Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

Nel is pushing the fact that Reeva definitely went downstairs to eat and they weren't asleep from 10pm but up and about.

THank you to those providing the link to the prosecutions summing up. I just lost over an hour on that! Torn between two favourite bits...

Section 94: We do likewise not anticipate that there will be a serious argument made out that the court should accept (where it contradicts the State’s evidence) the evidence of Mr Dixon and/or Mr Wolmarans. We respectfully argue that they must have been two of the worst “experts” that have ever testified in the High Court. We will, however, be in a position to deal with their credibility should the Defence attempt to place any reliance on their evidence.

Buuuuurn!

Or

Section 44: It is our respectful submission that the accused was an appalling witness. We cannot argue that he was the worst witness ever; that honour belongs to someone else. The accused was, however, demonstrably one of the worst witnesses we have ever encountered.

Ouuuch!

Nel is talking of their relationship. The whatsapp messages when RS is clearly unhappy with how OP is with her and saying he frightens her. This has always been discounted by the Defence because 90% of the messages were loving. But as Nel says... it's the 10% that matters. So true.

That last bit ted about that honour belonging to someone else, that just makes me really despise Nel tbh. It's a murder trial and no place for crowing.

I assumed that he was refering to Dixon there.

But I take your point.

They're talking about the possession and other less major charges now.

Do you think I'll be able to watch it from about half nine? Will it be on you tube?
I would be interested in knowing more about
The damaged panel and door
Frank
The darkness

I think Stack's your person for that. Though I don't believe he's discussed the damaged panel and door.

He's now discussing the various forms of Murder. As Bateman nicely summarises:

Barry Bateman ?@barrybateman 3m
#OscarTrial Nel: if the court accepts his intruder version, he fires four shots into the cubicle - how is that not dolus directs? BB

Glad Masipa decided to press ahead today rather than allow Roux overnight prep time to counter state.

Yep, Roux on the thing about the extension flex.

To be fair, in his argument, Nel never argued that it couldn't reach - only that there weren't enough sockets for both fans.

There is, apparently a photo of the cord.

I wondered if the reference to the 'worst witness' was about another case where the accused in that case was terrible, I didn't automatically assume it referred to this case. I thought he was saying OP was one of the worst witnesses as an accused ever encountered by the Prosecution.

I think Roux is looking and sounding quite impressive so far.

Ah Roux is going on the timings, something I think there has always been difficulties with.

Why is Roux saying that the jeans/duvet evidence isn't safe if they ate downstairs? Nel isn't saying that they went downstairs and tehn came up and he shot her. he's saying they or sh went downstairs to eat at some point contrary to the evidence OP gave.

BTW I am StackALee but with a namechange.

this is up already but not sure if it's complete.

Hello TheGoop/StackALee

Not sure where Roux is going with that argument, I thought Nel said they, or Reeva, ate something else later, then went upstairs to go to bed. Not sure what Roux is driving at, I didn't get the impression Nel said that they went upstairs and immediatey started arguing.

There was some mention somewhere about OP wanting to go out with friends on the 13th and not stay in with Reeva.

I still don't see how Roux can argue against the charge that he shot to kill the person in the toilet cubicle, and the law on that seems very specific.

Thanks the goop.

I get that Nel means AN Other witness was the worst ever, it's just the clever clever flippancy I object to.

I don't recall Mr Wolmarans (ballistics expert) being a poor witness at all. I think he stated his opinion clearly within his area of expertise.

"Section 44: It is our respectful submission that the accused was an appalling witness. We cannot argue that he was the worst witness ever; that honour belongs to someone else. The accused was, however, demonstrably one of the worst witnesses we have ever encountered."

The "worst witness ever" part sounds very glib and childish. In the Radio 4 doc linked upthread, the English lawyers interviewed were not impressed with Nel at all and the tone of this demonstrates why.

Just reading this thread now. Thanks for the "Heads of" links, I will read later.

I wonder if he put the phone on to charge when he went down to unlock / open the front door, then went back up to get Reeva - that was after he'd realised it must have been Reeva in the bathroom and had battered down the door.. I think that was his version of events....

I also feel for the family with the stresses of one thing after another, they seem to be very strong for each other, I guess that happened either as a natural thing or when their mother died, everyone pulling together.

Yes, I do wonder if they have a "family party line" with Oscar but behind that think differently. All I can say is Oscar is very lucky to have a family that so publicly stands behind him, I guess for better or for worse.

Missed the phone thing. So it was in the bathroom and then on charge according to the witness when she arrived.
What was op's explanation?
I do wonder if op can be expected to be a good witness with such traumatic events having happened. I wouldn't have a clue about when I'd done things like that, that are automatic.

Ah Ok, Nerf & Gosh

From what I could gather with the phone thing a call was made from it presumably for help, then further calls by witnesses and OP and when those calls were made the phone was on charge in the kitchen. Question being I suppose, was it always on charge in the kitchen, or, as the witnesses arrived while OP was carrying Reeva downstairs, did he come down, open the door, put the phone on charge and then go back to her? Not entirely sure of the relevance of that though.

I read the copy of the Heads linked up thread, and I was expecting it to be more technical with more legal language, (unless that was a simplified version for the media), and wondered if that is how they word things over in SA hence the use of what we might consider glib and flippant language in the UK.

I also didn't realise Nel could go back and challenge some of the points the Defence make in their Heads once they have finished.

I don't think the question was answered Nerf, maybe that's the point Nel was making.

The phone was photographed in the bathroom so definitely came downstairs and put on charge.
Am really confused by it all now. I Really don't want him to have deliberately killed Reeva after a row. It's such a truly shocking outcome. What could be so terrible you would chase someone into a toilet and then kill them. That's why I hope his version is the truth.

Partly marking place, and partly wanting to say that I genuinely didn't think Nel proved anything beyond reasonable doubt, today.

That's an interesting point about him being allowed to go back and challenge.

Is that not unusual in court?

Nerf I am equally confused on the phones, I thought the phones in the bathroom were her personal phone and his personal phone and the one downstairs on charge was his work phone.

I too don't like the thought he deliberately killed Reeva after an arguement, indeed what on earth could be so terrible for that to be your reaction? However, even if he didn't know it was her in the toilet cubicle I still think it is beyond reasonable doubt that he fully intended to kill whoever was in there.

AmI unheard of in our system, when summing up for the Jury they hear Prosecution then Defence, (theory being the last 'voice' the Jury hear is that of the Defendant) then the Judge takes them through the case and summarises the evidence. Over there without a Jury I don't suppose it matters who speaks last, the SA Legal guy on Sky summarised it as the Prosecution submitted their Heads at the end of July, the Defence read them and then submitted their Heads on the 5th August, so the Prosecution has the right of reply to any issues the Defence raise with the State's case - or something along those lines anyway.

I didn't realise Roux would testify today. I'm now going to try to catch up. I missed everything from lunch onwards.

As for the Heads of Arguments, it does say they are a media copy so I didn't expect them to be exactly the same as the ones submitted to the court. Although I guess they have to be pretty close or there is no point in them being released!

I'm confused about the telephones. I can imagine putting a phone on charge automatically and not having any idea when I did so. However Nel keeps raising it so I guess I'm missing the significance. Is he implying some calls were made downstairs whilst Reeva was left upstairs? I'm going to try to watch that bit again.