Lying in the Sun

Roux Defends Derman - 2

Roux Defends Derman - 2


The point Barry Roux made in respect of the grouping of the bullet holes is well…poor!

IF, you were someone like Roux, who had never touched a firearm in many, many  years, or indeed someone who had never before fired a weapon of any description, it is ridiculous to say, that to have stood 2 metres from the toilet door that you would have achieved, a better grouping.


Because, and to get the most obvious out of the way – if you were not familiar with the handling of a gun, or how you would react after each shot.  Specifically after the first shot!  If a first shot at firing a weapon you would not be that accurate FOUR TIMES. 

For someone not familiar with a weapon, to take a first shot at the door, - at whatever part of the door is their target area, they may get lucky and get it on target or as close to where they are aiming – once – not 4 times.

After that first shot, they are not able to simply fire off three more in quick succession?   The reaction to having fired for a first time ever, or indeed for the first time ever, in a long time, would prevent this. 

A person , not familiar with handling a gun would not shoot off 4 rounds in quick succession, and certainly not with such accuracy. As someone with experience, who has fired a weapon.  I know!

Is Barry Roux claiming that he could have fired off 4 rounds, in quick succession with the greatest of accuracy, hitting if not his target area each time, close to it?

We must not forget – this was not 'normal circumstances.'

Someone being asked to simply fire 4 shots at a door, any door, where there is nothing to fear, no personal threat to their being, their safety, and where their intention is not to wound fatally or otherwise, anyone who may be behind that door -  the outcome of any 'grouping' no matter how skilled with a firearm, will be VERY MUCH DIFFERENT, than someone, shall we say, who feels under threat, fears for their life.

Barry Roux did not factor in the circumstances - the fear factor!

He states - IF HE WAS ASKED TO FIRE 4 SHOTS, from two metres distance from door, that he would be able to get a better grouping than Pistorius did.

Would that be the case if he was filled with terror, fearing someone was about to come out of that toilet door, would Roux, from 2 metres or any distance get a better grouping?

I doubt that very much of anyone, who was not familiar with handling a weapon, and in those circumstances, this terrible fear Pistorius spoke of, that they would have been able to get better.

But what, to Roux, is better?  

That really pretty much depends on what one is being asked to aim for, what specific area of the door. If the purpose is to hit simply an area of the door, or whether you are firing at the door, in an attempt to hit a target behind the door which could be moving!

Pistorius is somewhat of an expert with firearms?   I imagine his aim also - more accurate than not - in any circumstance.

Do we think for a moment that he would have approached that bathroom in his absolute state of fear to face an intruder (when he could so easily have left the bedroom together with Miss Steenkamp, avoiding any confrontation whatsoever, and fled to safety) and on his STUMPS, a huge disadvantage he said, if he was not SURE that he would be able to fire that gun, and fire pretty accurately?  If he was not sure if he would be able to withstand any recoil (depending on the weapon used) which may cause him to become unsteady on his stumps and perhaps cause him to be unable to fire again quickly, and as accurately as his first shot, IN HIS STATE OF FEAR and UNSTEADINESS?


And if we are to factor in, how unsteady, the Defence has claimed all along that Pistorius IS on his stumps – would that not then account for another reason why the 'grouping' being one that Roux could better?

To get a better grouping than a man filled with terror, fearing for his life and that of his beloved girlfriend - a man without his prosthetic legs, standing unsteady on his stumps, NOT something,  Roux should be writing home about.  As part of a defence strategy - where his client is accused of murder, is that the best he could come up with, that he Roux was a better shot, despite not having touched a firearm in many many years?

And was is not said that the bathroom area was in darkness?

Would Roux get a better grouping, shooting in the dark?

Think about the 'grouping' on the door - and that was Pistorius shooting in dark?

I doubt Pistorius, if he was this anxious guy we are led, and asked to believe, always fearing for his safety, that he would not have practiced firing his gun only when wearing his prosthetic legs, he will have practiced when on his stumps too.

Pistorius did what he did – went into that bathroom, on his stumps and ready to fire AS HE KNEW THERE WAS NO THREAT. 

No threat from Miss Steenkamp that is!

Pistorius fired at that door aimed at where he thought his bullets would hit Miss Steenkamp!    Using the ammunition he did - he shot to kill whoever was behind that door.

That grouping, for someone in the state of fear as claimed by Pistorius and unsteady on his stumps - IS pretty darn accurate when we consider where behind that door Miss Steenkamp would be her position.   Wouldn’t like to be his target if he was on his prosthetics and not in fear!

Roux failed miserably in this, in trying to make out that Pistorius, his aim and accuracy was poor.

As for Roux, trying to explain away why the ‘expert witness' Professor Derman failed to record, keep notes.  Failed to investigate the issue of the magazine rack, and why his memory failed him when questioned on that very issue – that was poor too!

Gerrie Nel was absolutely right.

  • Pistorius has lied.
  • Derman was fearful of prejudicing the accused and therefore he too did not give his testimony with the utmost honesty.

And as for Barry Roux stating that Pistorius FIRST thought that the noise was the toilet door being opened (the reason he fired the FOUR shots) to later then say that ‘ subsequent to that’  he then believed it to be the magazine rack….that really doesn’t help Pistorius or Derman!

In fact, puts them both firmly in the shit.  Pistorius for changing his story, Derman for not questioning, investigating  Pistorius’ version. 

And NO Barry Roux, Derman did not have, to go to the home of Pistorius, and shake around a magazine rack to get to the truth of matters – he might have had to shake the truth out of Pistorius – but that could easily have been done without a home visit.

Gerrie Nel did it:

Take a look back at the legal expert, Martin Hood, his views on the gun issues with Pistorius, how Pistorius was not a truthful witness, and note also, the argument which Nel made in respect of 'REASONABLY POSSIBLY TRUE' (which Roux would like us all to forget about) Martin Hood raised and used this also.

Martin Hood speaking in April 2014 with Sky's Jeremy Thompson

"Let’s start by saying it’s been riveting what’s been going on. 

I think the highlights of the day can be divided into two broad categories, the first is the ADMISSIONS that Gerrie  Nel has got Pistorius to make.  In my view he’s made Pistorius admit to the offences relating to the firearms. 

He’s made him admit the shooting incident in the restaurant at Tasha’s.  He’s made him admit the possession of the ammunition. 

He hasn’t expressly made him admit the offence of firing out of the sunroof but interestingly enough we have two State witnesses whose evidence is un-contradicted, and Oscar cannot put up another version, he cannot put a version…he hasn’t put up a version that could be
reasonably possibly true, to discredit the State witnesses.

And then there is the question of CREDIBILITY and I think that is the CRITICAL issue here, because now what Nel has done throughout the day, he has chipped away at Oscar’s version.

Oscar has not answered the questions, he has been argumentative, and the end result is that people are sitting down, and I’m sure the Judge is sitting down as well and thinking -  can I actually believe this version because he doesn’t give a straight answer he argues, he talks, and he continues to talk when he hasn’t even been asked a question and that can be very dangerous."

Is not the job of an expert witness, to give not only his expert opinion, but to question when something, in the mind of an expert, regarding the 'version' of events he is being asked to give his opinion on - does not ring true?

The fact that the expert witness had a lapse of memory on a crucial point/s only brings to the fore the very point Gerrie Nel was making – THAT DERMAN, being more than an expert witness for Pistorius (they had a working relationship) in his testimony he therefore did not want to say or do anything, which would prejudice the case for Pistorius.  


Derman, the Defence witness DID!   His cortex letting him down badly on that day.

(See Blog above - Pistorius Thinking Brain)

In fact so did Dixon, the other pretendy EXPERT witness, the one who knew all about rocks but little else.

The fact the Derman admitted his memory was FUZZY on the issue raised (the startles) DOES NOT then rule out that his memory – as Roux suggested- was not fuzzy on ALL other aspects of his evidence.

How do we know that it wasn’t?

Gerrie Nel correctly raised reasonable doubt as to regards the entire testimony of this man.

Roux has raised the issue of Pistorius his memory not being quite clear due to anxiety, depression.

How do we know this?   How do we determine then which parts of his testimony are the accurate and truthful accounts and which are the parts which should be attributed to his less than accurate recollections due to his anxiety and depression? 

Barry Roux, Pistorius cannot have it both ways, they cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

At the beginning of this trial Barry Roux was billed as the guy who would wrap this case up in weeks if not days, successful in his Defence.

Turns out, he was no match for Gerrie Nel!
9th August 2014

Website Builder