Skip to main content

Roux: Burger remained in bed - would have been difficult to hear woman screaming in closed toilet.

 

<small class="time"> 6s</small>

Roux turns to eating times. State claim RS had been awake and had meal 2 hrs before death. OP sd they were asleep then

 

<small class="time"> 52s</small>

Roux: Only sleight probability of woman screaming or of Reeva eating 2 hours before her death.

 

<small class="time"> 30s</small>

Defence: State seeks to prove that Reeva ate at about 1am to show that she and OP were still awake at about 02:00....

 

<small class="time"> 8s</small>

Roux: state told us deceased had food hours before she was killed. Something happened to change that, not in the post mortem.

 

 

 

FM
<small class="time"> 26s</small>

Roux says he doesnt know if Reeva fancied midnight snack. 'I cant exclude that,' he says (inference: neither can you mlady)

 

OP much more alert today - must have got some sleep or not be as depressed as stated by news yesterday - he's listening intently and not a yawn in sight 

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Here we have an athlete and a model, says Roux, looking to show "probability" that couple ate early then RS had snack later.

 

<small class="time"> 53s</small>

Roux: "Let's not forget that as court officials we’re also human beings."

 

  Schmultz alert 

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux saying Prof Saayman's explanation 'doesnt make sense' - that they prepared food at 7pm but went to bed and ate at 1am

 

<small class="time"> 23s</small>

Roux: in law, when you have an expert witness contradicted by an eyewitness, you give preference to the eyewitness.

 

<small class="time"> 45s</small>

Roux urging Judge to look at probabilities not possibilities: so model snacking at midnight on her own?

 

 

FM
<small class="time"> 24s</small>

Roux says how cd he (Saayman) still recognise particles more than 10 hrs after dinner? There's no hard and fast rule

 

<small class="time"> 14s</small>

hahaha RT Starved.. but waiting for Barry Roux to finish so I can take lunch at the same time they do. My life though. Smh.

 

I'm so with this person - think lunch is coming up in a few minutes thank Goth! 

 

M'Lady I think you've made your point 

FM
<small class="time"> 51s</small>

Roux saying now how the husband and wife witnesses Burger and Johnson had remarkably similar statements

 

<small class="time"> 2m</small>

and we’re back. Roux continues presenting his closing arguments. BB

 

<small class="time"> 12s</small>

Roux attempting to cast doubt on both their testimony: if one is wrong then it follows the other is too (he's suggesting)

 

<small class="time"> 17s</small>

The State has relied on the couple having a late night argument. Roux asks why passing security guard didnt hear anything?

 

<small class="time"> 17s</small>

Roux said evidence can never justify the inference that OP and Reeva were arguing

FM
<small class="time"> 1m</small>

I'm not going to waste time on OP and RS relationship, says Roux, praising Judge's criticism yesterday of Nel's sweeping conclusions.

 

Roux: on the relationship - it improved after 7 Feb, coupled with Valentine's card "It's time to tell you that I love you".

 

<small class="time"> 41s</small>

RT : it is not up to the defense to prove innocent. it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt: Correct AC

 

this ^ is why I fear he will walk 

 

<small class="time"> 27s</small>

Dr Scholtz report on OP: there were no indications that relationship between Oscar and Reeva was abusive.

 

one of the psychiatrist who tested him in Weskoppies 

FM

Roux: one should be careful with Greyvenstein's statement - it wasn't tested in cross-examination, but supports Valentine's card

 

Roux: Yvette van Schalkwyk, social worker, came to correct picture of accused as self-centred.

 

  the heartbroken woman 

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

The social worker said 'his emotions were never about him, what was going to happen to him or whether he'd get bail'

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux: when you see factors refuting a motive to kill, take that into account and say it doesn't make sense. It's not there.

FM
<small class="time"> 16s</small>

Roux urges court to take note of evidence refuting that Oscar Pistorius had motive to kill Reeva

 

<small class="time"> 44s</small>

Roux says OP wasn't faking when upset in court, he was upset

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux: refers to the judge to Annexure G which deal with the contradictions of Van Standen and Van Rensburg.

 

<small class="time"> 12s</small>

Roux refers to a quote of Van Staden’s, the mat might have moved when he “trampled” on it. That’s not how you preserve a scene.

 

Barry has a point 

FM
<small class="time"> 30s</small>

Roux attacking the work of Col Van Rensburg and police photographer van Staden

 

I think again he has a point here - SAPS work is generally very sloppy.  Maybe that is down to laziness, lack of skills or them not bothering to secure a scene properly.  I think we in the UK are lucky as we have  SOCO who do a very good job and we're used to a higher standard 

FM

Roux says Van Staten dodged answering questions about having colleagues, superiors on the scene, changing his evidence.

 

<small class="time"> 21s</small>

So defence case: had no motive to kill RS, reacted involuntarily due to slow burn of lifelong disability, police tampering

 

In a nutshell 

 

I love the way SAs pronounce duvet 

 

Roux: accused said he was so fixated on where deceased was that he doesn't know where the duvet was - he got criticised for that

 

<small class="time"> 18s</small>

Roux: why no blood spatter on the bed? Is it because duvet was on the bed (as OP said)?

 

Roux: it's all confusing.

 

No s**t Sherlock 

FM
<small class="time"> 34s</small>

Roux moves to the 13 lies - 'the proverbial baker's dozen.'

 

<small class="time"> 35s</small>

Roux defends Oscar initially denying knowledge of the zombie-stopper - he’d just given evidence about details from the house. BB

 

<small class="time"> 58s</small>

Defence: psychiatrist panel found OP presented “with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood" following shooting

 

<small class="time"> 58s</small>

Roux turns to the zombie-stopper shooting video. Roux v upset it was used in the trial, says OP was asked out of blue

FM
<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux reads from gal statement agreeing that the accused never stated he was outside when he heard the noise. BB

 

<small class="time"> 55s</small>

Roux now seeks to undermine the 13 lies that Nel says OP told during his testimony, says many unfair.

 

Roux: he's criticised for not having a good memory now - he suffers from severe depression as he sits there, major stress...

 

<small class="time"> 10s</small>

Roux moving swiftly through the items - saying he’s already dealt with the duvet on the floor. BB

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux is dealing with all of Nel's thirteen big lies of OP. Shoring up OP's responses.

 

Roux: he woke up, saw the fans were on, closed doors, then saw LED lights - can't be combined into one event.

 

<small class="time"> 8s</small>

Roux: Only one person woke up their partner on hearing noise. Sam Taylor's case was different. (RS) WAS awake

 

and yet while awake we're supposed to believe she didn't make a sound 

FM
<small class="time"> 38s</small>

Roux: this is not a case where an accused comes up with a version two years after the incident - “there was an intruder

 

<small class="time"> 6s</small>

Roux: all the evidence is consistent with an accident, a huge mistake.

 

Roux: his security concerns are all there, but Derman had tested him long before this case - his marks showed high anxiety.

 

<small class="time"> 53s</small>

Roux said he wanted to help Reeva,his actions are not consistent with a man who wanted to kill his girlfriend

 

<small class="time"> 28s</small>

Defence insists OP has a history of feeling insecure and vulnerable especially when without his prosthesis

 

<small class="time"> 11s</small>

Roux: dealing with the accused state if mind during his testimony - he suffers from an adjustment order, his memory compromised.

 

<small class="time"> 9s</small>

Roux asks that these things (disorders/anxiety) are taken into account (not as an excuse)

FM
<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux: If OP had wanted to kill Reeva, why did he fire from corner of bathroom. Also, why did he shoot so low?

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux says after OP fired the shots, his ears must have been ringing

 

<small class="time"> 24s</small>

Defence summary reinds Judge RS's bladder was empty suggesting she'd just gone to toilet

 

Roux: the window isn't a figment of his imagination - it was open.

 

<small class="time"> 29s</small>

Roux: coming up with this elaborate version about the intruder does not reconcile with his extreme emotional state.

 

<small class="time"> 10s</small>

sits rigid in dock. Can't remember ever seeing him so still - eyes glued, or so it seems, to Roux's back.

 

 

FM
Originally Posted by Xochi:

Hola! 

 

Is it just me or is Barry railing at the judge condescendingly? 

if I was in court I'd slap him - I appreciate he's doing a job and a fairly good job imo but he's saying the same things over and over and over again - don't know if it's designed to eat in to Nel's time for rebuttal - remember M'lady said she absolutely isn't available next week 

 

hello by the way 

FM
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Xochi:

Hola! 

 

Is it just me or is Barry railing at the judge condescendingly? 

if I was in court I'd slap him - I appreciate he's doing a job and a fairly good job imo but he's saying the same things over and over and over again - don't know if it's designed to eat in to Nel's time for rebuttal - remember M'lady said she absolutely isn't available next week 

 

hello by the way 

Glad its not just me then.   And yep, I keep thinking its Groundhog Trial! 

Xochi
<small class="time"> 37s</small>

Roux: 'You cannot convict him of murder'

 

<small class="time"> 31s</small>

Roux now begging Judge to apply legal principles when considering case

 

<small class="time"> 39s</small>

Roux: if he failed to foresee that his conduct could kill someone, then you convict on culpable homicide.

 

<small class="time"> 20s</small>

Roux on eventualis: The real question did accused foresee deceased was in toilet and reconcile himself?

 

 

<small class="time"> 46s</small>

Did foresee that RS in toilet? asks Roux. No, his version is consistent - he thought she was in the bedroom.

 

<small class="time"> 11s</small>

Roux arguing that you cannot transfer intention to kill one person to another person.

 

<small class="time"> 18s</small>

Roux says this is the pure legal question : did OP foresee possibility that RS was in loo and didn't care

FM
Originally Posted by Xochi:
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Xochi:

Hola! 

 

Is it just me or is Barry railing at the judge condescendingly? 

if I was in court I'd slap him - I appreciate he's doing a job and a fairly good job imo but he's saying the same things over and over and over again - don't know if it's designed to eat in to Nel's time for rebuttal - remember M'lady said she absolutely isn't available next week 

 

hello by the way 

Glad its not just me then.   And yep, I keep thinking its Groundhog Trial! 

I might tweet something alone those lines 

FM

Roux: in culpable homicide, also consider capacity...if you find against us, 'reasonable man' is not like every other person.

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux urges court to evaluate Oscar Pistorius as reasonable disabled person with anxiety not the ordinary "reasonable man"

 

ironically so much of OPs life has been spent trying to gain acceptance as an ordinary person, now he's in trouble, he wants to be seen as the vulnerable disabled man 

FM
<small class="time"> 58s</small>

As with Nel, you have to admire Roux's stamina - he's kept the same, relentless, forceful tone going since 9.30am. trial.

 

<small class="time"> 37s</small>

Roux: Shd he have discharged those shots as a reasonable man? if the ans is yes, thats the end of this case

 

<small class="time"> 39s</small>

Roux wants a few mints to consult. He’s just about done.

 

 

I just tweeted to Andrew Harding of the BBC after he suggested Roux was impressive in his stamina that I was desperate for him to say "is this an opportune time" as I need a weebreak - just as I sent it Barry asked for an adjournment - I nearly pmsl literally 

FM
Originally Posted by Pengy:
<small class="time"> 58s</small>

As with Nel, you have to admire Roux's stamina - he's kept the same, relentless, forceful tone going since 9.30am. trial.

 

<small class="time"> 37s</small>

Roux: Shd he have discharged those shots as a reasonable man? if the ans is yes, thats the end of this case

 

<small class="time"> 39s</small>

Roux wants a few mints to consult. He’s just about done.

 

 

I just tweeted to Andrew Harding of the BBC after he suggested Roux was impressive in his stamina that I was desperate for him to say "is this an opportune time" as I need a weebreak - just as I sent it Barry asked for an adjournment - I nearly pmsl literally 

You are Mark from BB then! 

Xochi
<small class="time"> 23s</small>

State can ask to reply to defence argument. Unclear if that will happen.

 

<small class="time"> 3m</small>

Roux is arguing that Pistorius was not at all negligent in shooting, therefore not even guilty of culpable homocide

 

  well I suppose we knew this ^ was coming 

 

<small class="time"> 9s</small>

Roux seems to be trying to do prosecutor out of his right of reply...suggesting he had all facts before him yesterday

 

what I said earlier 

FM
<small class="time"> 18s</small>

Nel says he has two points on law. 'I have no intention to abuse the process'

 

<small class="time"> 38s</small>

Nel stands up - says he has 2 point - 1 to do with a new photograph

 

<small class="time"> 45s</small>

If state want's last word on facts - that's unfair, says Roux. Nel jumps up, and denies any such intent.

 

<small class="time"> 5s</small>

Nel objects to a new photograph that was presented by the defence team earlier.

 

<small class="time"> 33s</small>

Judge wants to ask Nel about timeline presented by defense. Is it common cause, she asks? Nel: not everything

 

<small class="time"> 31s</small>

Judge wants to know if all phone data is 'common cause' ie both sides accept them as fact. Yes, Nel replies

 

Nel says the chronology in their heads is based on phone data.

 

Judge asks if she should grant Fresco indemnity - Nel submits that he answered all questions, even if he contradicted Taylor.

 

Nel submits that indemnity can be granted, Fresco answered honestly and fully.

 

Nel says he has no problem with CCTV footage being admitted, but the photo handed in has not been proven.

 

<small class="time"> 48s</small>

Nel says Roux's photo showing the extension cord ran roughshod over rules of admissability

 

Neal: we cannot ride roughshod over rules of admissibility - we do not know when that photo was taken, no meta-data on photo.

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Nel: is questioning the admissibility of this photo. It was not presented during the trial.

 

<small class="time"> 54s</small>

Nel says he doesn't object to the photo being handed in, he should, but doesn't

FM
<small class="time"> 14s</small>

Roux insisted the State had got it wrong. Cord COULD be moved so OP's version was true

 

<small class="time"> 18s</small>

How long will Masipa need for judgement? Wonder if she will give us a fixed date.

 

you'd have more idea than us Davor 

 

<small class="time"> 4s</small>

Nel says Roux never explained his 2 defences

 

<small class="time"> 7s</small>

Nel says he never made mention of the length of the cord - it wasn't part of out baker's dozen.

FM
Retweeted by 
<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Nel says the "two defences" are not only mutually exclusive but mutually destructive.

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

Roux ended his arguments with more of a crescendo than Nel. But the last minutes of this trial seem destined to be bickerings and scraps.

 

<small class="time"> 28s</small>

Nel turns to the eating. 'Our witness sd 2 hours before she was shot.' (thats 1am not 11pm as defence says)

 

<small class="time"> 13s</small>

Nel says "The accused intended to kill a human being"

 

therefore he is guilty of murder 

 

Nel: accused knew there was a human being in toilet - if he fired indiscriminately, knowing there was a person, that's murder.

 

<small class="time"> 17s</small>

Nel: if someone kills a human being in a case like this, there must be consequences.

 

<small class="time"> 9s</small>

the aircon is going full blast.Nel is speaking in a low tone and is barely audible, or intelligible.

 

<small class="time"> 13s</small>

Nel arguing that a mistaken shooting is no defence. A life is a life - and says Judge should convict him of murder

 

<small class="time"> 44s</small>

Now it's Nel's turn to drag Roux's well worn phrase "that cannot be" out one last time. Not clear to me that he's breaking new ground.

 

it will never replace "I put it to you" 

FM
<small class="time"> 43s</small>

Masipa asks Roux about the indemnity of Darren Fresco - he says Fresco wasn't a good witness   

 

won't agree to indemnity 

 

<small class="time"> 10s</small>

Roux accuses Fresco of not being honest or helpful. 'I'm not saying he shd be prosecuted, but he was not full and frank'

 

<small class="time"> 10s</small>

Roux does however point out that simply means its up to state to prosecute him, which seems unlikely.

 

<small class="time"> 5s</small>

Nel is back up - saying Fresco has a right to address the court - this will be done later

 

 

I think we are done at last as she's thanking both teams 

 

 

11th September 9.30 put that in your diaries 

FM
Originally Posted by moonie:
Originally Posted by Pengy:

I think we are done at last as she's thanking both teams 

 

11th September 9.30 put that in your diaries 

We have to wait that long?

Its like a soap opera but will it be the ending we all want or will there be a 'soap opera' type twist?

I'm hoping she finds him guilty and that she doesn't defer sentencing but does it on this day 

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×