Trial Discussion Thread #49 - 14.08.7, Day 39 ~final arguments~

[Lux et Veritas]

Oscar Trial Channel @OscarTrial199  12s
Nel: it's fashionable for accused people who can't show good defence to blame the state for not calling witnesses, calling some......

Hah. The Defense was also very selective with witnesses.

The Defense must ask itself why it did not call Frank Chiziweni to testify (as the State also did not). Roux had every reason to do so!

After all, wouldn’t Oscar’s own good friend and longtime employee tell the whole TRUTH (whatever he happened to witness that night) in Oscar’s favor, seeing as how Oscar is a truthful, innocent man? LOL

That Frank refused to testify, saying he heard and saw nothing, is a whole other story, isn't it - and his silence damns Oscar.

Defense could NOT risk putting Frank on the stand to be cross-examined by Nel!

 

[Mr Fossil]

thanx a lot!

That link is the defence HoA for the bail hearing I think. This is today's link for the State's final HoA:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...__2999306a.pdf

 

[Mr Fossil]

I was surprised Nel made nothing of the defence timings. The defence (and OP) state that the gun was around 03:12 and the bat at 03:17. If this is the case Reeva couldn't possibly have been alive, as OP says, when he carried her downstairs at 03:22. Then again, according to the pathologist, she couldn't possibly have been alive even if the gun was at 03:17. Which begs the question how did the blood spurts (if indeed they were as a result of her still being alive) get down into the lounge from the top of the stairs? He must have moved her earlier than he said to the top of the stairs and then waited for some reason ... this is the period he doesn't remember, so no surprises there.

 

[foxbluff]

I always found this reprimand strange, highly unfair and rather bizarre.

Isn’t the entire premise of a murder trial TRUTH and LIES and ferreting out the difference?

If someone is overtly lying, to call them a LIAR - and to prove so - is simply stating the truth; it’s neither an insult, defamation nor is it prejudicial or character assassination.

If the State is allowed to charge and declare the defendant a murderer, why is it not allowed to call that same defendant a liar? LOL

Yes, confusing. However, IIRC, at the time the Judge reprimanded Nel saying something like "you can't call him a liar," she added "not while he's on the stand."

It seems to be allowable, when defendant isn't on the stand, to imply he's lying... Nel did that a number of times. It could be that even when defendant isn't on the stand that lawyers can't out-and-out refer to the defendant as "a liar." IDK

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Karyn Maughan ?@karynmaughan 1m
Nel says evidence like feathers: light on their own, but together "the scale will convincingly balance" #OscarTrial @eNCAnews


Or, put another way, each tiny nail slams OP’s coffin shut.

Feathers. Scale. Coffin. I like it.

Nel is correct. Bands of steel together are much stronger than one piece.

The TOTALITY of the State’s case is unassailable, i.e. absolutely beyond a reasonable doubt - especially in light of Oscar’s no-credible-defense multi-defenses!

 

[Susza]

Oh no, I don't have a spare second to listen to trial live after a full schedule conference/holiday...but from the articles I gave skimmed and HOD online it seems as if Nel has stuck to his game-plan (which revealed a dubious at best accused murderer) and has not introduced any surprising material. I think, as one of SA's most well known prosecutors, he knows the system and what he needs for whatever convictions they feel they can get.

By arguing every piece of Pistorius defense is confusing, contradictory and, or, implausible, Nel has made a vortex where Pistorius may be convicted by his own words rather than the more specualtive version of actions.

My call, it's not very satisfying for us who want to know an aggregate of opinion to what exactly happened (though we can all surmise) to Steenkamp, but Pistorius case is fairly solid - at the least conviction murder on eventualis and prob for directus.

BBM - Thank you, K.T, that was also my impression but I wasn't able to to express it in the clear way you did.

 

[buntspecht]

I always found this reprimand strange, highly unfair and rather bizarre.

Isn’t the entire premise of a murder trial TRUTH and LIES and ferreting out the difference?

If someone is overtly lying, to call them a LIAR - and to prove so - is simply stating the truth; it’s neither an insult, defamation nor is it prejudicial or character assassination.

If the State is allowed to charge and declare the defendant a murderer, why is it not allowed to call that same defendant a liar? LOL

For Massipa it was just when OP was in the witness stand, where he was guarded.
A murderer may (or should or is supposed to) lie.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

RE: The Judge asking questions of Nel about legal points. I do not believe that she does not already know the answers to these questions. I think she is asking these questions in order to get things into the written record in order to make a conviction more "appeal proof".

Of course there were no fireworks today from Nel. He very well knows what he is doing. He is laying out the case and pointing the judge to conclusions that can be legally drawn. He includes references to other cases that clarify issues. Despite the usual bit of stumbling about in citing page numbers, etc. he stated that his written Head of Argument has hyperlinks at each point. Making it nice and easy for the judge to find supporting testimony, documents, and case law.

IMO Nel has put together a clear cut case of premeditated murder. The bit about Oscar had to take the time to retrieve the gun, unholster the gun, walk down the corridor (whether on stumps or prostheses), aim the gun and fire the gun gave him the required time to justly qualify this crime as premeditated.

IMO Oscar will be convicted on premeditated murder (or whatever it is called in SA) plus all of the gun charges.

 

[K.T]

That was an excellent analogy by Nel about the '10%' .. he likened it to having cancer where the rest of the body can be 90% (or more) perfectly ok, but it's that 10% (or less) that is the crucial bit.

Now I'm worried .. Judge Masipa interjected by saying you can't really say what their relationship was like just because of those few messages .. gahhhhhh! If she doesn't understand the significance of those messages, then there's no hope .. (she probably won't understand the significance of any of all this other evidence Nel is presenting today .. the evidence is so overwhelming it takes your breath away .. I sincerely hope she is 'getting' it .. )

Interesting...I think that's exactly what psychologist Leonard Carr said in his Pistorius interview we posted...

 

[Giles]

Interesting...I think that's exactly what psychologist Leonard Carr said in his Pistorius interview we posted...

Yes. Nel cited Carr as the source during his arguments...

 

[Lux et Veritas]

That Nel referenced the crucial importance of the “good grouping” of shots was very smart.

Yes, indeed, you would expect a man about to pee his pants in abject terror, about to be “attacked”, to shoot anything and everything, including walls, floors, ceilings.

Oscar essentially claims that, in his “anxiety”, “terror” and “vulnerability”, all his gun training flew out the window, that he “didn’t have time to think”.

Apparently, though, he thought about his AIM very carefully.

This guy was SO overcome with terror, SO overcome with total loss of control that he managed to hit his target through a CLOSED door in “PITCH BLACKNESS” with three of four shots. How does one do that “accidentally”?

How, then, does Oscar reconcile his fatally bizarre version above with the fact that he did NOT shoot a warning shot into his tiled shower - as it may have ricocheted and hit him?

That, my friends, is cold logic of the highest order.

 

[jay-jay]

Interesting...I think that's exactly what psychologist Leonard Carr said in his Pistorius interview we posted...

Nel did actually say he was quoting from what someone else had said, I think it might well have been Leonard Carr then, I can't actually remember what name he said but seems to fit that it would've been him.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Nel did actually say he was quoting from what someone else had said, I think it might well have been Leonard Carr then, I can't actually remember what name he said but seems to fit that it would've been him.

Yes, it was Carr. Extract from Heads:

172
The Defence has and will again argue that 90% of all the messages were of a loving nature but we can do no better than to quote Mr Carr, a clinical psychologist, who publically commented that it roughly equates to arguing that only 10% of your body has cancer. It is the 10% that matters. (Radio Jacaranda sound clip on 15 July 2014)

 

[Interested Bystander]

I only saw the first half hour or so of the proceedings but noticed OP was yawning a great deal and looking down. I thought perhaps the yawning was nervousness or possibly medication for the night before that may have not worn off. His looking down I felt fairly sure was that he was "playing" with his phone, texting or reading messages etc. Then I wondered, given his propensity for showing his religious inclinations whether he had a small bible with him. In the following Telegraph report there is a photo of him using/playing with his phone whilst the HoA were underway. Does he not realise his behaviour shows such enormous lack of respect (even contempt) for the court proceedings and does he just not care?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...r-Pistorius-trial-closing-arguments-live.html

 

[Lux et Veritas]

"I'm fine." vs. "Everything is fine." argument is meaningless on one vital count.

NOTHING was fine.

Semantics war aside, not only did Oscar LIE LIE LIE but he never asked Baba for immediate help for his grievously wounded girlfriend.

NOTHING!!!

What reasonable, innocent man would not only say nothing but assure security all was OK?

Oscar was NOT trying to save his "beloved" girlfriend - he was allowing her to bleed out while he formulated his cover story and dramatic staircase entrance. Enter buddy Stander to witness the heroics.

 

[K.T]

Yes, it was Carr. Extract from Heads:

172
The Defence has and will again argue that 90% of all the messages were of a loving nature but we can do no better than to quote Mr Carr, a clinical psychologist, who publically commented that it roughly equates to arguing that only 10% of your body has cancer. It is the 10% that matters. (Radio Jacaranda sound clip on 15 July 2014)

Just went back and saw I glossed over that detail. Thanks!

Now, I'm annoyed I didn't detail my eight other points of contention with Scholtz's report which I wanted to elaborate on.

 

[Interested Bystander]

OT

Some new info about Carl Pistorius and the accident. It seems he is not quite as well as was at first reported.

http://www.news24.com/Tags/People/carl_pistorius

 

[elfie]

I have only posted a cpl. times since the Trial began and one of my posts was my feeling that Masipa was not showing she was taking testimony presented by Nel as serious as I hoped she would and she proved it today when she remarked during his closing on the importance of the Whatsapps from RS. The way OP was treating her didn't happen on one day or last week, it was ongoing , even during good times, she stated she always had to be mindful of OP frame of mind so he would'nt turn on her.
Masipa interrupting Nel during cross to scold him saying OP didn't write his Bail... So don't hold him responsible for important information that OP claims was left out but the States witnesses were not given the same consideration. No I don't feel comfortable at all with Masipa......I hope I am wrong

I think it goes to Masipa's impartiality towards the defendant. Just my opinion, though.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

RE: The Judge asking questions of Nel about legal points. I do not believe that she does not already know the answers to these questions. I think she is asking these questions in order to get things into the written record in order to make a conviction more "appeal proof".

Of course there were no fireworks today from Nel. He very well knows what he is doing. He is laying out the case and pointing the judge to conclusions that can be legally drawn. He includes references to other cases that clarify issues. Despite the usual bit of stumbling about in citing page numbers, etc. he stated that his written Head of Argument has hyperlinks at each point. Making it nice and easy for the judge to find supporting testimony, documents, and case law.

IMO Nel has put together a clear cut case of premeditated murder. The bit about Oscar had to take the time to retrieve the gun, unholster the gun, walk down the corridor (whether on stumps or prostheses), aim the gun and fire the gun gave him the required time to justly qualify this crime as premeditated.

IMO Oscar will be convicted on premeditated murder (or whatever it is called in SA) plus all of the gun charges.

I would have preferred, if Nel would have pledged the individual facts on the head to OP like: Mr. Pistorius, you have aimed, Mr. Pistorius, you have ........ that done, that not done and so on. In the expression a little bit more accusatory, in order to OP hearing one last time, what he has perpetrated.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

OSCAR PISTORIUS is that kid who steals and eats all the brownies, breaks the family heirloom cookie jar reaching for that last brownie, then while wiping crumbs off his mouth, whines and loudly blames his siblings, friends, dog, the UPS guy, visiting Pastor Smerkles and little old Mrs. Biddle across the street - who’s 98, blind in one eye and housebound with a walker. Then the little snot has the audacity to demand that his mother make MORE brownies, she knows they’re his favorite and that cookie jar was ugly anyway.