Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

I can't hear it right now.

I'm getting a bit lost! We seem to be switching back and forth through the possible defences.

Interesting about the phone/charger/kitchen.

I suppose it is difficult for the State to be clear in their arguement as there are so many variables and versions offered by OP, and this is just a summary of the salient points in the Heads, but I am getting slightly confused

Nel shows OP's testimony that he heard the magazine rack move but then says he thought the noise was the door opening. Contradictory.

I think Nel's point about the physical evidence is important, not just that the defence couldn't prove the bedroom scene had been tampered with but also the evidence of the shots on the door. They don't support a claim that the shooter was panicked or firing involuntarily.

Nel is very impressive. I think he has represented Reeva well.

He seems to be saying that there's no way that Reeva could possibly have moved the magazine rack to make the noise that made OP startle, and then also get to the front of the door when the shot happened.

I was about to say she could have kicked back to move it, but he instantly says this couldn't have happened.

So the sound wasn't possible - there was no sound of it moving before he shot.

Is the constant coughing in the court getting on anyone else's nerves? It's really winding me up while I'm trying to listen to Nel.

I thought Nel made a good point regarding the type of ammunition used belies the "didn't want to kill anyone" part of OP's defence, presumably implying that by using that type of ammunition OP knew full well that the person hit by it would be killed - not sure which one of the many defences this blows out of the water.

The Telegraph is linking to a full copy of the State's closing arguments

State Closing Arguments

I hadn't noticed it till now Grunt but now you pointed it out... yes!

That's a good link Book - no room for error in what the State are trying to say. Thanks

The media copy of States written heads of argument can be found www.citypress.co.za/news/full-document-oscar-pistorius-trial-states-heads-argument/

Cross posted with Book

i Barry Bateman ?
i #OscarTrial Nel: the defence asked a female neighbour to replicate the screams heard, not a male and not the accused either. B

Can I just so; I totally pointed this out on the day that they heard the defence witness in court. Go me.

They didn't ask a man, any man, to try to replicated the scream at all.

The Telegraph also has an article from a legal professor saying he would find OP guilty for a number of reasons including his poor testimony, the inclusion of the other gunfire incidents and OP's failure to take responsibility for them. He also makes the interesting point that the witnesses who heard a woman scream held up well under cross-examination, and the fact that closer witnesses didn't hear screams doesn't disprove what others heard.

Gold star for you Looking.

Is Nel arguing for a guilty verdict on the highest charge, pre-meditated murder?

I think so emotions, I have skim read Book and Member's links of the closing arguments and it looks like that.

I can't quite tell, Emotions.

At the moment, he seems to be discussing how the State and the Defence witnesses were either reliable or unreliable.

If the court rejects OP's testimony as being truthful then should find dolus eventualis, if they believe OP's version to be truthful, then culpable homicide. Don't seem to have gone for dolus directus.

Ignore last post

Have they finished for lunch or finished for the day?

I shall have a read of those links, thanks. It was the whole "Reeva was standing behind the toilet door talking to him" which made me think he was saying that OP deliberately and knowingly shot her.

Just broke for half and hour for lunch Roussette.

Thanks emotion, I blinked and missed that bit!

He's showing photos of the Stipp's view. Not seen thee before. They were VERY close!

Damn, I didn't listen and assumed an hour long lunch, and I'm now confused.