Roux: Derman says this is the accused's version, this is the story. It is an inference, what must I investigate.
Roux: So by blaming him for not investigating the scene. How can he be blamed for not going to the scene.
Roux: The other point made by Mr. Nel is "Look at the door", "look a the grouping". My lady if you put me 2m away from the door. Is that a good grouping from 2 meters away.
Roux: We must be careful not to be sidetracked about the grouping.
Roux: Nel kept on stating that the accused fired at the door, Capt. Mongena agreed with the accused's version that as to where he was standing.
Roux: The accused was not standing in front of the door, why would he remain in the entrance of the bathroom if he was afraid.
Roux: Botha was quick to say that he was 1.5 m away from the door. Capt. Mongena could not agree with that.
Roux: Then Nel, I don't know the correct but he was bold to say that OP never activated the alarm that evening. But then when it suited Nel he changed the story and said that the deceased went downstairs to eat, had to switched the alarm off.
Roux: It cannot be, you have to be consistant my lady.
Roux: My lady, I am not talking to you about the relationship. Nel says there was a 27 January "whatsapp", then there was another unhappy "whatsapp" in 7 February 2012.
Roux: Nel stated that they never made up. I ask you my lady to check how quickly they actually made up. Where is that evidence?
Roux: Nel says, Baba says op said he was fine and everything was fine. I must however say that by that time he had already phoned, Stander and phoned 911. In my opinion he had phoned the right people.
Roux: Nel says that the accused contradicted himself in those three counts. My lady may I explain that we deal with it in detail.
Roux: We are not making the submission that the accused did not arm himself, he did arm himself, he went to the toilet, he for saw that he would have to fire if need be.
Rouw: Where Prof. Derman came in was to explain to you why he would on his stumps go to the toilet. To say that is the result of disability.
Roux: You cant look at the last reaction. I am talking about a principle.
Roux: You cannot isolate, you have to look at the "slow-burn" over time and then you consider. Please don't look at it in isolation. What we then say, now you are standing at the door.
Roux: You are vunerable, you are anxious, you are trained as an athlete to react to a sound. He stand now with his finger ready to act if need be and then "bang".
Roux: If I am standing behind a person who is in fear and I slam my hands behind them. What would their reaction be?
Roux: That is what Prof. Derman was explaining to us. He also explains that he cannot tell us how long it would last. That freeze, that reaction.
Roux: All we say to the court is when you consider this, you have to interpret his evidence.
Roux: The state did not call someone to challenge what Prof. Derman stated. Why did the state not challenge it, he had Dr. Scholtz sitting next to him.
Roux: it is there and not challenged. It is supported by publication and supported by Dr. Scholtz.
Roux: What you must do, and I am very glad to say that you must do it and not us. When he heard that sound in his state and having regard to his athletic side, his anxiety.
Roux: You know it is not right to shoot but you shoot. You have to decide on the facts and looking at the evidence and we give you every detail from his evidence as to why he fired.
Roux: If your findings are that it was purely reactive, then he lacked capacity.
Roux: Or is the case of the state that he went there to purely kill the deceased. But the moment you accept his version that he thought it was an intruder.
Roux: You cant ignore it.
Roux: The moment you find that you cannot reject his version that he thought it was an intruder, then you must ask what was that thought process.
Roux: So how can it be conflicting. It is not, it depends on the interpretation.
Roux: We say with that in mind, I sum up to a large extent.
Judge: You spoke about the "slow-burn" how does it apply to this case?
Roux: I am going to explain it but it is explained in the head.
Roux: You grow up as a little disabled boy, you know that you cannot run away from danger. You have a fight or flight response.
Roux: As per Prof. Derman stated the fight or flight response becames heightened.
Roux: OP can pretend his is fine with his legs on, that is why we see the two OP. We must understand the 'Slow-Burn"anxiety.
Roux: The moment you are confronted with perceived danger, then you are compromised. Because the 'slow-burn' will come into play.
Roux: So we can say, like that woman who picked up the gun said "I have had enough". In that sense my lady.
Roux: His thing is when he gets that startle, it gives way to three things, flight/fight or freeze.
Roux: My lady, may I show you exhibit D, pages 26 and 28.
Roux: I will read it to you. What the state did to this accused was they told him that he committed a pre-mediated murder. What the states does to this accused, 3 to 4 days after this incident,
Roux: He hears that he got up from his bed, put on his prosthesis, armed himself and went to fire his gun.
Roux: The accused was told that he wanted to shoot, that is the cold facts. He then gets Mr. Botha to come and give evidence that the accused put on his prosthesis and stood in front of the door and killed the deceased in cold blood.
Roux: When asked where did he get that information from he said "He got it from the forensic team". When I spoke to Capt. Mongena about this, he stated that he could not say at what distance OP was standing.
Roux: If you think that the accused is not apprehensive after what the state was doing to him. It was plainly false.
Roux: When I spoke to Mr. Botha he then changed his story, he stuck to the 1.5 meters in front of the door. Botha then said it was an unfair question as forensic / ballastics have not told me anything yet.