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

Mr Freeze · 17-04-2014 10:46am

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 · 17-04-2014 11:09am

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 · 17-04-2014 11:25am

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

Hande hoche! · 17-04-2014 11:26am

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

brimal · 17-04-2014 11:40am

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 · 17-04-2014 11:49am

Hmmmm, so 2 weeks of a break now.

Cushie Butterfield · 17-04-2014 11:56am

sopretty wrote: »

Hmmmm, so 2 weeks of a break now.

I think we deserve it

sopretty · 17-04-2014 12:02pm

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 · 17-04-2014 12:41pm

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 · 17-04-2014 12:44pm

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 · 17-04-2014 12:50pm

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 · 17-04-2014 12:54pm

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 · 17-04-2014 12:58pm

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 · 17-04-2014 2:00pm

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 · 17-04-2014 2:02pm

Madam wrote: »

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

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

cowlove · 17-04-2014 4:02pm

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! · 17-04-2014 5:18pm

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 · 17-04-2014 5:55pm

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 · 18-04-2014 12:06am

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

desbrook · 18-04-2014 8:27am

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?

Ihatecuddles · 18-04-2014 8:41am

sopretty wrote: »

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.

I never turn the light on when going to the toilet at night. Not when I lived alone or with others.

If I put the light on I'd be squinting trying to get used to it, and it would wake me up a bit.

desbrook · 18-04-2014 9:01am

mauzo! wrote: »

I never turn the light on when going to the toilet at night. Not when I lived alone or with others.

If I put the light on I'd be squinting trying to get used to it, and it would wake me up a bit.

Slightly off topic but do you wash your hands?

fryup · 18-04-2014 9:39am

is all this blubbering from him genuine or is it a tactic ...looking for sympathy playing the victim

Mr Freeze · 18-04-2014 9:48am

fryup wrote: »

is all this blubbering from him genuine or is it a tactic ...looking for sympathy playing the victim

Nel basically says that all the emotional and breaking down is when he is giving false information.

When OP was describing the events after he shot Reeva and started breaking the door down, he didn't break down at all. Nel pointed out that's the difference between when he is lying and telling the truth, everything he did after killing her is probably true, the events leading up to her death are lies according to the state's case.

I think he is guilty anyways, based on what I have seen and heard so far.

Was shocked at the defences last witness though, he did them no favours whatsoever.

sopretty · 18-04-2014 10:05am

mauzo! wrote: »

I never turn the light on when going to the toilet at night. Not when I lived alone or with others.

If I put the light on I'd be squinting trying to get used to it, and it would wake me up a bit.

But according to him, she was awake, on her iphone still.

Deise Vu · 18-04-2014 10:40am

sopretty wrote: »

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.

Something eveyone is overlooking is that Reeva's phone was found in the bedroom, not the bathroom. I pointed out in an earlier post that I found it bizarre that OP's own evidence at one point was that he couldn't lift Reeva initially, saw her phone, ran back to the bedroom with it, and then got his own phone.

An awful lot of OP's cock and bull story hangs on her having the phone in the bathroom (using the phone light to find the bathroom, why didn't she ring for help if we were arguing....). .

Hello_MrFox · 18-04-2014 11:34am

So is the general view here that he is guilty?

sopretty · 18-04-2014 11:35am

Hello_MrFox wrote: »

So is the general view here that he is guilty?

Well I think so anyway.

stefan idiot jones · 18-04-2014 11:36am

Hello_MrFox wrote: »

So is the general view here that he is guilty?

As guilty as OJ.

Mr Freeze · 18-04-2014 11:58am

Hello_MrFox wrote: »

So is the general view here that he is guilty?

I think so, on all charges.

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

Comments