Roux: We know that it was a hot evening.
Roux: The evidence of the other witnesses was consistant with the accused up to there. There is no point in that, the fact is that never in dispute was the window open.
Roux: Supported by objective empty blame.
Roux: I have dealt with it when I made the submissions. I do want to ask you to go to paragraph 79, page 52 of the states argument.
Roux: Lets work on the states case.
Roux: It talks about self-defense, it says before you can consider it the court would have to consider the deceased.
Roux: The deceased voided her bladder. Why must she tell him she is going to the toilet.
Roux: For no apparent reason she opened the window.
Roux: Why did she take her phone with her to the toilet. My lady, if you go through the telephone records, you will see that she used her cellphone.
Roux: The light that was not on, my lady, not every one switches the light on when going to the toilet.
Roux: There is no special answer there.
Roux: The deceased stood up and locked the door.
Roux: My lady, I would have done that.
Roux: The deceased was fully dressed. The deceased did not hide and stood right up behind the door.
Roux: Perhaps she was not aware that she would be shot at.
Roux: This is concrete to the state. My lady we can give with respect in law.
Roux: All with respect, nonsense. We have to understand principles. We must move away from that, we must understand principles.
Roux: When you are charged with a offence requiring an intention.
Roux: If he failed to reconcile, then he conceived. I am talking about his version and his attempt to reconcile.
Roux: You cannot convict him of capable murder.
Roux: The real court tells us that you have to apply principles.
Roux: Don't apply reasonable grounds as the state is asking.
Roux: His version is consistant, he thought she was in the bedroom. It did nto enter his mind that she was in the bathroom.
Roux: He was fixated that there was someone else in the toilet. He then went back to look for the deceased and then tried to break down the door.
Roux: He thought she was in the bedroom. He was wrong. We must not with respect confuse the two,
Roux: On his version did he at all see the version that she was in the toilet. Because that would be a question for capable homicide.
Roux: But you only get to that with respect, I dealt with that in the Heads, if you can find that he had motive to kill.
Roux: It is not good enough to say that anyone would have known she was in the toilet. Ask him.
Roux: If you find against us, it is so important that the law is not, that reasonable man in 1960 with his grey suit and his grey shoes.
Roux: Judge Cameron from the constitutional court also referred to in our heads.
Roux: Leave out the personal traits, then you have the reasonable person. I am not saying the disabled person.
Roux: Would it be wrong to say he heard a noise and without his legs he felt vunerable. I don't think so, my lady.
Roux: Now he is standing there, looking at the door, the reasonable person. That is the cruts of the case. Was he acting reasonable?
Roux: Was he acting reasonable or would the reasonable person have acted differently?
Roux: We say, no. There he is, facing the door and fired the shots. If that is reasonable.
Roux: If your findings is reasonable than you must acquit.
Roux: Then it is your findings my lady.
Roux: If you take into account that he was a trained athlete trained to a sound, a disabled person.
Roux: If you say that you are a reasonable person without legs, are you going to turn around and go back to sleep or are you going to stand up and stop the person.
Roux: You have all the facts, you have to determine. We have explained all the facts. We ask you to consider that crucial point, 3am in the morning. The knowledge of what he has gone through in his life.
Roux: If it may please the court my lady.
Roux: My lady, I need two minute adournment.
Court is back in session.