Roux: We need to expose this to the court my lady.
Roux: Please that, that those questions where coming form the same person who stated that in cold blood he fired his gun.
Roux: I am not trying to justify what has happened but please consider this when we leave the court.
Roux: My lady, and I mean well. Can I read the Heads of argument, paragraph 1 by Mr. Nel. I have a lot of respect and regard for this person.
Roux: He ignores the first shot, he ignores the cricket bat. He ignores Mrs. Van Der Merwe who says she heard screaming.
Roux: What he is saying to you is, there could be an argument, there could be. If you combine everything, then you can get a conclusion.
Roux: But you g=have to look at the inferences.
Roux: The defence will argue that 90% of all the messages were of a loving manner.
Roux: You cannot quote a radio and say this is radio. This is law. We showed a clip of a loving couple and the court corrected me.
Roux: You will have to show this as an inadmissible, we cannot have the law according to Jacaranda.
Roux: That tells you something, that the hole is too deep. That he had to resort to this. My lady, with your approval, I am going to be very short. I am going to sum up the crucial points.
Roux: It is all in the 'Heads". May I make a very short submission then I am done.
Roux: You cannot over rule your own submission. What the state was doing was to go and fetch other cases to try and make their case stronger.
Roux: So what I am going to do is go and fetch other cases and use those findings in this case. You cannot do that.
Roux: Count 2 is the sunroof incident is when you consider, please also consider Mr. Fresco in count 2 further.
Roux: He contradicted himself. When he took a photo of a speedometer of over 200km and then said it was the accused. When corrected, he said "Oh it was me".
Roux: It came out also that he was assisted by Mr. Wits and another.
Roux: I don't find that the accused asked him to take the blame. So when you ask for the 204, you ask for the offences, it was not there.
Roux: He was all other the place. Why he stopped, the crumbling of the ticket. His evidence in chief, he was not only a poor witness.
Roux: Miss. Taylor she had more motive. The accused cheated on her. It is not good enough to say "I don't know". The reason for the shooting, she says she doesn't know.
Roux: They all agree that there was a shooting through the sunroof, but clearly the other two were contradicting in their statements.
Roux: There is a huge difference.
Roux: The third count - the discharge at the restaurant. 1 he pulled the trigger, 2 his finger hit the trigger by mistake and 3 there was a mechanical error.
Roux: Capt. Mongene did not test this weapon. Mr. Fresco did not indicate as to when last his weapon was checked.
Roux: He should never have handled that firearm, he should never had asked for it.
Roux: He says that he was negligent, he says he made a mistake.
Roux: We quoted it, it is in our heads.
Roux: Again it is not the accused that is failing to take the blame in count 4. He says his father wanted to put his ammunition in a safe place.
Roux: He thought that he could do that. And I informed the court yesterday that the Firearm act does not make provision for that.
Roux: What is I go to Mr. Oldwages house and I have my firearm with me and do not want to sit with it on me, and I ask Mr. Oldwage if I can put it in his safe. Then the police came and say Mr. Oldwage doesn't have a license for it.
Roux: The act does not make a provision for this .
Roux: We gave the state ample time to check this, OP says it is his fathers and that he does not have a license for that type of gun to begin with.
Roux: But it is a valid response.
Roux: My lady, in dealing with the main charge. Can we look at the real common.
Roux: There were 4 shots fired, 4 hole sin the door and 4 empties is the room. Not 3 shots fired.
Roux: Subsequent to the shots, the door was damaged by the cricket bat, it was cracked. When the door was cracked the hole from the bullet was already there.
Roux: That shows that the shots were fired first.
Roux: We got a number of concessions from Vermeluen regarding the door.
Roux: The third one was after the shots that the deceased would not have been able to make a sound.
Roux: There were two sets of sounds. according to the witnesses both sounds resembled gunshots to the layman.
Roux: It is also the evidence of Mr. Wolmarans that the stiking of the cricket bat against the door would never sound as loud as the gunshots.
Roux: We have the evidence, the cricket bat striking is not as loud as the gunshots.
Roux: All we have now is to take objection. What we say to you, my lady is the following is we took telephone data such as the security data.
Roux: Dr. Stipp called, it last 16 seconds, we have the 3:16am again with a man crying. We have Dr. Stipp saying I was on the line at 3:17 trying to get through to 10111 when I heard another shot.