Nel: The defence failed to call any witnesses to clarify what the accused said happened that night.
Nel: It is not so much that the people were not called, but what is important my lady, if counsel puts to a witness that he will call an expert and the expert will call X.
Nel: If X is not called. The option will fall away.
Nel: My lady, may I ask if we can open the record?
Nel, reads from the record.
Nel: May I ask that we open the second?
"Visible tests were done."
Nel: There were decibels tests done and that they would call a witness. It never happened.
Nel: Then my lady we deal with the sounds of the cricket bat hitting the door. There at least there was attempts to deal with something.
Nel: My lady, this was an attempt, it was put to Wolmarans. My lady we have the recording, it is not something that the court has to accept my word.
Nel: There are crickets in the background, but with the gunshots there was a faint noise in the background.
Nel: We know that these tests were done over 2 nights.
Nel: Even worse was that these sounds were digitally changed.
Nel: We are dealing with people who try and show that a cricket bat sounds like a gun.
Judge: What about the fact that this happened outside of the house?
Nel: It is not about whether it was outdoor or indoors. The sounds we are dealing with were nto the same.
Nel: If we have those tests that were done. Why was it not shown to us. The tests done by Wolmarans and Dixon were done much later.
Nel: The tests were done later. If the accused testified that there was a recording done. He never listened to the recording.
Nel: Why not play that recording to the witnesses. Stipp, burger and Johnson?
Nel: Because it would not have been the same. To ask the next door neighbor to imitate a noise, while you sit with the recording is not the same.
Nel: May I just deal with the last aspect in paragraph 20. Is that Roux put it to the witness Burger, that you cannot hear it from your house.
Nel: Their own witness Mr. Lin contradicted them. Why would you put it as a fact,
Nel: When I read this or as a fact, I thought that the defence would come show us. They never did. Mr. Lin's evidence contradicted them.
Nel: My lady, the evidence by Mr. Lin, was that it was inteligiable at that distance.
Nel: When asked if he had done tests between a woman and a mans voice, he said he never did that.
Nel: My lady, I will now deal with the accused's bail application and affidavit.
Nel: "I felt vunerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself...."
Nel: "I felt trapped, I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted at Reeva"
Nel: My lady there is no other way to interpret that sentence, then that he deliberately fired shots at the toilet door.
Nel: The only intention that one can draw is that there was intention to fire at the door.
Nel: 115 of the criminal act.
Nel: "I by mistake believed that an intruder had entered my house. The noise coming out of the toilet, I believed was the intruders coming out or going in"
Nel: My lady, his evidence in chief was he heard a noise.
Nel: My lady, we have three different versions by the accused himself. He thought they were coming out and he discharged his firearm.
Nel: The accused never said to anyone that it was an accident, when they got to the scene.
Nel: He said "I shot Reeva, I thought she was an intruder"
Nel: He never said it was an accident or I don't know what happened.
Nel: Paragraph 27, it regarding the Prof. Derman.
Nel: He referred to three sounds that startled the accused.
Nel: Prof. Derman, even went so far as to say the he never investigated the accused's reaction to the noise.
Nel: Now, it became quite apparent when we dealt with the startle, he changed his version to "I heard movement in the toilet"
Nel: "The door was closed, I heard movement", "It filled me with horror"
Nel: But my lady it became so clear the he moved away from it. My lady I refer the court to paragraph 5.
Nel: My lady it reads "He heard a noise from the toilet"