bump -
Trial Discussion Thread #50 - 14.08.8, Day 40 ~final arguments continue~
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
bump -
Defense is throwing everything and everyone at the wall...they must be thinking SOMETHING will stick!
'It became clear that the accused is incapable of taking responsibility for any wrong doing. It's our argument that his attitude is that he's always a victim of circumstance'
Brilliant summary of Oscar Pistorius by Nel in his closing arguments.
Brilliant summary of Oscar Pistorius by Nel in his closing arguments.
atthelake
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2011
- Messages
- 9,979
- Reaction score
- 25
At the end, MLady questioned Nel as to accepting as common cause the phone records. :sigh: This shows to me she is going to side with the defense due to the timing of those calls associated with the screaming and noises ... and weight them very heavily as is outlined in the defense Head of Argument.
:sigh:
Well, at lease he'll get the gun charge. Wonder what the slap on the wrist for that can be? Anyone know?
:sigh:
Well, at lease he'll get the gun charge. Wonder what the slap on the wrist for that can be? Anyone know?
jassy writer
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2014
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 0
Surely Masipa could have just required it on the record that the phone records were not common cause? Just to clarify? (Before handing down her murder verdict!)
jassy writer
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2014
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 0
After all, the timing of a phone call is irrelevant compared to the intent shown when you fire four Black Talons into a small cubicle knowing a human being is inside there, as Nel emphasized...
I read the 'example' in the heads of argument which Roux referred to of a mother shooting dead her little girl behind a door. What a load of rubbish.
The example presents as fact that the mother acted in putative self defence - she genuinely held a honest belief that there was an intruder behind the door coming out to harm, but it was in fact her innocent daughter.
Roux claims that the state would have the mother guilty of murdering her daughter?? His reason - because she intended to kill the perceived intruder, and the state would apply "error in persona". Roux says this proves the fallacy of applying "error in persona" in OP's case because common sense, legal principles and legal conviction dictate the mother is not guilty of murdering her daughter.
This is nonsense, the state would not contend she is guilty of murder. The reason it is not murder is because she intended to lawfully kill. Had she intended to unlawfully kill a perceived intruder (let's say she never felt under threat and thought he deserved to be killed) - then common sense says yes, she is guilty of murder even though it was in fact her daughter - and as the state says, error in persona applies, at the end of the say she intended to unlawfully kill a human being.
The example presents as fact that the mother acted in putative self defence - she genuinely held a honest belief that there was an intruder behind the door coming out to harm, but it was in fact her innocent daughter.
Roux claims that the state would have the mother guilty of murdering her daughter?? His reason - because she intended to kill the perceived intruder, and the state would apply "error in persona". Roux says this proves the fallacy of applying "error in persona" in OP's case because common sense, legal principles and legal conviction dictate the mother is not guilty of murdering her daughter.
This is nonsense, the state would not contend she is guilty of murder. The reason it is not murder is because she intended to lawfully kill. Had she intended to unlawfully kill a perceived intruder (let's say she never felt under threat and thought he deserved to be killed) - then common sense says yes, she is guilty of murder even though it was in fact her daughter - and as the state says, error in persona applies, at the end of the say she intended to unlawfully kill a human being.
minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,152
- Reaction score
- 2,110
But Roux is arguing that OP intended to lawfully shoot/kill intruder in self defense, same as the mother. On Nel's argument, the mother would be guilty of murder simply because she intended to kill a person
I just don't see a light sentence for OP. At the end of the day he unloaded 4 rounds into a tiny toilet cubicle with a human being locked inside. Surely it doesn't matter if it was his girlfriend or an intruder? To say he didn't shoot to kill is ludicrous.
I thought she asked whether Roux's timeline was common cause, which it isn't. Just the phone data. Not gun then bat.
I have never seen that argument from Nel. Can you point it out? This would mean Nel rejects the validity of private defence and putative private defence - where the intention was to kill - against a murder charge. I don't think Nel would ever say this.
minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,152
- Reaction score
- 2,110
You got it. That is what Nel argued much of yesterday and in his Heads.
BIB
I can't remember the name of the ear witness that the defence called (the neighbour) but Nel said that her timings of the events were NOT common cause. He said something about her changing the times of when she heard the screams and crying of a man (03:12/03:14). :thinking: As far as I know her testimony is the only contradiction to what the state witnesses heard.
Also, the judge will have to consider the fact that the defence didn't prove that Oscar screams like a woman, Roux even went as far as saying that they would be calling an expert to testify. I personally think (and hope) that she will find him guilty of pre meditated murder on this glaring unanswered issue. Those screams were Reeva's last hope to let people know what was going on in that house that night.
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
The one thing we can be sure of is that he shot to kill whoever was behind that toilet door. He knew those bullets were deadly, and he knew they would kill. So the intent to kill was there, no matter how Roux spins it.
Chelly
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 18,796
- Reaction score
- 66,824
Hey y'all...want some southern b'fast in addition to the other great spreads already out? How about New Orleans southern from Cafe DuMonde? Chicory coffee and beignets!!! :lick:
http://civilwartalk.com/attachments/beignetsscottgulbransen-jpg.32607/
Sorry OT....but I would kill for some Cafe DeMonde Chicory Coffee right now! And....the beignets are making me salivate!!!:whine:
minor4th
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,152
- Reaction score
- 2,110
She asked Nel if the information cited by Roux in the timeline is common cause - to which Nel replied yes, the phone data is common cause. He did not say there was anything about the timeline that was disputed - again completely refusing to deal with the sequence of first gunshots heard by Stipps. The only inference is that he does not or cannot dispute it. I think the judge was trying to get him to commit by clarifying his dispute with the timeline, but he agreed it was common cause.
So the facts of this other case are similar? Or was Roux only finding similarity at the moment of shooting?
Judge: On page 60 to 62 of the heads of the defence there’s a chronology of events as well as a timeline. Are those common cause facts or do you disagree with him?
Nel: M’Lady. I would have to go through them. Those that are based on the cell phone data are common cause. Those that are based on what Mrs Nhlengethwa did, she had to move places and therefore we place this as 3:12 or 3:14, those are not common cause.
Judge: Ok. Cell phone data is common cause.
Nel: Yes. Cell phone ... let me not say not only cell phones, all the phone data ...
Judge: All the phone data
Nel: ... is common cause. That’s all that’s common cause
Judge: Thank you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqp502_tS1M from about 1:21:00
- Status