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

[Val1]

Nel did the same thing at the beginning of his closing...

Most of that was trying to show all the different defenses OP and his team tried to use and how they contradicted each other...

 

[atthelake]

Whoop whoop radio is now broadcasting follow up!

ETA: Appears they are doing reruns? Is there another site streaming that has post commentary?

 

[Cherry]

I can't wait until someone archives Nels closing. I missed it. Time Zone Etc.

 

[patCee]

Professor James Grant discusses the case so far.

The judge cannot however consider evidence for each charge in a piecemeal fashion, discarding any one aspect that does not meet the standard of a reasonable doubt. It is the cumulative effect of evidence that she must consider, and if the case against him in its entirety for each charge leaves no reasonable doubt, she must convict.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rius-guilty-of-murdering-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

 

[zwiebel]

BB sums up much better than my poor attempts, Roux's points. Roux digresses so much, I lose track of his point. Says state's main difficulty is that they moved shots to the second set of sounds.

https://mobile.twitter.com/barrybateman/tweets

 

[jay-jay]

Roux: there's a photo where multiplug was moved. We will show you that photo

He could easily have shown that photo this afternoon, but he didn't .. and I bet he doesn't tomorrow, either .. because it shows the extension cord is way too short for the fan to have been in the position OP said it was, it incriminates him and proves he is lying/guilty!

 

[jay-jay]

That will just be another of those things Roux keeps promising he will prove/show us but never does ..

 

[Greater Than]

Now using example of a man who is happy at one time, then anxious later...

Judge pulls him up, is he talking about this case?

He says yes. Gives expert's evidence: "That there are two Oscar's milady. He testified there are two Oscars".

Yes, there are indeed two Oscars.

Oscar #1 is aggressive Oscar. This guy identifies with FIGHT! rather than flight. That's "how he is!" He's a protector! And he moves TOWARDS danger! He doesn't run away!!! He assertively commands "GET THE F#©K OUT OF MY HOUSE!" to anyone who would DARE to scale the wall of his highly secure estate to crawl through his 2nd story bathroom window! Aggressive Oscar.

Oscar #2 is vulnerable, anxious, frightened Oscar. This guy is afraid of his own shadow. He has limited mobility on his stumps. And he startles easily. And freezes. He gets himself so worked up over mystical noises that doesn't have time to think, which causes him to pull gun triggers. Without aiming. Vulnerable Oscar.

Will the real Oscar please stand up?

 

[jay-jay]

Yes, it is difficult to hear Roux more or less saying that OP is so innocent and the State is lying and twisting the facts of the case. I just have to keep OP's own testimony in mind during this.

I hadn't actually intended to listen to Roux's closing argument (thinking it was going to be tomorrow) because I simply cannot stand to listen to all his trickery. Sadly I ended up listening to part of it just now as he was on earlier than expected.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I have stress to hear that from Roux and I'm yawning now ....

 

[Greater Than]

Thank you zwiebel!

 

[zwiebel]

BBM-this is his legal argument...oh boy lol!

I am still trying to work out the legal basis for that argument - possession of ammo without a permit is against the law, but somehow it was not in OP's possession (even though it was in his safe) because his dad owned it?

Only way that could work, as far as I can see, is to say dad sneaked it into OP's safe without OP knowing...but even then, I think the law would say a person has a duty to check they are not in possession of items or substances illegally? Otherwise a person caught with say, a stack of cocaine in their safe, could say someone sneaked it there?

Or athletes found with a banned substance in their blood, could say someone sneaked it there.....Ah. But they have. And do.

 

[G.bng]

Defence's heads of argument in pdf format
http://oscarpistorius.com/downloads/Oscar-Pistorius-Heads-of-Argument.pdf

Ooops... wrong heads of argument. That one's for the bail hearing. Here are the heads for now:

236124801-Oscar-Pistorius-trial-heads-of-argument

WRONG LINK AS WELL - MEA CULPA - KEEP THINKING I FOUND DEFENCE'S HEADS AND IT KEEPS TURNING OUT TO BE THE STATE'S OR THE BAIL HEADS

WHERE, OH WHERE, ARE THE DEFENCE'S HEADS OF ARGUMENT ?

 

[Greater Than]

I am still trying to work out the legal basis for that argument - possession of ammo without a permit is against the law, but somehow it was not in OP's possession (even though it was in his safe) because his dad owned it?

Only way that could work, as far as I can see, is to say dad sneaked it into OP's safe without OP knowing...but even then, I think the law would say a person has a duty to check they are not in possession of items or substances illegally? Otherwise a person caught with say, a stack of cocaine in their safe, could say someone sneaked it there?

Or athletes found with a banned substance in their blood, could say someone sneaked it there.....Ah. But they have. And do.

He testified his DT told him he could legally hold it. He lied, and threw them under the bus in the process.

That law is not ambiguous at all. It's black and white. If you are in possession of ammo, you must own a license for the firearm that uses said ammo.

 

[zwiebel]

Whoop radio is having post trial discussions now, by the way.

http://whoopwhoop.tv/pistoriusradio.htm

 

[zwiebel]

He testified his DT told him he could legally hold it. He lied, and threw them under the bus in the process.

That law is not ambiguous at all. It's black and white. If you are in possession of ammo, you must own a license for the firearm that uses said ammo.

Well, I wouldn't have thought that's acceptable either. I don't know South African laws, but most systems say a person is responsible for being aware of what is illegal and what is not. They couldn't possibly work, otherwise - drunken driving? My dad told me it was legal....Murder? My best friend swore to me it was totally legal..

I'll be really shocked if OP is not found guilty on this count.

 

[G.bng]

He could easily have shown that photo this afternoon, but he didn't .. and I bet he doesn't tomorrow, either .. because it shows the extension cord is way too short for the fan to have been in the position OP said it was, it incriminates him and proves he is lying/guilty!

IMO as a professional of still and moving image, and I did several tests on that and for me the part of the white extension cord you can see (there could be a kink or whatever under/behind the bedside table, and the dark looped cord of the fan itself, were plenty long enough to reach the centre of the duvet even in the first photo, if both were extended straight out on the ground and not modulating as they were.

Photos can be so very deceptive. If the State meant to rely on the cord to prove their case they should have done the test with a tape measure and/or at very least a series of photos taken parallel to the cord not one taken from the front which will obviously have foreshortening. IDK but I would be surprised if Masipa goes on a photo for her verdict.

 

[zwiebel]

I have a feeling Nel is not going to address the order of gunshots/batshots and the seeming contradiction between the State's case and its witnesses.

I don't think he did really, and that appeared to be what Roux will hone in on, tomorrow.

 

[soozieqtips]

I am still trying to work out the legal basis for that argument - possession of ammo without a permit is against the law, but somehow it was not in OP's possession (even though it was in his safe) because his dad owned it?

Only way that could work, as far as I can see, is to say dad sneaked it into OP's safe without OP knowing...but even then, I think the law would say a person has a duty to check they are not in possession of items or substances illegally? Otherwise a person caught with say, a stack of cocaine in their safe, could say someone sneaked it there?

Or athletes found with a banned substance in their blood, could say someone sneaked it there.....Ah. But they have. And do.

BBM - unless OP's father confirmed it was his own ammo, then the court must surely assume it belonged to OP, in which case it was illegally held. There is just no good reason for OP's father not to admit it was his own, especially as OP storing it for him would have been legal. But Henke Pistorius, unlike his son, doesn't seem to want to perjure himself.

ETA - actuallly, I'm not sure if OP was allowed to store ammo for someone else. I think he said hie 'interpreted' Roux's comments about it as being legal? I'm once again caught up in OP's lies!

 

[sleuth-d-]

Roux: Mr Stipp appears to be quite an impressive witness..

defence still trying to discredit stipp.

inferring that the time he said he heard help/help/help was when he was actually in the op house... what nonsense