lisasalinger
Juror13
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 1,602
- Reaction score
- 14
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.
Good post! I agree with most of what you said; maybe with the exception of being disappointed.
This trial was never meant to be about filling in the gaps of the timeline. Nel stuck with his plan and stated from the first day of trial that he would prove that Oscar's case was not reasonably, possibly true. I believe he has done that. And in the absence of a true and substantiated story from the accused, the court is left with having to accept the objective facts that were presented.
In that case, just the female screams alone are actually enough. Seems kind of crazy to think about after the thousands of conversations here trying to figure this whole thing out.