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.
