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

[patCee]

Simple diagram on decisions judge has to make, and sentencing.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-murder-verdict-decision/

 

[kittychi]

The BIG problem in Roux's closing arguments is that he picked and chose ONLY what suited the Defence…

Every witness and every piece of evidence was an all-dressed pizza BUT the Defence was strictly vegan…

So they carefully picked the uncontaminated peppers and mushrooms discarding the pepperoni, the cheese, the dough and the sauce.

The Defence displays the unappetizing plate of peppers and mushrooms and tell Masipa that this is what a real delicious pizza looks like.

Except, as minor4th pointed out, Nel never addressed the two sets of gun shots that Dr. Stipp testified too. I would like to have heard him cover that, did he in fact think Dr. Stipp really heard the cricket bat the first time, even though he had a military background and should know a gunshot when he hears one.

Am I mistaken that the first set of bangs that Stipp heard were never reconciled by Prosecution re: gun/bat?

 

[AJ_DS]

Except, as minor4th pointed out, Nel never addressed the two sets of gun shots that Dr. Stipp testified too. I would like to have heard him cover that, did he in fact think Dr. Stipp really heard the cricket bat the first time, even though he had a military background and should know a gunshot when he hears one.

Am I mistaken that the first set of bangs that Stipp heard were never reconciled by Prosecution re: gun/bat?

Nel has no obligation to address everything… the cricket bat strikes are not part of the charges.

Nel said that the gunshots occurred at around 3:16AM… and all the evidence points to that… Stipps called security moments after the second set of bangs, etc…

Masipa is not an idiot, she understands that if gunshots were at 3:16AM, the cricket bat was prior to that.

I agree with you, I would have liked Nel to do the same exercise Roux did : make a timeline… but I suspect it wasn't necessary to prove his case.

Roux "forgot" to mention that if Mr and Ms Mike woke up to the first set of bangs as he's contending, they surprisingly and mysteriously did NOT hear the cricket bat strikes at all which occurred a mere 9 meters away from their bedroom window !!!!

 

[foxbluff]

I haven't had the chance to listen to Roux's closing myself yet, but from what I've read here it doesn't look good for the defense.

Roux admits to OP's guilt of the Tasha's incident in the 11th hour during his very last opportunity to address the court, because it was glaringly clear that charge had been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. He probably thought it would look better for OP to finally accept responsibility for something, but I personally think it hurts him at this late stage because the motive is clear, and also proves he lied under oath. OP adamantly denied having his finger on the trigger. Now he admits he obviously did.

Roux argued against murder by seemingly accepting that the court may find him negligent and guilty of CH. I'm astounded that he didn't steadfastly maintain that he was acting in PPD, even though it's common knowledge that firing four rounds into a tiny cubicle through closed door without knowing who is behind it is negligent as hell. Still, if his defense is PPD, Roux should have not blurred the lines by admitting to Masipa she may find him negligent.

Roux tried to explain the DT's reasoning behind not entering scream tests into evidence because after the ear witness testimonies he felt it was unnecessary? Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when they ALL unequivocally said they heard a woman. It was stupid on his part to proclaim to the court in the first place that he would prove he screams like a woman, and then even stupider to not produce the evidence.

Was an affidavit signed by OP's father regarding the ammo submitted in the 11th hour too, as was suggested yesterday?

Maybe I'll change my view once I watch the closing in its entirety, but somehow I doubt it.

I think it's safe to say at this point OP is going to jail.

MOO

I'm running late getting here and have started out with this last current pg. I must need more coffee, because I can't figure out what PPD stands for ????

#1 - BBM - Yes, strange indeed. I, along with many others here, have always believed it was a mistake for the defense not to admit guilt on the Tashes and sunroof gun charges. I seriously doubt that OP pleading NOT guilty to those charges was supported by Roux and team.

Now, at the final hour, OP's finally taking responsible for something!! I wonder if this "late in the game" admission had anything to do with Nel's Closing Arguments driving home how OP never takes responsible for anything... that OP always blames others for his wrong doing ??

 

[liesbeth]

Does anyone know the name of the blond woman who sits directly under the judge and takes notes?

I think her name is Suzette Naude.

 

[liesbeth]

I'm running late getting here and have started out with this last current pg. I must need more coffee, because I can't figure out what PPD stands for ????

#1 - BBM - Yes, strange indeed. I, along with many others here, have always believed it was a mistake for the defense not to admit guilt on the Tashes and sunroof gun charges. I seriously doubt that OP pleading NOT guilty to those charges was supported by Roux and team.

Now, at the final hour, OP's finally taking responsible for something!! I wonder if this "late in the game" admission had anything to do with Nel's Closing Arguments driving home how OP never takes responsible for anything... that OP always blames others for his wrong doing ??

PPD stands for Putative Private Defense.

 

[jassy writer]

According to Sky’s Alex Crawford, Pistorius’ family clearly thought Roux was successful. There was much hugging, smiling and kissing and they were slapping Roux on his back and shaking his hand after the conclusion.

She then had a brief exchange with Arnold Pistorius:

Alex:” How do you think it’s gone?”

Arnold: “It’s like watching a Mercedes car against a Fiat.”

Alex: “Do you think he’s done enough?”

Arnold: “Oh yes, more than enough. I want him (gesturing towards Oscar) back in the Olympics.”

Alex:” Really, do you think that’s possible?”

Arnold:” I flippin’ hope so.”

Ugh! How tastelessly revolting, but at least we get a sense of why some of the Pistorius family behaviour is as it is, with a patriarch like that at its head.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I saw virtually none of today in court. Roux's whining caused me to switch off both TV and Audio. I did pop in here to catch up but I haven't seen anything about the number of times Nel was accused by Roux of calling OP a liar. Roux intimated he was going to bring up the issue today and quoted many pages where he said Nel called OP a liar. Did Roux bring the issue up, anyone? As far as I am aware Nel never said liar, only lying on one occasion. I am sure I heard Roux say exactly that to the earwitnesses when he was cross examining.

 

[geevee]

For the first time and only today, we finally hear first-hand the defence. The firing of four shots was an involuntary reflex in response to the noise.

Roux said it was a startle/exaggerated startle/exaggerated fight and it was supported by expert evidence of Derman and Scholtz.

This was not the evidence of these witnesses however. Nowhere did they ever claim the firing was involuntary, and they in fact contradicted it (Scholz found OP was able to act in accordance with right or wrong, ie voluntarily, and Derman said you had to ask OP why he fired not him).

There is gross misrepresentation also of what a startle response is. It is a very brief, involuntary, bilateral and symmetrical (both sides of body at same time) reflex. It's components can include a blink, a flinch and stiffening of the neck or shoulder muscles, or a whole-body response of both arms, legs and torso - in humans the latter is a primitive reflex of new borns that disappears. It is observed in rodents, mammals, birds, fish. The studies Derman talked about, electrodes measure the tiny variation in duration and intensity of blinks - this is the measured exaggerated startle in research. A startle response can never, ever comprise the firing of a gun - this is simple fact of the science. Although he did not (deliberately?) make it clear, Derman did in the end define startle response as a blink or contraction of neck/shoulder/back muscles (I can't remember exactly - I hope to find that portion).

A startle response commonly leads to a stress or neuro endocrine/adrenaline response (various names inc fight or flight). The physiological changes of the body are indeed involuntary. But the behavioural positive actions are voluntary (as we know from our own experience). They are not a reflex. Therefore, still - the firing of a gun cannot (and has not) be said to be, scientifically and from an expert viewpoint, an involuntary reflex.

In the UK, if a doctor allowed expert evidence to be used in this way, he would certainly face a hearing with a view to be struck off.

Nel began yesterday with brilliant points. OPs own evidence of thinking what the sound was and meant- after the noise before firing - and that this thought not the noise caused him to fire - makes the defence impossible.

His further point about sitting on 2 chairs at once - wanting the mutually exclusive defence of putative self defence as a backup was also spot on.

I just had a heck of a toilet-room startle response, was cleaning the bathroom, left to get a fresh towel and when I returned the back of the toilet was overflowing - I didn't get a gun and shoot it though! Just towels to clean up the water.

Really, I just wanted to say thanks for your terrific posts Pandax, they're always such a good, intelligent read.

 

[lithgow1]

Don't know much about Vick but wasn't OJ Simpson pretty much a pariah after the trial with just a few exceptions? And I do feel that this case is somewhat different in that the vast majority seem to believe Pistorius is guilty. You may be right but I feel he will be more a liability than a drawcard to any sporting organisation willing to invite him to compete. Anyway, I'm still confident that by the time he next gets on a running track he'll be way too old to compete - I think that even if the judge cannot go further than CH she'll give him the maximum penalty for that and I still hold out quite a bit of hope that he will be found guilty of murder at least in terms of his perceived intruder if she believes his version.

 

[lithgow1]

Simple diagram on decisions judge has to make, and sentencing.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-murder-verdict-decision/

I don't quite get that diagram - if Pistorius believed there was an intruder can't he still be convicted of murder for deliberately shooting to kill said intruder when they posed no immediate threat? The right-hand side makes no sense to me either - if he didn't believe there was an intruder then it can only have been RS so shooting her would have to be premeditated wouldn't it?

 

[Greater Than]

Can you imagine what he will be like if he gets away with murder? He will be even more insufferable and I feel fairly sure, given the run ins he has with various people, that there will be many more incidents like those we have read about in the past. With OP's history, how Roux can say OP backs away from confrontation is gobsmackingly mindboggling and how a lawyer can tell so many barefaced lies is beyond me. OP courts danger, causes conflict, is arrogant and is a thoroughly selfish guy to boot. Trouble will follow him around. I can see tantrums and fights galore when he is shunned by huge swathes of SA and world figures. If Masipa lets him go she will have a lot to answer for.

I have absolutely no doubt that if by some unlikely chance he walks away from this that he will get himself into trouble again. Just like OJ, who is currently rotting away in a Las Vegas prison.

 

[Giles]

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

 

[patCee]

My sense of it is that the left side is about that old 'chestnut' reasonableness again. If he really believed there was an intruder was his reaction reasonable? The judge has to consider this. Clearly it was not reasonable in this case as he fired 4 shots. On the right side yes, if he didn't believe it was an intruder, then he knew it was RS. Premeditated speaks for itself, did he plan to shoot her, even in the seconds before he shot, or was pulling the trigger an impulsive, spur of the moment decision. The judge has to decide on the evidence what the process was for OP.

This is answer to Lithgow 1, but the reply to post didn't work, Grrrr1

 

[lithgow1]

My sense of it is that the left side is about that old 'chestnut' reasonableness again. If he really believed there was an intruder was his reaction reasonable? The judge has to consider this. Clearly it was not reasonable in this case as he fired 4 shots. On the right side yes, if he didn't believe it was an intruder, then he knew it was RS. Premeditated speaks for itself, did he plan to shoot her, even in the seconds before he shot, or was pulling the trigger an impulsive, spur of the moment decision. The judge has to decide on the evidence what the process was for OP.

This is answer to Lithgow 1, but the reply to post didn't work, Grrrr1

No worries PatCee - I figured out it was for me. Re the premeditated, if he knew it was her and they ended up in a situation where she was on one side of a door and he on the other, with a gun (!), then how could it not be premeditated? Only way I can see that would be had he said he knew it was her and he wanted to frighten her, stop her leaving, whatever, but never intended to actually shoot her - which the four shots would seem to totally nullify.

 

[Greater Than]

I'm running late getting here and have started out with this last current pg. I must need more coffee, because I can't figure out what PPD stands for ????

#1 - BBM - Yes, strange indeed. I, along with many others here, have always believed it was a mistake for the defense not to admit guilt on the Tashes and sunroof gun charges. I seriously doubt that OP pleading NOT guilty to those charges was supported by Roux and team.

Now, at the final hour, OP's finally taking responsible for something!! I wonder if this "late in the game" admission had anything to do with Nel's Closing Arguments driving home how OP never takes responsible for anything... that OP always blames others for his wrong doing ??

PPD is putative private defense.

BIB - OP's testimony fit perfectly with the portrait Nel had been painting of him..that he doesn't take responsibility for anything. Roux's reaction of covering his face with his hands when OP was on the stand tells me OP went off the rails of his rehearsed responses onto his own path of self destruction. Roux attempted to make excuses for it today by saying his ability to give evidence was compromised by his depressive state, but the fact of the matter is OP was not required by law to testify. Since this is a prima facile case he would've been found guilty had he not given evidence, but he still had the legal right to remain silent. Then after he destroyed his own defense by doing so, Roux asks milady to take his depressive state of mind into account when she considers his evidence during deliberations. What a joke. OP singlehandedly convicted himself at a minimum of CH with his own testimony. Roux knows it, and basically conceded as such this morning.

 

[foxbluff]

I just had a heck of a toilet-room startle response, was cleaning the bathroom, left to get a fresh towel and when I returned the back of the toilet was overflowing - I didn't get a gun and shoot it though! Just towels to clean up the water.

Really, I just wanted to say thanks for your terrific posts Pandax, they're always such a good, intelligent read.

BBM - I second that !!

Now, geevee, about being startled to return to your bathroom to find the toilet bowl overflowing...hmm... perhaps you should have grabbed your gun and looked in the shower and linen closet to make sure an intruder hadn't entered your home to use the bathroom!! LOL

Just jumping off geevee's post here:
I, also, want to thank WilliamMunter and nominate him the MVP of the week! I love original documents so the link for Roux's Bail Hearing Heads of argument and the link to the affidavits of Divaris, "Sam," OP's cousin Binge, and friend Alex Pilakoutas alone were really good contibutions. (Both of those links can be found at Thread#48 - Pg.#47 - Post#1166) Then adding "icing to the cake" those links were followed by timely info on Heads of Argument, etc. Thank you, WilliamMunter!

 

[Greater Than]

I saw virtually none of today in court. Roux's whining caused me to switch off both TV and Audio. I did pop in here to catch up but I haven't seen anything about the number of times Nel was accused by Roux of calling OP a liar. Roux intimated he was going to bring up the issue today and quoted many pages where he said Nel called OP a liar. Did Roux bring the issue up, anyone? As far as I am aware Nel never said liar, only lying on one occasion. I am sure I heard Roux say exactly that to the earwitnesses when he was cross examining.

You're right, Nel did not say the words "you are a liar." He certainly implied it, and he definitely said "your version is a lie," but he did not outwardly use the term liar. I remember after Nel told OP his version is a lie, milady interrupted and told Nel to watch his language and that he can't call the accused a liar when he's in the witness box. I think Roux just took her scolding and ran with it to hold against the PT.

 

[seattlechiquita]

You're right, Nel did not say the words "you are a liar." He certainly implied it, and he definitely said "your version is a lie," but he did not outwardly use the term liar. I remember after Nel told OP his version is a lie, milady interrupted and told Nel to watch his language and that he can't call the accused a liar when he's in the witness box. I think Roux just took her scolding and ran with it to hold against the PT.

I remember that.

 

[patCee]

No worries PatCee - I figured out it was for me. Re the premeditated, if he knew it was her and they ended up in a situation where she was on one side of a door and he on the other, with a gun (!), then how could it not be premeditated? Only way I can see that would be had he said he knew it was her and he wanted to frighten her, stop her leaving, whatever, but never intended to actually shoot her - which the four shots would seem to totally nullify.

If he knew it was her (I think he did) and there had been a row, and he fired at her in temper in the heat of the moment, would you still think that was premeditated? Again in his case I think he fired with cold determination.