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

[jay-jay]

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.

Yes, I do too .. but I think, because there is just SO much of those types of bits of evidence, Nel just had to focus on the main points, which already prove OP's guilt anyway, else his closing argument could've gone on for days, plus I get the feeling that he would've confused M'lady if he'd given her too much information ( I already get the impression she was confused by what she heard .. which is a bit of a worry .. )

 

[Lux et Veritas]

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

Thanks, Fox, for clearing that up. It’s a good thing I’m not an attorney - I’d be in big trouble all the time! LOL

 

[kaos]

There's one big problem with this. Masipa has stated she's in Court next so they must finish by Friday. What's the bet Roux rambles on and on and leaves Nel no time. I can see this coming.

A bit like fillibustering? I can see that too.

 

[atthelake]

Good morning websleuthers
Long time reader of this wonderful forum, but this is my first post.

SNIP

:wagon: to a fellow lake person!

 

[jay-jay]

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

I'm really digusted by that. Thanks for finding and posting, IB.

 

[808]

"You cannot ignore certain material facts, which the state withheld, because if they had presented them their case would have nose-dived," said Roux.

The extension cord and the prosecutions lack of "first shots" explanation is what Roux will deal with today.

The totality of witnesses heard a woman scream before shots and no shots after... BUT there were other mystery shot sounds that Nel cannot explain so that means OP is innocent. (cough bat,gun kick.)

The extension cord can reach the power-board that accommodates clippers and one fan not 2.

How can he get off or get an appeal on this flimsy crap? :moo:

 

[lithgow1]

Thanks, Fox, for clearing that up. It’s a good thing I’m not an attorney - I’d be in big trouble all the time! LOL

I have to admit I find it odd that you can't call a witness a liar if that is what you believe/know they are. As someone said yesterday isn't the whole point of a trial to get at the truth and expose lies if they exist. I understand why a defence team would use less loaded terms such as 'the incident' while the prosecution would go for stronger stuff like 'the killing' but even so I'd still think that a court is the last place that should deal in euphemisms - in fact beyond respecting victims and their families as much as possible and respecting the legal rights of accused persons I see no justification for 'niceties' in a courtroom.

 

[4MrsB]

Bet I could kick his @ss in Words with Friends

Except you're forgetting HE would cheat! :daisy:

 

[JudgeJudi]

I thought this case cited by Nel was excellent, and it was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

State versus Mlambo

“Moreover, if an accused deliberately takes the risk of giving false evidence in the hope of being convicted of a less serious crime or even, perchance, escaping conviction altogether and his evidence is declared to be false and irreconcilable with the proved facts a court will, in suitable cases, be fully justified in rejecting an argument that, notwithstanding that the accused did not avail himself of the opportunity to mitigate the gravity of the offence, he should nevertheless receive the same benefits as if he had done so”

The Mlambo decision (supra) was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in an unanimous judgment per Olivier JA"

 

[4MrsB]

Good morning websleuthers
Long time reader of this wonderful forum, but this is my first post. I had to create an account to say a huge Thank You to all you amazing people who have followed this trial and taken the time to transcribe and analyze for the rest of us unable to follow live
Special mention to Zwiebel, Trooper and Brit's Kate (many others but I can't remember all the names this early).
I've gone from truly hoping Oscar was innocent, at the start of the trial, to believing in his guilt 100%.
I'm just relieved I have finally caught up with the trial in time for closing and the verdict.
So, once again, thankyou all
Liz (in a bright and fresh Lancashire, England)

. :greetings:

 

[bessie]

:seeya: Closing this one up now, folks.

Trial Thread #50 is open and ready for posting.