Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

11th September for the Judgement.

Yes meant telling her her job. I think he was pulled up by Roux on this as well, can't remember.
I just think Nel is charismatic and has a humorous feel to him, displays his cleverness, and so appears smarter like Russell brand whereas Roux is more dogged, less showman.

My take on the two of them is that Nel is more subtle than Roux. With Roux, I always felt as though I was being told what to think, almost bombastically (and you're right, I probably did rebel under that because I always do). Nel was probably doing it as often, but I didn't notice it as much.

On Twitter, it's been noted that the 11st September is a Thursday, which may indicate that the judgement may take 2 days.

I don't agree with you on the 'bowled over by Nel' point, Nerf, at times I've been frustrated by Nel and felt he could have put the case across much better, at times during his closing argument I felt he was 'fumbling' about a bit.

I also think Roux is more of the showman out of the two of them, but I thought today his overall tone was rather patronising towards Judge Masipa.

Sorry, really laughed at Nel being subtle! Reminds me of a terrier tugging at your leg!
Nel is easier to warm to: I wonder if there's an element of him being on the side of justice? Fighting Reeva's case?
I still don't know. It's just the terrible mistake versus the choice to point a gun and kill your girlfriend I struggle with. (I know it's really irrelevant who he killed for the case)

How odd for us all to have such different views. I wonder why?

Nerf, maybe you're right about an element of Nel being on the side of Justice and speaking for Reeva who can't speak for herself.

I just think that whoever was behind the door OP did not have the right, morally or legally, to appoint himself as Judge, Jury and Executioner.

The full Defence Heads of Argument are up on the Telegraph site if anyone can link them to here, the earler ones where, as previous poster said, merely a rebuttal of the Prosecution Heads.

Will catch up & come back

I don't think Nel is subtle and I do think he should have addressed the issue of the first set of sounds. From reading the heads of argument and response (as I've missed lots of the live coverage over the last two days) there are three differences that make me warm to Nel more.

1. He didn't try to rip apart the civilian witnesses who disagreed with his case. He just let it stand that they didn't hear what people further away heard. (Roux did his utmost to discredit the civilian witnesses today especially the Stipps). Nel was very harsh on the expert witnesses but I do think expert witnesses should expect a certain level of criticism (personally I think Nel overdid it as he made the defence seem completely incompetent and I worry that provides grounds for appeal).

2. I like his delivery style better - that's just my personal opinion and has absolutely no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the case.

3. I also didn't like the slight victim-blaming undertones of Roux' statements ie that if you're scared in an argument with a DP, you would consider the best place to hide so as not to be murdered you would call for help and if in an argument with a DP they shout at you to get out of their house then you should go. I don't think those points will go down well with a Judge famed for her harsh stance on DV.

I guess our personal experiences dictate how we react to them to a certain extent, Nerf. I do find it interesting though; both white men of a similar age, but one of them I'm seeing as avuncular and careful and the other I'm seeing as patronising and dismissive.

I happily concede that I've possibly been taken in by the roles they've had to play in this specific courtroom. I just don't know though.

We will always see people differently though. I think that Masipa has been calm, authoritative and has asked sensible questions. A colleague has said she seems dozy and has asked questions that seem to indicate she's not listening at all.

We've both watched the same person and have completely different experiences.

Can I say, when I said 'subtle' I didn't mean in arguments -I mean in delivery.

The impression I got of Nel was one where he would happily lead people along an alleyway, deftly setting traps and trips as he went, and then at the end of it, he'd smile and say 'now are you completely happy to be here?'

With Roux, I got the impression he'd show you the alleyway, point out the knives, openly start fires, and then shove you down there with a boot to the back of your pants.

I didn't mean to imply that Nel would never let anything go. It was more that I wouldn't know what he was holding until he showed his hand. With Roux, I could see his arguments coming a way back. That's why I rebelled - I hate being told what to think. Nel implied, suggested and led. Roux just went ahead and told us.

Ah, I see. In that case then yy I think Nel could be called subtle.

emotions thanks for noticing the Defence Heads of Argument were on the Telegraph. Here is the link to the Defence Heads of Argument

May I just ask something about a comment that was made way, way up thread?

There was a reference made to OP receiving bad news on 13 February - was this confirmed? And is it known what the news was?

If Roux and Nel wrote their Heads of Argument (and it isn't a task competed by someone else in the team) then Roux' is much more impressive.

Perhaps Roux is a better writer than talker and Nel is vice versa!

ohfourfoxache The nature of the bad news wasn't confirmed iirc.

There was a text from Reeva to OP in response to some bad news he had that day, and I think it was confirmed that OP had a meeting that morning concerning finances. I think a lot of people linked those two things together but I don't think it was confirmed.

Thanks Book

Is there any other explanation for her empty bladder, other than she'd just emptied herself?

In his summing up Roux talked about OP's father and why he wasn't called and how he could have been made to make a statement.

If so then why wasn't the same applied to the other guy who was in teh house? it seems to messed up.

It always comes back to frank for me. I can't understand how someone in the house where the noise woke the neighbours can just avoid participating.

Cricket, there's a photo in the DM (sorry) of Carl's car.

Agree Book Roux's Heads of Argument were impressive, more of what I expected, the Prosecution Heads look somewhat lacking in comparison. As the onus is on the Prosecution to prove the case I am rather disappointed in their Heads.

Looking loving the alleyway description

WhoDaresWins her bladder was empty and there was, apparently, no evidence her bladder had involuntarily emptied due to the trauma or her death, leading to the conclusion that she had in fact been to the toilet immediately prior to being killed.

On the subject of Reeva having been to the toilet, when she was shot she had her/pants shorts pulled up and was standing at the door, did she flush the toilet, if she did why didn't OP hear that?

So that's odd. Nel is really fond of normal behaviour - I wouldn't have gone to the loo during a row with my abusive ex, id have felt far too vulnerable.

Programme on Sky at 9.30