Nel: That can never be, because on the accused version he was screaming like never before.
Nel: Then my lady, there was screams before the region of the shots. Burger testified that there was a woman screaming before the first sound.
Nel: Both parties heard a woman's petrified screaming before the gun fired. There were no screams after the gunshots. We say the light was on in the bathroom.
Nel: What is important is that both Stipp's evidence stated that the screaming started moments after the first gunshot and ended briefly after the last shot was fired.
Nel: My lady, there is argument with all the times, but the fact is there was no screams before the gunshots and after the gunshots. The accused version is that he had never screamed like that before.
Nel: Stipp was awake, Mrs. Stipp was awake. Nobody said that she wasn't. Why would they.
Nel: So my lady, there is more then enough evidence that they heard the deceased.
Nel: One person that we know counted four, is the one person whose evidence is collaborated by the accused's fact.
Nel: The shots that were fired, the screams were those of the deceased. That is the court rejects the accused's version of the scene it becomes more probable that the deceased found her self locked up in the toilet, if there is no perceived danger.
Nel: My lady then as far as gastric content is concerned. Van Der Merwe, said that she heard a womans' voice.
Nel: Her evidence is that she tried to block out the sounds, she all most fell asleep and woke up again. She woke up and hen heard the shots.
Judge: Was she in and out of sleep?
Nel: Yes, in and out of sleep, when she woke up she tried to block out the sounds.
Nel: It is confirmed, page 161.
Nel: If the defense argued that she heard somebody cry, then it must be the addition that she can hear from her house.
Nel: My lady, it just works out brilliantly. On the 21 February 2014, there was someone doing something at the house. She heard it again, all most a year later and she could hear a noise again.
Nel: Having been through this, having gone through consultation. She looked at the area of the accused's house.
Nel: She never once tried to link it to the accused, all she said was that she heard a woman's voice.
Nel: The evidence of Prof. Saayman, he is the witness that I say the court will accept. The way in which he gave his evidence was most impressive.
Nel: I will go through it, but if the court will accept that, then it is in line with Van Der Merwe that she heard a woman's voice.
Nel: It destroys the accused's version that they were sleeping. Saayman stated on the gastric emptying that she last ate 2 hours prior to being shot.
Nel: This will show that we don't have a couple sleeping from about 10pm. We say in paragraph 10, is what the court should do, is follow the mosaic.
Nel: If you apply Saayman's evidence then you have to apply the principles and look back.
Nel: Indeed, it shows that the lights were on and they were not sleeping.
Nel: If it happened in the bathroom or bedroom, I don't know. Lin says if it happened downstairs, I don't know they are much closer.
Nel: We have many details, Van Der Merwe waking up, hearing a woman argue.
Nel: At that same time the deceased must have eaten something. The defense had available to call Dr. Perumal. He was present during the post mortem.
Nel: They did not call him to testify.
Nel: We have a docter that was present and one that was not present and wants to make inference on the post mortem.
Nel: "There was food residue in the stomach"
Nel: He says that this is not an exact science. We know this my lady.
Nel: My lady it goes on, I am not going to read it for you. We have here a witness saying I know all of this, I know that it is not an exact science. Based on my expertise and what I have seen, here is my report.
Nel: The deceased had eaten within 2 hours of the shooting. The accused's version then cannot be correct.
Nel: My lady, then we have the fact that the accused states that he activated the alarm that night. Then the alarm would have gone off, if she had gone down stairs to the kitchen.
Nel: We cannot think of any possibility we must apply it to this case.
Nel: My lady there is one further aspect. Paragraph 161.
Nel: Digestion does not stop when one is dead. Saayman did explain this to us in court. The deceased was also only admitted to the mortuary at 11:55am.
Nel: One will be able to say that the gastric content as a result of a dinner between 7 - 8pm cannot still be in her stomach.
Nel: There was no evidence that the deceased ate anything in the room, this then would show that the deceased went downstairs to eat
Nel: We then argue that the deceased ate somewhere between 1 - 3am that morning.
Nel: This would not be in line with the accused's version of a loving couple fast asleep in bed.
Nel: We were able to see into this relationship from the view of the deceased by "whatsapp", talking about their relationship.
Nel: The defense would say that 90% of all those messages were loving but it is the 10% that matters.
Nel: It is that 10% that counts my lady. What really counts is the timing of the messages. We are not talking about a message that is years old. We are talking about messages 7 days before the shooting.