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

[04009margaret]

The thing is, OP's version can only be true if all the state's testimonies were false - if all the ear witnesses were wrong, if Saayman was wrong about the stomach contents and that she didn't have time to scream, if Magena was wrong about the timing and order of the shots, if the police tampered with the scene, if the police moved his fans and duvet and curtains and the jeans - then, yes, his version might be true. And surely Masipa will look at all of these facts and ask herself what the probability of all these things happening is. If not, would anyone ever be found guilty if the accused can just say that everybody else is lying and the rest he can't remember?

I don't believe for one minute that OP's version is the truth, I believe he knew it was Reeva in the toilet.

 

[zwiebel]

'The man prosecuting Oscar Pistorius has summed up his case by insisting the athlete committed premeditated murder involving a "deliberate weighing up of actions".

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel said the athlete acted with intention when he fired four shots through a toilet door at home, fatally wounding his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.'

http://news.sky.com/story/1314469/pistorius-armed-himself-and-planned-to-kill

 

[zwiebel]

Are they Smoerrebroed?

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

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

You linked me to a Muppet video!

 

[AJ_DS]

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:

 

[zwiebel]

'14.28 Barry Roux turns the tables on the state's case, saying its fact are contradictory and cannot be reconciled - for instance that Steenkamp was speaking through the lavatory door to Pistorius, but also screaming prior to the shooting.
He says the state changed it version of events to place the screams prior to the shooting after expert witnesses proved that it would not have been possible for Reeva Steenkamp to scream after the initial set of shots.'


'13.25 Gerrie Nel is now summarising the defence's case on other charges against Oscar Pistorius including shooting a gun through a car roof and in a restaurant.
As the following piece describes, the introduction of these other charges by the defence may have been "no accident, but "a cleverly constructed trap that Pistorius fell into by pleading not guilty" '

Legal View: Why I would find Oscar Pistorius guilty of murdering Reeva Steenkamp' (link to this article is at link I've posted below.)

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

 

[zwiebel]

Excellent, detailed summaries here, plus a wide collection of tweets.

http://ewn.co.za/features/oscarpistorius

I am off to REWE now, on a search for Swedish cookies in Germany, to prove to myself I'm not imagining them. Or just saw them on the Muppet show.

 

[HauntsForHope]

This trial has been a learning experience for me, and I'm sure for many others, as a first look at court proceedings outside of the USA. It's been a great opportunity having this broadcast live. At first, odd and confusing, the SA court customs have become familiar over the many months this trial has played out. In fact, I find their use of a morning 'Tea Break' rather endearing.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

In my world, it's this simple:

If you have more than one "version", more than one defense, keep coming up with novel, i.e. bizarre pop-up defenses - you automatically condemn yourself GUILTY.

Truth has only ONE version and it never, ever varies.

 

[Giles]

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 totally agree. I thought he started well but didn't address some key issues and I feel a little frustrated. He has allowed Roux to get a foot in the door which I didn't think was possible.

 

[G.bng]

G.bng, once he eliminated her, he never screamed again.

Agreed if talking about the State's version, albeit that said, what is the State's version as closing arguments are gone and we are where we were at the beginning when all have been assuring with how everything was going to be pulled together, explained in closings, but iirc in what I was referring to with my post, Nel was referring to OP screaming "as he had never done in his life before" precisely on the basis of OP's version. And in that, Nel was incorrect because on OP's version, and you are either ignorant of the law, blind, in denial, or whatever you want to call it, if you really think that Masipa is not going to test OP's version first to see if it could be possible, BUT ON OP's VERSION, the version the judge is obliged by law to test with the evidence first if there is a reasonable possibility that it could be true, in his version OP was screaming "like he never had in his life before" AFTER THE SHOTS and not, most definitely NOT, before them.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

It appears Oscar has very neatly painted himself into a tiny corner.

His brazen lies, contradictions, epic evasiveness and circular, ambiguous, vague, noncommittal answers are going to land him in prison.

His family says he’s lonely and alienated - that’s what happens when you throw literally everyone around you under the bus (including your mother, father and counsel) to save your lying, murderous azz.

Get use to it, Oz - welcome to your new world.

 

[G.bng]

It was briefly referenced on Oscar radio before court today that OP's father has now provided the DT with an affidavit claiming the ammunition was his. They have closed their case so I'd presume they can't submit this into the court record.

I don't think it's ever too late for exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial. Just because the system is adversarial doesn't mean that it's a competition about winning an losing. The prosecutions job is ​to get the right person for the right crime anything else would be perverse and as far from justice as you could get. So if exculpatory evidence turns up even were a jury already sitting it's the state's moral and legal obligation to immediately disclose it to the defence and the court which if compelling enough can oblige a judge to summarily dismiss the case. That's exactly what happened just the other day here in he UK with some celebrity on a drug dealing charge. No sooner than the judge became aware the main prosecution witness had perjured themselves he summarily dismissed the case, jury and all. Also since in SA it is a bench trial, the judge will be able to call witnesses if necessary, or call them back although she may or may not have to do this through the prosecution which serves her and not the inverse.

 

[believe09]

Per the link you provided (thank you for it)

Both sides' respective forensic experts ultimately agreed that the first shot hit the victim in her hip and allowed her at least four seconds to scream, at which point the accused, on his own version, was standing no more than three metres away. If ever there was a case which required that an accused explain how he could possibly have been mistaken, this was it. Yet Pistorius did, at best, a poor job and at worst, he probably did himself a disservice - there are times that one must take responsibility for one's actions. Pistorius's refusal to do so has placed his credibility in question.

It seems pretty unrealistic to assume she didn't scream, doesn't it?

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

 

[foxbluff]

I've only just come onboard after falling asleep at my PC earlier today. I'm amazed that we have Nel's Closing Statement already!! You almost certainly have this posted onboard already, but just in case you don't, here it is:

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

 

[KarenUK]

Just watching Nel's closing argument - mean old work kept me away from watching it live!

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Agreed if talking about the State's version, albeit that said, what is the State's version as closing arguments are gone and we are where we were at the beginning when all have been assuring with how everything was going to be pulled together, explained in closings, but iirc in what I was referring to with my post, Nel was referring to OP screaming "as he had never done in his life before" precisely on the basis of OP's version. And in that, Nel was incorrect because on OP's version, and you are either ignorant of the law, blind, in denial, or whatever you want to call it, if you really think that Masipa is not going to test OP's version first to see if it could be possible, BUT ON OP's VERSION, the version the judge is obliged by law to test with the evidence first if there is a reasonable possibility that it could be true, in his version OP was screaming "like he never had in his life before" AFTER THE SHOTS and not, most definitely NOT, before them.

Whether OP also screamed/yelled/cried that night really is unimportant in the whole scheme of things. I'm sure he did.

What's at the heart of this case and what WILL convict him are Reeva's screams. The entire case, first and last, revolves around them.

Defense has offered literally NO evidence (other than simply declaring that OP screams like a woman, as if it was automatic fact) to counter State's multiple ear witnesses of a woman's ("blood-curdling") screams - not to mention intense, lengthy arguing heard.

Sorry, having your female defense witnesses scream like a man screaming like a woman does not count. LOL

 

[minor4th]

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

He didnt, and that is a big flaw in the state's case.

 

[AJ_DS]

I totally agree. I thought he started well but didn't address some key issues and I feel a little frustrated. He has allowed Roux to get a foot in the door which I didn't think was possible.

Agreed… but 2 possibilities :

1. The submitted heads of arguments in writing are more complete than we realize and Nel's address today was only a quick fly-by.

2. Nel feels confident that he has addressed the important bits for a conviction and the rest of it that we wanted to hear was superfluous to that goal.

I'm shocked that Nel seems not to have addressed the cricket bat strikes and that he has omitted to furnish a comprehensive timeline of events.

Roux alleging Dr. Stipp's lack of reliability by matching unrelated events such as the Help, Help, Help with the 3:27AM phone call is preposterous… I suspect that Roux's last option is to attempt to confuse Masipa with inexistent ambiguities.

 

[Marfa Lights]

And ?


<snipped by me>

In any case one voice doesn't make an argument unless a person arguing with oneself or giving a speech which can also be called an argument.

Or unless one party is loudly making their point while the other party is just giving them deadly looks and the silent treatment.

 

[foxbluff]

In my world, it's this simple:

If you have more than one "version", more than one defense, keep coming up with novel, i.e. bizarre pop-up defenses - you automatically condemn yourself GUILTY.

Truth has only ONE version and it never, ever varies.

I'm right there with you !!

Also, imho, when two versions of one incident are in conflict, they can't both be right. They can, however, both be wrong !!