Nel: My lady, that if there was an argument, she would have been scared and in any way hidden in the toilet. If she fled and she locked the door. They were the only people on the house.
Nel: If there were other people in the house and they were intruders, then we say yes, she would have locked herself in the toilet.
Nel: If the court accepts the accused's version, and the deceased was locked in the toilet and he did not know, then it would still be murder.
Nel: My lady, my I refer the court to "Snyman".
Nel: He indeed to kill a human being.
Nel: Subjectively the accused armed himself and approached the bathroom, he then continued to fire 4 shots into the bathroom door.
Nel: We argue that there was no reasonable reason as to why he fired 4 shots. If one totally unreasonable thinks that, that person is going to harm me and fires one shot.
Nel: If you fire 4 shots into a small cubicle with 'black talon' ammunition, you cannot escape that. He never said to anybody that it was an accident. That he fired by mistake.
Nel: The only reason he gave was that he thought it was an intruder and he would then be guilty of murder, what is importance is also to take into account the angle of the shots.
Nel: They were all angled at the toilet.
Nel: We also put it to the court that he followed the sound when he fired the first shot and heard her fall onto the toilet, he then angled the following shots that way.
Nel: If the accused argues that it was in self-defense, then he needs to explain why. What we have and what the court cannot lose sight of is, we have the accused armed.
Nel: A reasonable man standing in the bathroom, armed and ready to fire.
Nel: The fact that he has his firearm pointed armed at the toilet door.
Nel: A reasonable man or woman would not fire. What we have objectively is an unarmed woman shot and killed in the toilet.
Nel: So my lady as far as objectively, we have a disabled man with a firearm ready to shoot. It would have been different if the door opened and he fired.
Nel: But we don't have that. We agreed that preplanning is a deliberate act of crime.
Nel: What we have here is the accused is armed. We have "I have to remember where I put the firearm, I have to un-holster the firearm, I have to walk at least 5m to the passage, I have to take p the position and I have to take 4 shots"
Nel: There will be lost of arguments saying that pre-planning means you have to sit and think about it. We have dealt with this in length that pre-planning is not always the case.
Nel: The accused made up his mind when he got his firearm, that my lady is pre-planning.
Nel: My lady that is what we are saying.
Nel: We say in conclusion is that it is based on objective facts.
Nel: We say that the court will accept that the bathroom light was on. It is our conclusion that the accused should be convicted of murder.
Roux: can we get an indication as to the time of court. If we can begin at 9am tomorrow to ensure that we finish on time.
Judge: We can sit another half an hour.
Roux: My lady, before I begin I would like to make some corrections to some of the pages.
Roux: We know on the facts that Dr. Stipp and his wife, heard shots. Second sounds were then heard also by the Stipps' and Burger.
Roux: We were waiting for the state to tell the court what was those first noises. I know why the state is unable to tell the court. It will cause a nose-dive to the states case.
Roux: Second point my lady is that the state suggests to the court that the accused is so reckless with his firearm.
Roux: There was to some extent stated that to see a person driving fast, that they will be in an accident. You cannot apply that presumption.
Roux: You cannot do that. The third point that we will deal with that the state said the accused was not confronted as a anxious person.
Roux: The state made a submission that it was a good evening and there was nothing to be anxious apart. All we are saying if that it will in the sub-conscious level. It all depends on the anxiety and on the evidence.
Judge: Was that the evidence?
Roux: Yes, it was given in evidence.
Roux: Then on the acoustic, if I may just make this point. We must determine the difference between intelligible and audible. Then the state that we were unfair saying that the state did not call the accused a liar.
Roux: We have the page numbers, ......., .............., 1685.1621 and 1743, were the states said "you are lying".
Roux: Then when the state submitted that the state is not there to play chess against the state.
Roux: Van Staden and Van Rensburg did their best to create the impression that they were alone at the crutial stage of the investigation.
Roux: So it is not just to say you don't have to call a witness. It is a situation where the state is in possession of affidavits of other policeman saying that they were there.
Roux: That is where the problem came in, to try and call other witnesses. We also know that the other policeman that was there was Hilton Botha. When we asked if the state was going to call him, we were told that they do not know if they were going to.
Roux: To demonstrate to you the serious nature of this state. "Who would take the fan and move it?"
Roux: Page 1684, line 16 to 25.
Roux: It was repeatedly put to the accused and the accused accepted it.
Roux: That is where the accused said I agree but that is not where it was. Page 834, he says he was in the bathroom , then in the bedroom and then walked to the balcony.
Roux: He says in re-examination, he does not know if the fan was on.