Roux: Mr. Nel says that in that there was no space for a second plug. We don't know. Yet he gets criticized about not knowing.
Roux: My lady, this man suffered from a major depression. Don't criticize him, for a lack of memory. It makes sense.
Roux: Then the movement of the duvet. We don't know exactly where it was. The accused also says he doesn't know.
Roux: The blood spatter not on the bed, I have dealt with that.
Roux: His version to put the duvet on the bed which inturn lead to a contradiction. It is not so, when he woke up that is when he saw the duvet.
Roux: It I may say so my lady.
Roux: If I may ask you to read this, he says the accused claimed that he did not see the deceased. This is not fair, my lady.
Roux: 1672 deals with his movements when he got up. 1674 when he spoke about the pitch black after he had closed the curtains. It is unfair to combine the two.
Roux: It is our argument that the accused wanting to cover the blue light cannot be true. On his version he was not bothered by the blue light, if that was not the reason why he woke up.
Roux: My lady, he woke up and saw the door was still open. When he came in, he saw the blue light, That was not his focus.
Roux: The denim on the duvet. The court findings show that it was next to the duvet. We don't know. Even if it was so, what does it matter.
Roux: We say we don't know where the duvet was in that instance. There is nothing to give us any comfort.
Roux: Nel says that it was inconceivable that the accused failed to mention it in the bail application.
Roux: My lady, it is a shortened version of the accused. If that was the only fact left out, then okay but it was one of many.
Roux: Then it goes on to say that all the couples woke each other up when they heard a noise, so why not the accused and the deceased.
Roux: That is not true. Not all the couples woke each other up.
Roux: This case is difference, she was awake. He talks to her, it is not that he ignores her. Did he make sure she was still in bed? No, but there was communication.
Roux: The deactivation of the alarm. We have dealt with it. The accused says he cant remember. That is what he normally does.
Roux: But please take that traumatised statement by the accused. He says he cannot remember, but he normally does.
Roux: My lady, the version of the accused and criticized. However something that is so important. The accused for the first time in nearly 2 years, stand and says that he thought she was an intruder.
Roux: He fired shots, and then when he couldn't find her, tried to break down the door. He had no clue when he gave his version in the bail application.
Roux: He had no clue as to what Mr. Stipp had heard, he had no clue what Burger had heard. it is there consistant with him thinking that it was an intruder.
Roux: He was crying for them to please help her. Why would he beg them to save her, if he did it on purpose. She would then have been able to turn around and so look what this man did to me.
Roux: It could not have been. So we say that is the importance of what was said in his bail application. What is in important is Prof. Derman's report.
Roux: He tested him for his anxiety long before the incident. He had high-anxiety. It is confirmed in page 139 but Prof. Scholtz.
Roux: Remember my lady I dealt with the two Oscars'. It is dealt with there, my lady. The blue-print was already laid down.
Roux: Prof. Vorster, you don't have to accept her report of the anxiety. One thing is that she is not standing along, she is supported by Prof. Scholtz and Prof. Derman.
Roux: As I say, they sat with the professionals from Westkoppies.
Roux: She sat in court. She had the right to say something, if they did not agree.
Roux: Why did the not call Dr. Kotze. Because they all agreed
Roux: My lady, dealing with the state of the accused in court. We see it. It was diagnosed.
Roux: Page 163, his memory was compromised.
Roux: He had admitted that he was using mediation since the incident of the 14 February.
Roux: The accused said that he was morning, that he was severely traumatized. We say it again, we give you proof of that.
Roux: We dealt with his reactions to those shots. We say, if you wanted to kill the deceased, why did you not walk into the bathroom.
Roux: Capt. Mongena agreed as to the area from which the bullets were fired.
Roux: It is common course that she was behind the locked door. We know that she was behind the door. It is a small cubicle.
Roux: The state's case is that he fired one shot and then heard another noise and fired the rest. That is not the case, my lady.
Roux: When the accused fired those shots, his ears were ringing. Why would it be so low if he wanted to kill someone.
Roux: If you want to kill a person who you are talking to behind the door, then you would fire higher.
Roux: The state are relying on all these aspects, but it is muddled.
Roux: It is so important, he was traumatised. Is the state saying that within 2 minutes, he worked out this great scheme. He doesn't make sense.
Roux: Crying out loud to Dr. Stipp, phoning 10111. Why would he do that then.
Roux: He asked the deceased to close the sliding door, we know she did not. Now he gets up and closes the door.