Oscar Trial – Day 24, April 17 DIXON


Roger Dixon is back and continuing the discussion about the sound testing.

Nel establishes that Dixon did listen to the recording of the bat strikes. He also had the opportunity to listen to the single gunshot that was fired on the first night of recording. Nel wants to know if he noticed a difference in the background sounds. Dixon says he recalls the sound of frogs in the background but didn’t notice a difference between the two recordings.

Dixon also says he was not involved in the recording. His job was to wield the bat. Nel says he has listened to the sounds and he believes that the bat sounds have been amplified. He wants to know what Dixon thinks about that. Dixon says if the sound engineer boosted something on his recording to ensure clearness, he wouldn’t be aware to what degree he boosted it since he was not involved in the recording.

Nel wants to know who worked with the sound engineer. Dixon testifies that the sound engineer had an assistant and from what he could see it was those two people who produced the recordings. Wolmarans was sitting with them while they were working.

Nel wants to know on which dates Dixon was at the scene (Oscar’s house.) The dates are as follows:

• Feb 22, 2013
• Feb 25, 2013
• March 1, 2013
• Sept 27, 2013
• Nov 8, 2013
• March 25, 2014
• April 14, 2014

Nel wants to know if Dixon keeps a case file system for the cases he works on as an expert. Dixon says this is the first case he has worked on since he left SAPS. All of his records are kept on his computer in folders.

Nel asks him, weren’t you also at the scene March 26th? He thought he heard Dixon give evidence that the Stipp’s curtains were drawn on March 25th and 26th. Dixon says it was March 25th and April 14th that the curtains were drawn.

Nel wants to know the purpose of his visit on March 25, 2014. This is when they did the testing of the various states of illumination in the bathroom windows from outside. He was accompanied by Wolmarans and van der Westhuisen. Dixon took the photographs using his own camera.

outside bathroom door slightly open

His visit on April 14, 2014, was to see the darkness of Oscar’s bedroom with the curtains drawn. He was accompanied by Wolmarans. Nel wants to know if they did any tests on this date. Dixon says yes, the tests were switching the lights off and drawing the curtains, and seeing the room in various levels of illumination.

Nel asks, did you do any specific testing like with a lux meter? Dixon says the purpose of the test was to see what was visible with one’s eyes. They were looking for an ambient light measurement, not a point measurement. Nel states what one can see with their eyes is very subjective.

Nel wants to know how many reconstructions they did at the scene with the door. Dixon answers one.

Nel also wants to know if any equipment was used for testing on the other days that he was there. Dixon states that Wolmarans used a laser for ballistics testing. Dixon took measurements of the door and he also used an x-ray fluorescent spectrometer on mark E inside the toilet room to test for the presence of metal on that mark.

Nel wants to know if a report was created for his visit to the scene on April 14th. Dixon says no. They also did not take any photographs or video. Dixon is not aware if Wolmarans created a report or not. Dixon only gave verbal feedback about the test to counsel.

On November 8th, 2013, when a reconstruction of the scene was done at Oscar’s house, Dixon states that the following people were present: two SAPS policemen, Capt Van Aardt, Wolmarans, Ms. Adams, Mr. Pruger (spelling?) and himself. The two policemen installed the door. Wolmarans and Dixon took measurements and used the laser on the door. Wolmarans also used probes on the door. With the assistance of Ms. Adams, they tried to recreate the position for each wound utilizing the probes.

Nel wants to know if Dixon has seen a report about this reconstruction. Dixon says the draft report from Wolmarans does contain some of the information from that day. That draft report also contains details from many other aspects of the investigation. Dixon says that Womarans asked him to review the draft because Dixon’s English is better than his. But Dixon again states that he never saw the final report.

Nel wants to know if photographs were taken at this reconstruction on November 8th. Dixon says yes. But there was no video taken.

Nel asks, after this reconstruction, what were their conclusions about the bullet holes? They are as follows:

• Bullet A hit the hip.
• Bullet B hit the arm.
• Bullet C may have intersected the web of her fingers and hit mark E on the wall.
• Bullet D hit the head.

Nel wants to know where the magazine rack was in their reconstruction. Dixon says he would have to look at the photos to recollect. He says it was in various areas of the toilet room while they were taking measurements.

Nel wants to know if the magazine rack played any role in the head wound. Dixon says, “memory is a fleeting thing” as he pauses a bit. He then goes on to say that the position that one would be seated in when on top of the rack was too high and if leaning forward, it would still be difficult to match up one of the bullet holes. When the person was on the floor leaning against the magazine rack then the person was near the bullet hole, or slightly below.

Nel asks, so you are saying that if she was sitting on the floor then bullet hole D would have hit her in the head? Dixon answers, they believe the bullet hit her as she was in the process of falling down to the floor.

Dixon then acts out how she was falling in this sequence… the bullet hits the hip while her right arm is stretched out toward the door handle.

dixon demonstrating hip wound

Then as she is just starting to fall, the next bullet hits her upper arm.

Dixon demonstrating arm wound

He does not act out the 3rd bullet but yesterday he had mentioned that her left arm was likely in front of her, as part of an involuntary contraction movement, and the bullet went through the webbing of the left hand at that point, missing her torso and hitting the wall at mark E.

Then the 4th bullet hit her head as she is falling to the ground. He says that she would have landed leaning up against the magazine rack.

Nel tells him that if he’s wrong about B, then it makes his scenario difficult. Dixon agrees.

Nel asks, as far as the head wound is concerned, is there anything else that guided you as far as where the body was when it was struck. Dixon points out that the wound is on the top right hand side of the head.

dixon pointing to head

He says it was a horizontal wound straight through. The entry was slightly higher than the exit, so she may have been leaning forward just slightly. He wants to point out again that he’s not a wound ballistician; he’s just interpreting the sequence of events.

Nel asks if there was anything else that guided him in determining how the head was struck. Dixon says yes, the two contusions on the back combined with the contusion on the low buttock showed him that the deceased was falling downward and backwards. The magazine rack would be against the wall and she struck the edge of the rack that was furthest away from the toilet. He believes this matches the lateral contusion on her buttock.

Nel wants to know if Dixon is actually saying that even after Saayman dissected that wound, and put in his report that the wound was caused by the shattering of her hip and pelvis by the bullet fragments, that Saayman is wrong?

Dixon says that he did not see anything in Saayman’s report that said the external appearance of the contusion was directly related to the internal hematoma. Dixon says he is not saying that Saayman is wrong.

Nel is getting agitated because Dixon keeps giving very lengthy answers that are going off course. He wants him to focus on the head wound and what helped him determine the position of the body when the head was struck.

Dixon says the lack of visible wood splinters in the head indicates she was further away from the door. Also, another factor was the statement from Oscar that Reeva’s head was leaning on the toilet bowl when he found her plus the pooling of blood on the right hand side of the toilet.
They next look at the lid of the toilet. Nel wants to know if this photo means anything to him.

toilet hair broken hair and particulate

Dixon says this indicates that the head was in reasonable proximity to the toilet when it was wounded.

Nel wants to know why he didn’t take in to account this toilet lid when determining the location of her head when it was struck. Nel points out that it is hair imbedded in tissue that is seen on that photo.
Dixon again says that yes, her head was in reasonable proximity to the toilet when it was hit.

Nel asks Dixon if he will agree that the head wound would have been incapacitating. Dixon says that from what he’s heard and read that yes, she would not have been able to make voluntary movements. Dixon says it could be possible, based on how the body lands, to have involuntary movement or spasms. For instance, the body could involuntarily fall over depending on its resting place.

Now Dixon is getting agitated by all of the bullet wound sequence questions from Nel. Dixon says “my Lady, it would be very nice if I was a ballistics expert.” I’m sure my Lady agrees. It would indeed be nice to have a ballistics expert discussing these matters.

Nel then goes back to a comment that Dixon made earlier where he said that when somebody shoots a gun, the muzzle of the gun jolts upward. So if that person immediately shot another bullet, you would expect to see it hit a little bit higher than the first. That is how Dixon could account for bullet hole B being higher than A. Dixon also went on to say earlier that the person would have to refocus or correct their aim in order to get it back to the position of the first shot.

OP pic door

Dixon now back-pedals here, because obviously looking at the door it sure does look like for C and D he aimed pretty well. He tries to explain that it’s not a conscious “shoot, lift, reposition, then shoot again” type of thing. The body instinctively gets used to the pattern and can do it without a lot of thought.

Nel goes back to the magazine rack and how Reeva fell. He points out that Dixon stated that she fell on the magazine rack at the furthest point to the right.

dixon pointing to magazine rack

She then somehow got the two contusions on her back from that same rack. And then somehow she must have fallen forward towards the toilet bowl. Dixon agrees; this is his version.

Nel then says to him, Oscar stated that the magazine rack was definitely not there when he found Reeva in the toilet room. What does he think about that?

Dixon says that his reconstruction was based on the evidence that he can see and measure, and that has been recorded by other people. So Nel asks, was the accused wrong? Dixon won’t answer that and instead says, this is his interpretation of events.

Nel then asks, “can the accused be right if you are right?” Nel also says, “you are his witness.” Dixon again won’t give a direct answer on this. Instead he wants to demonstrate his answer via photo.

pic of toilet room with rack moved

Dixon points out that in the blood stain on the floor, there is a rectangular mark which indicates where the foot of the magazine rack was located. Based on the blood pooling around the leg, it is clear that this magazine was not slid or moved in this area. It was there when the deceased fell on it.

white circle showing rack leg mark

close up of leg mark in blood pool

Before they move on, Dixon again points out how Reeva would have been hit in the head as she was falling down. She hit the right side of the rack and slid down to the floor, and then slumped over on the toilet. Nel tells him based on the tissue and hair on the toilet lid, this is highly improbable. Her head would obviously have to be closer for that tissue and hair to hit where it did. Dixon says his opinion does not change.

Nel then clears up a few dates with Dixon. On March 25, 2014, Dixon agrees he went to the scene. But he does not agree that he was there on February 21st or March 18th.

They next look at a photo that depicts what the accused would have looked like from outside at night without his prosthetic legs.

outside bathroom model kneeling

Dixon says that with his understanding of Oscar’s height on his stumps, he would probably be about 20cm higher than the person in the picture. Nel points out then that this is not an accurate reflection of how Oscar would have appeared. He wants to know that why Dixon, as an expert, would give the court something that is not accurate. As usual, Dixon does not answer the question. Instead he starts rambling on about measurements. Nel asks again, why would you mislead the court with this photograph?

Dixon answers that they were testing lighting and they put a person in for scale purposes. He says he never stated that it was an exact height. Dixon says he is not trying to mislead the court. Nel asks why he didn’t just have the person lean on something to give an accurate representation of height. He is an expert. The court would expect his evidence to be accurate. Dixon says it is something that he omitted; he overlooked it at the time.

Nel then says, we are dealing with an expert, somebody who used to be a policeman and knows what he’s doing. “I want to know why you did it?”

Dixon repeats, it was for demonstration purposes with relative heights.
Nel states that 20cm is a significant variance and he wants to know why he didn’t mention it until now. Dixon says he didn’t have the trigger to mention it before. It’s coming up now, so now he’s mentioning it.

First he was busted on the redo of the gunfire tests yesterday and now today he’s busted on using inaccurate heights in their photographs. I believe Nel is trying to point out that this is not sloppy work, it’s shady work.

Nel says to him, you knew that Mr. Stipp testified that he saw somebody walking in front of that window. Are you trying to demonstrate to the court what he would have seen? Dixon says that they did want to see what Mr. Stipp would have seen.

Nel says back to him, if you really wanted to see what Mr. Stipp saw, you would have used the correct height. Dixon says a scale is a range. This model gave a scale to reference.

Nel asks how far away they were standing when they took the photograph. Dixon answers that he was standing in the road outside of the Stipp’s house at an angle so he could see around the new home. Nel reminds him again that he is an expert giving details and putting things on record. He wants to know exactly how far away he was. Dixon does not know the distance.

Nel then points out that the Stipps did not observe that window from street level. He wants to know, doesn’t that make a difference? Dixon says it would make a difference. He was standing at ground level and looking up, so the person in the window would actually look higher up than if he was looking downward or horizontally from the Stipp’s view. That person would have looked shorter from their view. Nel tells him that makes no sense at all. I agree with Nel; that does not make sense.

Nel asks Dixon what time of night they took these photos. Dixon says around 9pm. Nel wants to know if it was strange to Dixon that the Stipps had their curtains closed at that time of night. Dixon says what people do with their curtains is their own preference. He goes on to stay that at night time for privacy, it is likely that they would draw their curtains.

Nel asks, who was the model in the photographs? Dixon says it was Mr. van der Westhuisen. Wolmarans was there with Dixon observing from outside. They communicated via cell phones that night to give direction to van der Westhuisen who was inside the house.

On April 14, 2014, when Dixon returned to Oscar’s house, he was there to conduct lighting tests in the bedroom. Nel wants to know which items were still in the bedroom at the time of their testing. Dixon says the house has remained relatively unchanged. There was the bed, side tables, fans, chest with audio equipment on it, TV, bookshelf, etc.

Nel wants Dixon to describe to the court how they conducted their test.

Dixon says this test was only observation. It did not totally replicate the night of February 14, 2013, when there was no moon and there was less development in the complex.

On April 14, 2014, when they conducted this test, it was the night before the full moon and there was a lot of lighting from the surrounding homes.

Dixon looked at the construction of the curtain to confirm that it was a black-out style curtain which it was. When the curtains were open, there was quite a lot of light in the room. When they were pulled closed, it went extremely dark except for the far end of the passage where there was some light coming in from the bathroom windows. Nel stops him there.

Nel asks, with the curtains open was there quite a lot of light? Dixon says yes. Nel wants him to describe to the court what he can see.
Since this is an “observation” test, he needs to describe to the court what exactly he is seeing.

Dixon says he can see the position of everything in the room with the curtains open. He was standing in between the foot of the bed and the chest with the audio equipment on it. From there he could make out the outlines of the bed, he could see the bookshelf and he could see the end of the passage.

Nel asks, what was the source of that light outside? Dixon says from the moon and from the neighboring homes, however he can’t say exactly which homes had their lights on. Nel asks, why? He wants to know why he didn’t note these details and why would he come to court without a report. Should the court just take Dixon’s word for it? Dixon says he had been there previously when there was no moon and when the curtains were closed, it was pitch black. He was asked to go back to do another lighting test to confirm and make sure that the pitch black state was true. So this was the second time they observed the lighting conditions. He was not there to observe outside, he was there to observe the lighting inside the room with the curtains closed.

Nel says, that’s interesting. Surely you must be aware that the State’s case is that the curtains were open. Nel wants to know why he wouldn’t test that condition too. Dixon says “he’s most probably not like the rest of the world.” He doesn’t own a TV or a radio, nor does he buy newspapers. He hasn’t been following the case. He only has his testimony to present. He says he does not know all the details of the State’s case and he was unaware of the State’s position on this.

Dixon says the only other lights that could be seen in the room were tiny blue lights on the light switches. There were also small lights on the front of the audio equipment, and a blue light on the on/off switch of the CD player. The TV has a small red light on the lower frame.

Nel asks about the balcony light. Dixon says it was off. Nel tells Dixon that the balcony light was on the night of February 14, 2013, and he wants to know why he wouldn’t switch it on to do his testing if he’s trying to recreate the scene. Dixon tells the court that he was unaware that the balcony light was on, he did not have that information. He goes on to say that with the ambient light from outside, you could see a thin bit of light at the crack of the curtain and at the bottom of the curtain.

Nel wants to know more about the lighting coming through the cracks of the curtain. Dixon explains that the balcony door has a large wood frame. When the two doors come together to close, the middle section is a solid piece of wood. That would be just behind the crack of the curtain. So any light coming through the crack of the curtain is not direct, it’s a light that is reflected from the side.

Nel says to him, that light would have reflected even more if the balcony light was on. Dixon says that’s a possibility. Nel confirms, nobody told you that the balcony light was on that night? Dixon says no, they did not.

Nel confirms that Wolmarans was there with Dixon that night, and he also confirms that Wolmarans did not say anything about the balcony light either.

Dixon confirms that with the lights off and the curtains drawn, he could see the end of the passage leading to the bathroom. Nel wants to know if they had Wolmarans walk down the passage to see if he was visible. Dixon says that Wolmarans first laid down on the bed and with Dixon standing near the curtains, he could not see him at all. Wolmarans then got up and walked down the passage and Dixon could not see him until he got to the end of the passage.

Nel wants to ask him one more time, did you compile a report on this evening? Dixon says no, but he did compile one when they went on the previous visit. This night in April was just for confirmation.

Nel then focuses on the supposed “kick” mark on the door. He wants to know where the cut out portion of the prosthesis is currently located. Dixon says it’s in his possession. Nel wants to know if he has it here. Dixon says he does not. Nel wants to know why he would come to court to testify about something and not bring the evidence. Dixon doesn’t answer and simply says he can “fetch it.”

Nel asks him again, why would you not have it here? Dixon says he did not think to bring it. He then says that the cut out portion was taken AFTER the prosthesis was handed back to Oscar. It was cut out then and was always in the Defense’s possession. He thought the leg was the exhibit. Nel stops him and says, “it was cut out when?” He answers again that it’s his understanding that it was cut out after Oscar received the legs back, it was examined and photos were taken by van der Westhuisen. The piece was then given to Dixon.

Nel tells him that he’s wrong and he’ll have to ask Mr. van der Westhuisen, but the piece was cut out before the prosthesis was handed to the police. Dixon says he has no idea of the movement of the prosthesis at that stage. He became involved with the case on February 22, 2013.

Dixon also received a splinter of wood with varnish on it from the door from Mr. Wolmarans. He received the piece of the prosthesis from Mr. van der Westhuisen.

They break for tea.

Upon returning, Nel is asking Dixon if he is relying on memory to testify about the (kick) mark on the door. Dixon says yes. Nel asks him why he would rely on his memory, and why doesn’t he have a report? Dixon says when he gives evidence in court, he tends not to read out from written reports. He has been over the evidence many times and believes it’s fixed in his mind. Nel says, but the court will only accept the opinion of an expert if he can take them through the processes he followed to reach his conclusion. Dixon says, if it’s requested, he can type up the process.

Nel says, let’s start with the date that you received the piece of the prosthesis. Dixon says that information should be in one of the reports that was handed to Mr. Nel. Nel has Dixon look through his report and Dixon then says that the piece was given to him by Mr. van der Westhuisen at the scene at Silverwoods on either February 25, or March 1, 2013.

Nel asks him if he was able to find the date in his report. Dixon says no. He was just looking at the dates that he had been at the scene and figured it was one of those dates. So it obviously was not in his report.

Nel then asks if there’s any indication in his report on which date he received the splinter of wood to test the varnish. Dixon says no, but it was given to him in March of this year by Wolmarans, in a sealed bag, when they were at the shooting range. Again, the date was not in his report.

I do not see how the court is going to accept the grand majority of Dixon’s evidence. He has been proven to be a very unreliable and unqualified expert.

Nel wants to know, since Dixon had been part of the police force for several years, didn’t he understand the importance of chain of custody, in particular where the piece of prosthesis was concerned? Dixon says he has written that information down. Nel asks, where? Dixon says on his computer.

Nel moves on, and now asks Dixon if he will agree that the piece of the prosthesis that was cut out is smaller than the mark that is seen on the door.

Dixon says it is slightly smaller because that is the portion that had the maximum varnish on it. There should still be some on that surrounding area of the sole of the prosthesis. He also says that white fibers from the sock have been ripped out and are stuck to the prosthesis.

They then look at the photograph that Dixon took in court of the fibers on the door.

abrasion on door

Nel says the fibers are pointing downwards. He wants to know if there’s any significance to that. Dixon says the fibers are flexible, they could move. There’s no significance.

Nel wants to know if he would have expected a larger area of varnish to transfer to the bottom of the prosthesis, considering the size of the mark on the door. Wouldn’t the amount of varnish removed from the door be equivalent to the amount of varnish that would then be on the foot. Dixon says it’s relative to the force that was used and also points out that the bottom of the foot is not totally flat. He also mentions that Oscar was wearing a sock.

Nel then asks, wouldn’t you expect that there would be varnish on the sock? Dixon says yes, one could expect that. But Dixon never tested the sock.

Nel then hands Oscar’s prosthesis to Dixon and asks him if that is the area where the piece has been cut out.

Dixon with leg

Dixon says it appears so. Nel wants to know why he answered that way, “it appears so.” And it is discovered that this is the first time that Dixon is seeing the leg in person. He previously had only seen it in photos. Nel tells him that he’s welcome to take off the sock. But before he does that, he wants to document for the court that a portion of the sock is missing where the piece of prosthesis was cut out, and there is a hole in the heel as well.

leg with sock2

leg with sock

Dixon says he doesn’t know if this is the original sock. Nel says it is not, that is how they received the leg. But he will give Dixon the original sock to see if he so wishes.

Nel also asks him before he removes the sock, if there are any particles of varnish on the sock. Dixon says he wouldn’t know if there were any there, they would be quite small. He then takes the sock off and says the appearance of the bottom of the foot is consistent with the photographs he has seen. Dixon then points out where the portion was cut out.

Dixon points to area that was cut out

Nel wants Dixon to tell the court what Mr. van der Westhuisen told him (Dixon) when he handed him the piece that was cut out. Dixon says that van der Westhuisen said he saw a mark on the door and a mark on the foot and he thought it was significant. So he gave it to Dixon because it was part of his responsibility to look at the marks on the door.

Nel want to know why he was under the impression that the piece he received was cut out after the prosthesis was returned from the police. Dixon doesn’t have a recollection of the exact wording that was used, but he remembers that when the piece was given to him, he was told it was a piece of the prosthesis and that it was cut after the prosthesis had been given back.

Nel wants to know if it’s significant to him when the piece was removed. Dixon says it was after the event, therefore it can be connected to the event. Also, there was a mark on the door. He didn’t receive the piece of wood with varnish until much later when it became apparent that it might be necessary. He also states that they gave him the piece of prosthesis when they did because he was at the scene with them and they viewed him as the trace evidence person.

Nel says to him that he didn’t answer the question. He wants to know is it significant to him when the piece was removed? Dixon says no, it’s not. Chain of custody for Dixon started when he received it and it’s still in his possession.

Nel then asks if he did the analysis of the varnish himself. Dixon says he prepared the samples. He scraped the pieces of varnish off of the wood, and cut only the relevant piece of the prosthesis needed and put them in viles. He did the necessary processing and put them in a gas chromatograph at the University. A company named Leco has their instrument there and the gentlemen who represents Leco assisted Dixon. Dixon says it’s the same equipment that’s used at the forensic science laboratory in Silverton.

Nel wants to know if he has a report. Dixon says he has a report of the analysis but he didn’t have it with him in court. He thinks he gave a copy to the Defense but he’s not sure.

Nel asks him if he took any samples of any other doors in the house. Dixon says no. He wasn’t aware that the leg could have kicked other doors in the house. He was looking at how many pieces of evidence could link the sole of the prosthesis with the toilet door.

He says he looked at the fibers on the sole of the prosthesis, of which some are still on there. There were also fibers on the door which were photographed by the police on February 14, 2013, that show the fibers there. That is why he was so sure the cleaning cloth (that was discussed yesterday) was not what caused those fibers on the door in court. He also looked at the physical shape of the abrasion and the striation that was in it. He believes that striation can also be seen on the sole of the prosthesis.

He goes on to say that he did not do an extensive identification of every single chemical component in the varnish. He analyzed the pure varnish sample with the contaminated varnish on the sole and it was a match.

Nel asks, but you are aware that there are other doors in the house with varnish. Did you exclude that the transfer happened from other wooden frames in the house? Dixon says again, he was not aware that other doors had been kicked so no, he didn’t check elsewhere in the house.

Nel says to Dixon that Vermeulen is of the opinion that Oscar could have stumbled on that piece of wood and caused the mark at that time. He wants to know what he thinks about that. Dixon says he doesn’t think that could happen. He likely would not have had enough force to create the mark simply by stumbling. Nel wants to know if it’s at least possible. Dixon says, not from the distribution of varnish that was seen. He’s not saying it’s impossible. He believes the plank would have to be held in place and would have to be kicked or stepped on pretty hard to cause that mark.

Nel moves on to the bat strikes. He asks Dixon if he has looked at the angle of how it hit the door. Dixon says yes he has. He did his testing from what he considers an approximate angle. He would never be able to ascertain an exact angle because of the grain of wood and shape of bat.

Nel wants to know if he included all of the photographs taken on March 25, 2014, in his album. Dixon says he didn’t prepare an album. He prepared a report. He tends to take a lot of photographs to ensure he has what he needs. Nel asks him if he has all of the photographs still available. Dixon says they are stored on his computer. Nel asks him if he has any objection to the State looking at all of the photos taken that night. Dixon says he has no objection.

Nel wants to know who was involved with the wood splinter test where they placed the white board behind the door. Dixon says himself, Wolmarans, van der Westhuisen and the people who own the shooting range.

Dixon took the photographs and assisted with setting up the door in the same position as the crime scene. He used his own camera. Nel wants to know if he has all the photographs in sequence that he took on that day. Dixon says he does. Nel wants to know if he would object to the State looking at all of those photographs as well. Dixon does not object.

Nel looks at a photograph and says it looks like a hole that’s been filled up with something. They don’t show the photo on screen, but I believe this is the photo he is referring to or at least similar.

test bullets entry

Dixon says this is the tunnel that the hole made going diagonally through the door. Dixon was standing face on to the door to take the photo so the inside of the path can be seen. Nel believes what causes that effect is that the bullet was at an angle. Dixon agrees that it was at an angle.

Nel asks him if he measured the angle at which the bullets had been fired. Dixon says he did assist with setting up the door and they determined the firing angle by using Mangena’s ballistics report and the measurements taken at the scene.

Nel also wants to know what distance they shot from. He believes it was approximately 2.1 meters. It corresponded with the distances that Mangena testified about. Nel asks again about the angle of the bullets. He wants to know if they used probes or angled meters to make sure they had the correct angle. And Dixon says no, they did not do that. That was not the purpose of their test.

Nel points out that Meranti wood has a grain that runs from top to bottom. He wants to know if the angle at which the bullet hits would make a difference in the splintering effect. Dixon says yes it would. Nel asks, why then did you not measure the angles? Dixon says that they did replicate the distance, angle and height in order to shoot bullets through the door to record the effects of the bullet passing through, and collecting the wood splinters on the boards. If the measurements were made correctly, their angles should have been correct. But they did not measure them after the fact.

Nel wants to know if he was the only one photographing that night. Dixon says somebody could have been behind him taking photos but as far as he’s aware, nobody else. Nel tells him that is a strange answer. Dixon says there were other people there in the background and he can’t say for sure what they were doing, but he doubts that anybody was taking photos. Nel wants to know out of the people who were there specifically for the test, did any of them take photos. Dixon says not that he can remember.

Nel wants to know who he gave the photographs to. Dixon says to Mr. Wolmarans, and he has copies as well. Some of the photos were used in his report.

Nel then states that when Mangena did his tests, he used a protractor and an angle finder on the hole. Nel wants to know if they did that as well. Dixon again says no, this was not a ballistics test to determine trajectory. It was a test to study effects.

Nel wants to know during this test, how many witness boards they used. Dixon remembers four. Nel asks if he took photographs of all four boards. Dixon says yes. The one that was included in his album is the one that was closest to the door. Nel wants to know if he has photographs of the other boards. Dixon says he can do better than that… the ballistics expert who will testify will bring them with him, and as far as the photographs, they should have been given to counsel (meaning the Defense should have given them to the State last night.)


Nel asks him how he knows that the witness boards will be used when the expert gives evidence. Dixon says because it’s in question now. Nel says no, I want to know who told him that between yesterday and today. Dixon says nobody.

Nel asks, who told you that the photographs were handed over? Dixon says nobody, it was requested in court yesterday.

Roux stands up and says that they were requested to make the other photos available of the board and he was involved in that process.

Nel stands up and says that they asked THIS witness (Dixon) to personally make them available but instead they got them from the Defense. So Nel wants to know how Dixon knows that they got the photos from the Defense. Remember, the Defense is not supposed to be communicating with their witnesses during cross-examination! That’s a big no-no. The Judge understands what Nel is saying and allows him to continue.

Nel asks Dixon, “how do you know that the Defense made photographs available to us?” Dixon says that he’s employed by the Defense and they have all of those items. He was unaware of the fact that he personally had to hand them over. He was of the opinion that if a request was made in court for any items, that counsel would handle that. So he’s essentially trying to make it sound like he didn’t understand that HE needed to provide them and that he didn’t KNOW that Defense handed them over, he just assumed they did.

Nel tells him no, you can’t get away with that. Nel says, you put it as a fact not as an inference. Dixon says he sat in the court and loaded the files from his computer on to a memory stick and gave it to his counsel for them to make the copies required. He did not have enough memory sticks to make copies, so he handed it to them to take care of it.

Nel tells him that he’s even more worried now because Dixon first tried to pawn it off as an inference, and now he’s telling them that he sat in court and handed over a memory stick. He could have just simply stated that when Nel first asked the question but instead, he just came off as trying to hide something.

Dixon is all flustered now and apologizing to the Judge, not because he did anything wrong but because he is (seemingly) trying to act like he didn’t know he had to give it directly to the State.

Nel now pushes him about the boards. He wants to know how Dixon knows that the expert witness (Wolmarans) will bring them in to court. Dixon takes a long sigh and says that since they had the tests done, the boards have been packaged and have been in court on a number of occasions with Wolmarans as he did not know when he was going to testify. It was his assumption based on that behavior that he (Wolmarans) would have them with him when he did testify. Dixon says he was not explicitly told that by anybody.

Nel rests.

Roux is up for reexamination.

Roux takes a few minutes to locate a photo. When they return, they hand the photo to Dixon. It is not shown on screen but it is described as a photo taken at the post-mortem which shows the bruises on Reeva’s back, and lividity has set in.

Roux wants to know where the bruise was that Dixon had previously seen on her back (the bruise that supposedly wasn’t identified by Saayman or anybody else.) Dixon says the bruise was in a line with the other two contusions, a few cm above the contusions. Roux asks if it was in the area of the lividity that is now seen. Dixon answers yes. He adds that the area all around the contusions had gone red as well.

Roux now points him to the ballistics album and shows him a photo.

paper from State shooting test

Roux asks him if he’s seen this photo and Dixon has not. Roux wants to know what this replicates to him. Dixon says this looks like somebody fired through a target causing secondary missiles to hit the paper. Roux says unfortunately this was not presented by the State in their case. Roux says there are a number of photos of this test done by the State but Dixon did not have access to them. Dixon agrees, he did not.

Roux asks him if he was ever given information about these photos outside of court by Mangena or anybody else. Dixon says, no.

Roux wants to know the surname of the range master. Dixon believes it was Roux.

Roux asks, after hitting the door with the cricket bat at the range, did the range master speak to you? Dixon says the recording equipment was being set-up. He hit the bottom portion of the door four times quickly just so they could set up the microphones for the right level of recording. As soon as he did that, the range master came out and asked if they had started shooting because they were supposed to wait for the go ahead telling them it was all clear. The range master thought that when he hit the door, they had started shooting.

Roux wants to revisit the photo that shows van der Westhuisen kneeling in front of the window.

inside bathroom model kneeling

outside bathroom model kneeling

Roux wants to know if they took any measurements to see if they could compare what is seen in this photo to Oscar. Dixon says he measured how high the head was from neck up. The head of an average male is approximately 35cm. He also measured the height of the windows. He did have the measurements of Oscar, and Oscar is about 20cm taller on his stumps than the man in the window.

Dixon goes on to say that he was informed that when Oscar is on his stumps, his lower legs have some length to them but one is longer than the other. He was also aware of the problem with the callus. So he couldn’t pinpoint an exact position.

Roux says what’s important to remember is that Mr. Stipp saw the figure in the right side window, and he could only see the top portion of that window (because of trees.)

view outside window from Mrs Stipp side of bed

Roux wants to know from Dixon, what would be the position of the person even if you added the 20cm? Dixon thinks the person would be about half way up the illuminated portion of the window, or slightly lower.

But keep in mind, not only did they neglect to use the correct height for Oscar, they also did not use the proper vantage point from which Dr. Stipp viewed the figure in the window. So their tests are not reliable.

Roux has no further questions for reexamination. Dixon is excused.

Roux says that the next witness’s evidence in chief will take longer than the available court time today. He has discussed this with Nel and they are in agreement that it would be best not to start the testimony today. Roux states that in order to make up the time, they are willing to start early upon return to court in May.

The Judge grants this early adjournment but asks that everybody be prepared to work extra hours when they return.

Court will resume on Monday, May 5, at 9:30am.

28 Replies to “Oscar Trial – Day 24, April 17 DIXON”

  1. Oscar locked Reeva in the toilet. proof is from the long than panel that he placed wrong side up over the blood on the toilet floor. Look at the panel in the re-constructed door pictures and look at the marks by the door handle. When removing the panel he had to grab it by the left edge and waggle it to loosen it and pull it free. In doing this the distinct gouge marks are made from the handle on the panel. While doing this the panel was also abraded by the key inserted in the lock causing the abrasion marks that tie up perfectly on the panel with the gouge marks.
    ie the panels were not removed to get the key as it was locked from the outside.

    1. I’m not sure I understand how the key would abrade the panel, per your description. I understand what you mean with the door handle causing marks, but the key was inside of the lock so how would that interact with the wood? Can you explain further?

  2. the mark I refer to is the mark that Dixon wrongly claims was caused by a kick with a prosthetic leg/ foot. That is impossible.The directional motion of a kick cannot have caused that mark (it is a pair or marks) regardless of the shape of the foot of the prosthetic leg and whether it was covered with a sock or not. Additionally , even with various forces it is still impossible with a near vertical motion.
    Yet another difficulty is that the force required (ignoring the impossible shape of the marks being caused by a prosthetic leg/foot, the swinging velocity required at that point would be too high to avoid striking the door handle itself with considerable force.

    basically its the key in the lock and its keyfob that caused mainly near cross-grain abrasions that are the marks present and arising from the attempt to remove that piece of panel.

    I have the 2 recognised bat strikes occurring before the bullet holes being formed and the crack being propogated to the bullet hole D when force was applied later at panel removal time. With further force applied a fresh crack originates from the bullet hole propogating to the panel edge as more force is applied.

  3. The mark on the panel caused by the key/keyfob; IMO
    With the key fitted in the lock on the outside of the door at the time of the removal of the section of panel the sets or marks are on. The key and (most importantly )the keyfob stick out from the surface of the door framing.
    The gouge abrasion marks caused by the door handle as can be seen in the reconstruction photographs are about 3 to 4 inches in total length and are caused by the tip of the handle making contact. However these marks appear to the left of that door handle tip so that means in attempts to remove the panel is being pushed and pulled and twisted up to 3 to 4 inches to the right of its normal position. While these actions are taking place it brings the panel into contact with the key/keyfob which also projects and interferes with removal. In these removal attempts the abrasion marks occur. i envisage this as being an edge scraping type action.

    If you refer to the reconstruction picture showing bullet hole D there is a small strip that part of the bullet hole D is part of that is the lower right corner of the upper panel section. This part is not as long in vertical length and it seems this part was pulled out either partially or fully prior to the attempts to move the adjacent longer strip the marks are on. With the smaller section out the way the strip with marks on becomes a bit more free to be moved at the bottom right corner.
    The panel to the left of the strip with marks on impedes movement to the left so removal attempts are made by waggling /pulling etc to the right where the door handles on both the inside and outside entrap the panel somewhat…as does the key/and keyfob to a lesser degree. It is in the attempts to remove this panel that the abrasion marks are caused.

    OK lets go further to when this strip with marks on has been removed from the door and ends up on the bathroom/toilet floor…remember it was placed onto the toilet floor after the victims body was dragged out of the toilet (he grabbed her lower legs and pulled seems the likely interpretation from the blood staining marks.). Oh and it was placed outer face down.

    Note the abrasion is rough faced and prone to snagging/collecting/retaining small fibre fragments.
    indeed in court it seems this mark picked up two fibres from when being cleaned.
    So , in regards to the police photographs of the 14th february apparently showing some fibre fragments on the marks concerned, allegedly from Oscars socks, there is no problem. They are explainable as being picked up from off the floor areas in the bathroom /toilet area. That floor from normal day to day activity would see small fibre fragments being shed daily from Oscars socks being present..day to day wear and tear..all quite normal.
    One could expect some fibres to become picked up and retained by the abraded area and this would be quite normal in the circumstances. No direct contact with socks is required though direct contact with socks (as with the cleaning cloth) could cause fibre fragment retention to occur.

  4. REMEMBER IN EVIDENCE Oscar spoke of the story about when Reeva got trapped in a small dark space and was frightened into silence etc…linked to a burglary experience.

    hmm With the toilet locked from the outside and Reeva inside in the dark would someone anticipate she may be quiet in such a circumstance? Trapped,no phone, and at the mercy of who locked her in!

    Certainly, if my interpretation is correct this mark is of GREAT SIGNIFICANCE in the case and in my view the defence know this , hence the wrongful claim by Dixon about the mark being caused by a kick from the sole of a prosthetic leg.
    Do you really think people try to kick in doors that open outwards!

    oh..I used to do laboratory based investigations involving many materials as well as other investigative activities. Retired due to disabilities.

  5. Lets go a liitle deeper into panel removal .
    The main strip with the marks concerned on is the one containing bullet hole “C”. The bigger section to its left (when viewed from the outside) contains bullet holes “A” and “B”.
    From what I remember it was parts of the inner top retaining bead that came away to aid in panel removal eventually. BUT ITS NOT THAT EASY.. remember how i spoke of the strip with marks and bullet hole “C” shifted and twisted in attempts to remove it.. the bottom and right of the strip would ride over the front of the door framing as well as being a bit restricted by the door handle and key/keyfob. with a top end twist and tilt to the right with the top beading breaking up the panel containing the marks and bullet hole “C” would slide behind and foul the panel section with bullet holes “A” and “B”..thus retaining that panel in place for a bit and making things tricky as all sorts of things get fouled up and upward movement of the panels is hard from the outside of the door as the top edges foul the upper door framing etc….
    The likely solution then to remove the panels is to open the door (unlock it etc if not already unlocked) so the panels can be handled and pulled and twisted or flexed from both sides to get them out….

    its far trickier to take the panels out than it at first seems.and could be quite frustrating to the person doing it….
    one can imagine them exclaiming to themselves in frustration …”no please no please no”…….or something very like that.

  6. I have looked up a bit more on some of the trial info and there are some issues that muddy the waters a little.
    The gouge marks caused by the door handle, as pointed out by Roux appear different or additional to early photographs , so maybe mostly later damage …Photographs from early on that are available are low quality or have the relevant area poorly shown. Blood and other debris seems to appear in some early photos making things unclear. Though off low res photos from early reconstructions there does seem to be some faint marks in a more horizontal pattern in the right area of the strip.

    As that strip had been lying on blood it seems to be the case that at some time to enable proper investigation the pieces of wood were cleaned prior to reconstructions of the door were carried out.

    In regards to the mark I feel was caused by the key/keyfob Mr Roux claims that “fibres from the socks were found and analysed in regards to this mark,…but this may well be an empty claim based on Dixon’s dodgy courtroom observations. We will see if real evidence to back Roux’s claim is presented or not.

    from considerable study of photograph evidence some key deductions can be made.
    1/The door panel sections were removed following large impacts delivered to the inside face(toilet side) of the door.
    2/This means Reeva cannot have locked herself into the toilet room and if the door was locked from the outside then OP was responsible.

    evidence used;
    The door panel was constructed out of several strips bonded(glue) together. That some of these bonded joints came apart then a large impact or impacts are the only credible cause due to the retaining methods used in the door.

    Removal of panels requires beading retainers to be dislodged. Only two retaining beads were affected , these being the top inner bead which was basically still intact, and the bottom outer bead which was damaged and split into 2 main parts.

    There were no tool marks on the beads to indicate any prying with levers or screwdriver blades etc.

    The cricket bat was not used as a lever to apply pressure on the panels to force them out. It’s blade was too thick to pass it deep enough through the holes caused by the second bat strike(s) to enable it to be used as a lever.

    The top inner retaining bead was intact showing it came out in one piece and being able to apply a large impact at that height on the outside of the door to force its removal is not credible nor practical.

    The lower outer bead being broken into 2 main parts indicates that impact forces were applied to the inner faces in an uneven manner, ie more to one side at first than the other. The nature of the break indicates the major damaging impact was delivered to the inside panel on the side with the cricket bat damage present.

    The large impacts to the inside facing panel could have been delivered with either the door open or closed and targeted to strike about 20 cm above the lower retaining bead.

    Such an impact as envisaged would likely be a stomp action using the bottom of a foot (prosthesis). it is possible these impact were responsible for the tiles breaking off by the door frame.

    The distribution of the removed sections of the panel and beads is consistent with panel removal taking place after Reeva had been pulled out of the toilet with the door in the open position as shown in the photographs.

    1. Hi David… thanks for contributing many thoughtful comments to the page. Based on your observations of the door evidence, can you present your theory of the final minutes of their argument and what happened next. I’d be interested to hear how you believe those final minutes unfolded. Thanks

  8. She was not murdered due to any arguments that night.The decision to murder Reeva was made before that night. IMO Oscar had already worked out a plan and cover story and decided that given that she had to be murdered it would be carried out in a way to maximise the experience for him.
    The claim about accidentally shooting her by mistaking for an intruder was part of the plan all along. The idea simply being to lock her into the TRAP that was the toilet at which she would be at his mercy and to then knock a hole to view and use for aim so he could shoot his desired target. He planned to prevent her attempts at seeking help by phone by previously ensuring she would not be able to find her phone and his would be unusable by her.
    So she never had a phone in the toilet and she was locked in by him. However as part of the cover story he makes the claim about her phone being in the toilet and the toilet door being locked from the inside to support his story of “an intruder”.
    People do need to be careful not jump to the wrong conclusions of her locking herself in the toilet with her phone as a result of an argument. If that had been the case she would have had plenty ot time to phone for help.
    Oscars own claims about the phone , from my statement analysis of things he said on the matter only fit with her phone never being in the toilet.

    Just my opinion of course…
    As for pre-planned….YES IT CERTAINLY WAS….I am aware from how Nel worked and various bits of evidence that indicate he knows it was planned and he has gathered up stuff I am aware of that proves it and that it will be used in argument. He also will know some bits that back this up further that I dont have access to.
    i was noting many bits Nel sought out from various persons in the trial to build his case.

    Toilet doors that are lockable with keys from both sides are not the usual done thing. When I have come across it persons often figure it is an additional security measure in case an intruder entered through a toilet window they would then be contained by the locked door which they would need to overcome to further their intended course of action.

    It is my view the original plan was to catch Reeva unawares when she was using the toilet and lock her in. It seems it did not go as smoothly as planned and that he may have needed to threaten with his gun to get Reeva where he wanted her and how he wanted her.

    If you want to discuss in more detail then use my email as I may be able to expand more in private chat.

    If you feel this is “TOO STRONG” for public consumption then feel free to edit as I will not be offended.

  9. Considering Oscars “intruder” cover story which required Reeva to appear as though she had got out of bed to go to the toilet.
    If she was wearing Jeans or other day clothes etc which could indicate something other than getting out of bed to go the toilet then the cover story would be EXPOSED. It may well be that she was hoping to leave but was prevented (possibly at gunpoint” and forced into changing clothes to apparent “nightwear” to fit with the cover story plan.
    When your on the right track all the pieces of the jigsaw start falling into place.
    Oscar’s plan , in my view, was always to carry out the murder in the early hours when most people were asleep in the area. Considering it was the norm at Oscar’s for Reeva and Oscar to be up and about at such hours as 2.00 am through to 4.00 am is evidenced by various communications on the phones and internet. When Oscar chose to strike was easily accomodated by the norm for them at his house and would mean if needed Reeva would not be too alerted to something being wrong until too late.

    However , Oscar is not as clever as he thinks he is, or as smart as he thinks he is, or as untouchable as he thinks he is!

  10. The “help, help, help” shouts by Oscar appear twice in evidence.
    One set occur before the second “bangshots” which were the real shots. At this time Reeva was still alive.Oscar by shouting was trying to sell the “intruder” story by his shouting at this time. This is part of his plan and shows it was present before the shots were fired and his “intruder” story was NOT made up after the event, though its been adapted to fit evidence as best he can manage. This does not fit with a rage killing taking place after an impromptu argument.

    AIR RIFLE PELLET. The air rifle pellet shot into the bedroom door panel preceded the murder. When exactly is immaterial to the idea of shooting through a door panel. What it does show is the idea of shooting through a door panel is present in Oscar’s thinking prior to the later shots though the bathroom door.

    Also to sell Oscar’s intruder story he needed to have the discipline not to get involved in any direct physical fight which could leave evidence of scratches or injuries that could betray trouble in the relationship which would undermine his “intruder” cover story. It is also my view he had his gun prior to breaking through the bedroom door but restrained from shooting through that door as it would not be compatible with his cover story and also deprive him of shooting his target in the manner he specifically wanted.

    THE HOLSTER. It is my view he wore his holster (with gun) on his shorts and had it with him downstairs prior to having to later break through the bedroom door. Oscar’s story does not account for where the holster was found. That was a big error in his story. The blood marks on the bedroom wall near to where the holster was placed after the killing do fit with his placing the holster where it was found. i do not think any phones were on that bedside table as Reeva would have tried using them if they had been present and that Oscar’s claim about picking up phones from there is purely to explain away the blood spots from when he replaced his holster to its normal position.
    In his testimony, OSCAR was very reluctant to answer about wearing his holster on shorts in regards to the Vaal river boat trip story in which he left his gun in a towel. It was quite apparent that Oscar did not want to state his holster could be clipped/worn on shorts and it was a very sensitive subject for him. it would seem to be an innocent thing to say so the difficulty is not easily explained in an innocent way. It is my view that he was trying to avoid the idea of wearing a holster on shorts because it was what he did when carrying out his murder. This sort of detail of using the holster is more in line with a pre-planner murder than a murder arising from an escalating out of control argument.

  11. The wiping out of the internet history on one of Oscar’s ipads is important. If going with a rage/spur of the moment killing or anything other than a planned murder it appears to be a mere co-incidence.
    However in the context of a planned murder it is highly relevant in that such an act of wiping the internet history implies that something incriminatory was present on that ipad that he NEEDED to remove so as to not draw suspicion.
    However , such an act of wiping the internet history does draw suspicion in itself so the reasoning is that what needed to be wiped had to be very suspicious and incriminatory for it to have been carried out.
    What also needs to be considered is that Oscar felt the wiping of that internet history was so important and of such a high priority that he had to do it as one of THE VERY FIRST IF NOT THE FIRST THING HE DID ON ARRIVING HOME. For a planned murder, which it was, this was Oscar preparing for what was to come later by removing incriminatory evidence in anticipation of carrying out the murder.

  12. The only CONCLUSION that can be made from the combination of whatsapp messages, phone call details, and Oscar’s testimony in regard to the change of previous arrangements for the night of 13th/14th february is that It was OSCAR that instigated the changes and manipulated Reeva into staying at his house with him instead of being elsewhere.
    Oscar lied about this issue and claimed it was Reeva putting forward the idea of her staying at his house with him. This was even included in the Bail application.
    That he lied about this issue is incriminatory and becomes relevant as the issue’s sensitivity is the key factor and this would not be present except for if a planned murder being his intention.
    Oscar could not murder Reeva, as he wanted to do,, unless she was at his house, hence he sought and acted to make that happen

  13. On his arrival home on 13th febuary, Oscar’s second priority after wiping out the internet history on his ipad is to visit a porn website, presumably to get aroused. Bearing in mind the “console” whatsapp message he had from Reeva which is in regards to erectile dysfunction, earlier that day then a reasonable interpretation is that Oscar could have been checking if he could get aroused by Porn and manage to achieve an erection. It certainly seems to be on his mind in that it was a priority thing for him to do on arrival home.
    It could well be he was testing himself or had doubts about his manhood and seeking to establish if the difficulty with erections was his or whether he could blame it on Reeva for failing to turn him on.

    From Reeva’s tweets that she sent between 5.30 and 6.00 am that day we can fairly safely assume she was up and about to see Oscar leave for his meeting early in the morning.
    That Reeva did not need to mention the erectile dysfunction directly by name, though clearly implied in the “console” whatsapp message, fits with it being something both she and Oscar had central in their thinking that day and that it was a live topic.

    all my opinions of course.

  14. People who understand “statement analysis” are well aware of some keywords typically used by people when they are being deceptive. The word “JUST” is one of the most common words deceptive people use. Oscar is a classic deceptive user of the word “just”. In regards to the boat accident that he spoke of in testimony his use of the word “just” is frequent and tells of his account being false and that he is hiding important relevant information. Persons who witnessed some of what went on in regards to that accident give accounts that conflict with Oscar’s version.
    Look out for when someone inserts the word “JUST” into what they are saying when it doEs not look like it is needed. They do this because they are also thinking of what reality was and they wish to miss out key bits of that reality.

    In his testimony Oscar spoke of arriving home in his car and the going to his locked house door. As he spoke he used the words “I JUST walked” . THERE WAS NO NEED TO SAY THE WORD “JUST” TO DESCRIBE WHAT HE DID. A SIMPLE “I walked” should be what a good truthful account would be.
    So we know there is something critical that Oscar relates to in that “walking” to his house that he does not wish to speak about. It is highly important. This use of “just” HIGHLIGHTS that there is something not normal about this action of walking to his house. It is my view that he walked to his house knowing he was on his last walk to the house prior to murdering Reeva later that night. His plan was being acted on and was underway.

    All my own opinion of course.


    1/ The tiles and resulting bits of plaster/tile adhesive etc broke off the wall from next to the hinged side of the door frame. This indicates a large shock/impact load/s was/were experienced at this part of the door frame. Such shock loads are consistent with the door being struck/impacted when it is in the open position with most effect arising with the door in the 90 degrees position approx.

    2/ The distribution of the tiles, tile fragments and other plaster and tile adhesive debris is restricted to just the area between the open door as seen in the crime scene photographs and the nearby walls with a little bit of debris going away from this area but consistent with being directed in travel by the open toilet door.

    3/ There is no distribution of tile debris in other parts of the bathroom and no scratches on the floor and no dust and debris remaining on the bathroom floor which would be expected if the door was opened and “swept” the debris in the action of opening.

    4/ ONE CAN SAFELY CONCLUDE WITH CONFIDENCE THE TOILET DOOR WAS OPEN WHEN THE TILES BROKE AWAY FROM THE WALL. If it had been closed the tiles and other associated debris would be spread widely on the bathroom floor and not restricted and confined by the door position as seen in the photographs.

    5/ There is some damage on the door from falling tiles and tile debris. This is not consistent with the door being in the closed position in which very minimal damage could occur from possible bouncing/deflected particles hitting the floor.

    6/ The part of the door with the most clear tile and debris strike/contact damage is the section of the upper panel containing bullet holes “A” and “B”. This has significantly more damage from tile debris impacts than all the rest of the door put together.
    There is some small amount of this damage on the inside face of this section of panel towards it lower end.The damage on the outside face of this section of panel is again confined to the lowest quarter or so of the door and this is the area that suffered the highest level of tile and tile debris strikes.

    7/ The section of panel with the bullet holes “A” and “B” could not have suffered the damage observed while it was still in its normal place on the door. ONE CAN SAFELY CONCLUDE IT WAS IN A BROKEN OUT POSITION PROPPED UP TO THE OUTSIDE FACE SIDE OF THE DOOR. I envisage it falling out of the door following an impact on the inner side of the panel.How many impacts is unclear.It may have obtained some damage by falling onto already fallen tile debris though its more likely that most, and possibly all, damage was from falling tiles and debris striking it. It is possible the section of panel and the tiles all broke away and fell in a chaotic sequence from one large enough impact on the panel inner side.

    It is now very hard to dispute from the evidence that the toilet door had to have been locked from the outside by Oscar.

    to finish off lets comment on the brief mention of door panel removal that appeared in Oscar’s bail affidavit.

    “…..and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and…..”

    Clearly he does not say much and he does not want to describe the truth. He refused to even say if one panel or two broke off. From how it broke only one part could break off and that was the section containing bullet holes “A” and “B”. In saying “broke off” with no additional detail as to how we can only conclude it “fell off” as opposed to being pulled off by hand. This appears to be a genuine fragment of truth comment mixed in among the lies of his deceptive
    account of the events.
    nb the other main section of panel that was removed (containing bullet hole “C”) could not fall out as it needed special manipulation to be removed.


  16. The broken tile debris pattern is consistent only with the door being in an opened position , like in the crime scene photographs, when the tiles were dislodged. An impact or impacts to the inside face of the door when in the positioned described would account for a shock transfer to the door frame via the hinges causing the tiles to dislodge.The open door contains the spread of the debris. There is nothing to suggest debris was moved by any opening of the door.
    Damage to the section of panel containing bullet holes A and B from tile strikes indicate it was dislodged and fell from the door either just before or at the same time as the tiles became dislodged.The panel section removal and tiles breaking are linked in a course of action/s.

    Having already described large impacts to the upper door panel as being inflicted by possibly stomping with the base of a prosthetic foot this could be what happened.
    However an alternative does appear in Oscar’s false accounts about door panel removal which in the various versions given do not fit the evidence and cannot possibly be correct. In testimony Oscar described a very bizarre sounding action in which he claimed to grab the door handle with his left hand and then shoulder charged the door.That would be useless on a door that was locked in its frame as there would be no need to grab the door handle. As well as that the door panel sections broke through the wrong way for his account to be correct.
    In regards to an already unlocked door being in the position as shown in the photographs then there is a purpose in grabbing the door handle to shoulder charge the upper panel. in fact this could have been the way Oscar actually did break through the door panel.

    that is the only conclusion that can be made from the evidence.


    1/ It was a planned murder with an intruder cover story .The false claims of Reeva having her phone in the toilet and her locking the toilet door from the inside were VITAL ELEMENTS of the cover story.

    2/ It is established as FACT (by me) from the evidence that the toilet door was locked from the outside.

    3/ The 2 clear bat stikes if noisy enough had to occur before the shots and some large splinter debris in the toilet is consistent with these occurring when the door was closed and locked.

    4/ The door was unlocked and opened to about 90 degrees angle at which impacts were made at some time to break the upper panel into sections to fall out or be removed later.

    5/ It is most likely Reevas body was carried/pulled out of the bathroom before the panel in the door was broken through.The placement of the strip containing bullet hole C on top of the blood trail on the toilet floor and the position of the top reating bead best fit this scenario though do not rule out the panel being broken though before Reeva’s body was moved out of the toilet.

    6/ Note the clean bit of floor between the open door and the bloodstained area nearby where Reeva’s body laid after being moved out of the toilet. This clean area is plenty big enough to allow for panel removal and for Oscar to pick up or lower Reeva’s body.


    OSCARS WHITE iphone number ending 4949.
    This was found under the far side from the door end of the mat and appears to have been placed and hidden , but who did it and the motive is unclear. I strongly favour that Reeva did this but cannot rule out Oscar. Its being where is is brings suspicion on Ocars story as being untruthful.
    In regards to the sequence and deductions little role is played by the white iphone. If Reeva placed it under the mat it had to have been prior to her being locked in the toilet by Oscar.



    It may be significant that neither of the 2 phones is mentioned in the bail affidavit, nor is the putting down of the gun after shooting at Reeva through the door.It can be inferred that he did not feel confident in mentioning these items for fear of making mistakes in his cover story or even that he may not have known of where the white iphone was.

    Working a cover story to fit evidence disclosed to the defence by the police does appear to be likely in my opinion.


    The GUN in Oscars testimony versions.
    Oscar spins a very bizarre story in regards to the gun after the shooting, with carrying it around very dangerously for no good reason. This bizarre pack of lies is spun to avoid something highly incriminating about where and when the Gun was really placed after the shooting.



    1/ The gun was placed on the bathmat and its size, shape and weight effectively anchor that part of the bathmat in place relative to other parts of the bathmat. It is central to the issue of folds being created in the bathmat when moving forces are applied to the bathmat. Of no major importance is that a fold/crease was created when a moving force was applied to the far side of the bathmat from the door heading indirectly towards the gun. That fold and action causing it are not clear and nothing of importance really can be attached to it.

    2/ After being placed on the bathmat the gun has not to all intents and purposes significantly moved as evidenced by the fold patterns on the bathmat being consistent with its position when the folds were formed.

    3/ The gun was placed on the bathmat shortly after the shooting and before Reevas body was moved out of the toilet.

    4/ Reeva’s phone with the cover detached, with one on top of the other, was placed on the floor by the edge of the bathmat nearest the opened door. It may have been partly lying on the edge of the bathmat, but if not it was placed very close to the bathmat.

    5/ Reeva’s phone was placed (as described in point #4) before Reeva’s body was moved from the toilet.

    6/ From the intimate relationship between the blood trail and stain evidence and the folds on the bathmat on the side of the bathmat between the guns location and the open door WE CAN SAFELY ESTABLISH THAT CONTACT WAS MADE BETWEEN THE VICTIMS BODY AND THE BATHMAT AND REEVA’S PHONE to leave what we see in photographs of the scene.

    7/This contact occured during the moving of Reeva out of the toilet into the bathroom and also possibly from when picking her up later on when taking her out of the bathroom. Pushing forces on the phone and bathmat created the folds and positions of the phone and mat as pictured.



    1/ Reeva’s phone was placed on the bathroom floor before her body was moved from the toilet.

    2/ In reality , the placing of Reeva’s phone in a condition of appearing to have been dropped or damaged was a higher priority issue to Oscar than Reeva’s welfare.

    3/ With it being a high priority placing it follows from Oscar’s testimony that he deliberately dropped or pulled at it to mislead and suggest Reeva may have dropped it.

    4/ Oscar lied about the order of moving Reeva out of the toilet before picking up her phone from the toilet floor.This is not able to be passed off as a simple mistake.

    5/ Oscar clearly has lied about when he really picked up Reeva’s phone and when he actually placed it on the floor in a damaged condition.



    1/he supposedly picked up Reeva’s phone to call for help though finding it blocked he could not use it. But instead of moving Reeva he picked up the phone first. this gives priority issues.

    2/ When he did use his own phone he called Mr Stander first on the grounds of not being able to carry Reeva on his own as he found it hard when picking her up out the toilet. However if we transpose this onto what he would have said to Stander on Reeva’s phone we have a problem in that he had not moved or picked up Reeva before picking up Reeva’s phone to use it. Remember he picked up Reeva’s phone to use it in his version.

    3/If really attempting to use a phone then one would notice if it was damaged from a previous event like being dropped. In testimony Oscar claims to have dropped the phone but then adds he may have put it down. As it was found in a “damaged” state the trying to use the phone and putting it down on the bathmat would not have damaged it and any prior damage would have been noticed by him. from the lies one can only conclude he damaged her phone and placed it deliberately.

    4/ It was placed near enough to the toilet door to suggest it may have been recovered from inside the toilet..but the priority Oscar placed on it is so high and not casual that the intent is clearly to mislead.

    5/ In Oscars version he followed up his attempts about using Reevas phone with fetching his own phone/s so the wrong sequence revealed (he placed Reeva’s phone on the floor before moving her) and that he cannot have attempted the content of his first real call to Stander as he had not picked up or moved Reeva gives him additional storyline problems with his version.



    Lack of wood splinters and other debris on the bathmat.

    This is fine with what really happened. That is that possible deposits of wood splinters falling onto the bathmat from the nearby toilet door can only have come from the 2 recognised batstrikes and minor bits of wedging with the cricket bat. In reality the door was moved to the approx 90 degree open position when other splinter production was likely from breaking through the upper door panel so no splinters would be expected on the bathmat and nor would debris from falling tiles which occured during the panel breakthrough due to the shielding affect of the toilet door in the direction of the bathmat.

    In Oscars version of breaking through the door some splinters would be expected to fall onto the nearby bathmat in a reasonable amount. Also with tiles falling with a closed door , debris from plaster, tile adhesive and breaking tiles should have ended up on the bathmat to some degree with no shielding possible due to the closed toilet door.

    Again this all points to the toilet door being locked from the outside and is not consistent with the door being locked from the inside as Oscar claims in his false version of events.


    For a final word


  18. David – you explanation is gripping and very plausible. My heart was pounding with the suspense as I was reading it. I have often wondered how he carried out murder but was able to concoct such a detailed version in a short space of time (or is that what lawyers are for?). The only thing I do wonder about is why you are so sure that he killed her because of erectile disfunction. I can understand why he would need to kill her if that were the case (shame and/or fear of her doing a kiss ‘n tell (as he was so afraid for his reputation)) but I haven’t seen any allegations or proof that he did suffer from that. I don’t remember anything being brought up in the trial about the “herbal remedy” he had in his bedroom. I’m afraid I can’t find the message about her consoling him. Could it have been about something far more trivial than erectile disfunction? I think people only murder because of sex or money. He seemed to have enough money so that leaves us with sex. I seem to remember she sent him a whatsapp message saying that if he couldn’t afford the new house in Johannesburg, she would move in with him to help pay for it and if they still couldn’t pay then they would run away together. I thought that was a rather strange message as I was under the impression that he had more than enough money. For a long time I have thought that she, rather than he, was doing the chasing. I’m not sure that he was being abusive towards her or whether he just didn’t love her and was treating her in an off-hand manner so that he could get out of the relationship. Apparently in the middle of Jan 2013 he gave an interview to the SA Sunday Times saying that he wasn’t in a serious relationship and didn’t want to be as girls lied when they said they didn’t mind him being busy. I wonder whether she saw herself as the South African Mrs Beckham with loads of money and the celebrity lifestyle and was trying to make herself indispensable by offering to look after his house when he went to Cape Town and sending him messages telling him that he was special and needed someone to care for him. She even tweeted Aimee: “I fooounddddd youuuuuu *evil laugh* just kiddingggg!!! See you this weekend butternutx.” I can’t imagine his family welcoming a glamour model into the nest. I took your lead and looked at all her twitter messages from when she met OP. If you think it’s useful I’ll post that ones I think relevant. On a different topic, I read a statement analysis and it said that when lights are mentioned, being on or off or being switched on or off, it refers to sexual activity or sexual abuse. Could you explain how they are related?.

  19. Clarification and further explanation in regards to door panel removal elements.

    1/ From the bathroom scene photographs the 2 bits of broken beading and the small piece of panel containing part of bullet hole “D” are grouped fairly closely together near the bathroom entrance.

    2/ The location and grouping of these 3 parts suggests they were removed with the door in a part open intermediate state and not at the fully 90 degree type angle of the door in the photographs.

    3/ this suggests some forces of a lower level were applied sufficient to allow these parts to break/be pulled away prior to the door being moved to the 90 degree approx position. when large forces /impacts were delivered resulting in the large panel containing bullet holes A and B to fall/break free.

    4/ it is possible that the strip of panel containing bullet hole “C” was waggled/manipulated at the intermediate stage causing the supposed “kick” mark…though this could have been at other times possibly before or later.

    5/ Tile debris damage was recorded on both sides of the panel section containing bullet holes A and B which is consistent with it falling out of the door and landing in a propped up position probably on the same impact event that caused the tiles to break away.

  20. in response to JOLIEPETITE.

    The episode of erectile dysfunction which Reeva referred to in her “console” whatsapp on the 13th was probably the final trigger for him to put his plan into action. Reeva was so superior to Oscar in regards to being good looking, perfect figure, healthy, more intelligent, going to appear on a tv series etc…and Oscar would find that difficult to handle.
    The full why he decided to kill her is speculative, though informed guesses may well be right its only knowing about how he specifically thinks on certain things that it can be reasonably safely established as far as full motive is concerned.

    His plan was probably built up in his mind over a few weeks, and from some of the details incorporated into it there seems to be links to things we know about in regards to his knowledge and experiences.

    1/he clearly knew of Reeva’s torment when locked in a small dark space in a burglary in her past. he appears to have used that in torment of her in the killing. broken light bulb was likely by design. It would amuse him.

    2/ Shooting a melon video. His comments and excitement say plenty and suggests a desire to enact which he seems to have delivered on.

    3/Indirect shooting….using sight to gauge where to shoot when not able to use the sights of the gun. That Tashas incident was no accident. Oscar shot deliberately and missed his target in my view (excluding the tile fragment causing a minor cut to his likely target.
    Shooting Reeva through the door was basically the same thing with using sight to gauge when shooting without using the gun sights.

    4/Bashing a hole through an upper door panel by punching in the 2009 party incident. gave Oscar knowledge and experience in such an activity. He used that gained knowledge and experience in knocking a hole in the toilet door upper panel in his murder of Reeva but used a cricket bat as it doesn’t bruise or hurt the hands as much as punching and is more controlled and better directed.


    There were 2 injectable homeopathic type treatments that the mug called Oscar had in his bedroom
    the lesser one being coenzyme compositum but the one aimed at dealing (and mostly sold on this basis) with male penis and sexual difficulties was Testis compositum.

    I do consider he has a group B type personality disorder and could well be a full on sociopath. Omnipotent thoughts seem to be present in him.


    The statement analysis reasoning for “lights on” mentions in statements being to do with sexual issues does seem to bear up and be correct from experience but how it properly connects is unclear to me.

    A photo from someone’s previous celebrity journalistic work at Oscar’s shows the bathroom layout and in it we can seen the bathroom scales sensibly in the far corner of the window wall and toilet side wall. The scales are mainly black on the upper surfaces.

    Now the crime scene photographs online are not brilliant but we can work somethings out from them.
    In the crime scene photographs the bathroom scales are seen upside down on the floor about 2 feet from the toilet wall and near touching the window wall at one corner but at an odd angle.
    It is placed to be just outside the main line of where the tiles fell but photographs are not good enough to tell if dust and small bits of debris are on top of it.
    A later photograph another day shows the bathroom scales have been moved from where shown in the crime scene photographs and the floor area under where the scales had been is clear of debris which lies all around.
    It seems safe to conclude the scales were dumped casually on the bathroom floor in a hurry prior to the event of the tiles falling.
    Oscars fictional accounts make no mention of the bathroom scales.

    Who picked them up and why is important as it is part of the events that night. The proximity of the damaged bath inspection panel and the upended bathroom scales does suggest that someone struck the metal panel with the mainly metal bathroom scales probably in order to make noise. Another options is a person may have picked the bathroom scales up as an improvised weapon in the absence of anything else to defend themselves or attack another.

  22. One bit of speculation here,
    but first some FACTS;

    1/ Loudest noise from a bat on a panel door would be hitting with flat of bat on the centre of the panel hard. The panel acting like a drum. This is what Dixon and co did to get most noise and it still was well short of gunshot level noise.
    2/ The bat strike to the frame of the door would be like hitting the frame of a drum…ie not effective or very loud with no drum effect at all. The strike energy going into some wood depression damage and a kick back from the bat. This would be far from a properly noisy bang and could well have been very subdued and possibly not heard by neighbours even if awake and close by.
    3/ bat strike to thinnest section of door near the rigid frame. Struck at the weakest part and near the edge and with energy lost in breaking through there would be very little drum effect. Most strike energy going onto crack and splintering damage and bat retardation friction as it penetrates. not load and would be more of a crack or crump type noise rather than a distinct bang. This noise like at #2 would not be all that loud and probably not audible except for fairly close by at best.
    4/ I form the view that its credible that both the 2 bat strikes were not loud enough to be heard by the Stipps inside their bedroom with the balcony door open.
    5/Such a view means another source of the first gunshots has to be considered. possible causes could be bedroom door bangs, kicking bottom panel of door hard (no damage reported?), gunshots through windows and empty cartridge cases thrown from window or otherwise disposed of, bath panel being struck maybe several times.


    With a rampaging Oscar trying to break through the bedroom door and with Reeva unable to find her phone or any other that worked then her choices in a desperate situation were limited.
    So did Reeva use the bathroom scales to strike the metal panel hard 3 times to and be responsible for the 3 bangs to attract attention as best she could in the most desperate situation of sheer terror. Was it her screaming and waving her jeans out of the open bathroom window in a desperate hope someone would notice and rush to her aid?


    oscar’s pile of oral excrement in court is nothing and no sympathy or tears or comfort should be given him.

    ps When they open a fund in Reeva’s name, I will be donating and will do so annually.


    In regards to panel removal;
    During his last day on ther stand in cross examination Oscar described a bit more about when he grabbed the door handle in his left hand and with his left shoulder he shoulder charged the door.He specifically states the door handle was to his LEFT when doing this!!!!!!



    This involves the section of panel containing bullet hole “C”.

    1/ The crime scene photographs show this panel is not actually lying flat on the floor and the bloodstains underneath. It was even mentioned in evidence that the stains on this panel on its outside face do not tally with the stains on the floor upon which that face had been lying over or that there was smearing from its placement. The panel is held off the floor in places by other wood splinters and also by a bit of toilet tissue.

    2/ During the investigation the panel was turned over to show some white tissue stuck to staining on the outside face of the panel and some tissue remains stuck to the floor that corresponds to the placement of the panel when photographed for the crime scene photos. Obviously connected.

    3/ Looking at the staining pattern on that panel where the tissue is stuck to it and the bloodstains on the floor where there is pooling (from her head wound presumably)( where Reeva had been placed for a while on the bathroom floor), points to this panel either striking Reeva on the head and/or body and if not that then pressed up against her. So this would be when the bloodstaing and tissue got onto this panel.

    4/Later on Reeva was moved and carried away.

    5/ Someone (Oscar) has decided the panel looks wrong for his crime scene where it was and picked up this panel and decided to move it to where it may more strongly suggest the panel was knocked through from the outside when breaking through the door as per his version. It appears that when he picked it up he became concerned about the amount of blood and body tissue stuck to the panel and he appears to have grabbed toilet tissue to wipe it clean. However blood can be very sticky as it starts to dry and toilet tissue is very fragile as it gets wet and results in failure to wipe it clean properly so he abandons the idea and places the panel down along with the tissue.

    6/ What this shows is that after moving Reeva he was concerned and took action about how the crime scene appeared and wished to mislead investigators.

    ALSO NOTE….there is a small bit of white staining/debris that appears to be linked to the tile fall event so indicating it at one time made contact with the tile debris before being placed twice across the open doorway area.


    In regards to panel removal;
    During his last day on ther stand in cross examination Oscar described a bit more about when he grabbed the door handle in his left hand and with his left shoulder he shoulder charged the door.He specifically states the door handle was to his LEFT when doing this!!!!!!



    This involves the section of panel containing bullet hole “C”.

    1/ The crime scene photographs show this panel is not actually lying flat on the floor and the bloodstains underneath. It was even mentioned in evidence that the stains on this panel on its outside face do not tally with the stains on the floor upon which that face had been lying over or that there was smearing from its placement. The panel is held off the floor in places by other wood splinters and also by a bit of toilet tissue.

    2/ During the investigation the panel was turned over to show some white tissue stuck to staining on the outside face of the panel and some tissue remains stuck to the floor that corresponds to the placement of the panel when photographed for the crime scene photos. Obviously connected.

    3/ Looking at the staining pattern on that panel where the tissue is stuck to it and the bloodstains on the floor where there is pooling (from her head wound presumably)( where Reeva had been placed for a while on the bathroom floor), points to this panel either striking Reeva on the head and/or body and if not that then pressed up against her. So this would be when the bloodstaing and tissue got onto this panel.

    4/Later on Reeva was moved and carried away.

    5/ Someone (Oscar) has decided the panel looks wrong for his crime scene where it was and picked up this panel and decided to move it to where it may more strongly suggest the panel was knocked through from the outside when breaking through the door as per his version. It appears that when he picked it up he became concerned about the amount of blood and body tissue stuck to the panel and he appears to have grabbed toilet tissue to wipe it clean. However blood can be very sticky as it starts to dry and toilet tissue is very fragile as it gets wet and results in failure to wipe it clean properly so he abandons the idea and places the panel down along with the tissue.

    6/ What this shows is that after moving Reeva he was concerned and took action about how the crime scene appeared and wished to mislead investigators.

    ALSO NOTE….there is a small bit of white staining/debris that appears to be linked to the tile fall event so indicating it at one time made contact with the tile debris being being placed twice across the open doorway area.

    1. Some really interesting thoughts here. Thanks! I know you have posted a bunch of ideas, and I’m just trying to marinate on all of them. There is no question that something is really off about that panel. It’s too large to fit in that toilet room with the door closed. And since it was found on top of a blood pool and smears, it obviously was placed there. That is apparent. The ultimate question is, why? I’m going to continue reading on with all of your door/panel comments and will get back to you again.


    There is no evidence or reason for the bat strikes to have occurred other than on a closed door. Only the breakthrough strike could have caused a splinter of the type seen in the bath. The chances of the splinter ending up in the bath from this bath strike are extremely remote due to the distance and rebound trajectory angle needed for this splinter. That the bat penetrated and had to be freed rules out it sticking to the bat and it flying off later on a back swing.

    Almost certainly the splinter got into the bath from some other cause during the breaking through of the upper panel. It again would be an extremely rare thing to occur if the door was in the locked position due to distance and angles involved when striking. kicking or pulling.
    With the door open the panel is closer to the bath and the angles change making if far more favourable for a splinter to end up in the bath from events involved in breaking through the panel.

    This again is very strongly supportive of the door being open when the panel was broken through even if other evidence was ignored.

    To be fair there may be other indirect causes of the splinter being in the bath but whether an indirect cause is the reason is unknown.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: