Roux: Before I do that, I want to go to Dr. Stipp's evidence.
Roux: The reason why I am dealing at this stage with Dr. Stipps' evidence is because I made reference to Mrs. Stipp's evidence.
Roux: It shows that the seconds sounds must have been the cricket bat, as Mrs. Stipp saw a person in the bathroom. The accused must have been on his prosthesis at that time.
Roux: We will show to you that Dr. Stipp's evidence is untrue and unreliable. What he did was that he said he woke up and in moments he was on the balcony and moments he saw lights on.
Roux: Then he made the call, then there is a lapse and he jumps to 3:27. We will show you that it is all wrong. At 3:27am, he phoned security and spoke to them.
Roux: We know it was not so, Mr. Baba was already there at the house of the accused.
Roux: Annexure A, paragraph 7 you will see the details there.
Roux: After 3:27 he then heard a male voice shouting for help, then the security guard arrives later. He then says he saw someone walking in the bathroom.
Roux: He then drove to the security and then to the accused's house.
Roux: We take this evidence and we start to measure it against the objectives.
Roux: Between the first and the second sounds. The state really wanted the lights to be on in the bathroom.
Roux: My lady on page 4, there is a wrong statement. It is infact 5 minutes.
Roux: If you can just delete that there. Let's start to compare his evidence, his moments.
Roux: Burger and Johnson say that about 5 minutes lapsed between the time they heard the screaming and the sounds.
Roux: Then we look at Mr and Mrs. Shingeshwe's evidence. We know it cannot be moments.
Roux: Then we go to Mrs. Stipp, she started with an incorrect time as her watch was 3 minutes behind.
Roux: Then we do something more and we say let us look at the consistency of the shots and the times and the affidavits.
Roux: It shows that we cannot rely on Dr. Stipp's evidence. You will see that the phone call to the security did go through and Mr. Baba did go to his house.
Roux: The neighbor only switched on his houses lights after the phone call. What is important about that is the Dr. Stipp's evidence states that it was on.
Roux: Mr. Shingeshwe said why would he put his lights on, he didn't want to be a target at that stage. He did not know what was going on.
Roux: On page 8, Mrs. Stipp tried to help Dr. Stipp's evidence and tell us that she was in bed but then she said she moved to the bigger balcony. One thing we do know is that Dr. Stipp says he met her on his way to the balcony.
Roux: What is so important is the bathroom lights, paragraph 23. We took photo's of the accused's house. If you switch on the bathroom lights and close the toilet door it is illuminated.
Roux: Dr. Stipp, said the light on the right was more intense. He is absolutely correct, it tells us one thing that when he saw the light the toilet door was already open.
Roux: Page 12, and it refers to Peter Baba, and when he arrived at Dr. Stipp's house. We then deal on page 13 with the telephone calls that did and did not go through.
Roux: Look what Dr. Stipp did there, his wife evidence is there. She goes further, she says that when security came to their house, she says that she told them what my husband had said.
Roux: She already at that time, she was already in a position to share with Baba her husbands' version that he saw someone in the bathroom
Roux: That a few minutes past 3:27 when the security drove away, he then saw a man walking in the bathroom.
Roux: But we know that at 3:30 he was already at the accused's house. We say it is not an accident it is unreliability.
Roux: He moved the timeframe. I will show you what else he did, that is not the only thing.
Roux: I deal with smaller issues.
Roux: I deal with this in detail, what he does. May I ask you to go to page 18 of annexure A. He made two affidavits. I am dealing with the sounds. He says he hears a woman screaming, in the second affidavit he says he hears a woman screaming three times
Roux: Then in his evidence in chief he says it sounded like that of a woman.
Roux: My lady, then that sounds become fearful, emotional, almost scared out of her mind.
Roux: He came back from a lunch adjournment and then was able to come up with this.
Judge: What are we to make of this?
Judge: Was he asked about this?
Roux: My lady, this is a man who in two affidavits, described what he heard in two different ways.
Judge: What is wrong with this addition?
Roux: It is not what he said to Stander. Why did he not say it, it is an inference, You have to take it back to his evidence, where his moments are not correct, the telephone is not correct, when the lights on in the neighbours house is not correct.
Roux: The time of the screaming "help, help, help" is not correct.
Roux: It is inconsistent with the other witnesses evidence. You must ask yourself the question, can you rely on him.
Roux: It may be that in the lunchtime he remembered how the screaming sounded. I can say that I am concerned, that conduct is not right.
Roux: My lady what we say to you in coming to the first sounds, at page 96.
Roux: We have to look at the timelines in the context. We make the submission that you have three shots by Dr. Stipp, 3 shots by Mrs. Stipp. Then sometime later you have three shots.