Lying in the Sun

Rocky Sends Roux Reeling

Rocky Sends Roux Reeling

"You see Mr Dixon do you see how irresponsible it is to try and be an expert in an area that you are not?"    

Gerrie Nel
State Prosecutor

Listening to the the Expert Witness for the Defence, Mr Dixon, a geologist, one hoped that from the gallery a stone would be fired at him, something for him, not to give expert opinion on but to crawl under.

I laughed at first, as I'm sure many did at this man, who knew little about pretty much everything, and pondered as to whether if a rock had been handed to him, to give opinion, if he would have fared any better.

This 'Expert Witness' was manna from heaven for Prosecutor Gerrie Nel

By end of Session 2 I could imagine:

Roux - Ain't gonna be no rematch

Rocky Dixon - Don't want one.

But you can't always get what you want - and Rocky had to return to face Gerrie Nel who I am sure did not relish having to point out to this man how irresponsible that he should come to the High Court, and try to be an expert in areas where he is not.  Nel also had to make it clear to Mr Dixon that he was in fact questioning his integrity, due to the responses he was giving.

We heard Pistorius for days on end, ducking, and diving, lying, blaming others, accusing witnesses for the Prosecution of being untruthful.  Everyone had lied but Oscar Pistorius!

Rocky, performed much the same as Pinochio Pistorius - both thinking they were experts in the art of deceit.  Both failing miserably under cross examination by Gerrie Nel.

Like Pistorius, Rocky pretended not to understand when questions became difficult, gave replies which did not relate to the question asked of him, he was evasive.

I'm sure there would not have been many who didn't laugh when Mr Rocky Dixon said that the instruments he had used to test and analyse the light conditions/visibility in the dark at the home of Pistorius - were his eyes!

And I am sure there would not have been many who were not made angry when Mr Dixon, was asked by Gerrie Nel if he was a sound expert (in relation to the sounds of the gunshots and the cricket bat being hit against a door) and Dixon after a momentary pause to think of his answer, then replied -

"I would hope that my evidence that I present is sound."

Now that pissed me off.   Not least because nothing he had to say as an "expert" witness could remotely be considered sound, but that he thought at a trial in the High Court relating to the brutal killing of a young woman he would be a smart ass by answering in this way.

This guy when he realised he'd been sussed by Gerrie Nel, decided he would play silly buggers act like he was an innocent, harmless, gormless.  But he wasn't and he isn't! He is equally as cunning and conniving as Pistorius.

What he was doing was dangerous, and as Nel made it clear, lacked integrity.

Gerrie Nel:

You see Mr Dixon do you see how irresponsible it is to try and be an expert in an area that you are not. Do you see.


Not in this case, My Lady I do not!

'Not in this case'
said Dixon.   He responded in the same manner as that of Pistorius during his cross examination by Gerrie Nel.  Lacking in integrity and respect for the deceased Miss Steenkamp, the Steenkamp family, and the Court.  He too was not going to concede that he was wrong to act in the way that he had, refusing to acknowledge, apologise when he acted badly.

This guy for whatever reason, financial gain most likely, was prepared to sell his soul and stand before a Court of Law, in the High Court in Pretoria and give testimony as an EXPERT witness, on matters which he himself stated he had no expertise not even remotely.  Yet, bold as brass, he appeared before the Court, having read the reports written by persons who are indeed experts in the various fields under discussion, and having taken a few notes from them, which he brought along to refer to.  He then presented to the Court what he referred to as his expert analysis in areas such as ballistics, wound ballistics, sound, to name but a few.  It was no more than a jumble of bits and pieces that he had hurriedly put together in the last week or two after having consulted with what he I assume believes is another expert - 'Google!

Yes the guy 'googled' seeking information to help him put together an 'expert analysis' of the events of the night Miss Steenkamp was shot and killed by Oscar Pistorius.

The fact the guy was not an expert in any of the fields required for the purpose of this case, was of no concern to him - any port in storm, google will do!

At the beginning of this trial Barry Roux for the Defence came across as aggressive in his style of examining witnesses, extremely competent, and despite that he was defending Pistorius, one was left with the impression, a man of integrity. 

He was most definitely left reeling yesterday after the testimony of Mr 'Rocky' Dixon, his integrity too now under scrutiny.  I say this as Mr Roux is no fool, and he must surely have known that Mr Dixon was in the Court quite frankly, under false pretences, there to mislead the Court, and arguably this may have worked to some degree, if not for the very sharp Gerrie Nel who very quickly exposed Mr Dixon for what he is.

I don't think he will be getting any more chances any time soon to play a pretendy pathologist, or ballistics expert, or any type of expert...

Barrow Roux, who like Pistorius and others in his Defence Team had spent long periods of time sitting  head in hands when Rocky their 'Expert Witness' was on the Stand, was relieved to hear Gerrie Nel ask the Court if they could, despite a half hour of Court time remaining, call it a day.  His response when Judge Masipa asked his thoughts on the early finish:

"I'm in the hands of the Court."

Judge Masipa asked him what he meant by this.

His reply - 'was ducking and diving!   Judge Masipa smiled and responded

 "That is what I thought."'

Gerrie Nel the Prosecutor has all but destroyed the credibility of the version of events by Oscar Pistorius, and outed too Mr Dixon the geologist for what he is.  

Who next from the Defence 'Dream Team' will face Nel?

I'll leave you with a little round up of Rocky's best bits:

  • "I’m not a ballistic expert I cannot comment on that My Lady."

  • "I have been to three post- mortems in my life My Lady, that is all."

  • "I am not a wound ballistic expert."

  • " I am not a pathologist."

  • My Lady I admit absolutely that I am not a forensic pathologist and I’m not wound ballistics expert"

  • "In my layman’s understanding"

  • And of course I am not an expert in the exact precise measurement of light levels.
(of course you're not)

  • I have received no training in blood spatter. I am not an expert.

  • I am not an expert in ballistics or an expert in a number of different fields.
(what in hell does that mean- NOT an expert in a number of different fields?   Think he means 'Jack of all Trades,  Master of...)

And I must finish with the magnificent Gerrie Nel

Gerrie Nel:

And you would know the difference between a normal general witness and an EXPERT witness?


The difference is the layman  does not have expert knowledge in the area in which they are doing the examination.


I can only suggest that in future, Dixon, sticks with stones.
17th April 2014

Website Builder