Roux: That does not explain or make any common sense. The deceased may have come downstairs later, maybe feeling puckish. Some of us do late at night.
Roux: We say here we have an athlete, food is ready at 8pm, then we have that they would then decide to go to the bedroom without eating. They then came down later at 1am to go down to the kitchen and eat dinner.
Roux: Then we deal with Prof. Saayman's report. He says that he would suggest.
Roux: He also says that he can only provide a probably timeframe. He says that it could probably vary by an hour or so.
Roux: He is honest. I could never so that he was not an honest person.
Roux: He says that it can vary, it can be 2 hours earlier.
Roux: If it contradicts to an eye-witness, then you cannot take it.
Roux: You have to give preference to an eye-witness.
Roux: If it contradicts to an eye-witness, then you cannot take i
Roux: Then, my lady, he says that it does not stop, the digestive process carries on after death. We know the post mortem was done 10 hours after the shooting.
Roux: We know that the enzymes would have broken the food up.
Roux: If on his own evidence, the enzymes would have broken down the food content.
Roux: It is a general rule that nil per mouth 6 hours prior. Also please understand, my lady.
Roux: We cannot say Prof. Saayman is wrong but be careful.
Roux: The probability is there. He warned against it, that is why he suggests it is not an exact science.
Roux: Do I say that she did not eat at 11pm? No, I do not know if she went downstairs.
Roux: I am not attacking Prof. Saayman's qualifications at all.
Judge: I think you have made your point.
Roux: Thank-you. My lady I see it is 7 minutes to 1pm.
Court is adjourned until 13:30pm.
Court is back in session.
Roux: My lady due to the time constraints, I've dealt with part of the screaming.
Roux: I am only going to go through a few more points. In annexure C, in response to the state. THe witnesses dealing with the screaming, we say let us just look at Johnson and Burger.
Roux: That should be concerning, if you look at their statements, you would need a magnifying glass to spot the differences. They were exactly the same or so similar.
Roux: Even Johnson's cellphone number was in her statement.
Roux: I am not suggesting that I am giving you cold facts. I am giving you facts that was raised by Burger in her evidence used the word 'fading". In Johnson's testimony he also mentioned the word "fading".
Roux: He also started a sentence with "when my wife testified...." and I told him he does not know what he is doing.
Roux: Burger also referred to a jackals in the night, howling. Johnson then also when he testified mentioned that some jackals.
Roux: It was quite clear that Johnson used the same words and evidence that his wife used while she was giving her testimony.
Roux: Page 31, what was interesting about Mrs. Stipp was when she spoke about the second sounds her husband shouted at her to get a way from the window and then the screams started.
Roux: It cannot be, it refutes the evidence of Prof. Saayman.
Roux: I touched on the states evidence. Have you ever heard him screaming like a woman.
Roux: The argue relied upon the state is not real. We deal with that.
Roux: It can never ever justify the inference that the accused and the deceased argued. What more is that Mr. Baba was outside. So it cannot be.
Roux: You can say at best, that there was a woman's voice far away.
Roux: So it is there, we deal with it my lady. It cannot be, there is no evidence or so insufficient that it cannot carry any weight.
Roux: My lady I am not going to waste any time, the relationship.
Roux: There are three things that I must deal with is, if you look at the messages after the 7 February 2013, you only get loving messages up until the incident.
Roux: Page 131, we refer to Prof. Scholtz. It is so important as to what was said.
Roux: It was not contested in court by the state.
Roux: Scholtz says about the relationship with the deceased, is that the accused got along well with her and he was genuine with his feelings. Although there relationship was young there was no signs of any abuse which is normally the case.
Roux: They were able to talk through their problems. Then we saw the video clip, showing a loving couple.
Roux: Scholtz says clearly this is not hearsay, but evidence.
Roux: We see their movements and contact and we see their relationship. There was no suggestion that the clip was tampered with.