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

[4MrsB]

I was disappointed in Nel's closing arguments. I had expected much more. I expected a concise storyline/timeline of events, and a much more polished presentation to the court.

However, aside from "my expectations", Nel covered all the aspects he needed to prove OP fabricated his version, that OP knew Reeva was the one in the toilet when he fired his gun, and that by firing into the toilet/door he would likely kill her.

I think part of the reason my expectations from Nel & his closing arguments were not met is because I am from the US and am used to watching jury trials. The prosecutor (or defense) have a much different task when talking/convincing a jury of 12 lay people, as opposed to a seasoned judge. Jury trials (with great closings) rely on Power Point presentations, lots of visuals, easy to follow "beginning, middle & end" storyline type of layout and help the jurors (even though not required by law) with possible motives and more. I would have LOVED to see a lawyer like Alan Jackson (he prosecuted Phil Spector) pop in to handle the closing for the state, using all of Nel's great evidence and arguments before the court and transform it into a great story telling session like he seems to do so effortlessly. (Side note: I am NOT a fan of prosecutor styles like Juan Martinez - Jodi Arias trial - that relentlessly pound their point across, bullying witnesses and losing all sense of professionalism, IMO.)

I think Nel is an amazing attorney. His forte seems to definitely be cross examination. (He would actually make an amazing defense lawyer, but I can't see that ever happening.) When I first watched him present his trial in chief I was a little worried he wasn't a strong enough prosecutor for this case. Roux seemed to be stealing the show during his cross. Then the defense's case was presented and we quickly learned the reason for Nel's nickname. He was so impressive. He is smart, quick on his feet and doesn't let a single spoken word from a witness get past him, if it conflicts with something previously said. But he is no storyteller, and not suited for bringing home the closing arguments in front of a 12 panel jury of lay people. But of course, that wasn't his task. He was speaking to a seasoned Judge and her Assessors. Nel certainly knows his stuff and addressed all the very key points (even ones that seem so small to the lay person, but he provided clarity to their much larger significance in the case and why they disapprove OP's version). This is all he needed to do in front of a judge. He doesn't need to concern himself with the gallery of folks in the courtroom, the audience at home watching Oscar TV or even Reeva's parents. Just highlight the important pieces of evidence presented during trial, the legal points that support their importance and the conflict in evidence & testimony from both the state & the defense, that show OP's version "can not be so". And therefore, Oscar knew it was Reeva, not an intruder, in the toilet.

I was wrong to expect a closing needed for a jury. It is not necessary for a judge. I think the state has a strong case & Nel highlighted to the court what he needed to.

 

[soozieqtips]

11.42 The state, in its written argument, lists eight things that Mr Nel - state prosecutor - says the court will need to accept in order to even consider Pistorius's defence:

1. The deceased decided to relieve herself and did so without saying a word to the accused.

2. For no apparent reason she opened the bathroom window.

3. She took her cellphone with her to the bathroom.

4. She decided not to switch on any of the lights.

5. She did not utter a word whilst the accused was screaming, not even when he was in the bathroom.

6. The deceased got up from the toilet to close and lock the door.

7. The deceased dressed herself before she was shot.

8. The deceased did not hide as a result of all the screaming but stood upright facing the danger.

"It just gets ridiculous, with the utmost respect," Mr Nel told the court.

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

 

[Deleted member 102539]

No, it begins with 'R', I think. Will try and find some in REWE supermarket. And......

You linked me to a Muppet video!

Yes, because the cook in this show is always singing "Smoerrebroed, smoerrebroed, röm pöm pöm pöm ....".

 

[atthelake]

I am not an attorney and I am not familiar with SA Justice system…

… BUT as a learned individual on the evidence of this Trial, I am terribly disappointed with the content of the State's closing arguments and Nel's delivery of said arguments.

Hope Masipa will find it sufficient to convict OP of murder (dolus directus)… but now, I have serious doubts about that.

:maddening:

Yeah, :sigh: I know what you mean. I just sat up in my bed (hey, it was 4:00 am!!!) when he just blurted out that the time of the shots were at 3:17...and never really nailed that in his follow up. Haven't had time to read both of the submissions...would someone be so kind as to repost both of them for my bedtime reading (lol, which is about now if I'm to get up AGAIN at 3:00 am) fftobed: to wait and read before tonight's closings

TIA

 

[4MrsB]

11.42 The state, in its written argument, lists eight things that Mr Nel - state prosecutor - says the court will need to accept in order to even consider Pistorius's defence:

1. The deceased decided to relieve herself and did so without saying a word to the accused.

2. For no apparent reason she opened the bathroom window.

3. She took her cellphone with her to the bathroom.

4. She decided not to switch on any of the lights.

5. She did not utter a word whilst the accused was screaming, not even when he was in the bathroom.

6. The deceased got up from the toilet to close and lock the door.

7. The deceased dressed herself before she was shot.

8. The deceased did not hide as a result of all the screaming but stood upright facing the danger.

"It just gets ridiculous, with the utmost respect," Mr Nel told the court.

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

And she did not scream out after being struck in the hip, after first bullet.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Roux tried mightily and FAILED to discredit Estelle van der Merwe’s testimony.

One does NOT need to understand each and every word or even the language to fully understand an ARGUMENT is taking place. Vocal volume, pitch, inflection, speed, etc. say it all. Recognizing human “fighting” is universal.

(Who else in Silverwoods that night was arguing and killed someone?)

 

[vansleuths]

Nel: Accused forget what his version was when he said he heard the sound from the bathroom...he said "If someone said I went out on balcony to fetch the fans it would not be true." Then he started arguing. He repeated it... I didn't make him say that.

What benefit did OP believe he would gain by saying he did not go out onto the balcony when in his original statement, he did say he went out onto the balcony?

 

[Lochlynsmom]

What benefit did OP believe he would gain by saying he did not go out onto the balcony when in his original statement, he did say he went out onto the balcony?

I think because it would have given Reeva enough time to leave the room and he would not have seen her so when he heard the noise logically you would check where your partner was and he didn't...just assumed it was an intruder.

 

[AJ_DS]

What benefit did OP believe he would gain by saying he did not go out onto the balcony when in his original statement, he did say he went out onto the balcony?

May benefits :

1. Not good to be on his stumps on hard cement surface of balcony

2. Not good to go on the balcony because could not hear the bathroom window open

3. Not good to go on the balcony because he would have to turn around and face the bedroom to bring in the fan(s) whilst keeping his balance on his stumps… he needed to have his back turned to the bed and the passageway at all times

4. If the fan(s) were on the balcony, the curtains would be flapping wildly with the air flow generated by the fan(s)

… perhaps other benefits as well

 

[Lochlynsmom]

I absolutely believe he knew it was Reeva and he needed to plug some holes

 

[Deleted member 102539]

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.

Op and his dad have no good and normal connection/relationship. Why Henke should have put the ammunition in the bedroom safe of his son???

Surprisingly some newspaper stated, that today before trial Henke gave an affidavit to the DT which says, he really owns the bullets.

Now I'm helpless and can't understand the whole thing. :scared: :thinking:

 

[vansleuths]

Masipa questioning Nel finishing today. Masipa says she is not available next week AT ALL!!

Well, that means we have to wait at least 7 days with bated breath for a verdict....

 

[Cherwell]

I was disappointed in Nel's closing arguments. I had expected much more. I expected a concise storyline/timeline of events, and a much more polished presentation to the court.

However, aside from "my expectations", Nel covered all the aspects he needed to prove OP fabricated his version, that OP knew Reeva was the one in the toilet when he fired his gun, and that by firing into the toilet/door he would likely kill her.

I think part of the reason my expectations from Nel & his closing arguments were not met is because I am from the US and am used to watching jury trials. The prosecutor (or defense) have a much different task when talking/convincing a jury of 12 lay people, as opposed to a seasoned judge. Jury trials (with great closings) rely on Power Point presentations, lots of visuals, easy to follow "beginning, middle & end" storyline type of layout and help the jurors (even though not required by law) with possible motives and more. I would have LOVED to see a lawyer like Alan Jackson (he prosecuted Phil Spector) pop in to handle the closing for the state, using all of Nel's great evidence and arguments before the court and transform it into a great story telling session like he seems to do so effortlessly. (Side note: I am NOT a fan of prosecutor styles like Juan Martinez - Jodi Arias trial - that relentlessly pound their point across, bullying witnesses and losing all sense of professionalism, IMO.)

I think Nel is an amazing attorney. His forte seems to definitely be cross examination. (He would actually make an amazing defense lawyer, but I can't see that ever happening.) When I first watched him present his trial in chief I was a little worried he wasn't a strong enough prosecutor for this case. Roux seemed to be stealing the show during his cross. Then the defense's case was presented and we quickly learned the reason for Nel's nickname. He was so impressive. He is smart, quick on his feet and doesn't let a single spoken word from a witness get past him, if it conflicts with something previously said. But he is no storyteller, and not suited for bringing home the closing arguments in front of a 12 panel jury of lay people. But of course, that wasn't his task. He was speaking to a seasoned Judge and her Assessors. Nel certainly knows his stuff and addressed all the very key points (even ones that seem so small to the lay person, but he provided clarity to their much larger significance in the case and why they disapprove OP's version). This is all he needed to do in front of a judge. He doesn't need to concern himself with the gallery of folks in the courtroom, the audience at home watching Oscar TV or even Reeva's parents. Just highlight the important pieces of evidence presented during trial, the legal points that support their importance and the conflict in evidence & testimony from both the state & the defense, that show OP's version "can not be so". And therefore, Oscar knew it was Reeva, not an intruder, in the toilet.

I was wrong to expect a closing needed for a jury. It is not necessary for a judge. I think the state has a strong case & Nel highlighted to the court what he needed to.

Nail on head.

We are accustomed to hearing everything wrapped up in the closing argument, but it's important to remember that here it's just a synopsis, and the full argument is submitted on paper. We do expect a barrister to be enormously articulate and convincing, but it's a very different situation here where there is no jury to impress.

To be honest, I have been disappointed with both counsels on their oratorical skills UNTIL I remind myself that they are not working in their first language - something I think most of us forget.

If anyone hasn't read the State argument in full, I recommend that they do so. It is very coherent, and while it doesn't butter every slice in the loaf, it certainly presents a satisfying plate of sandwiches.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

How many here think that OP will quietly "disappear" before Judge Masipa's verdict (or upon conviction, "disappear" before the appeals verdict)?

He KNOWS he's guilty as sin of murder.
KNOWS his testimony was unmitigated sh#t, the worst kind of total train wreck.
KNOWS he threw everyone but God under the bus.
KNOWS his Defense witnesses/experts sucked on multiple levels.
KNOWS he has forever lost the admiration and goodwill of many friends and the world.
KNOWS he has forever lost his previous career, income and status.
KNOWS his family’s influence and money can (legally) save him from only so much.

What’s he got left to lose except his freedom?

Africa is a massive continent.

Oscar has many local, regional and international “connections”, some arguably dubious, if not downright shady - and yes, still very staunch supporters.

For the right price, with the perfect plan, I think even Oscar Pistorius could “disappear”.

I do believe that OP’s family would do literally anything to prevent him from rotting in prison.

Then, of course, there’s the “final, permanent solution” to avoid prison - but I think OP is far too arrogant, contemptuous and unrepentant for that.

Do you really think OP will ever allow himself to be sent to prison?

 

[Sherbert]

I am not an attorney and I am not familiar with SA Justice system…

… BUT as a learned individual on the evidence of this Trial, I am terribly disappointed with the content of the State's closing arguments and Nel's delivery of said arguments.

Hope Masipa will find it sufficient to convict OP of murder (dolus directus)… but now, I have serious doubts about that.

:maddening:

I agree. I'm also deeply disappointed that the State's closing wasn't stronger.

However, I imagine that, like the rest of us, the Judge and her assessors already have a pretty good idea of where they're heading in terms of verdict; in which case, the bottom line is that it doesn't really matter what is said, at this stage.

If they're still on the fence though, which I doubt, I don't think Nel's closing will have done the State too many favours.

And I'm worried that Milady seems genuinely sympathetic to OP.

 

[Cherwell]

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.

One thing I wish Nel had highlighted (unless I missed it) is Pistorius admitting that he didn't fire a warning shot for fear of a ricochet. That absolutely proves that he was conscious and deliberate in his actions.

 

[Cherwell]

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

View attachment 56521

Bet he's playing Angry Birds.

 

[AJ_DS]

Well, that means we have to wait at least 7 days with bated breath for a verdict....

IMO there is no way we get the judgement until mid-september.

Masipa and the assessors are not assigned exclusively to the OP Trial… they have other Trials to attend to : some are awaiting judgement, some are on-going, some are beginning… with all that entails such as rendering decisions on objections, applications, etc…

So Masipa and the assessors must meet and deliberate on the case, reach a verdict and then write the full judgement.

Not only is Masipa's calendar already full, she must consider Nel's and Roux's calendar to schedule a date for the reading of the verdict.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

This is something I posted on Juror13's blog. I have edited it for context…..

The State has to build a case. It sounds obvious, but it is really important to consider this. The only person who was with Reeva when she was killed, is accused of her Murder.

The Prosecution has no way of independently verifying if OP was on his stumps. They wish to Prosecute, but know that their case will be subject to ruthless examination. This is why they have gone down the route they have – i.e. Go along with the Defence that OP was on his stumps.

Why?

Well, because it actually does not matter. Seriously, it does not.

If OP was on his stumps? Well the bullets would have hit the door at roughly the height they did. However, do not rule out that OP was on his artificial legs & crouched into a hideous firing position.

The Prosecution has done a superb job of leaving this option open, even though they have said that in all probability OP was on his Stumps.

They cannot know for a fact. They have just been trying to help the Court understand the position of the person that pulled the Trigger, who incidentally, has done nothing to help a Court understand the truth.

OP shot through a door. The defence say he was scared and have three versions of this as a defence.

It is not likely to be the truth. If it is? Then most people fed up with their partners with access to a gun, are looking at an excuse for killing them ….

 

[AJ_DS]

How many here think that OP will quietly "disappear" before Judge Masipa's verdict (or upon conviction, "disappear" before the appeals verdict)?

He KNOWS he's guilty as sin of murder.
KNOWS his testimony was unmitigated sh#t, the worst kind of total train wreck.
KNOWS he threw everyone but God under the bus.
KNOWS his Defense witnesses/experts sucked on multiple levels.
KNOWS he has forever lost the admiration and goodwill of many friends and the world.
KNOWS he has forever lost his previous career, income and status.
KNOWS his family’s influence and money can (legally) save him from only so much.

What’s he got left to lose except his freedom?

Africa is a massive continent.

Oscar has many local, regional and international “connections”, some arguably dubious, if not downright shady - and yes, still very staunch supporters.

For the right price, with the perfect plan, I think even Oscar Pistorius could “disappear”.

I do believe that OP’s family would do literally anything to prevent him from rotting in prison.

Then, of course, there’s the “final, permanent solution” to avoid prison - but I think OP is far too arrogant, contemptuous and unrepentant for that.

Do you really think OP will ever allow himself to be sent to prison?

I definitely would not put it passed him to do that… but :

1. I suspect he will make his family wealth work hard for him before considering that avenue : appeal, delays, postponements, etc…

2. Harder and harder to disappear oneself in this shrinking world

3. OP is VERY recognizable, from his carreer, his sponsorships, his murder Trial and, of course, his disability.