Witness wilts under Nel attack

17 April 2014 - 08:33 By GRAEME HOSKEN
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
NO, I PUT IT TO YOU: Forensic expert Roger Dixon's lack of expertise was exposed during intense cross-examination by prosecutor Gerrie Nel yesterday.
NO, I PUT IT TO YOU: Forensic expert Roger Dixon's lack of expertise was exposed during intense cross-examination by prosecutor Gerrie Nel yesterday.
Image: AFP

Oscar Pistorius's defence was dealt what might prove to be a crippling blow when one of its expert witnesses admitted that he drew "layman" conclusions with respect to vital evidence.

Eyes, ears and a camera were the only tools Richard Dixon, head of the University of Pretoria's geology laboratory, used to determine the characteristics of, among other things, the sounds and light emanating from Pistorius's Silver Woods Estate home on the night he shot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.

"I admit I am not a forensic pathologist ... I look at marks and appearances ... I used my layman's understanding," said the former police forensic analyst.

Dixon's admission followed his earlier statement that he was not an expert in ballistics, fibres, sound, light, toxicology or DNA; that he had failed to read in full the state pathologist's postmortem report, and that he had had to search the internet to listen to gunshots.

Pistorius's neighbours had testified that they heard a woman's screams between gunshots on the morning of the shooting.

The defence maintains that a second set of noises, which Pistorius's neighbours claimed were gunshots, were in fact the sound of Pistorius bashing open his toilet door with a cricket bat to reach Steenkamp.

Dixon also revealed that the defence's test of whether a cricket bat sounded like a gunshot when hit against a door was at an outdoor shooting range and not indoors.

It was during this test, which included listening to gunshots from different distances, that Dixon suggested to the sound recorder that he simply replicate the sound of one shot to emulate bullets fired in rapid succession.

Pistorius claims that he fired at the door rapidly, believing an intruder was inside the toilet cubicle and was about to attack him.

"So you are telling us what was played to the court was not correct?" asked Nel.

Dixon said he made the suggestion after the replica gun used in the test jammed repeatedly.

"I discovered that if I clicked rapidly on a button on my computer I could emulate gunshots fired rapidly."

Nel said: "Interesting. You didn't tell us this earlier."

The prosecutor, questioning Dixon on his pathology and ballistics expertise, asked if he had seen any of the final reports.

"Yes, the ballistics one," replied Dixon.

"Really? What's in it? If you can't tell us, does that mean that you actually only saw the draft?"

Dixon said there were differences between the draft and the final version, but he could not recall them.

"But you are testifying on ballistics; what can't you remember?"

Dixon replied it was difficult to answer.

"You claim you are not a wounds ballistics expert," said Nel, "that you were not at the postmortem, yet you provided evidence on bruising on Steenkamp's back ... you make assertions.

"Looking at the state pathologist's postmortem report, there are no such marks.

"Your marks are, in fact, shadows. The next day they are gone. Bruises like this can't just disappear. You say the pathologist is wrong, based on what?" asked Nel.

Dixon said his deductions were based on "available evidence".

"But not even the defence's pathologist saw this mark," retorted Nel.

"Do you see how irresponsible it is to comment in a field in which you are not an expert? You are damaging ... All of this goes to your integrity," said Nel.

Proceedings continue today.

subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now