Botha's boot mark 
I think they should test Oldwage's boots
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Botha's boot mark
don't think anyone can remember or will choose to remember - do they have the option of pleading the 5th in SA 
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Botha's boot mark
don't think anyone can remember or will choose to remember - do they have the option of pleading the 5th in SA
I'm assuming they do 
Dixon is making the point that the evidence wasn't preserved and that anyone and everyone was allowed to walk over the crime scene without being booted and suited therefore contaminating the scene and so any tests are not reliable 
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
I think they should test Oldwage's boots
shall I tweet that?
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Dixon is making the point that the evidence wasn't preserved and that anyone and everyone was allowed to walk over the crime scene without being booted and suited therefore contaminating the scene and so any tests are not reliable
yes although it certaily doesn't alter the fact that he committed CH, although The Tie was saying Judgy could just believe it was an accident and let him walk 
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
I think they should test Oldwage's boots
shall I tweet that?
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Dixon is making the point that the evidence wasn't preserved and that anyone and everyone was allowed to walk over the crime scene without being booted and suited therefore contaminating the scene and so any tests are not reliable
yes although it certaily doesn't alter the fact that he committed CH, although The Tie was saying Judgy could just believe it was an accident and let him walk
I know 
she may believe he is guilty but if in law there is enough doubt, she'd have to let him walk and that's what scares me
the Tie has been spot on from the beginning 
Dixon: short sharp splinters could have force to enter, cause damage...further away splinters lose energy, fall, don't enter so he's saying that OP must have been very close to the door to shoot which in my mind means he must have heard RS in there 
Originally Posted by Pengy:
I know she may believe he is guilty but if in law there is enough doubt, she'd have to let him walk and that's what scares me
the Tie has been spot on from the beginning
its really dreadful if he walks free, what are the odds of two brothers doing that 
and you're right about the Tie...just hope Nel can do some damage with Dixon
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Dixon: short sharp splinters could have force to enter, cause damage...further away splinters lose energy, fall, don't enter so he's saying that OP must have been very close to the door to shoot which in my mind means he must have heard RS in there
he said he was not near the door if I remember rightly
does your feed keep freezing? mines gone off
why is he giving evidence about the wounds?
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Dixon: short sharp splinters could have force to enter, cause damage...further away splinters lose energy, fall, don't enter so he's saying that OP must have been very close to the door to shoot which in my mind means he must have heard RS in there
he said he was not near the door if I remember rightly
that's what I was thinking - he was further back with his shooting arm extended so if he fired from the distance he said, his own defence bloke is saying the bullets would have lost velocity and that the door would have slowed them down further making them drop. Reeva would have had to be standing right against the door to be hit not back by the toilet
Originally Posted by Pengy:
does your feed keep freezing? mines gone off
mine did, I think its because of the wound evidence...back on now
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Dixon: short sharp splinters could have force to enter, cause damage...further away splinters lose energy, fall, don't enter so he's saying that OP must have been very close to the door to shoot which in my mind means he must have heard RS in there
he said he was not near the door if I remember rightly
that's what I was thinking - he was further back with his shooting arm extended so if he fired from the distance he said, his own defence bloke is saying the bullets would have lost velocity and that the door would have slowed them down further making them drop. Reeva would have had to be standing right against the door to be hit not back by the toilet
clear as mud
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
why is he giving evidence about the wounds?
no idea because he's already said he's not a wound ballistics expert - but he's covered it generally
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Pengy:
does your feed keep freezing? mines gone off
mine did, I think its because of the wound evidence...back on now
wondered if that's it - we're on her back wounds which state say I think had 2 but this guy is saying there were 3 as one was a bruise
he's giving evidence in something he's not a specialist in
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
he's giving evidence in something he's not a specialist in
first thing he said when he listed his qualifications was that although during his 18 years at CT police, he was more on the side of organic stuff and trace evidence not wound ballistics but he had covered it in a general sense throughout his career but that doesn't make him an expert witness in my opinion
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Pengy:
does your feed keep freezing? mines gone off
mine did, I think its because of the wound evidence...back on now
wondered if that's it - we're on her back wounds which state say I think had 2 but this guy is saying there were 3 as one was a bruise
I'm lost
I will have to catch up later tonight .
Ask a question about the trial .
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
he's giving evidence in something he's not a specialist in
first thing he said when he listed his qualifications was that although during his 18 years at CT police, he was more on the side of organic stuff and trace evidence not wound ballistics but he had covered it in a general sense throughout his career but that doesn't make him an expert witness in my opinion
yes and I think Nel will tear this apart, he's actually undermining people that are more qualified than him in certain area's
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Pengy:
does your feed keep freezing? mines gone off
mine did, I think its because of the wound evidence...back on now
wondered if that's it - we're on her back wounds which state say I think had 2 but this guy is saying there were 3 as one was a bruise
I'm lost
the postmortem stated that on Reeva's back, there were 2 contusions which are also known as bruises - Dixon says there were actually 3 and they match the curves from the magazine rack
he's got me all confused about the bullet goes up and down and horizontally 
Alex Crawford â@AlexCrawfordSky <small class="time"> </small>
RT @GeraldImrayAP: #OscarTrial Maybe most important part of Dixon's testimony thus: RS right arm close to door when hit. Different to pros.
so the 4th bullet according to him, ricoched off the wall backwards and landed in the toilet bowl
Originally Posted by Pengy:
the postmortem stated that on Reeva's back, there were 2 contusions which are also known as bruises - Dixon says there were actually 3 and they match the curves from the magazine rack
he's got me all confused about the bullet goes up and down and horizontally
everything else in this case, why not the bullet changing directions 95 times
Dixon says a bullet core was found in the toilet, but its not a match to the bullets that entered Reeva - this guy is going to be hard work
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Alex Crawford â@AlexCrawfordSky <small class="time"> </small>
RT @GeraldImrayAP: #OscarTrial Maybe most important part of Dixon's testimony thus: RS right arm close to door when hit. Different to pros.
I'm going to wait and see what the cross examination brings...he said he was not a ballistic expert, but yet went on to give his interpretation
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Dixon says a bullet core was found in the toilet, but its not a match to the bullets that entered Reeva - this guy is going to be hard work
he's certainly not helping the defence if that's the case...could be brought in he used two guns maybe???
Originally Posted by erinp:
I will have to catch up later tonight .
Ask a question about the trial .
I'm going to have a look at that Erin thanks
I'm going for a lie down - will be back later when more people have managed to watch today's proceedings 
Originally Posted by Pengy:
I'm going for a lie down - will be back later when more people have managed to watch today's proceedings
later Pengy 
The Accused â Oscar Pistorius
Pistorius continually refers to âthe accidentâ that âhappenedâ, or calls the killing of Reeva a âmistakeâ. A âmistakeâ would be putting too much salt on his food; killing someone is more than a mistake. Talk about a gift for understatement. Gerrie Nel at least is rightly calling him on this, asking whether the gun went off accidentally.
But Nel hasnât pulled him up on these two contradictory statements:1 âI had many thoughtsâ and 2 âI didnât have time to thinkâ.
Which is it? Or these two: 1 âShe wasnât breathingâ as he found Reeva in the toilet and 2 âShe was struggling to breatheâ. So this means she was still alive so why didnât he try to get help at this point? Did he wait for her to die?
Oscar has also said âI kneeled downâ when he was shooting. Is this a good idea when heâs on his stumps? Can he balance? I think Nel should have followed this up.
Oscar says things like âThatâs where the firearm was pointedâ as if he had no agency in this, as if it did this by itself. Or âI was responsible for the firearm when the round went offâ but claims that although no one else touched it, he didnât pull the trigger. He continually distances himself from his own actions.
What is being painted, in a pointillist style, bit by bit, piecemeal, is a portrait of a man who likes to control things, who does not relinquish control easily but still refuses to take responsibility for his actions. He won't avoid a confrontation, is not the sort to go âcowering and running awayâ. It seems impossible that he really wants to somehow come out of this a hero. However, Nelâs constant darting about between dates and incidents is as confusing for the viewer (and maybe the judge) as it is for Oscar. One minute, weâre talking about the alarm system in the house, the next about an incident in which Pistorius claims he was shot at while he was driving. I don't think this approach is helpful to anyone and is liable to elicit more sympathy for the accused if anything.
Has it finished for the day? Sky aren't showing it anymore
Originally Posted by Aimee:
Has it finished for the day? Sky aren't showing it anymore
Yes, it's finished for today.
Originally Posted by Pengy:
I'm going for a lie down - will be back later when more people have managed to watch today's proceedings
The lady judge looks to me like she is siding with Pistorius, I just have that feeling.
The way she defended him when he was being asked tough questions over and over again by Herry Nel, and Pistorius couldn't answer him and how she calls time on the days court proceedings when Pistorius starts his crying act.
I fear he'll get away with a lighter charge.
Originally Posted by Videostar:
The lady judge looks to me like she is siding with Pistorius, I just have that feeling.
The way she defended him when he was being asked tough questions over and over again by Herry Nel, and Pistorius couldn't answer him and how she calls time on the days court proceedings when Pistorius starts his crying act.
I fear he'll get away with a lighter charge.
I fear Reeva's family will be lucky to get that .
I smell an OJ result.