Trial Discussion Thread #50 - 14.08.8, Day 40 ~final arguments continue~

[Interested Bystander]

Same in Australia.

Judge Masipa was bending over backwards that OP has a fair trial and that she is seen to treat him respectfully, and she did, more than he deserves imo.
But in all fairness, she treated all the witnesses kindly, she is the nicest judge I've ever seen.

Absolutely, but I would like to have seen her get a bit more involved. At times I worried that she was not taking everything in but I am fairly sure now that I was wrong. I can only think she has already made up her mind because during HoA the judge normally gets very involved but she sat there smiling sweetly throughout.

 

[04009margaret]

Re-posting these clips of Judge Christopher Greenland & others discussing "A bump in the night is not a threat" & "The reasonable/unreasonable disabled person". These discussions will answer the many questions we all have in how the judge will perceive & assess the evidence......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO1obCEArHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn7LwJTZhxU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6DO7b8PLmo

 

[AJ_DS]

SO COY - hehe! Not quite how I imagined you.

One should not read too much into emoticons for they often result in one's misinterpretation of the intended message.

:drumroll:

:giggle:

 

[liesbeth]

Volksblad, 9 August, 2014.

My translation, tried to keep as close to the original as I can:

Pretoria. - With his performance in the dock, Oscar Pistorius became the author of his own downfall. This is the opinion of four legal minds consulted by Volksblad. All of them predict that Pistorius will be found guilty of murder, but not necessarily guilty of premeditated murder.

If an accused, in giving his version, jumps around like a cat on a hot plate (an Afrikaans idiom) it will give an enormous advantage to the state, said Jan Henning, SC, ex head of the NPA.

According to Wessie Wessels, attorney, the improbabilities and contradictions in Pistorius' testimony was so obvious that he felt sorry for Oscar's legal team.

"Oscar sank himself by never trusting the court with the truth. I'm convinced that he and Reeva had a fight that night. The court doesn't have another option, it will have to find him guilty. But I don't think the state proved premeditation."

Attorney, Andre Grobler, also expects a verdict of guilty of murder. He says that in a criminal case it is a fatal error to adapt your version as Pistorius did. It is like setting your sails to catch the most wind (idiom: covering all your bases). Grobler says Roux is brilliant, but any legal counsel is only as good as his witness. Grobler thinks Nel did an excellent job pointing out the holes in Pistorius' testimony.

"This case is about one thing: what was he thinking when he shot, because it will explain his actions. At first he thought is was an intruder and he wanted to protect himself and Reeva. But then he said he didn't want to shoot anyone.

"When a witness contradicts himself, he damages his credibility. I think that, on his own version, Pistorius is guilty of murder," said Advocate Piet Pistorius.

Attorney Delia de Vries disagrees. She thinks Pistorius will be found guilty of culpable homicide because Oscar never meant to shoot Reeva. She says it was a tragedy, and the facts are so bizarre that no one can make them up, so they have to be true. She says that anyone who (lies and then) puts up a performance like Oscar's deserves an Oscar.

 

[liesbeth]

The Beeld reported on Saturday that Lois Pistorius, glowered at Nel on Friday and asked in Afrikaans: "Kry jy nie skaam nie? (Aren't you ashamed?),"

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...aunt-asks-nel-if-he-is-not-ashamed-of-himself

Asked like that it is a rhetorical question. English translation: "You should be ashamed of yourself."

 

[Suthrnqt]

I think you missed the point. If he unlawfully shot the person dead, then it's murder regardless of the identity of the victim. This point was covered by Nel in his HoA.

^^^^^This.
This is the way I understood it from the beginning. But with all the 'poor mistreated Oscar' testimony, I just don't know anymore. :dunno:

 

[04009margaret]

The Leonard Carr Nel referenced during his heads of argument.....

http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/603094/category/0

 

[AJ_DS]

Here is one of Roux's purposefully misleading interpretation of the evidence in his closing arguments

Roux's contention is that one should only use objective facts and testimony corroborated by objective facts… on principal, this would seem like a wise approach.

Dr.Stipp testified he made 3 phone calls to security and this was not challenged by Nel or Roux.

– DrS is awakened by 3 loud bangs
– AS asked him what that was and DrS answered he thought it was gunshots
– DrS got out of bed and went to the big balcony to ascertain where the shots came from
– DrS heard a female screaming 3 or 4 times and also a man’s voice that was also screaming
– DrS says the voice where different in pitch
– DrS heard the female screaming moments after the bangs
– DrS ascertained the screams were coming from the row of houses opposite his house.
– DrS noticed that almost all the inside lights of Michael Nhlengethwa’s house were on.
– DrS noticed that lights inside OP’s bathroom were also on.
– DrS went back into the bedroom and took his phone.
– DrS called Silverwoods security landline : it rang quite a few times but no one answered.
– DrS called 10111 but that number must be out of order : heard a ‘funny’ dialing tone.
– DrS called 082911 but no one answered.
– DrS heard another 3 loud bangs, one on top of each other in rapid succession.
– DrS told AS to get away from the windows.
– DrS called Silverwoods security landline at 3:15:51 (16 seconds).
– DrS explained to the guard on duty what he heard and asked to dispatch someone
– The security guard said he was waiting for his duty manager and that be will be there shortly
– DrS put the phone down and went back onto the big balcony
– DrS heard a man shouting : “Help - Help - Help”
– DrS went back inside the bedroom and waited for the security guard to arrive
– 3 security guards arrived a few minutes later in white buggy
… snipped for space …
– DrS says OP was crying and praying to God all the time.
– OP said that he would dedicate his life and her life to God if she would only live and not die that night.
– DrS went outside and asked JS if the ambulance was on its way.
– JS replied ‘no’ that he hasn’t called the ambulance yet.
– DrS called Silverwoods security landline at 3:27:14 (0 seconds).
– DrS called Verwoerd Hospital on his phone but was told to call ‘ER911’ an ambulance center.
– JS called ‘Netcare911’ at 3:28.
– JS handed his phone to DrS to talk and explain the situation to Netcare.
… snipped for space …

One must remember that Dr.Stipp's detailed billing was NOT submitted into evidence nor was it available to the Court… the detailed billing used was Silverwoods security landline.

1st Phone call to security

This phone call did not appear on the detailed billing of the Silverwoods security landline

Possibility 1 : When a call is placed but never answered (it rings and rings and the caller hangs up), that call is NOT registered in the detailed billing. The only time a phone call is registered is when the caller receives an answer : somebody picks up, voice mail or even busy signal is considered as an "answer".

Possibility 2 : Dr.Stipp wanted to call Silverwoods security landline but dialed the wrong number… which also would explain why that call is NOT registered in the detailed billing.

2nd Phone call to security

3:15:51 (16 seconds)… no problems here

3rd Phone call to security

3:27:14 (0 seconds)

Obviously this was a misdialed number since the call lasted 0 seconds

___________

Since Dr.Stipp's 1st phone call to security does not appear on the detailed billing, Roux decided "objectively" that this phone call NEVER happened.

Consequently, Roux then assigned in his timeline the 2nd phone call (3:15:51) as the 1st phone call by Dr.Stipp to security and the 3rd phone call (3:27:14) as the 2nd phone call.

When you do that, Dr.Stipp's chronology of events obviously can NEVER be reconciled with the evidence :

– DrS is awakened by 3 loud bangs
– AS asked him what that was and DrS answered he thought it was gunshots
– DrS got out of bed and went to the big balcony to ascertain where the shots came from
– DrS heard a female screaming 3 or 4 times and also a man’s voice that was also screaming
– DrS says the voice where different in pitch
– DrS heard the female screaming moments after the bangs
– DrS ascertained the screams were coming from the row of houses opposite his house.
– DrS noticed that almost all the inside lights of Michael Nhlengethwa’s house were on.
– DrS noticed that lights inside OP’s bathroom were also on.
– DrS went back into the bedroom and took his phone.
– DrS called Silverwoods security landline at 3:15:51 (16 seconds).
– DrS called 10111 but that number must be out of order : heard a ‘funny’ dialing tone.
– DrS called 082911 but no one answered.
– DrS heard another 3 loud bangs, one on top of each other in rapid succession.
– DrS told AS to get away from the windows.
– DrS called Silverwoods security landline at 3:27:14 (0 seconds).
– DrS explained to the guard on duty what he heard and asked to dispatch someone
– The security guard said he was waiting for his duty manager and that be will be there shortly
– DrS put the phone down and went back onto the big balcony
– DrS heard a man shouting : “Help - Help - Help”
– DrS went back inside the bedroom and waited for the security guard to arrive
– 3 security guards arrived a few minutes later in white buggy
… snipped for space …
– DrS says OP was crying and praying to God all the time.
– OP said that he would dedicate his life and her life to God if she would only live and not die that night.
– DrS went outside and asked JS if the ambulance was on its way.
– JS replied ‘no’ that he hasn’t called the ambulance yet.
– DrS called Verwoerd Hospital on his phone but was told to call ‘ER911’ an ambulance center.
– JS called ‘Netcare911’ at 3:28.
– JS handed his phone to DrS to talk and explain the situation to Netcare.
… snipped for space …

The hilarious bit is that Roux used this trickery to both discredit Dr.Stipp as a non-credible/unreliable witness AND bolster the Defence's timeline by shifting the Nhlengethwa’s chronology roughly 10 minutes backwards (i.e. make it so they woke up to the 1st set of bangs, not the 2nd set)

To attempt such a foolish and obvious trickery is quite insulting to Masipa's intelligence, IMO.

 

[liesbeth]

Legal Round Table discussion of the State’s Closing Arguments – David O’Sullivan with Prof Stephen Tuson, Cliff Alexander and Riaan Louw (35mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-states-closing/s-JkbjO

Legal Round Table discussion of the Defence’s Closing Arguments – David O’Sullivan with Prof James Grant, Michael Motsoeneng Bill and Marius Du Toit (30mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-defence-closing/s-RkoDP

Prof James Grant on Channel 199 with David O’ Sullivan after conclusion of Arguments (9mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/james-grant/s-cDpRf

Attorney Tyrone Maseko on Oscar Trial Radio after conclusion of Arguments (18mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/tyrone-maseko/s-llHGA

Criminal Law Expert William Booth on Oscar Trial Radio after conclusion of Arguments (20mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/william-booth/s-opVSS

https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-defence-closing/s-RkoDP

Thank you so much for the links, Giles.

Edit: Not verbatim. A summary.

Legal Round Table Defence Closing: @ about 5:00

Attorney Marius du Toit says that Oscar should not be judged by the normal standards of a reasonable man. He says that not only is Oscar disabled, but his disability resulted in psychological issues like anxiety and vulnerability.

David O'Sullivan asks if he thinks that these traits should then be recognised as part and parcel of the reasonable disabled man.

Du Toit hesitates.

Over to Prof James Grant. He doesn't agree with Du Toit. He quotes case law and says that since the 1930's SA courts have time and time again refused to take disabilities and other subjective factors into account. It sounds unfair, but each and every subjective factor in a person's life can not be taken into account when he commits a crime. He says the 'reasonable man' definition exits for a reason - to protect society.

He later continues to say that if you take too many subjective factors into account you risk constructing a copy of the accused against which you'll measure his reasonability.

Michael Motsoeneng says you have to take certain subjective factors into account, otherwise it is not fair.

Prof Grant says he is correct that it is not fair, but it is the law.

 

[AJ_DS]

https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-defence-closing/s-RkoDP

Thank you so much for the links, Giles.


Legal Round Table Defence Closing: @ about 5:00

Attorney Marius du Toit says that Oscar should not be judged by the normal standards of a reasonable man. He says that not only is Oscar disabled, but his disability resulted in psychological issues like anxiety and vulnerability.

David O'Sullivan asks if he thinks that these traits should then be recognised as part and parcel of the reasonable disabled man.

Du Toit hesitates.

Over to Prof James Grant. He doesn't agree with Du Toit. He quotes case law and says that since the 1930's SA courts have time and time again refused to take disabilities and other subjective factors into account. It sounds unfair, but each and every subjective factor in a person's life can not be taken into account when he commits a crime. He says the 'reasonable man' definition exits for a reason - to protect society.

He later continues to say that if you take too many subjective factors into account you risk constructing a copy of the accused against which you'll measure his reasonability.

Michael Motsoeneng says you have to take certain subjective factors into account, otherwise it is not fair.

Prof Grant says he is correct that it is not fair, but it is the law.

Very interesting… My guess is this will be one of the basis for appeal Roux will use as an error in Law and with the financial support of the Pistorius clan it will be pursued to highest courts of SA.

 

[liesbeth]

Very interesting… My guess is this will one of the basis for appeal Roux will use as an error in Law and with the financial support of the Pistorius clan it will be pursued to highest courts of SA.

Exactly. I never thought of this. You're so right.

 

[Greater Than]

Roux purposefully read out Dr Stipps cell number in a televised trial, they used it to their advantage. Dr Stipp was later inundated with calls from harassers and the like. Well now I've heard Roux basically calling Dr Stipp a liar, I can see why his number was read out. Pretty nasty and underhanded.

Imo, it was Roux and his team who frightened off potential witnesses.

I found Roux untrustworthy and full of empty promises, I certainly wouldn't have signed up with him. I also found his begging and pleading manner during his closing so irritating and unnerving.

Whatever the outcome with regards to the verdict, for some reason I feel that OP will never see the inside of a prison cell. I underestimated the power and influence of his family.

Imo, Gerrie Nel and the state were hobbled from the start, for instance, the phone missing for 11 days with no explanation, items removed from the scene by OP's family members, claims police stole OP's watch, Botha being discredited, sacked and charges reinstated that had initially been dropped, Frank's no show, OP receiving bail with no restrictions, OP cleared in his psych report, there's more but can't think at the moment.
There was frequent poster when I use to lurk here who thought there was some kind of conspiracy and I'm worried he is right.

All my own personal opinion.

BIB - It was actually Mr. Johnson's phone number that Roux read aloud during trial.

 

[Greater Than]

I cannot point out the exact point where Nel calls him a liar. But I do remember it, as I remember clearly seeing My Lady calling Nel out. She scolded him and he was very apologetic.

Nel was questioning OP about the location of the fans, duvet, and jeans. OP maintained that the police had moved them, but Nel got him to admit if the photo was accurate then he lied:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBvvA4cL5Zc

1:22:40
Nel: "If that photograph that we see there, photograph 55, if that is the way it was that morning, your version cannot be true."
OP: "That is correct milady."

1:26:30
Nel: "If that is the way it was on the day, you lied."
OP: "That is correct milady."

Roux then objects saying the photo is deceptive and then he and Nel go a few rounds about it. Just as Nel was about to continue questioning OP, that's when Masipa told Nel he can't call OP a liar:

1:29:15
Masipa: "Before we proceed, please Mr. Nel, mind your language."
Nel: "What did I say milady?"
Masipa: "You don't call a witness a liar. Not while he is in the witness box."
Nel seemed confused but respectfully replied: "As the court pleases."

Nel never uttered the words, "You are a liar."

 

[liesbeth]

BIB - It was actually Mr. Johnson's phone number that Roux read aloud during trial.

You're right. I can't help thinking that if this was a movie it would have been Dr. Stipp's phone number read aloud in court.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Here is one of Roux's purposefully misleading interpretation of the evidence in his closing arguments

Roux's contention is that one should only use objective facts and testimony corroborated by objective facts… on principal, this would seem like a wise approach.

Respectfully snipped by me for space.

This is excellent, Please, please lease: could Judge Masipa and assessors be on the same page!



What do Websleuther's think of Roux's placing OP at the time of the shooting, that he was at the corner near the entrance? Roux questions why would OP be so far back if he intended on shooting Reeva. Roux said OP stood fearfully at the corner.

Wasn't the distance OP fired the shots at the door measured approximately 2 metres?
Isn't the entrance a little way further? I have to admit I haven't seen measurements of the whole bathroom.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

BIB - It was actually Mr. Johnson's phone number that Roux read aloud during trial.

Awww thank you Greater Than, oh dear my memory is a big slack, lol. Sorry Mr Roux.

 

[liesbeth]

https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-defence-closing/s-RkoDP

Thank you again, Giles, for the links.

Legal Round Table Defence Closing: @ about 9:15

The discussion turns to circumstantial evidence and the inferences that can be drawn. (Not verbatim. A summary.)


David O. asks Prof Grant to explain what Barry Roux is saying to the judge when he talks about the reasonable inferences he wants her to draw.

Prof Grant says that it's the prosecution's job to prove its entire case beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition there is S vs Blom that says when you're dealing with circumstantial evidence, the inference drawn must be the only reasonable inference.

Many text book writers say that every single piece of evidence must be measured by S vs Blom. But if you examine S vs Blom you will see that the law does not require every individual piece of evidence to comply with this. It applies to the case as a whole. He says there is solid case law to support this.

The problem with Barry Roux's argument is that he is trying to measure each individual piece of evidence against S vs Blom instead of the big picture.

 

[Mr Fossil]

To attempt such a foolish and obvious trickery is quite insulting to Masipa's intelligence, IMO.

Respectfully snipped for space.

I 100% agree with you. Roux misrepresented Dr Stipp's testimony.

It's a great shame we don't have a copy of the Annexures to the Defence Heads. Annexure A is "Dr Stipp and the Chronology of Events"

 

[AJ_DS]

Nel was questioning OP about the location of the fans, duvet, and jeans. OP maintained that the police had moved them, but Nel got him to admit if the photo was accurate then he lied:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBvvA4cL5Zc

1:22:40
Nel: "If that photograph that we see there, photograph 55, if that is the way it was that morning, your version cannot be true."
OP: "That is correct milady."

1:26:30
Nel: "If that is the way it was on the day, you lied."
OP: "That is correct milady."

Roux then objects saying the photo is deceptive and then he and Nel go a few rounds about it. Just as Nel was about to continue questioning OP, that's when Masipa told Nel he can't call OP a liar:

1:29:15
Masipa: "Before we proceed, please Mr. Nel, mind your language."
Nel: "What did I say milady?"
Masipa: "You don't call a witness a liar. Not while he is in the witness box."
Nel seemed confused but respectfully replied: "As the court pleases."

Nel never uttered the words, "You are a liar."

Thanks for the references…

I wonder what Roux pointed to when he gave a bunch a references to show Nel called OP a liar several times ?

Too bad we do not have access to the official typed court record !!

 

[AJ_DS]

Respectfully snipped for space.

I 100% agree with you. Roux misrepresented Dr Stipp's testimony.

It's a great shame we don't have a copy of the Annexures to the Defence Heads. Annexure A is "Dr Stipp and the Chronology of Events"

I am comforted by the presence of 2 young assessors that will assist Masipa on the facts during deliberations.