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

[Lux et Veritas]

OP will forever be known as the first murder defendant in history to present the All-You-Can-Eat-Buffet Defense - the Judge just chooses which looks tastiest.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Miss_Diddy™ @Miss_Diddy Aug 19
@cheryldavy @welshmanabroad Hiding behind Christianity & prayers...the whole family is poison.

 

[Lyra500]

I find it absolutely gob-smacking that people are still talking about not guilty verdicts as if they think a reasonable outcome would be for OP to walk free from court.

At the very, very least he is going to be found guilty of culpable homicide. That means guilty of killing someone carelessly, as if their life meant nothing. Even if that was all he had done, he would be worthy of nothing but contempt. I believe he did so much more.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I thought we had established that if OP acted in a way which he knew was lethal knowing that a human being (any human being) was in the toilet stall, then that is murder. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that he was under threat at the time he fired the gun four times. Nothing.

Precisely what are people expecting him to be found not guilty of?

Whether it turns out to be premeditated or CH, he is still guilty of murder. He took someone else's life.

 

[liesbeth]

It looks as if some people think that Nel's "Baker's Dozen" is his closing argument. It's not.

Nel's argument is that Oscar is an unreliable witness and his testimony should be rejected. Nel argues that without OP's testimony the objective facts will show that Oscar murdered Reeva. For this purpose Nel highlights a "baker's dozen" inconsistencies in Oscar's testimony. He says there are many more, but these will do...the zombie stopper, the fans, the balcony, etc. All show that Oscar was adapting his version and that his testimony should not be trusted. Nel also argues that should the court accept Oscar's version, he is still guilty of murder because he intended to kill a human being.

I am stating the obvious, I know. But it also looks as if some people think Nel's closing argument is the state's whole case. It's not. It is an outline of the state's case. The purpose is to help the judge see how the state wants her to interpret all the evidence presented during the trial.

 

[katydid23]

This is my first post. I'm a long time lurker, and have watched the trial throughout.

At the beginning, I was certain that OP was guilty of pre-meditated murder. Surely his account of what had happened was implausible.


.......Respectfully snipped for space...

I suspect (having read other similar posts on this forum) that this post won't be popular. I am not a Roux/OP apologist. I think OP is a nasty piece of work, and should go to prison for his reckless shooting. However, I do not think he is guilty of pre-med murder, and I am sure that he will not be found guilty by the Judge.

:fireworks: :welcome: to WS. Great first post. I am afraid that you might be correct.

 

[Exchange973]

It looks as if some people think that Nel's "Baker's Dozen" is his closing argument. It's not.

Nel's argument is that Oscar is an unreliable witness and his testimony should be rejected. Nel argues that without OP's testimony the objective facts will show that Oscar murdered Reeva. For this purpose Nel highlights a "baker's dozen" inconsistencies in Oscar's testimony. He says there are many more, but these will do...the zombie stopper, the fans, the balcony, etc. All show that Oscar was adapting his version and that his testimony should not be trusted. Nel also argues that should the court accept Oscar's version, he is still guilty of murder because he intended to kill a human being.

I am stating the obvious, I know. But it also looks as if some people think Nel's closing argument is the state's whole case. It's not. It is an outline of the state's case. The purpose is to help the judge see how the state wants her to interpret all the evidence presented during the trial.

Yes, the baker's dozen isn't the states' whole case. But at the same time the states' case relies heavily on showing OP lied.

OP will be found guilty at least of CH (and rightly so).

But for those who think he deliberately killed Reeva, and that those screams were her screams, let me ask this question, because everyone seems to be ignoring it: how on earth could OP have done everything that it is not in dispute that he did (run back and forth between bathroom and bedroom, go to balcony, call out for help, put on legs, smash down the door etc etc) in the space of 2 minutes?

Everyone from Nel onwards has ignored this question. The judge won't.

 

[AJ_DS]

This is my first post. I'm a long time lurker, and have watched the trial throughout.

At the beginning, I was certain that OP was guilty of pre-meditated murder. Surely his account of what had happened was implausible.

I have to say though, that having followed the evidence I do not think that he is guilty of pre-med. That is not to say that he hasn't acted unreasonably/unlawfully and is (in my view) guilty of culpable homicide. But I do not think that he believed Reeva was behind that door and intended to kill her.

I also have to say that, as a barrister with some knowledge of how criminal trials work, I am 95% sure that the Judge will not find him guilty.

The key to this case is the state pinning the shots at 3:17 and the first phone call being 2 minutes later. There simply is not enough time for OP to have done everything that (it is not in dispute) that he did do in those 2 minutes.

It was this reason that the Judge asked if the phone records are common cause (IMO). She will use them, and Roux's analysis of the implausibility of the Prosecution's timeline, to find OP not guilty.

There is also the question of the completely unexplained 1st shots. It is correct that the prosecution do not need to explain every detail - but this is an absolutely crucial detail. This is because the defence say that these were the shots. The failure to Nel to explain what they were provides more than ample reasonable doubt. And what about the "help help help" heard by the earwitnesses - why on earth would OP say that before killing Reeva. It is entirely consistent with his account that this happened after the shots and the witnesses heard him screaming for help at this point.

All of this amounts in my view to reasonable doubt. In fact considerably more than reasonable doubt; there isn't enough to convict even of the balance of probabilities. The burden and level of proof is important. The Judge will not forget it, and I'm afraid it will lead to a not guilty verdict.

And, for me, in the background, I struggle to believe that OP could have been so level headed to make up the intruder defence within 5 minutes of shooting Reeva, and then to provide a detailed account at the bail hearing which has not been contradicted in any material sense by the numerous earwitnesses.

I was curious to read that everyone thinks Roux's closing was poor. I thought it was a masterpiece and very convincing. The reality is that it was Nel's closing that was poor. His bakers dozen were not even his strongest points. The Zombie stopper - who on earth will find that OP lied on that, it was so out of left field that of course he was initially confused. As for the difference between talking softly and whispering - there is no material difference.

Nel should have focussed on the screams and how certain Burger et al were that it was a women, and that they heard a woman and a man together. I'm surprised that he didn't. Nel needed to provide a chronology in his closing - he needed to pull everything together, and he didn't.

I suspect (having read other similar posts on this forum) that this post won't be popular. I am not a Roux/OP apologist. I think OP is a nasty piece of work, and should go to prison for his reckless shooting. However, I do not think he is guilty of pre-med murder, and I am sure that he will not be found guilty by the Judge.

1. What exactly did OP have to do between the gunshots at 3:16AM (according to detailed billing of security phone) and his first call (Stander) at 3:19AM… in that 3 minutes ?

2. Why would Nel have to explain the cricket bat shots ??… the one who tried to do so and failed miserably is Roux : in his timeline, the Nhlengethwa’s never heard the cricket bat shots even though they were awake, alert and 9 meters away from the open bathroom window !!!… plus they heard much softer sounds during that time such as OP braying.

3. Don't see why this would be unusual for someone trying to create the illusion of the mistaken identity story.

4. As for the cover-up fabricated story… you heard all the evidence… the events happened more than a year ago… what better story can you come up with having the benefit of hindsight ?… or even different story can you provide ?

5. The reason Nel stayed away from a chronology/timeline is because he would have had to enter much speculation into his closing arguments which were unnecessary for a murder conviction. Exemple : why would Nel speculate on the broken bedroom door and try and try to fit it into a scenario… not necessary.

 

[soozieqtips]

And, for me, in the background, I struggle to believe that OP could have been so level headed to make up the intruder defence within 5 minutes of shooting Reeva, and then to provide a detailed account at the bail hearing which has not been contradicted in any material sense by the numerous earwitnesses.

~snipped~

Hi there, and welcome to WS.

I don't think OP had any trouble thinking quickly on his feet (pardon the pun). He was level headed enough to phone a friend to ask for help with lifting Reeva, even before he'd rung Netcare to be told (according to him) to bring her to hospital. He delayed getting medical assistance for her, which is one of the things I find very hard to understand. Also, he didn't have to come up with a detailed account for 5 days, plenty of time for him to pad out his very brief "I thought she was an intruder" fairytale. He conveniently left out quite a lot from his affidavit, adding much more detail once he knew what ear witnesses had heard. For example, he never once mentioned how he'd screamed like he'd 'never screamed' before. He couldn't be certain who had heard what (some people heard nothing, for example). He knew he was adding significant detail that was missing from his affidavit, and when Nel questioned him on it, OP naturally blamed his DT.

I disagree that not enough has been done to prove OP is guilty of murder. The very fact he armed himself and then shot 4 bullets through a closed toilet door knowing he was going to kill the person behind that door makes him guilty of murder. And with no GAD diagnosis, he really doesn't have any reasonable excuse for what he did, despite him pulling the anxious and vulnerable card whenever he could. Most altercations he's been part of have been initiated by him.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Ah ... I see what Roux’s doing, the smarmy marmot.

Scrambled to have Daddy Pistorius belatedly take the rap for the .38 ammo (omgwtfseriously? Lol) + have Baby Boy Pistorius bravely admit “negligence” for the Tasha’s shooting - all in the wildly desperate hope that once My Lady sees how contrite Oscar is, how he’s finally manned up, has plead “guilt” on this gun charge, she will be moved by admiration and pity to acquit him of MURDER and CH. Who could possibly send such an honest, heroic boy to prison? Why, the dear angel could never have shot FOUR Black Talons into a screaming, terrified, trapped woman!

[Oscar smiles sweetly here and bats his innocent eyes: “I’m really busy tweeting more sappy, sanctimonious Bible-tweets ... and furiously planning a lavish private getaway to the Mozambique coast on tripadvisor.com and whatsapp’ing some blonde chick named Keleavia, who says she’s the Head Cheerleader of the We Luv U Oscar! Fan Club. Awesome. But, she’s SO gonna have to get rid of those cheezy, annoying white balloons - totally not good for the Oscar brand and well, they just terrify me when they pop. Hell, if things really go south (I have thrown EVERYONE but God under the bus, haven't I?), I may just STAY in Mozambique with Bambi or Summer or Kaleesa or whatever the F her name is, I don’t remember! You can't make me!”]

Oh, hell, NO!

I believe My Lady will clearly see that Oscar Pistorius is now officially a f##king documented LIAR.

He LIED about Tasha's - why wouldn't he LIE about Feb. 14 - far more serious?

His perjured testimony should be stricken from the record in its entirety.

Then what’s left?

Nel.

Remember - The Bull Dog took down Jackie Selebi, ex-National Commissioner of South African Police Services and ex-President of INTERPOL. If he can bring down big game like Selebi, a pathetic weasel like Oscar doesn’t stand a chance.

(Wonder if Össur makes Cheetah Flex-Foot in prison orange? )

 

[AJ_DS]

Yes, the baker's dozen isn't the states' whole case. But at the same time the states' case relies heavily on showing OP lied.

OP will be found guilty at least of CH (and rightly so).

But for those who think he deliberately killed Reeva, and that those screams were her screams, let me ask this question, because everyone seems to be ignoring it: how on earth could OP have done everything that it is not in dispute that he did (run back and forth between bathroom and bedroom, go to balcony, call out for help, put on legs, smash down the door etc etc) in the space of 2 minutes?

Everyone from Nel onwards has ignored this question. The judge won't.

OP going out onto the balcony to shout Help Help Help is NOT common cause evidence.

The toilet door had already been cracked with the first shots heard (cricket bat)… OP finished the job after the gunshots with a kick and the prying out of the panel.

Not 2 minutes… 3 minutes

You seem to enjoy lapses of time… In OP's version what on earth did OP do between around 3:05AM (gunshots) and 3:16AM (cricket bat)… that's around 11 minutes of searching for Reeva in the pitch-dark bedroom screaming his head off with a man's and woman's voice ?????

 

[Exchange973]

~snipped~

Hi there, and welcome to WS.

I don't think OP had any trouble thinking quickly on his feet (pardon the pun). He was level headed enough to phone a friend to ask for help with lifting Reeva, even before he'd rung Netcare to be told (according to him) to bring her to hospital. He delayed getting medical assistance for her, which is one of the things I find very hard to understand. Also, he didn't have to come up with a detailed account for 5 days, plenty of time for him to pad out his very brief "I thought she was an intruder" fairytale. He conveniently left out quite a lot from his affidavit, adding much more detail once he knew what ear witnesses had heard. For example, he never once mentioned how he'd screamed like he'd 'never screamed' before. He couldn't be certain who had heard what (some people heard nothing, for example). He knew he was adding significant detail that was missing from his affidavit, and when Nel questioned him on it, OP naturally blamed his DT.

I disagree that not enough has been done to prove OP is guilty of murder. The very fact he armed himself and then shot 4 bullets through a closed toilet door knowing he was going to kill the person behind that door makes him guilty of murder. And with no GAD diagnosis, he really doesn't have any reasonable excuse for what he did, despite him pulling the anxious and vulnerable card whenever he could. Most altercations he's been part of have been initiated by him.

I agree with you on the screaming being added being suspicious. Which is why I can't understand why Nel didn't focus on it in his closing. But what's important to remember is the beyond reasonable doubt test. There is reasonable doubt that OP could have done all that in 2/3 minutes. There is reasonable doubt as to who was screaming IMO because (i) the state doesn't account for the first noises (ii) no-one heard the cricket bat noises after 3:17. This is enough to deal with pre-med.

For these reasons, the Judge cannot find him guilty of intending to kill reeva (as for other murder charges, those are still likely IMO).

 

[Suthrnqt]

O/T Alert

@liesbeth...every time I see your nickname/moniker it reminds me of the great film noir actress Lizabeth Scott.
Anyhoo, since you are in Africa (I think I got that right) what is the prevailing opinion there on OP's guilt or innocence? I mean the average Joe's or Jane's take, not the talking heads or any of the countless legal eagles. TIA

 

[AJ_DS]

I agree with you on the screaming being added being suspicious. Which is why I can't understand why Nel didn't focus on it in his closing. But what's important to remember is the beyond reasonable doubt test. There is reasonable doubt that OP could have done all that in 2/3 minutes. There is reasonable doubt as to who was screaming IMO because (i) the state doesn't account for the first noises (ii) no-one heard the cricket bat noises after 3:17. This is enough to deal with pre-med.

For these reasons, the Judge cannot find him guilty of intending to kill reeva (as for other murder charges, those are still likely IMO).

BIB… really ??… how about they were the 3 shots heard at around 3:05AM ?????

 

[Exchange973]

~snipped~

Hi there, and welcome to WS.

I don't think OP had any trouble thinking quickly on his feet (pardon the pun). He was level headed enough to phone a friend to ask for help with lifting Reeva, even before he'd rung Netcare to be told (according to him) to bring her to hospital. He delayed getting medical assistance for her, which is one of the things I find very hard to understand. Also, he didn't have to come up with a detailed account for 5 days, plenty of time for him to pad out his very brief "I thought she was an intruder" fairytale. He conveniently left out quite a lot from his affidavit, adding much more detail once he knew what ear witnesses had heard. For example, he never once mentioned how he'd screamed like he'd 'never screamed' before. He couldn't be certain who had heard what (some people heard nothing, for example). He knew he was adding significant detail that was missing from his affidavit, and when Nel questioned him on it, OP naturally blamed his DT.

I disagree that not enough has been done to prove OP is guilty of murder. The very fact he armed himself and then shot 4 bullets through a closed toilet door knowing he was going to kill the person behind that door makes him guilty of murder. And with no GAD diagnosis, he really doesn't have any reasonable excuse for what he did, despite him pulling the anxious and vulnerable card whenever he could. Most altercations he's been part of have been initiated by him.

True - but everyone accepts that he was distraught when they arrived. He immediately said that he thought she was an intruder. I find this surprising. I have to ask myself - if I was the judge, can I be confident so I that I am sure that he intended to kill Reeva. No, I simply can't - there is too much doubt. There is no clear piece of evidence that points to his certain guilt. Every piece of evidence has an explanation. Some better and more convincing than others - but all enough to create doubt.

 

[Exchange973]

BIB… really ??… how about they were the 3 shots heard at around 3:05AM ?????

It is common ground that the door was knocked down after the shots. People must have heard this. Anyway, the way you are putting it is not how the state put it (and what the judge is bound to make her judgement on)

 

[AJ_DS]

True - but everyone accepts that he was distraught when they arrived. He immediately said that he thought she was an intruder. I find this surprising. I have to ask myself - if I was the judge, can I be confident so I that I am sure that he intended to kill Reeva. No, I simply can't - there is too much doubt. There is no clear piece of evidence that points to his certain guilt. Every piece of evidence has an explanation. Some better and more convincing than others - but all enough to create doubt.

Well most people are convinced…

Reasonable doubt cannot be generated with explanations that do not make any sense.

 

[AJ_DS]

It is common ground that the door was knocked down after the shots. People must have heard this. Anyway, the way you are putting it is not how the state put it (and what the judge is bound to make her judgement on)

Nope…

Common cause evidence that the door panel was torn out of the door after the gunshots… that's it

 

[AJ_DS]

I do find odd to say the least that someone would be a self-proclaimed long time lurker decided to create an account the very next day after closing arguments concluded… especially when the content of the posts could have been made long ago AND they seem quite familiar somehow…

 

[Suthrnqt]

This is my first post. I'm a long time lurker, and have watched the trial throughout.

At the beginning, I was certain that OP was guilty of pre-meditated murder. Surely his account of what had happened was implausible.

I have to say though, that having followed the evidence I do not think that he is guilty of pre-med. That is not to say that he hasn't acted unreasonably/unlawfully and is (in my view) guilty of culpable homicide. But I do not think that he believed Reeva was behind that door and intended to kill her.

I also have to say that, as a barrister with some knowledge of how criminal trials work, I am 95% sure that the Judge will not find him guilty.

The key to this case is the state pinning the shots at 3:17 and the first phone call being 2 minutes later. There simply is not enough time for OP to have done everything that (it is not in dispute) that he did do in those 2 minutes.

It was this reason that the Judge asked if the phone records are common cause (IMO). She will use them, and Roux's analysis of the implausibility of the Prosecution's timeline, to find OP not guilty.

There is also the question of the completely unexplained 1st shots. It is correct that the prosecution do not need to explain every detail - but this is an absolutely crucial detail. This is because the defence say that these were the shots. The failure to Nel to explain what they were provides more than ample reasonable doubt. And what about the "help help help" heard by the earwitnesses - why on earth would OP say that before killing Reeva. It is entirely consistent with his account that this happened after the shots and the witnesses heard him screaming for help at this point.

All of this amounts in my view to reasonable doubt. In fact considerably more than reasonable doubt; there isn't enough to convict even of the balance of probabilities. The burden and level of proof is important. The Judge will not forget it, and I'm afraid it will lead to a not guilty verdict.

And, for me, in the background, I struggle to believe that OP could have been so level headed to make up the intruder defence within 5 minutes of shooting Reeva, and then to provide a detailed account at the bail hearing which has not been contradicted in any material sense by the numerous earwitnesses.

I was curious to read that everyone thinks Roux's closing was poor. I thought it was a masterpiece and very convincing. The reality is that it was Nel's closing that was poor. His bakers dozen were not even his strongest points. The Zombie stopper - who on earth will find that OP lied on that, it was so out of left field that of course he was initially confused. As for the difference between talking softly and whispering - there is no material difference.

Nel should have focussed on the screams and how certain Burger et al were that it was a women, and that they heard a woman and a man together. I'm surprised that he didn't. Nel needed to provide a chronology in his closing - he needed to pull everything together, and he didn't.

I suspect (having read other similar posts on this forum) that this post won't be popular. I am not a Roux/OP apologist. I think OP is a nasty piece of work, and should go to prison for his reckless shooting. However, I do not think he is guilty of pre-med murder, and I am sure that he will not be found guilty by the Judge.

:welcome4: :wagon: arty:

OP knew exactly what a zombie stopper was, he just couldn't believe Nel found that little nugget.

 

[AJ_DS]

:welcome4: :wagon: arty:

OP knew exactly what a zombie stopper was, he just couldn't believe Nel found that little nugget.

NOT only had OP heard the term "zombie stopper" before, he knew what it meant, he knew how to use it correctly in a sentence… and he was recorded saying it spontaneously in excitement.

It was simply brilliant of Nel… the first words out of OP's mouth under cross-examination were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a lie under oath !!!

:hilarious:

… on something completely unrelated to any of the criminal charges.

OP was proven to have lied under oath simply to protect his image.

:doh: