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

[Lochlynsmom]

I hope Nel moves on to more argument about his own case instead of pointing out what he thinks is lacking in the defense case. Nel has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am getting the impression Nel won't get a rebuttal so he is addressing the defenses claims now. Sorry I am waaayyy behind!

 

[zwiebel]

Nel says that fact witnesses discussed case with their friends before they made statements, and admitted it, is evidence of their truthfullness.

 

[808]

oh arry's giving OP the stinkeye ..:moo:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Nel: What's in it for the witnesses to lie, there is none. (Stipps, Burger, Johnson)


Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 3m
#OscarTrial Nel: what is in it for them to incriminate the accused? Nothing, no reasons. BB

 

[zwiebel]

Nel Saying how one witness even made a note of number of shots they heard, so they would not forget. Says witnesses are credible. Ordinary, professional people: "The Stipps - people on the estate, what's in it for them to incriminate the accused? Why would they do that? They did not present as witnesses like that....they were good witnesses."

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: According to Mrs Stipps, there was a light on in the bathroom. Her husband disagreed.....that's a sign of truthfullness.

 

[atthelake]

I am getting the impression Nel won't get a rebuttal so he is addressing the defenses claims now. Sorry I am waaayyy behind!

It has been noted that Nel does indeed get last up closing at the end

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: Mrs Stipps is flueish, laying in bed...."I looked out of the window could see the bathroom light was on".
...If that's true, accused version has no hope....Nobody went to bed that night.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

If the court finds that the bathroom light was on immediately after or, even worse, before
the gunshots, then the accused’s version will crash dramatically.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02999/HEADS_OF_ARGUMENT__2999306a.pdf

 

[zwiebel]

Nel showing photos. Says Mrs Stipps had a direct line of sight. Says there could be arguments about curtains etc, but why? State can't cover all possibilities.

Nel: If he fired shots while lights were on, his version (OP's) can never be accepted.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: When accused is anxious, his scream is high pitched, screams like a woman - but then we have the difficulty, the voices were intermingled....the first noises heard by the Stipps, there was no screaming. On accused's version, he screamed going down the passage. It was not even put to the Stipps (by defence).

 

[G.bng]

I am getting the impression Nel won't get a rebuttal so he is addressing the defenses claims now. Sorry I am waaayyy behind!

Contrary to in the US where the State has the last word, under the English system, which SA follows closely, it is the Defence that is always given the right to have the last word in closing arguments so not surprisingly they invariably chose it.

And if the State should apply to the Judge for a rebuttal, which it can, and the judge will often permit it, the Defence has then automatic right to a rebuttal of that, i.e. the judge cannot refuse it, so that in the end the defence always has the last word. We consider that a part of the fundamental right to a fair trial.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: Both parties heard a woman's bloodcurdling, petrified screams, followed by gunshots.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: There's more than enough reason - Berger's evidence, she heard four shots, Stipps counted three. One person whose evidence is corrborated by Cpt Mangena, she heard four. Berger heard four shots.

 

[G.bng]

Did OP ever say he'd screamed, "bloodcurdling screams ? And when OP said that he screamed like he had never done in his life, was that before he shot or after ?

Either I'm missing something or Nel is trying on a bit of poetic justice there!

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: As far as gastric content's concerned (Stipp?) heard an argument at 1.56.

Nel outlines how defence tried to make it seem she'd said noise continued until shooting and witness was awake, but his reading is she almost fell asleep again, and woke up later at the sound of shots.

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: Prof Simon was a most impressive witness. I'm not even going to try and summarise his testimony.

(Then goes on to summarise gastric content evidence at speed of light).

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Oh, that looks nice. It makes me think of a lunch in Sweden. And has given me a craving for those little round oatmeal cookies/biscuits they make. Forgot the name now. Lovely, anyhow.

Are they Smoerrebroed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw-z_FAyIVc

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: ...there were no plates in the room. If she ate, she went down to the kitchen. That indicates we don't have people asleep. They're awake. (Reeva, in early hours of morning).

 

[zwiebel]

Nel: It corroborates the fact the lights were on. Corroborates the evidence of witnesses.