Nel: My lady it reads "He heard a noise from the toilet"
Nel: My lady, it should not be sounds but movement.
Nel: My lady, Prof Derman, was so intent in helping the accused that he tied himself in knots.
Nel: Then he tried to explain what he meant. My lady, his answer to that was poor. But it was important as it shows a person that is biased.
Nel: We carry on there at that paragraph my lady dealing with this.
Nel: In an attempt to tailor his version to support his plea explanation was to tangle his story.
Nel: When I asked what happened, he stated that he believed that someone was coming out.
Nel: My lady, that is defence number 2. He himself was confused as to what defence he should use.
Nel: "The discharge was an accident and I believed someone was coming out"
Nel: My lady these two quotes excludes the accused answers "Before I knew it I fired 4 shots"
Nel: My lady, we are now back at paragraph 34, we have dealt with it, except to say that no where in the heads of defence is there any indication to say that the accused was innocent.
Nel: It in fact states that the accused ability has been compromised in the box.
Nel: So this is an acknowledgement that the accused was not a good witness.
Nel: The defence then carries on in the heads, they blame Nel.
Nel: The one thing they blame Nel for is that Mr. Nel called the accused a liar numerously.
Nel: It happened once and the court reprimanded me.
Nel: It was that if the denim was found on the duvet, then you are not true. I was shortly after that reprimanded. I never called him a liar.
Nel: Now as an excuse Nel did that. My lady, paragraph 36.
Nel: Is one of the more important paragraphs in our heads. The court will have to reject, or even evaluate if there is no credible version.
Nel: If there is no reasonable truth then the defence will have to accept. To evaluate the defence you need a version.
Nel: My lady if the accused's version is rejected then the court will have to say that there is no reasonable truth.
Nel: My lady, I will read from vs. Van Der Westhuizen. My lady I will have copies available.
Nel: My lady may I just confirm with my colleagues.
Nel: May I then refer to this case?
Nel: Page 33, paragraph 11.
Nel: I quote my lady " ....on the contrary it is the obligation of the counsel to challenge the evidence of the accused"
Nel: I also refer to paragraph 12, page 35.
Nel: My lady may I also read page 37?
Nel: 18 lines form the bottom of the page my lady.
Nel: "He who runs may read"
Nel: In all the arguments, for not calling all the witness. It is not the states problem.
Nel: My lady, may I refer the court to page 17 of the heads, where we deal with the legal principles.
Nel: Those are all tried and I am not going to spend time on them.
Nel: Page 18 of our heads, my lady.
Nel: It is an interesting case, a rare one.
Nel: "When all is proposed, probability should be proposed"
Nel: The court observed the witnesses, some over days.
Nel: It gave the court an advantage.
Nel: My lady we then deal with "Hadebe", paragraph 2
Nel: I am sure the court has sat in many various cases.
Nel: The best case that illustrated circumstantial evidence was the "Hadebe" case.
Nel: My lady, I just cannot put it better then that. We say in this trial my lady, if each piece of circumstantial evidence.
Nel: If the weight of each circumstantial evidence was a feather, then the weight of all the feathers should be weighed.
Nel: We can see that there is a good grouping of shots, the defence say that they take offence in saying that there is a grouping.
Nel: We say that the first shot fired A, was the bullet that shot her in the head. Having gone through all experts, Botha, Mongena, Van Der Nest, Wolmarans and Dixon.