Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

All this on the timeline and screaming/not screaming, I am not sure what Roux is trying to prove, OP killed Reeva that is not in dispute surely he should just be arguing as to how that happened, relevant to the charges, this seems like he's trying to say everyone is lying and OP is innocent of anything and everything.

I can't understand why Nel didn't explain the first set of sounds. I was assuming that he just hadn't explained them in his summary but that his explanation would have been in the full argument paper that he submitted to the Judge. Now I'm wondering if he just didn't explain them at all

I think Roux's manner is becoming a bit patronising to the Judge, especilly in the last exchange with M'Lady. Also, his tone at the moment sounds condescending and sneery.

Judge Masipa is interrupting and asking questions far more than she did with Nel, and she also looks a tad confused at times (but perhaps I am just reading things into nothing here)

Yes emotion, I was going to say it was pompous somewhat.

especially, sorry for typo.

I don't think Roux's manner and style would go down well with a Jury. I don't undersand why there is so much emphasis on all this screaming, etc., it sounds as if he is trying to prove that the whole thing never happened.

The BBC journalist in court said he thought Roux had pissed the Judge off with the domestic violence analogy and that he should have let it drop rather than continue with it.

I remember when this thread (or a previous one) had a big discussion about the timeline and a few posters made the point that you could work back from the time of the arterial spray on the stairs to pinpoint the time of the final, fatal shot. I wonder why that hasn't been mentioned.

Yes Book especially bearing in mind that Judge Masipa is well known for her long sentencing of domestic violence victims. I read somewhere in the SA Press that she shows no mercy for abusive men so Roux's analogy would perhaps not go down well.

Sorry I meant long sentences for those who carry out domestic violence.

Is Roux arguing that none of the State witnesses heard the shots, but only the cricket bat sounds? The Defence never concusively proved the similarity of the sounds of the shots and the cricket bat.

Roux seems to be saying that every one of the States witnesses is a liar, stupid and/or part of some conspiracy. Roux couldn't shift the State's witnesses on what they heard/saw when they were on the stand, this sounds like petty revenge because he couldn't break them in the cross examination.

What on earth is he saying now? Is he blaming the State for the Defence not calling a witness to prove OP sounds like a woman?

Is Roux taking the view that yes OP did it, but because of the State/Prosecution case he shouldn't be held responsible?

Roux is not convincing me at all. Not even remotely.

He is discussing why he didn't produce a promised witness to show how OP screams in a high pitched voice, because he had witnesses saying they heard OP.

These are the same witnesses who didn't hear any gunshot, and the women who he made repeat the scream, but the man who he did not.

So as he had those women demonstrating, he didn't need a witness or any kind of attempt by OP to replicate his own scream.

Yes I thought Roux's DV Victim analogy was in poor taste and ill considered considering Judge Masipa's knowledge of DV.

I am just finding Roux extremely hard to follow, he is jumping about all over the place to me anyway
At least Nel had points he went through one by one.

I agree, Roux is not convincing me either it seems he is tinkering around the edges and making a big issue of certain incidental things in order to avoid the one glaring absolute fact that his client did kill Reeva.

Putting up a smokescreen to avoid the main issue, his client shot four times into an enclosed space with the sole intention of killing whoever was in there.

his client shot four times into an enclosed space with the sole intention of killing whoever was in there.

I wonder if he'll come to this at some point.

Nel was quite clear yesterday - at the very least, OP approached the bathroom with the intention of killing whomever was in the toilet. He believes he knew it was Reeva, but even if he didn't, it still remains murder.

I wonder how Roux will answer that. It's intriguing to me that he's already said that if OP asked for and took the gun in Tasha's and discharged the bullet, then he would be guilty.

I wonder if he'll try to make out that he didn't intend to kill anyone at all.

Unfortunately I have to go to work this aft so will probably miss Roux's statements about the main facts so shall look for updates on here

This is an interesting point of law - in SA law, apparently you have to take an eyewitness report over an expert witness. He appears to be using this as a way of removing Saayman's evidence.

To me.... and this is just me... Roux is just working far too hard in a patronising way at rubbishing all the State's evidence and witnesses, he keeps saying "I can't say it is wrong, but but but..."

The Defence Heads of Argument are on the Daily Telegraph site, I don't know how to link them perhaps someone else could?

Here?

i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03000/Supplementary_Head_3000376a.pdf

Looking I'll need to listen to that part again. I didn't think he said it was a point in SA law, I thought it was just his approach to the point ie trying to justify why he didn't provide evidence from experts as he had said he would. He thought the witnesses cancelled each other out so there was no need for an expert witness.

The legal professor who thought OP would be found guilty of murder said that one witness not hearing something doesn't negate the testimony of someone who did, which is interesting as it's the opposite of what Roux just argued.

The whole what-Berger-heard-or-didn't-hear argument is interesting. Wasn't she the witness who was musical? Not that every musician has finely tuned hearing but some do, and can identify nuances that others wouldn't hear. But I may be confusing her with another witness.

Thanks echo it will be interesting to compare their timeline with the State's one in their summary.

I am edging towards guilty.

I've been on the fence for so long that it feels strange, but I am now at 'guilty'.

I have to admit, I'm not fully sure of what he's guilty of, but I'm convinced that a) he shot at the door fully intending to kill who was inside and b) he had no reason to believe it wasn't Reeva in there. It's the first time I've thought of it from that angle.

The back to the bed, pitch dark and not getting a verbal response are the things that are swinging it for me. He's using it as an excuse to say that he didn't know she WASN'T in the bedroom. But with those three things together - he also had no reason to believe that Reeva WAS in the bedroom. He didn't see her - he didn't hear her. Just to say 'it was the last place I saw her' doesn't quite work for me. We're not talking about an inanimate object. He says himself that she was awake just minutes before.

Even if we were to suppose that the first two points were right - it was so dark and the fans were so noisy that he could not possibly have noticed her creeping away (and why would she creep away?), then you still have the stumbling block that he called in a low voice/whisper to call the police, and she didn't answer. If you were being silently ignored by someone you knew was awake minutes before, would you not repeat or call out the name or something to get a response?

So he didn't see or hear her in the bedroom. Why would he think she was there? It's not like there were no other possibilities where she could have been.

If they were alone in the house together (Frank excluded) and there was a noise from the bathroom, it almost stands to reason that as he did not know that she was in the bedroom, then the first thought would have been that it was her in the bathroom.

I suspect I've got some of this wrong and that my thinking is flawed - it often happens that way. It's just where my mind is at the moment.

That's interesting Looking because right from thread no 1, your points have been my sticking points and I've posted as such. I have always said that when in this sort of situation, the first thing you do is say "did you hear that?" or "call the Police" or whatever, then you get acknowledgement from the person you are saying it to, before you actually do anything.

At this point, Roux is annoying me so much that I can barely listen. Again, he's labouring his point about the Burger's witness reports were 'virtually identical'.