Roux: Mr. Nel did not argue that we state that the clip should be allowed.
Roux: I think the part that upset Mr. Nel is page 143, paragraph 468.
Roux: It is actual affidavits from people.
Roux: It states that Reeva really loves OP and had previously said that if he had aske dher to marry him, she would have said yes.
Roux: It is there my lady. If you read the annexures. There is already evidence supporting the Valentines card.
Roux: We have made the submissions in heads of argument.
Roux: My lady, in addition to that is page 144.
Roux: One day during the trial saying that she cannot take this, saying that the media say that the accused tears were not real.
Roux: She says that is not what she experienced. She says he is real in his emotions. She says it was a man heart broken by his actions.
Roux: The emotions were never about him, it was all about the deceased and her family. Mr. van Zyl just added to this.
Roux: We understand motive. It also helps on the other side when you say I don't see the motive. It is so contrary to what I see, it does not make sense.
Roux: But when you see factors refuking a motive, take that into account. That missing email, that missing 'whatsapp' that could have caused this. It is never there.
Roux: The court must take it all into consideration.
Roux: My lady, that takes us to Van Rensburg and Van Staden. Van Rensburg made statements that are now no where to be seen.
Roux: Van Rensburg's statements that he made were contradictions to what they handed in. Also for W/O Van Staden.
Roux: I ask you to go to annexure G. Paragraph 104, my lady.
Roux: It is stated that the mat would have shifted when they walked over it. They talked about the moving of the towels.
Roux: I said, okay let's look at the photo's. Let's look a the times. How, do you say that the time was wrong, how is it that he says he is alone.
Roux: I want to read some of his answers. We also see from a photo that he took outside, that there were people in the bathroom, that were not meant to be there.
Roux: And I say to him, you are the commander. What do you say about that, that you say you were alone? He says as far as he can remember, yes.
Roux: My lady, either you were alone and you keep to your evidence in chief.
Roux: Page 27, I say what to do you say about theses photos? He answers that he cannot comment about that, as he is not in position of the photos.
Roux: What happened to this definite evidence, cannot be. It is simply showing that the evidence was not preserved.
Roux: The state wanted us to believe that nothing was tampered with. The accused gave evidence and he said. Page 154 of the Heads, paragraph 514.
Roux: "Hang on according to Botha, the duvet was on the one side of the bed", that is evidence. He challenges it there.
Roux: Nothing happens, it remains there. I looked at his evidence, telling him that there is no space on the plug and that it couldn't reach where he said it was.
Roux: It was made to show the accused up as a liar.
Roux: The state says that you made a ruling about the photographs. It is not so.
Roux: I looked carefully, up to the gunshots it was not reconstructed, but after it was reconstructed. I understand, he was emotional, he was terrified.
Roux: Page 1681, my lady if I may ask you to make that note. That is really the last time the accused saw that duvet.
Roux: You must remember by that time the balcony light was on. Mr. Nel then took a later stage.
Roux: This is the reference my lady at 1886, he says, after the shooting, I cant really say where the duvet was, I was so fixated as to where the deceased was.
Roux: We can understand, my lady. He was then criticized about how can he not know where the duvet was.
Roux: The state tells us about the blood spatter, but there is also not blood spatter on the bed, why was there no blood spatter on the bed, was the duvet on the bed?
Roux: Was there transfer on the carpet, we don't know.
Roux: The finding takes you nowhere. The state argues that they were in the kitchen and argued and she ran upstairs to the bathroom. There is no evidence to prove that.
Roux: It is all confusing.
Roux: My lady, I am not. I deal with the accused's version. It is fully dealt with in our heads of argument.
Roux: I just need to point some of the aspects out. In the states heads of argument, it starts at page 57, of course we have responded in out heads of argument.
Roux: It says that it was asked to the accused about If he knew about a 'zombie-stopper', and the accused answered he doesn't know. When he is showed the video, then he says oh yes, he remembers.
Roux: My lady, you are standing in a murder trial, you are so focused on the matter at hand and then you are asked something like that. I don't think it is of much relevance.
Roux: I stood up, moved the fans in from the balcony, and closed the doors of the balcony. He said that he heard a noise.
Roux: He heard that noise after he had closed the sliding doors.
Roux: The version of the accused was clear. He was not on the balcony. He closed the doors and then he heard the noise.
Roux: It is very unfair. It is fair to say he brought the fans in, it was half in and half out.