Oscar Trial: Day 25

A somewhat more restrained prosecutor Gerrie Nel continued to probe Oscar Pistorius’s forensic expert Roger Dixon on the 25th day of the Blade Runner’s trial for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

During cross-examination, Nel questioned Dixon about a photograph he had presented to court that was meant to demonstrate what Pistorius’s neighbours, Dr Johan Stipp and his wife, would have seen when looking into Pistorius’s bathroom window in the early hours of February 14 last year.

In the photograph, a member of the defence’s forensic team stood in the bathroom on his knees to imitate Pistorius on his stumps, but Dixon admitted that the Paralympian would be about 20cm taller than the man in the photograph.

Nel also asked Dixon why he had not brought a section cut from the foot of Pistorius’s prosthesis to court.

The section was used in the forensic analyst’s investigation into a mark the defence asserts was made when Pistorius tried to kick down the toilet door while on his prosthetic legs. Dixon responded that he had left it at home and had not thought to bring it with him.

Dixon, who told the court that he does not own a television or radio, didn’t read newspapers and that he had not been following the case, had earlier posted a message on his Facebook page which read: “Third day in court today. Let’s see how much of my credibility, integrity and professional reputation is destroyed.”

This was following gruelling cross-examination by Nel yesterday in which his expertise was constantly questioned.

Nel finished his cross-examination shortly before lunch.

Defence advocate Barry Roux requested an early adjournment to the day’s proceedings because the next defence witness would take more time than was available to lead through evidence and the trial will not resume until May 5.

His application was granted by Judge Thokozila Masipa.

The trial resumes on Monday May 5.


  1. Is this Dixon chap Amish by any chance? Mind you he has a computer & uses facebook so then one can ascertain that he has access to all news. Both TV & radio are now redundant in the greater scheme of things………next!

  2. I also do not own a TV (for the past decade) and I never listen to the radio. Does that make me Amish?

    Not following the case simply means he has better things to do. He does not have a moral duty to follow the case.

Have your say