With respect, I have a different take (Nel is still a genius though!): To understand this exchange you need to have seen the previous session with Derman where Nel roasted yet another expert witness for the defence who was engaged well before the trial, who only finished their report after the accused testified and who mysteriously has no notes of what the accused told him before testimony. The trend and the suspicion is clear. Derman tried to explain that he was forced to revisit Pistorius because there were things in his testimony he needed to clear up, but on this point he didn't elaborate.
In the next session, Nel turned to OP arming himself and subsequent events. He skipped past OP running towards the passage and this threw Derman as he was anticipating a Q on this and eager to give a certain answer he had thought up in the break. Instead Nel talked about going down the passage, and asked a clear question - as far as you are concerned, what was OP's intention at this point as he was down the passageway.
Derman answered very strangely though. He did not answer whatsoever as to what his intention was. He instead answered that this is "where he specifically asked OP" because one of the elements he did not understand from the record was "run" and this is why he met him after his testimony. He then tried to relate it to the question by saying he understood down the passageway he moved on his stumps with one hand on the cupboards.
This immediately raises a big question: why is he mentioning running at all? Why is he explaining this is the reason he met with OP after his testimony? What's it got to do with the question and the answer? This now needs exploring because if it's not relevant to the answer, this raises concerns about Derman*
At first, It appears that Derman is suggesting he thought OP in evidence said he ran down the passage, so Derman asked OP to clear this up, and in the answer he learned his intention as he was down the passage. Nel's questions are all about exploring this and determining whether Derman mentioning running is in any way relevant to answering the question.
Slowly but surely it emerged that it in no way was relevant. Piecing it together, Derman eventually said he knew about running from the record, but he did not specifically think it happened down the passageway, in fact he didn't pay attention to where in OP's response this may have taken place (the bonus icing on the cake - worrying for someone giving expert assessment of his response). The portion of the record, as Oldwage - ten steps behind - helpfully read out, is in fact crystal clear that he ran up to the passage and then moved slowly down the passage. We then find out Derman then asked OP to demonstrate the run and he did, and in a separate request he asked OP to show how he moved down the passage and he did. This bit took quite some teasing out of him, until then it appeared he was suggesting he asked about running and OP started showing him walking down the passageway.
* it shows bias - avoiding question posed and not assisting the court, instead misusing cross examination as a chance to offer things which help the accused. Unfortunately for Derman this was reinforced in the way he gave evidence at many other points during his testimony.
It didn't go unnoticed by me that Derman had further reason to try and force in mention of running - to explain that OP couldn't technically run and all that, just like he said later. The big problem is it's all strange and implausible - if he specifically recalled OP to assess this point and finalise his report, and if he thought it extremely important the court knew what he meant by running, why is there not even mention of it in his report or evidence in chief? He could have even videoed it and entered it as evidence. Even more puzzling, why did OP never once use the word run when Derman spoke to him the first time?
You can watch the start of this exchange here 1h 6min 0sec: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ3VtkA3TQM
All just my opinion of course!
anic:
