Roux: If the mark is proven to be from the prosthesis, then it would prove that Pistorius was wearing his prosthetic legs.
Vermeulen: If he can kick that high, then yes it's possible.
Warning, the next post is a photo that has some blood in it.
Court is now looking at a photo of the door put back in Pistorius' bathroom.
A pause now as Roux flips through some of his notes. Today is definitely slow going.
Roux has moved on the the analysis of the plate that was on the bath surround. Vermeulen says he did a visual analysis on it, there are no photos. He didn't use a microscope with a camera on it either.
Roux has moved onto the second file he handed into evidence earlier. It's another entry for material analysis.
Roux wants to know where the photos and video are of Vermeulen hitting the cricket bat against the door. Vermeulen says there is no video but there are photos, which are with another police officer but they can be made available.
Very tedious testimony today. Roux making sure he understands the entire evidence collection and analysis process, no doubt looking for mistakes.
The holster was handed over to an officer the next day.
Vermeulen says he handed the cricket bat over to a photographer on March 12, 2013.
The file references the cricket bat and a holster. Roux wants to know what happened to the holster. Vermeulen flips through his files to see where it says who he handed the holster over to.
Roux asks if Vermeulen removed some of the documents before handing them over. Vermeulen says he did not.
The entries are also used to keep chain of custody.
The first file is the first entry opened for the material analysis for the case. When the lab receives exhibits they open an entry to keep records of it.
Roux is now entering in some more evidence. These are the records he asks Vermeulen to produce yesterday.
Vermeulen: I'm not convinced that the mark was caused by a prosthetic foot
Roux: You cannot be convinced because you didn't bother to investigate it
Roux points out that Vermeulen has training in shoe print analysis. He wants to know why Vermeulen didn't investigate further.
So far it would seem that the South African police service is very compartmentalized.
Vermeulen says he "ignored" all of the marks on the door that weren't made by the cricket bat. He says he knew there were other investigations going on to analyze the evidence.
Vermeulen says he wasn't asked to investigate the other marks, so he didn't.
Roux has so far found something to question the credibility of every state witness (be it major or minor) - that's his job.
Yesterday Vermeulen said "as far as I can remember" the door was already up when he went to examine it. Roux asks what's happened since yesterday to make his mind more clear since yesterday. He asks if Vermeulen has spoken to anyone about the case. This is perhaps why Roux wants to see his phone records.
The dates seem to be a bit confusing. Vermeulen testified yesterday that he tested the door on April 30th, but now he says it was March 8, 2013.
Roux moves on to how Vermeuelen tested the door.
Nel objects saying Vermeulen hasn't seen the photo Roux is referring to. There's some confusion about the exhibit number. Roux has to withdraw his question until the photo can be produced.
Vermeulen says the missing piece that was in the photo from yesterday is a piece that he actually saw and is currently on the door in the court room.
This refers to the picture below of the missing pieces next to the door:
Vermeulen examined the door on April 30, 2013. Roux lists the people who Vermeulen saw on that day to try figure out who he could have asked about the missing pieces.
Roux said yesterday that Vermeulen should've seen the missing pieces, especially since they were next to the door when he examined it. This is a picture shown in court yesterday. The pieces are on the floor, on the left.
Vermeuelen doesn't remember when or where he talked to someone about the missing pieces.