Pistorius trial: Forensic tests challenged
Forensic tests carried out by an expert for Oscar Pistorius' murder trial are being rigorously challenged by the state prosecutor in South Africa.
Roger Dixon's sequence for the shots that killed the athlete's girlfriend contradict that of a police ballistics witness and pathologist.
Mr Pistorius denies intentionally killing Reeva Steenkamp in the early hours of Valentine's Day last year.
He says he fired in fear at a toilet door, mistaking her for an intruder.
The prosecution says the 29-year-old model and law graduate was deliberately killed after the couple had an argument.
The double amputee Olympic and Paralympic athlete faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted of premeditated murder.
This is the last day of the trial before a break in the proceedings until Monday 5 May.
Not entertainment place
Analysis
The focus has now shifted from Oscar Pistorius' distress on the stand to some technical evidence from his team's second expert witness, forensic geologist Roger Dixon. He may not be an orator but his testimony forms a crucial part of bolstering Mr Pistorius' version of events.
Mr Dixon, who is something of an all-round expert having formerly worked with the police, gave wide-ranging evidence on the stand, including his findings on the light in Mr Pistorius' house at night, sound tests and ballistics analysis.
But it is this wide-ranging nature of his evidence that Prosecutor Gerrie Nel is calling into question. Mr Nel suggested to the court that the methods used for the tests were quite pedestrian, implying that a layman could have done them.
Mr Dixon conceded, perhaps more than he would have liked to, that he was not an expert on many of the fields he testified on, but stuck to his findings. He tried to explain to the court how, as a scientist, he has used the fundamental principles applied in geology to analyse the crime scene and all its elements.
Before the questioning got under way on Thursday, Judge Thokozile Masipa warned those watching the televised proceedings in an overflow court next door about their "unruly'' behaviour.
She said she had been made aware that there had been shouting and cheering at times.
"It is not an entertainment place,'' she said.
The prosecutor Gerrie Nel continued his cross examination of Mr Dixon, a defence witness, who says he believes Ms Steenkamp was standing at an angle to the door and that all four bullets hit her as fell to the ground.
Earlier in the trial, ballistics expert Captain Christiaan Mangena said he believed Ms Steenkamp was standing up facing the closed door when she was hit in the right hip.
He said she then fell back onto a magazine rack next to the toilet before three more bullets were fired at the door, one of which missed her.
The BBC's Pumza Fihlani in court says Mr Dixon's testimony challenges the state's version that Ms Steenkamp would have had time to scream after the first bullet and that Mr Pistorius then changed aim and continued firing.
Mr Dixon also told the court about light tests carried out in Mr Pistorius' bedroom and sound tests of a cricket bat striking a door and bullets hitting a door.
Some people following the trial gather outside the court each day
But Mr Nel has sought to cast doubt on Mr Dixon's credibility and qualifications as a forensics witness.
However well his forensic experts proceed to shore up his testimony in the coming days, Mr Pistorius' credibility has been damaged.
Mr Dixon is a geologist and university lecturer who worked as head of materials analysis at a police forensic laboratory in Pretoria for 18 years until 2012 and repeatedly said he was not a ballistics expert.
Mr Nel also sought to prove that he was out of his depth when he was testifying about marks on Ms Steenkamp's body.
He had identified one as a bruise which other pathologists had not, Mr Nel said.
At one stage Mr Dixon used the phrase "in my layman's understanding".
"Now you call yourself a layman. You see how irresponsible it is to make inferences that aren't in your area of expertise," Mr Nel replied on Wednesday.
Mr Dixon told the court that in his opinion the bullets were fired first then the cricket bat was used
Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp had been dating for three months
Mr Dixon took the stand on Tuesday after seven days of testimony from the sprinter came to an end with him reading a Valentine's Day card from his girlfriend.
If Mr Pistorius is acquitted of murder, the court must consider an alternative charge of culpable homicide, for which he could receive about 15 years in prison.
He also faces charges of illegally firing a gun in public and of illegally possessing ammunition, both of which he denies.
There are no juries at trials in South Africa, and his fate will be decided by the judge, assisted by two assessors.
Mr Pistorius is known as the "Blade Runner" because of the carbon-fibre prosthetics.
Roger Dixon's sequence for the shots that killed the athlete's girlfriend contradict that of a police ballistics witness and pathologist.
Mr Pistorius denies intentionally killing Reeva Steenkamp in the early hours of Valentine's Day last year.
He says he fired in fear at a toilet door, mistaking her for an intruder.
The prosecution says the 29-year-old model and law graduate was deliberately killed after the couple had an argument.
The double amputee Olympic and Paralympic athlete faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted of premeditated murder.
This is the last day of the trial before a break in the proceedings until Monday 5 May.
Not entertainment place
Analysis
The focus has now shifted from Oscar Pistorius' distress on the stand to some technical evidence from his team's second expert witness, forensic geologist Roger Dixon. He may not be an orator but his testimony forms a crucial part of bolstering Mr Pistorius' version of events.
Mr Dixon, who is something of an all-round expert having formerly worked with the police, gave wide-ranging evidence on the stand, including his findings on the light in Mr Pistorius' house at night, sound tests and ballistics analysis.
But it is this wide-ranging nature of his evidence that Prosecutor Gerrie Nel is calling into question. Mr Nel suggested to the court that the methods used for the tests were quite pedestrian, implying that a layman could have done them.
Mr Dixon conceded, perhaps more than he would have liked to, that he was not an expert on many of the fields he testified on, but stuck to his findings. He tried to explain to the court how, as a scientist, he has used the fundamental principles applied in geology to analyse the crime scene and all its elements.
Before the questioning got under way on Thursday, Judge Thokozile Masipa warned those watching the televised proceedings in an overflow court next door about their "unruly'' behaviour.
She said she had been made aware that there had been shouting and cheering at times.
"It is not an entertainment place,'' she said.
The prosecutor Gerrie Nel continued his cross examination of Mr Dixon, a defence witness, who says he believes Ms Steenkamp was standing at an angle to the door and that all four bullets hit her as fell to the ground.
Earlier in the trial, ballistics expert Captain Christiaan Mangena said he believed Ms Steenkamp was standing up facing the closed door when she was hit in the right hip.
He said she then fell back onto a magazine rack next to the toilet before three more bullets were fired at the door, one of which missed her.
The BBC's Pumza Fihlani in court says Mr Dixon's testimony challenges the state's version that Ms Steenkamp would have had time to scream after the first bullet and that Mr Pistorius then changed aim and continued firing.
Mr Dixon also told the court about light tests carried out in Mr Pistorius' bedroom and sound tests of a cricket bat striking a door and bullets hitting a door.
Some people following the trial gather outside the court each day
But Mr Nel has sought to cast doubt on Mr Dixon's credibility and qualifications as a forensics witness.
However well his forensic experts proceed to shore up his testimony in the coming days, Mr Pistorius' credibility has been damaged.
Mr Dixon is a geologist and university lecturer who worked as head of materials analysis at a police forensic laboratory in Pretoria for 18 years until 2012 and repeatedly said he was not a ballistics expert.
Mr Nel also sought to prove that he was out of his depth when he was testifying about marks on Ms Steenkamp's body.
He had identified one as a bruise which other pathologists had not, Mr Nel said.
At one stage Mr Dixon used the phrase "in my layman's understanding".
"Now you call yourself a layman. You see how irresponsible it is to make inferences that aren't in your area of expertise," Mr Nel replied on Wednesday.
Mr Dixon told the court that in his opinion the bullets were fired first then the cricket bat was used
Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp had been dating for three months
Mr Dixon took the stand on Tuesday after seven days of testimony from the sprinter came to an end with him reading a Valentine's Day card from his girlfriend.
If Mr Pistorius is acquitted of murder, the court must consider an alternative charge of culpable homicide, for which he could receive about 15 years in prison.
He also faces charges of illegally firing a gun in public and of illegally possessing ammunition, both of which he denies.
There are no juries at trials in South Africa, and his fate will be decided by the judge, assisted by two assessors.
Mr Pistorius is known as the "Blade Runner" because of the carbon-fibre prosthetics.
Comments