Roux: How my lady, would he have walked there if the fan was there. It was moved.
Roux: I can understand that, that is not all the accused was saying. Van Staden tells us that he picked up the carpet.
Roux: We know things like this happen. The state is saying that we are coming with a conspiracy theory.
Roux: My lady, I will show you another example. The extension cord that is missing.
Roux: We asked the state to please show us a photo as to how the plug was plugged into the extension cord.
Roux: They did yesterday, and it was seen that the extension cord was in fact longer then originally thought. It stands at the foot of the be.
Roux: Col. Van Staden states that he did not touch anything, I asked him if he is sure. He stated that he is. Then we show him a photo sitting with his hands on the clipper.
Roux: His answer to the photo was that he was testing the extension cord.
Roux: What he doesn't tell us what the position was of the multiplug, we don't know as we cannot find the time on the photo. We know that the curtains were moved.
Roux: The second part is this, we tried to understand the states case. The states will on the one hand say that Van der Merwe heard a female voice and then the shots.
Roux: The state will also then say that the other witnesses say they heard screaming and then the shots. That cannot be because then Van Der Merwe was wrong.
Roux: Van Der Merwe was not sleeping it was translated incorrectly. She stated that "sy het op gestaan" (she got up / or stood up). She was not sleeping.
Roux: On page 13 dealing with count 3 dealing with the shooting in the restaurant.
Roux: Count 4, state submits to you that this trick of possession. There is so many cases. Ultimately it is the for the court to decided. The accused says he has the ammunition in his safe but that it is his fathers.
Roux: The state goes further in other aspects my lady. It says in the heads that they were downstairs eating at 1am in the morning and then they had an argument. Then Van Der Merwe would have heard them better.
Roux: If that was the case, then what must I make of the states case that she hurried to get rid of her jeans upstairs.
Roux: What must I then do with the blood-curdling screams then, you cannot stand there talking and then give blood-curdling screams.
Roux: The states also says that the duvet was thrown on the floor as a desperate attempt by the deceased, but we are now downstairs. How does that merge together.
Roux: When the state realized by Dr. Stipp's evidence that after that last shot that the deceased could not scream. He could not do that, as all the screams of the female then had to be moved to the cricket shots.
Roux: What would he say when did the crocket bat hit the door. He can't.
Roux: That is not what this case is about. It is avoiding of material facts.
Roux: What did the state submit to you? Why did they not talk to you about the immediate neighbours. Why did they not talk about the high pitch screaming.
Roux: They are unable to deal with the cricket bat sounds.
Roux: We hope tomorrow to take you through the evidence as per the timeline. We took the telephone and all the relevant information.
Roux: I say to myself, what is going on. Nel tells us about the accused shouting "help" hen no-one else heard him. I will show you as per the telephone calls, that Stipp was there at that time.
Roux: We know the time. All we say is once you acknowledge the facts, we don't say that the witness is not reliable.
Roux: Would it be appropriated to stand down until tomorrow?
Court is adjourned until 9:30am