Ich denke nicht, dass es hier um die Schüsse als solche geht, sondern um die Schreie VOR den Schüssen. Die timeline erachte ich mit den übrigen Indizien nicht als das Wichtigste. Sie ist ja keinem der beiden gelungen zu rekonstuieren. Einmal wünscht sich Roux Stipps Notizen als unzuverlässig und dann will er sich aber 3:16 rauspicken.Ahnungslose schrieb:Roux sagt aber, die Schüsse sind eine Weile VOR 3:17 gefallen, damit konnten die Zeugen keine RS Schreie VOR 3:17 hören, da sie NICHT schreien konnte. Da VOR 3:17 schussartige Klänge von Zeugen tatsächlich gehört wurden ist man in der Sackgasse, bis dem früheren Satz der Noises seitens Anklage keine aeigene Bedeutung zugesprochen worden ist. Oder man muss das alles, was Roux behauptet, als Lüge belegen. Die Stipps haben aber doch der Satz von Schüssen VOR 3:17 gehört, das Securiy hat über die Schüsse um 2:55 berichtet, die anderen Zeugen SIND gleich darauf wach geworden ... das alles muss auch in diese 'Lüge' eingewickelt werden.
Die Anklage geht nur von Schüssen aus und muss sich nicht weiter um die Cricketschlägerschläge kümmern. Wir wissen, dass es beides gegeben hat, aber der Anklage geht es NUR darum die Schreie VOR den Schüssen zu beweisen.
Guter Punkt! So muss es auch gewesen sein.
Das wusste er ja dann.
Volksblad, 9 August, 2014.
Pretoria. - With his performance in the dock, Oscar Pistorius became the author of his own downfall. This is the opinion of four legal minds consulted by Volksblad. All of them predict that Pistorius will be found guilty of murder, but not necessarily guilty of premeditated murder.
If an accused, in giving his version, jumps around like a cat on a hot plate (an Afrikaans idiom) it will give an enormous advantage to the state, said Jan Henning, SC, ex head of the NPA.
According to Wessie Wessels, attorney, the improbabilities and contradictions in Pistorius' testimony was so obvious that he felt sorry for Oscar's legal team.
"Oscar sank himself by never trusting the court with the truth. I'm convinced that he and Reeva had a fight that night. The court doesn't have another option, it will have to find him guilty. But I don't think the state proved premeditation."
Attorney, Andre Grobler, also expects a verdict of guilty of murder. He says that in a criminal case it is a fatal error to adapt your version as Pistorius did. It is like setting your sails to catch the most wind (idiom: covering all your bases). Grobler says Roux is brilliant, but any legal counsel is only as good as his witness. Grobler thinks Nel did an excellent job pointing out the holes in Pistorius' testimony.
"This case is about one thing: what was he thinking when he shot, because it will explain his actions. At first he thought is was an intruder and he wanted to protect himself and Reeva. But then he said he didn't want to shoot anyone.
"When a witness contradicts himself, he damages his credibility. I think that, on his own version, Pistorius is guilty of murder," said Advocate Piet Pistorius.
Attorney Delia de Vries disagrees. She thinks Pistorius will be found guilty of culpable homicide because Oscar never meant to shoot Reeva. She says it was a tragedy, and the facts are so bizarre that no one can make them up, so they have to be true. She says that anyone who (lies and then) puts up a performance like Oscar's deserves an Oscar.
http://www.volksblad.com/nuus/2014-08-09-pistorius-het-die-outeur-van-sy-eie-ondergang-geword (Archiv-Version vom 10.08.2014)
Here is one of Roux's purposefully misleading interpretation of the evidence in his closing argumentsdeutlicher zu erkennen hier: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?252572-Trial-Discussion-Thread-50-14-08-8-Day-40-final-arguments-continue&p=10840010#post10840010
Roux's contention is that one should only use objective facts and testimony corroborated by objective facts… on principal, this would seem like a wise approach.
Dr.Stipp testified he made 3 phone calls to security and this was not challenged by Nel or Roux.
– DrS is awakened by 3 loud bangs
– AS asked him what that was and DrS answered he thought it was gunshots
– DrS got out of bed and went to the big balcony to ascertain where the shots came from
– DrS heard a female screaming 3 or 4 times and also a man’s voice that was also screaming
– DrS says the voice where different in pitch
– DrS heard the female screaming moments after the bangs
– DrS ascertained the screams were coming from the row of houses opposite his house.
– DrS noticed that almost all the inside lights of Michael Nhlengethwa’s house were on.
– DrS noticed that lights inside OP’s bathroom were also on.
– DrS went back into the bedroom and took his phone.
– DrS called Silverwoods security landline : it rang quite a few times but no one answered.
– DrS called 10111 but that number must be out of order : heard a ‘funny’ dialing tone.
– DrS called 082911 but no one answered.
– DrS heard another 3 loud bangs, one on top of each other in rapid succession.
– DrS told AS to get away from the windows.
– DrS called Silverwoods security landline at 3:15:51 (16 seconds).
– DrS explained to the guard on duty what he heard and asked to dispatch someone
– The security guard said he was waiting for his duty manager and that be will be there shortly
– DrS put the phone down and went back onto the big balcony
– DrS heard a man shouting : “Help - Help - Help”
– DrS went back inside the bedroom and waited for the security guard to arrive
– 3 security guards arrived a few minutes later in white buggy
… snipped for space …
– DrS says OP was crying and praying to God all the time.
– OP said that he would dedicate his life and her life to God if she would only live and not die that night.
– DrS went outside and asked JS if the ambulance was on its way.
– JS replied ‘no’ that he hasn’t called the ambulance yet.
– DrS called Silverwoods security landline at 3:27:14 (0 seconds).
– DrS called Verwoerd Hospital on his phone but was told to call ‘ER911’ an ambulance center.
– JS called ‘Netcare911’ at 3:28.
– JS handed his phone to DrS to talk and explain the situation to Netcare.
… snipped for space …
One must remember that Dr.Stipp's detailed billing was NOT submitted into evidence nor was it available to the Court… the detailed billing used was Silverwoods security landline.
1st Phone call to security
This phone call did not appear on the detailed billing of the Silverwoods security landline
Possibility 1 : When a call is placed but never answered (it rings and rings and the caller hangs up), that call is NOT registered in the detailed billing. The only time a phone call is registered is when the caller receives an answer : somebody picks up, voice mail or even busy signal is considered as an "answer".
Possibility 2 : Dr.Stipp wanted to call Silverwoods security landline but dialed the wrong number… which also would explain why that call is NOT registered in the detailed billing.
2nd Phone call to security
3:15:51 (16 seconds)… no problems here
3rd Phone call to security
3:27:14 (0 seconds)
Obviously this was a misdialed number since the call lasted 0 seconds
___________
Since Dr.Stipp's 1st phone call to security does not appear on the detailed billing, Roux decided "objectively" that this phone call NEVER happened.
Consequently, Roux then assigned in his timeline the 2nd phone call (3:15:51) as the 1st phone call by Dr.Stipp to security and the 3rd phone call (3:27:14) as the 2nd phone call.
When you do that, Dr.Stipp's chronology of events obviously can NEVER be reconciled with the evidence :
– DrS is awakened by 3 loud bangs
– AS asked him what that was and DrS answered he thought it was gunshots
– DrS got out of bed and went to the big balcony to ascertain where the shots came from
– DrS heard a female screaming 3 or 4 times and also a man’s voice that was also screaming
– DrS says the voice where different in pitch
– DrS heard the female screaming moments after the bangs
– DrS ascertained the screams were coming from the row of houses opposite his house.
– DrS noticed that almost all the inside lights of Michael Nhlengethwa’s house were on.
– DrS noticed that lights inside OP’s bathroom were also on.
– DrS went back into the bedroom and took his phone.
– DrS called Silverwoods security landline at 3:15:51 (16 seconds).
– DrS called 10111 but that number must be out of order : heard a ‘funny’ dialing tone.
– DrS called 082911 but no one answered.
– DrS heard another 3 loud bangs, one on top of each other in rapid succession.
– DrS told AS to get away from the windows.
– DrS called Silverwoods security landline at 3:27:14 (0 seconds).
– DrS explained to the guard on duty what he heard and asked to dispatch someone
– The security guard said he was waiting for his duty manager and that be will be there shortly
– DrS put the phone down and went back onto the big balcony
– DrS heard a man shouting : “Help - Help - Help”
– DrS went back inside the bedroom and waited for the security guard to arrive
– 3 security guards arrived a few minutes later in white buggy
… snipped for space …
– DrS says OP was crying and praying to God all the time.
– OP said that he would dedicate his life and her life to God if she would only live and not die that night.
– DrS went outside and asked JS if the ambulance was on its way.
– JS replied ‘no’ that he hasn’t called the ambulance yet.
– DrS called Verwoerd Hospital on his phone but was told to call ‘ER911’ an ambulance center.
– JS called ‘Netcare911’ at 3:28.
– JS handed his phone to DrS to talk and explain the situation to Netcare.
… snipped for space …
The hilarious bit is that Roux used this trickery to both discredit Dr.Stipp as a non-credible/unreliable witness AND bolster the Defence's timeline by shifting the Nhlengethwa’s chronology roughly 10 minutes backwards (i.e. make it so they woke up to the 1st set of bangs, not the 2nd set)
To attempt such a foolish and obvious trickery is quite insulting to Masipa's intelligence, IMO.
Edit: Not verbatim. A summary.
Legal Round Table Defence Closing: @ about 5:00
Attorney Marius du Toit says that Oscar should not be judged by the normal standards of a reasonable man. He says that not only is Oscar disabled, but his disability resulted in psychological issues like anxiety and vulnerability.
David O'Sullivan asks if he thinks that these traits should then be recognised as part and parcel of the reasonable disabled man.
Du Toit hesitates.
Over to Prof James Grant. He doesn't agree with Du Toit. He quotes case law and says that since the 1930's SA courts have time and time again refused to take disabilities and other subjective factors into account. It sounds unfair, but each and every subjective factor in a person's life can not be taken into account when he commits a crime. He says the 'reasonable man' definition exits for a reason - to protect society.
He later continues to say that if you take too many subjective factors into account you risk constructing a copy of the accused against which you'll measure his reasonability.
Michael Motsoeneng says you have to take certain subjective factors into account, otherwise it is not fair.
Prof Grant says he is correct that it is not fair, but it is the law.
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-defence-closing/s-RkoDP
Very interesting… My guess is this will be one of the basis for appeal Roux will use as an error in Law and with the financial support of the Pistorius clan it will be pursued to highest courts of SA.
