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

[Mr Fossil]

The Nhlengethwas sleep right through everything until the last bang. He calls security at 03:16:15 (doesn't go through) and 03:16:36 (44 secs). Common cause for both calls from the phone records. They are close by and yet don't hear all of the second set of 'shots', just the last one. Therefore it's perfectly plausible that they don't hear the first set or the screaming either. What you don't hear doesn't prove anything if your windows are shut, your air con is on and/or you're a sound sleeper. This timing allows for the gun shots to be the shots that they heard and that they were at about 03:15, corroborating the Stipps timing.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Both the Stipps and the Nhlengethwas testimony support a time of 03:15-ish for the gunshots. Nel only says "shots fired in the region of 03:17" in his Heads of Argument. My problem now is the Johnson timeline ...

 

[AJ_DS]

Both the Stipps and the Nhlengethwas testimony support a time of 03:15-ish for the gunshots. Nel only says "shots fired in the region of 03:17" in his Heads of Argument. My problem now is the Johnson timeline ...

What problem ??

 

[Mr Fossil]

What problem ??

The Johnson call is allegedly at 03:16 (58 seconds, to the wrong security) and he hears 'gunshots' moments later. This is in line with 03:17 not 03:15. Roux's Heads refer to Exhibit N and the telephone record but as I recollect this time was given by Johnson himself and I wasn't aware the telephone record had been handed in. Off to check ...

 

[Exchange973]

BiB… unfortunately for you, Masipa will not do so.

Masipa will NOT reconstruct a timeline of events step by step… she will address OP's version in broad strokes only…

1. She will state which elements of OP's version are critically irreconcilable with other evidence

2. She will state her assessment of the credibility and reliability of said evidence… taking into account corroborating factors

3. She will state her assessment of OP's credibility and reliability… on all matters, i.e. all the 4 charges and things like the zombie stopper.

4. Considering these 3 points, she will conclude whether OP's version is credible or not… if deemed not credible, all of his version of events goes down the toilet.

5. What remains is the State's version

But that's exactly it: what elements of OPs are critically irreconcilable. Only two: 1) the screaming 2) the light being on in the bathroom.

As for the 1st, OP has an explanation. The state's version is not the only inference that can be reasonably made from the facts.

As for the 2nd, there was inconsistent evidence between the stipps as to whether (and which) light was on.

These are the only two pieces of evidence that directly call OP's account into question. IMO there is enough doubt about both not to find pre-med.

 

[Exchange973]

Dr Stipp testifies that he was woken by 3 loud bangs. He then heard a female screaming. He tried to call security and 10111 but neither call got through. He then heard a second set of shots. His next attempt to call security gets through and was placed at 03:15:51 and lasted 16 seconds. This is common cause. This places the shots at about 03:15. Roux says his wife states the time is 03:17 on the clock but Roux omits to add that she also said their clock is about 3 minutes fast. Anyway, this would imply OP had a little longer to pull the panel out of the toilet door, get the key and open the door. Stipp hears a man's voice shouting 'help, help, help' before security arrive at his house, then sees someone moving from right to left in the bathroom after they leave.

State has accepted in terms (rightly or wrongly) that shooting was at 3:17

 

[Val1]

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.

Thanks, I would just like to add that imo, those subjective factors are exactly why there is an opportunity in most systems to make an appeal at sentencing time, which is why you will occasionally find murderers, sex offenders, etc. walking the streets on probation and/or house arrest after only serving whatever jail time it took to get them to their sentencing. That I believe is what OP was hoping for should he be found guilty, a slap on the wrist so to speak because he can cry/vomit on command and has so little conscience about it that he was able to stare down at RS's parents in court on the last day, as if it was all their fault...

http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Pistorius-trial-defense-alleges-police-tampering-5676211.php#photo-6699906

 

[liesbeth]

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

snipped for space and with respect

I have two words for you, Lux. Marry me?

 

[Mr Fossil]

State has accepted in terms (rightly or wrongly) that shooting was at 3:17

Not quite. Nel uses the expression "in the region of" 03:17.

 

[liesbeth]

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2014/03/13/oscar-trial-expert-can-t-fix-sequence-of-shots-bashing

Just a quick FYI...BritsKate provided this link in another thread. The sequence of shots/bat were never common cause.

 

[AJ_DS]

The Johnson call is allegedly at 03:16 (58 seconds, to the wrong security) and he hears 'gunshots' moments later. This is in line with 03:17 not 03:15. Roux's Heads refer to Exhibit N and the telephone record but as I recollect this time was given by Johnson himself and I wasn't aware the telephone record had been handed in. Off to check ...

Hehe… common misconception… let me elaborate :

- Johnson stated that he does NOT remember if 3:16 is the beginning of the call or the end of the call

- 3:16 does NOT come from cellular service provider servers (detailed billing)… it comes from the phone itself… so dependent on the time set on the phone itself

- The culminating moment of the night's event for Johnson and burger is the bloodcurdling screams followed by the gunshots… this would be the event which "anal" Johnson would want to pin point the time… since this occurred seconds after Johnson ended his call, it makes sense that he would write in his document the call's end time… the call's start time is not important or relevant because it does not reveal or pin point anything specific.

… considering any of these 3 points separately or as an ensemble, one can see there is no contradiction with the between 3:15 and 3:16 for the gunshots.

 

[44ALLAN]

Exactly what Nel did yesterday - attack the defense rather than prove their own case.

I agree with you to a certain extent.
I don't think Nel needs to argue his case anymore and definitely not by discrediting the defence.

In a game of poker..............Nel already has a full house................5 witnesses to Reeva screaming for her life.
The rest ( bat strikes/gun shots/distance away/curtains in the way/light on) really are all academic.

OP executed her quite simply no doubt about it..................Roux is muddying the waters as he must.
As a lawyer I'm surprised/nay astounded you cannot see this?

Not once has the defence refuted the ear witness testimony of the 5 witnesses with concrete evidence they didn't hear what they heard.

Are you honestly telling me the judge and her 2 assessors are going to rule that ear testimony out?

Forget about the rest of the evidence.................Nel knows this is the crucial piece of the jigsaw and has left 'well alone' pieces that would only fog the issue..................jeans outside bathroom window in garden/damage to bedroom door/pellet hole through bedroom door/smashed bath panel etc etc.
AIMVOHOOC

 

[Exchange973]

Not quite. Nel uses the expression "in the region of" 03:17.

True - either way, it doesn't leave much time after. And it gives OP an alternative explanation for the screams.

As for the "help help help" supposedly uttered (edit: "screamed") by OP BEFORE the shots, I'd like to hear the explanation for that?

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Carl Pistorius @carlpistorius
Retweeted by Carl Pistorius
TED @NotLovelyTED  10 Apr 2013
rich people stay rich by living like they're broke. broke people stay broke by living like they're rich.


A peek into the Pistorius family philosophy? Yes, I believe they are just this arrogant.

Somehow I don’t think any Pistorius lives like he’s broke. omglol (Read Carl Pistorius twitter account - the “decadent” ‘food *advertiser censored*’ photos, expensive eateries and exotic travels alone are real eye openers. IMHO, it’s a rather frightening mix of Forbes/World Bank/Fortune Magazine + a never-ending, hyper-Tony Robbins-esque Bible Sermon. Hallelujah, Jesus loves me, pass the Blessed Stock Market Report!)

Apparently, Carl & Family totally missed the Wolves of Wall Street-induced 2008 global financial meltdown, in which multi-millions lost EVERYTHING and are still trying to recover - six years later.

The Pistorius clan has NO freakin clue how the rest of the world really lives. Worse, I doubt they care. What Carl really meant is if you’re poor, it’s your own fault. He (and likely the rest of his family) would probably get along famously with certain US politicians.

 

[AJ_DS]

But that's exactly it: what elements of OPs are critically irreconcilable. Only two: 1) the screaming 2) the light being on in the bathroom.

As for the 1st, OP has an explanation. The state's version is not the only inference that can be reasonably made from the facts.

As for the 2nd, there was inconsistent evidence between the stipps as to whether (and which) light was on.

These are the only two pieces of evidence that directly call OP's account into question. IMO there is enough doubt about both not to find pre-med.

Many much more critically irreconcilable elements…

As for the 1st, OP has an explanation which is NOT reasonable, nor probable, nor proven… there is NO inference to be made on the state's case on this point… witnesses heard a man and a woman screaming… the burden was on the Defence to prove that OP was the source of those 2 voices as they had alleged BUT they failed to do so.

… seriously I don't feel like rehashing all of the evidence because I strongly suspect it will be a pointless endeavor to do so with you.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Hehe… common misconception… let me elaborate :

- Johnson stated that he does NOT remember if 3:16 is the beginning of the call or the end of the call

- 3:16 does NT come from cellular service provider servers (detailed billing)… it comes from the phone itself… so dependent on the time set on the phone itself

- The culminating moment of the night's event for Johnson and burger is the bloodcurdling screams followed by the gunshots… this would be the event which "anal" Johnson would want to pin point the time… since this occurred seconds after Johnson ended his call, it makes sense that he would write in his document the call's end time… the call's start time is not important or relevant because it does not reveal or pin point anything specific.

… considering any of these 3 points separately or as an ensemble, one can see there is no contradiction with the between 3:15 and 3:16 for the gunshots.

Thanks, that makes sense. I'll listen to his testimony again tomorrow (I like to hear these things first hand for myself). So 03:15 to 03:16 is a better time for the second set of sounds, which I maintain are the gunshots. Why does Nel suggest "in the region of 03:17" in his Heads when it really hasn't taken a lot of work to figure a slightly earlier time? Are we missing something?

 

[lithgow1]

True - either way, it doesn't leave much time after. And it gives OP an alternative explanation for the screams.

As for the "help help help" supposedly uttered (edit: "screamed") by OP BEFORE the shots, I'd like to hear the explanation for that?

Hi and welcome. Perhaps Ms Burger was right, when pressed by Roux, that the 'help, help, help' may have been mocking. If we share the same low opinion of Pistorius that would not be beyond belief. He comes across as sarcastic quite often.

I'm interested in hearing your ideas in relation to the question posed in post 890 on p. 36 re what was OP doing in the 10 or so minutes between firing the gun and breaking down the door since you seem to accept his version. TIA

 

[Exchange973]

Many much more critically irreconcilable elements…

As for the 1st, OP has an explanation which is NOT reasonable, nor probable, nor proven… there is NO inference to be made on the state's case on this point… witnesses heard a man and a woman screaming… the burden was on the Defence to prove that OP was the source of those 2 voices as they had alleged BUT they failed to do so.

… seriously I don't feel like rehashing all of the evidence because I strongly suspect it will be a pointless endeavor to do so with you.

Not at all. I have an open mind. I started wanting/believing to find OP guilty, but now I'm not so sure. But anyway, we'll find out the verdict soon enough

 

[Jake18]

True - either way, it doesn't leave much time after. And it gives OP an alternative explanation for the screams.

As for the "help help help" supposedly uttered (edit: "screamed") by OP BEFORE the shots, I'd like to hear the explanation for that?

Time to do what exactly? All he had to do was kick/prise open the panels of the previously damaged door. The screaming is over because Reeva's dead - his concocted version of screaming up and down corridors, scrabbling around in the dark, sitting next to her miraculously still breathing body for "I don't know how long" etc is not necessary anymore.

 

[Val1]

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

Just wondering, what language has this trial been transcribed in? I'm having nightmares about the interpreter(the one that Burger iirc had to interpret her own testimony for) paraphrasing what the witnesses and the lawyers said and the judge running with it... :gaah: