Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

sham69

why did they call this Dixon guy, he's a clown.

Its getting embarrassing for him.

upstairs for coffee

Who called Dixon? Nel or Roux?

The Caveman

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Who called Dixon? Nel or Roux?

Roux

sopretty

If looks could kill, OP wouldn't need black talon bullets right now!

Cushie Butterfield

sopretty wrote: »

Why is Nel focusing so much on the bullets? Does it serve the prosecution in some way, or is he trying to discredit Dixon still?

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

Looks like he's trying to tear him to pieces discredit him as an expert of any sort.

Have just come across this on breakingnews.ie :

'' In his evidence, Mr Dixon, a former policeman, contradicted previous opinions given by a police expert and a pathologist on details of the wounds suffered by Ms Steenkamp when she was shot through the toilet door by the double-amputee athlete.

Mr Dixon disagreed with that order and said the first two shots hit Ms Steenkamp in the hip and arm in quick succession while she was close to the door, apparently backing Pistorius’s version that he shot in quick succession fearing an intruder was coming out of the toilet cubicle to attack him.

Mr Dixon also said that Ms Steenkamp’s right arm may have been stretched out towards the handle of the door, suggesting she may have been in the process of opening the door. The defence was using the evidence to try to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case that Ms Steenkamp was hiding from Pistorius after a late-night fight and had locked herself in the cubicle to seek refuge. ''


I didn't realise that Dixon's original evidence, if realistic, was or would have been as important as it was - it's no wonder Nel went for the jugular.

Hande hoche!

Nel really seemed to do a number on Dixon.

sopretty

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Nel really seemed to do a number on Dixon.

Was Dixon a cop before he became a geologist or the other way round?

Hande hoche!

sopretty wrote: »

Was Dixon a cop before he became a geologist or the other way round?

Seemingly a geologist first. He was at the SAPS Forensic Science Laboratory for 18 years.

BQQ

Pistorius could argue that his defense is incompetent after this debacle.
Roux should be done for taking money under false pretenses.
OP sold his house to pay for this :eek:

Obviously, anyone would have a difficult job defending a man who's clearly guilty, but is Roux even trying?

sopretty

BQQ wrote: »

Pistorius could argue that his defense is incompetent after this debacle.
Roux should be done for taking money under false pretenses.
OP sold his house to pay for this :eek:

Obviously, anyone would have a difficult job defending a man who's clearly guilty, but is Roux even trying?

I'm surprised he hasn't already fired him!

Muff Richardson

BQQ wrote: »

OP sold his house to pay for this :eek:

it bugs me when i see this one mentioned, in the grand scheme of things he didn't literally sell his house in order to pay for legal fees, this is just another pathetically cynical act in a whole long string of things he has tried to do in order to gain support and public sympathy, his so called private and subsequently leaked and highly publicised 'memorial service' for steenkamp a few months after he murdered her being the sickest...apparently there wasn't a single attendee that knew her, the aresh*le barely knew her himself.

he had massive sponsorship endorsements and was definitely not short of a few bob not to mention what he has available to him from the family assets and their mining fortune.

was he ever going to return to that house anyway? other than perhaps for a few selfies giving the thumbs up in front of a jacks covered in blood, brain and skull.

Cushie Butterfield

A 5 minute YouTube recap of Nel making Dixon look very foolish from SABC News Online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa2G5zwoMns

Predicted verdict date is mid-July, as if trial ends on May 16th as estimated, Roux & Nel have six weeks to prepare their written trial reports, then they make an oral submission which could take two days, which brings it up to end of June, then M'Lady will take two weeks to decide on her verdict.

upstairs for coffee

Nel's intensity and aggression is captivating viewing. How he keeps up his intense level of interrogation on a daily basis is impressive

sopretty

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Nel's intensity and aggression is captivating viewing. How he keeps up his intense level of interrogation on a daily basis is impressive

I'd be thinking the opposite!! How he manages not to explode with frustration is impressive!!! M'lady has to rein him in at times lol.

Tin Foil Hat

BQQ wrote: »

.
OP sold his house to pay for this :eek:

Meh! He won't be needing it anyway.

Mr Freeze

I actually felt sorry for Dixon when I watched the half hour program on Sky News last night.

He looked a fool by the time Nel was done with him.

I can't figure why he would go up there as an expert witness with no current expertise in any of the areas he was giving evidence in.

Unless Dixon is easily lead and Roux and his team got him believing that version of events and gambled on him standing up to cross examination. The look on Dixon's face at times when Nel caught him out was awful, I genuinely felt sorry for him up there.

The Caveman

Dixon is now proving that OP was lying

brilliant

sham69

Poor Dixon is being shown to be a bigger fool today.

I thought yesterday was bad.

How the hell did Roux call this guy for the defence...

Nel must feel like its his birthday.

brimal

Dixon has revealed he doesn't know the exact height of OP.

Wouldn't that be a fundamental piece of info a so-called defence expert should know?

Muff Richardson

sham69 wrote: »

Poor Dixon is being shown to be a bigger fool today.

I thought yesterday was bad.

How the hell did Roux call this guy for the defence...

Nel must feel like its his birthday.

bbc were saying it was most likely the best they could get (due to OP's horsesh*t version of events), any expert worth their salt wasn't going to touch it as it would essentially end their career.

this Dixon fella looks like he's nearing the end of his career and is in all likelyhood looking for some kind of windfall to retire on. I don't think there is anybody doubting that he is being handsomely compensated by the pistorius clann for being up there humiliated...I doubt he gives much of a toss either.

sham69

So they do a reconstruction of the night in question but do it completely differently?

No balcony light on etc...

Cushie Butterfield

It's even too late for Dixon to break down in Pistorius style uncontrolable anguish in the hope of a recess in order to get his story sound minutely credible. The damage has been done & I don't see how M'Lady has any choice but to ignore his evidence completely.

The Caveman

I just want to know, how can anybody still think OP is/was not lying?

I would love a fair comment from somebody, just to hear the other side of the coin?

Mr Freeze

Dixon has got balls ( or no sense at all) at least. No way would I go back on the stand for a second day of getting hammered by Nel.

brimal

The Caveman wrote: »

I just want to know, how can anybody still think OP is/was not lying?

I would love a fair comment from somebody, just to hear the other side of the coin?

Anyone who suggested OP is innocent here have seemed to have gone very quiet since OP's cross-examination.

Today's defence expert is not helping things either.

Mr Freeze

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

It's even too late for Dixon to break down in Pistorius style uncontrolable anguish in the hope of a recess in order to get his story sound minutely credible. The damage has been done & I don't see how M'Lady has any choice but to ignore his evidence completely.

Can it damage the defence's case too? or does it just have to be completely ignored.

Cushie Butterfield

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Can it damage the defence's case too? or does it just have to be completely ignored.

I honestly don't know exactly what happens - it will be interesting to see what Curlewis has to say on that when the day is over.

Muff Richardson

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Can it damage the defence's case too? or does it just have to be completely ignored.

I was wondering that myself, surely it's not just a case of disregarding his testimony, otherwise they could just chance their arm with all sorts of dixon-esque muck. or imagine if nel broke him down good and proper and he just said something along the lines of "fair enough, I'm talking complete bollocks here and am just here for the €50k that lying little git over there gave me, personally I think he's guilty as a nun squatting in a cucumber field...now f*ck off annoying me, m'lady"

Deise Vu

Muff Richardson wrote: »

I was wondering that myself, surely it's not just a case of disregarding his testimony, otherwise they could just chance their arm with all sorts of dixon-esque muck. or imagine if nel broke him down good and proper and he just said something along the lines of "fair enough, I'm talking complete bollocks here and am just here for the €50k that lying little git over there gave me, personally I think he's guilty as a nun squatting in a cucumber field...now f*ck off annoying me, m'lady"

This is it. An 'expert' witness can talk bollox and have their testimony just ignored. What would be fatal to OP would be for Dixon to agree with Nel that 'X' must have happened rather than 'Y'. An 'expert' witness for the defence agreeing the prosecution's version of the event would be gold dust for Nel.

sopretty

Dixon is funny the way he keeps nodding his head at the end of his statements. :pac:

Mr Freeze

Deise Vu wrote: »

This is it. An 'expert' witness can talk bollox and have their testimony just ignored. What would be fatal to OP would be for Dixon to agree with Nel that 'X' must have happened rather than 'Y'. An 'expert' witness for the defence agreeing the prosecution's version of the event would be gold dust for Nel.

But he is not far off doing that on some points is he?

He seems to be offering a third version on some points, his magazine rack position theory differs from OPs & Nels.

Mr Freeze

Not sure if this true. But it was posted on the telegraph's page, claiming that Roger Dixon posted this on Facebook this morning.

https://t.co/E1hH27cT8q

I would assume its a fake account.

The Caveman

I feel really bad for Dixon, I will buy him a beer afterwards...

Hande hoche!

He certainly would be justified in having a beer this evening.

brimal

Well that was a very poor showing for one of the defence's chief expert witnesses.

There is no doubt Dixon is intelligent, but he seems to be very incompetent and sloppy in his work.

Some of the highlights:

• Didn't know OP's height
• Didn't turn off balcony light while conducting bedroom tests
• When replicating Stipp's evidence that they saw OP in window, he actually conducted it on a road beside their house, thus giving incorrect angle
• When testing using man on knees to replicate OP he admitted the man was not same height as OP - Nel confirmed he was 20cm shorter, which would mean different angles
• Didn't bring piece of prosthesis with him today despite being questioned on it
• Didn't take digital photos of his results, traditional physical photos used. Didn't bring most of them to court
• Offered to give 6 copies of reports to court today but didn't have enough USB sticks
• Didn't compile report on various tests, just wrote down 'notes'
• Some of his testimony suggested he was in contact with defence overnight - not allowed while in dock

etc. etc.

Horrendous expert for defence. Roux now trying damage control.

sopretty

Hmmmm, so 2 weeks of a break now.

Cushie Butterfield

sopretty wrote: »

Hmmmm, so 2 weeks of a break now.

I think we deserve it

sopretty

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

I think we deserve it

Ok.
Our commentary shall adjourn and resume again in 2 weeks time.

All rise!

:pac:

stefan idiot jones

I don't watch the news so this is the only way of following the murdering, lying pigs trial.

Thank you all for the daily updates.

I hope someone makes him their bitch in jail.

Mr Freeze

stefan idiot jones wrote: »

I hope someone makes him their bitch in jail.

I still think he is going to get away with this.

sopretty

There's something else I've been wondering about - why didn't Reeva turn on any light?

If the room was so black dark, why wouldn't you just turn on a light?

I think I had it in my head that she didn't want to wake him, but according to him, he woke up, and sometime while he was re-arranging the fans, she must have gone to the toilet.

So basically, she had no reason not to turn on a light, as he was already awake. It's another piece which doesn't make any sense, based on his version of events.

fergiesfolly

sopretty wrote: »

There's something else I've been wondering about - why didn't Reeva turn on any light?

If the room was so black dark, why wouldn't you just turn on a light?

I think I had it in my head that she didn't want to wake him, but according to him, he woke up, and sometime while he was re-arranging the fans, she must have gone to the toilet.

So basically, she had no reason not to turn on a light, as he was already awake. It's another piece which doesn't make any sense, based on his version of events.

Think someone said that the bathroom light was broken.

sopretty

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Think someone said that the bathroom light was broken.

The bulb in the toilet didn't work. But all other bathroom lights were controlled from the one light switch. She could have turned on a light in the bedroom or the corridor or the main bathroom.

I'm not going to risk skulling myself walking in black dark across a bedroom, with items discarded on the floor, down a corridor and across a bathroom, if I can simply turn on a light. Particularly if she knew that the bulb in the toilet didn't work - surely she'd need a bit of residual light from the bathroom itself to see what she was doing!

It just doesn't make sense to me. Not sure why it took me so long to cop on to this.

Madam

sopretty wrote: »

The bulb in the toilet didn't work. But all other bathroom lights were controlled from the one light switch. She could have turned on a light in the bedroom or the corridor or the main bathroom.

I'm not going to risk skulling myself walking in black dark across a bedroom, with items discarded on the floor, down a corridor and across a bathroom, if I can simply turn on a light. Particularly if she knew that the bulb in the toilet didn't work - surely she'd need a bit of residual light from the bathroom itself to see what she was doing!

It just doesn't make sense to me. Not sure why it took me so long to cop on to this.

Ah, but are you basing that on his version of events?

sopretty

Madam wrote: »

Ah, but are you basing that on his version of events?

Yes. Further evidence that his version of events is implausible!

cowlove

sopretty wrote: »

Roux's preparation for this case is not coming out as being remotely sufficient at all. I don't know what he was at! OP said he didn't meet his legal team often, due to depression or something. I wonder would that account for the shambles? It seems that OP didn't know what Roux was doing and Roux didn't really know what OP was thinking/going to say. If it were me, I certainly wouldn't be booking Roux to defend me!!! This Dixon guy seems to be a jack of all trades, master of none.

I read (I can't recall where now) that OP had not gone through the whole story of that night at all with his legal team as he was unable to confront it all.

They had got up to a certain point but OP was unable to carry on.

Hande hoche!

sopretty wrote: »

There's something else I've been wondering about - why didn't Reeva turn on any light?

If the room was so black dark, why wouldn't you just turn on a light?

I think I had it in my head that she didn't want to wake him, but according to him, he woke up, and sometime while he was re-arranging the fans, she must have gone to the toilet.

So basically, she had no reason not to turn on a light, as he was already awake. It's another piece which doesn't make any sense, based on his version of events.

I think he mentioned her using the light on her phone.

sopretty

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I think he mentioned her using the light on her phone.

He said that she may have used the light on her phone (but he didn't see it). Honestly though, it doesn't make sense. Why would she not turn on a light?

Can I just say, that I believe the lights were on, the shouting was her screaming and running away from him, and him screaming at her, and that he shot her out of fury. Nothing else makes sense.

Worksforyou

I don't follow the case but have read a few pages of this thread. He's guilty!!! Lock him up.

desbrook

Worksforyou wrote: »

I don't follow the case but have read a few pages of this thread. He's guilty!!! Lock him up.

Dixon? Is that you?