This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-defence-witness-roger-dixon-hits-out-at-gerrie-nel-in-facebook-post-9267180.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Oscar Pistorius trial: Defence witness contradicts athlete's version in new blow for defence team Oscar Pistorius trial: Defence witness contradicts athlete version
(about 2 hours later)
Oscar Pistorius's defence received a new blow after its own expert witness contradicted the athlete's version of events in cross-examination from chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel. Oscar Pistorius's defence received a new blow after its own expert witness contradicted the athlete's version of events and was accused of omitting crucial details in court.
Returning to the witness box, Roger Dixon, a geologist at the University of Pretoria and former policeman, told the court his analysis of Reeva Steenkamp's bruises and blood marks on the bathroom floor showed that the position of the magazine rack contradicted Pistorius's version, who insists it was moved. Roger Dixon, a geologist at the University of Pretoria and former policeman, told the court his analysis of Reeva Steenkamp's bruises and blood marks on the bathroom floor showed that the position of the magazine rack contradicted Pistorius's version, who insists it was moved.
Referring to a graphic photograph showing a pool of blood around the toilet bowl, Mr Dixon claimed the magazine rack was close to the toilet when Ms Steenkamp was shot dead.Referring to a graphic photograph showing a pool of blood around the toilet bowl, Mr Dixon claimed the magazine rack was close to the toilet when Ms Steenkamp was shot dead.
"Can the accused be right, if you're right? He said the magazine rack was definitely not there. Then he must be wrong. You're his witness," Mr Nel demanded. "Can the accused be right, if you're right? He said the magazine rack was definitely not there. Then he must be wrong. You're his witness," chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel demanded.
Last week, the athlete told the court that, in retrospect, he confused the sound of the magazine rack moving for a door opening, which convinced him an intruder was about to attack him before he opened fire. The state claims he heard the magazine move after shooting Ms Steenkamp in the hip and deliberately changed aim to hit her.Last week, the athlete told the court that, in retrospect, he confused the sound of the magazine rack moving for a door opening, which convinced him an intruder was about to attack him before he opened fire. The state claims he heard the magazine move after shooting Ms Steenkamp in the hip and deliberately changed aim to hit her.
Mr Dixon, who began testifying on Tuesday, also challenged the state's ballistic expert, Captain Chris Mangena, who claimed Ms Steenkamp was first shot in the hip facing the toilet door, fell backwards and was struck in the arm and head as she tried to protect herself from the bullets. Mr Dixon was later forced to admit he used a model that was 20 centimetres shorter than Pistorius on his stumps in a series of a photographs used to illustrate what neighbours could have seen from the bathroom window the night he shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp.
At the time, he noted there could have been short break between the first and the second shot, giving her time to scream, which appears to back the state's case that Pistorius fired at the door, heard Ms Steenkamp fall down and deliberately changed position. "Why would you not ensure that the person on its knees stands on something, is lifted to scale?", Mr Nel demanded. "Why would you not make sure that his height is exactly the height of Mr Pistorius on his stumps?"
In stark contrast, Mr Dixon told the court the 29-year old law graduate was standing at an angle to the door with her "arm forward towards the handle", suggesting she was about to open the toilet door, when four quick shots struck her in quick succession as she was "falling and turning". "It is something I omitted, I overlooked it at the time," Mr Dixon replied, insisting he was not trying to "mislead" the court. The test is important because Dr Johan Stipp, a neighbour of Pistorius, previously testified he saw a man moving in the bathroom from his house.
The court also heard sound recordings of a cricket bat striking a door and gunshots fired through a door as the defence sought to prove the sounds are similar and could be confused. Mr Dixon came under renewed pressure from Mr Nel, who accused him of being unqualified to testify as an expert witness as he challenged the state's murder case. He conceded he had no qualifications in ballistics or pathology, and was not affiliated to a forensic body.
"Your expertise [in the test] was wielding the cricket bat?" Nel asked Mr Dixon, to which the forensic geologist replied: "My part of that test was to wield the cricket bat to produce the sound." Returning to the witness stand, Mr Dixon wrote on Facebook: "Third day in court today. Let's see how much of my credibility, integrity and professional reputation is destroyed."
The sequence is crucial because several neighbours claimed they heard a woman screaming followed by loud noises at the start of the trial, which appears to back the prosecution's case that there was an argument before Pistorius fired at the door knowing Ms Steenkamp was inside. He also lashed out at those "those who will not listen because it is not what they want to hear" and wrote he was looking forward to have a drink after finishing his evidence.
His defence claims neighbours confused the sound of the cricket bat striking the door for gunshots and mistook the athlete's high-pitched voice calling for help for a woman screaming. On Wednesday, Mr Dixon challenged the prosecution claiming Ms Steenkamp was standing at an angle to the toilet door with her hand "on the door handle", suggesting she was in the process of opening the door, when four shots struck her in quick succession.
Yesterday, Mr Nel questioned his qualifications and criticised him for testifying outside his field of expertise. Mr Dixon conceded he did not have qualifications in ballistics or pathology. At the start of the trial, the state's ballistic expert, Captain Chris Mangena, told the court Ms Steenkamp was standing facing the door when the first shot hit her in the hip, the second shot missed her, hitting the cubicle instead and causing it to break into pieces, bruising her back.
"Are you a sound expert, sir?" asked Mr Nel. "Have you received training in decibels and sound?" Ms Steenkamp then fell on top of the magazine rack in a seated position, before she was hit in the arm and head as she tried to protect herself from the bullets. Capt Mangena noted there could have been a short break between the first and the second shot, giving her time to scream.
Mr Dixon conceded he had not received specific training in sound.
He also admitted the gunshot test had to be repeated because the firearm kept jamming, and noted they did not use the same ammunition as Pistorius because Black Talon bullets weren't available at the shooting range where the test was performed. Instead, they used Rangers.
Asked about the qualifications of the music producer who recorded the test, Mr Dixon told the court he "had no idea" if he had experience in recording explosions. He also admitted he wasn't present when the second test was carried out.
In a series of tense exchanges, Mr Nel questioned his integrity and accused him of being "irresponsible" for giving evidence on the model's wounds without reading Ms Steenkamp's post-mortem in detail.
"You see how irresponsible it is to make inferences in areas where you’re not an expert. It’s irresponsible, am I right?," Nel told the court, addressing the witness.
Earlier today, Judge Masipa told the court she had been informed viewers watching the trial on television feeds next to the main trial room were shouting and cheering at times during the proceedings.
She warned the premises are "not an entertainment place" and they would be removed if they did not adhere to court protocol.
At the start of the trial, court authorities set aside a second, "overflow" room at Pretoria's High Court for reporters and other spectators to watch the trial proceedings on a big screen.
Pistorius is accused of murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp following a domestic dispute in the early hours of Valentine's Day last year. He claims he shot and killed his girlfriend in a case of mistaken identity, thinking she was an intruder.Pistorius is accused of murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp following a domestic dispute in the early hours of Valentine's Day last year. He claims he shot and killed his girlfriend in a case of mistaken identity, thinking she was an intruder.
The case continues. The trial has now adjourned for a break and will reconvene on Monday 5 May.