certifications, etc. However, in my opinion, Dixon's testimony was way beyond going outside "somebody's expertise" , he was going into so many different specific areas that it is not even funny. To my knowledge, as an expert witness you should have a solid foundation, do a solid research and prepare a report, copy of which is distributed prior to the court proceedings. None of this happened in this case. Should Dixon be a geologist and had post-graduate degrees in other sciences coupled with the experience - that would be a different story. For me as a technical person Dixon's testimony resembled a comedy performance - I am really sorry to say that. One of my favourite quotes is (probably not exact quote):

N: Are you a sound expert?
D: I can assure you that I will give sound evidence.

This is horrible for the defendant one way or another.

IMOO

 

[minor4th]

Yes, but demonstrating that they sound similar doesn't resolve any dispute about which sounds were heard first. It doesn't make the defence's version more likely than the prosecution's, and vice versa.

It pretty much proves that one of the two sets sounds heard by the Stipps was the cricket bat hitting the door though. And experts from both sides testified that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hit the door.

It's an important point - as there is no evidence of anything else making a sound like gunshots that night.

 

[Cherwell]

Gotta feel sorry for poor ole Oscar, having to rough it in a dump like this.

 

[Britlaws]

More bad news for the defence
https://za.news.yahoo.com/top-pathologist-hired-pistorius-wont-testify-142633899.html

I think the respected experts have really got to think about their credibility in appearing in this case.

 

[DebinGA]

It pretty much proves that one of the two sets sounds heard by the Stipps was the cricket bat hitting the door though. And experts from both sides testified that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hit the door.

It's an important point - as there is no evidence of anything else making a sound like gunshots that night.

If you don't mind minor4th, do you believe the Stipps testimony that they saw the bathroom light ON right after the first bangs? If so, is it possible that OP could have done the things he claims to have done before returning to the pitch black bathroom on his legs and only THEN turning on the light?

 

[BabaJ]

As mentioned yesterday, he wouldn't be my choice, however I wouldn't be too quick to write off Mr Dixon's testimony. The analysis regarding the sound wasn't that great, however what little there was at least attempted to provide Judge Masipa with a general idea. She either thinks it's useful or she doesn't.

The PT have their own witnesses who have not been able to positively identify cricket bat noises from gunshots, and although they had the opportunity to strengthen their case with a convincing suggestion of the noises the witnesses heard, they elected to provide nothing for Judge Masipa. I think the PT have missed a trick here.

It really was a shot to nothing by the DT, and they've nothing to lose by trying this.

I agree with you on the cricket bat vs gunshot noises, no side really presented a defendable test, demonstration or reasoning.

And I only hope that DT has nothing to lose with Dixon's testimony. I do not like OP but this expert witness did not seem to be really good for him but as usual, I am often mistaken

 

[katydid23]

I can see where Nel's coming from, although Dixon never said it was stand-in for Oscar. I thought it was just a general observation at the time to show the difference between a standing person vs a kneeling person.

To be fair, it's not much more different than the curtain being held back to view OP's house in the witnesses photograph. That also wasn't a true representation

Both PT and DT use their own 'little tricks'.

NO, it was not just a 'general observation.' It was a very specific accusation, trying to discredit Dr. Stipps, attempting to 'prove' that Stipps would not have been able to see OP on his stumps, thus he was either lying or mistaken.

 

[minor4th]

More bad news for the defence
https://za.news.yahoo.com/top-pathologist-hired-pistorius-wont-testify-142633899.html

That's old news. They called Botha instead - and his findings were pretty well consistent with the state's

 

[wb180]

If Dixon was an expert for Nel, I am sure some posters here will have a field day with fatal flaws and yet since this is Roux expert, he is still of some value. Right....

 

[shane13]

Let's be clear
No Gunshots or Batshots were heard in Court


As I've said, recordings of gunshots and batshots are not the same as directly hearing those things. The recording or playback devices have many adjustable parameters to make them sound similar, if so desired.

An honest Judge will go (easier here than in the USA where the whole jury must go) to the scene of the event and/or go to where the witnesses were. Actual gunshots and bat strikes would then occur.

 

[Britlaws]

That's old news. They called Botha instead - and his findings were pretty well consistent with the state's

Old news maybe, its his reasons for refusing that would be interesting.

 

[steveml]

how does that really change anything, though? They heard loud sounds. Who really thinks "gee.. that sounds like someone is terrorizing their girlfriend with a cricket bat" at 3am? Not sure when they may have learned that Oscar used a bat to scare his victim, but when relaying what they heard, I'm sure they assumed it was all the same.

So they sound alike. What does that really get you? I don't understand. They heard series of loud noises that sounded like gunshots and screams from a woman intermittently among them. That in itself, is damning to Oscar.

It's important to remember that when the case proceeded nothing had been conceded by the PT. They were still alleging that OP was wearing his prosthesis when he shot through the toilet door.

The order of cricket bat/gunshots has been a major player throughout the case. It doesn't affect the outcome, as we know Reeva was killed by gunshots, however if the PT can prove that the bat was used first it carries huge weight towards their claim of intent. Once they had to concede this did not happen it weakened their case considerably.

The order of the sounds also helps to establish when, if at all, Reeva was able to scream.

If the first noises heard are gunshots, any subsequent voices heard must be those of OP, irrespective of what people thought they heard.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

An interesting connection from a previous case involving Roger Dixon, Dup de Bruyn (Steenkamp family lawyer) and autopsy pathologist Gert Saayman :-

Link

Thanks for the link .
It was interesting ,might do some more reading and find out how it was proved the print definitely came from a glass and not a DVD case.
Particularly as we have a long break to fill

 

[Cherwell]

It pretty much proves that one of the two sets sounds heard by the Stipps was the cricket bat hitting the door though. And experts from both sides testified that the gunshots were before the cricket bat hit the door.

It's an important point - as there is no evidence of anything else making a sound like gunshots that night.

Experts, right.

It's been pointed out more than once that Vermeulen was only referring to one specific crack which he said was preceded by a gunshot. He didn't say that all the bat marks came after the gunshots. He said it wasn't possible to draw that conclusion.

No one is denying that the bat was used after the shots to help break the door, but that does not preclude it being used to strike the door before the shots too.

 

[sleuth-d-]

If the judge believes that the cricket bat noises and gunshots could be mistaken it puts the witness testimonies regarding the different noises in doubt.
There are some that were quite sure that all the noises they heard were gunshots.

e.g. Johan Stipp thought he heard 6 gunshots, and Annette Stipp at least 5 gunshots.

surely it is the opposite.

if stipps said they heard 5 or 6 gunshots their testimonies would be currently in doubt. there were only 4 gunshots.

if cricket bat sounds are now proven to sound like gunshots, their testimonies are now less in doubt. as the other sounds would be cricket bat hitting door.

imo

 

[nastasya]

If the judge believes that the cricket bat noises and gunshots could be mistaken it puts the witness testimonies regarding the different noises in doubt.
There are some that were quite sure that all the noises they heard were gunshots.

e.g. Johan Stipp thought he heard 6 gunshots, and Annette Stipp at least 5 gunshots.

The defense case is ridiculous. They're spending all this time trying to convince the judge the gunshots and cricket bat hits could be confused.

That's totally and completely 100% irrelevant.

What they must do is show how the witnesses' testimony about hearing a terrorized women screaming could be mistaken for OP's screaming. The defense team had the chance to play sounds of Oscar screaming to every witness, and they chose not too.

 

[IfIMay]

Point is that everyone's laughing about the defense expert being a geologist, but that's what the state's expert was too. But was any of his testimony about geology? Nope.

looks like he moved past geology to get his masters in chemistry. And I don't think he came in as an expert geologist in a murder case involving no rocks or soil. Even Dixon said his opinions were that of a layman. :scared:

 

[Cherwell]

It's important to remember that when the case proceeded nothing had been conceded by the PT. They were still alleging that OP was wearing his prosthesis when he shot through the toilet door.

The order of cricket bat/gunshots has been a major player throughout the case. It doesn't affect the outcome, as we know Reeva was killed by gunshots, however if the PT can prove that the bat was used first it carries huge weight towards their claim of intent. Once they had to concede this did not happen it weakened their case considerably.

The order of the sounds also helps to establish when, if at all, Reeva was able to scream.

If the first noises heard are gunshots, any subsequent voices heard must be those of OP, irrespective of what people thought they heard.

Could you show me where the prosecution has conceded this, please.

 

[Sarahlou]

RT @AFPAfrica: #BREAKING A star pathologist hired by Oscar Pistorius won't testify in trial @SJFindlay learns. His findings are said to support prosecution

edit- Sorry, didn't see it was already posted.