Nel: The accused admitted that his evidence consisted of what he could remember and what he had heard from state witnesses.
Nel: That in its self, should let warning lights go on.
Nel: What the court would want is the version that the accused could remember of that night.
Nel: But my lady, he however made it clear that from the time that he went to sleep up to the time that he took Reeva's life there is no recollection.
Nel: We have identified many, so we numbered them.
Nel: 1. The accused answered the question pertaining to the video. He said he had no idea what was a "zombie stopper".
Nel: Upon realizing that he may be caught out in a lie. The accused now realized that there is something coming and stated "I cant remember".
Nel: My lady for a person to tell you that he does not know what a 'Zombie-stopper" is and then to use the words himself.
Nel: It is an indication of the nature of his evidence.
Nel: 2. The accused realized that he need to be inside his bedroom to hear a sound. He was adamant that he never went onto his balcony. But he then volunteered himself and said that he went onto the balcony to fetch the fan.
Nel: It is not a statement that I put to him there. He then repeated the statement again.
Nel: And the defence would argue that it is a matter of speech. He never meant that. But my lady even on the defence's version, they don't deal with Adv. Roux challenge to test if he went onto the balcony.
Nel: Roux challenged Botha, "Have you been on the balcony?"
Nel: My lady, Roux would not have put that to Botha if it was not at least part of the accused's understanding.
Nel: My lady, the accused then bounced back and blamed his counsel. The mistake there was his. He blames Roux for putting that version.
Nel: It is very strange because in the heads they state that it was the accused that was wrong.
Nel: My lady, we say it is not uncontested. There are lots of accused people that would blame their counsel but my lady the accused was not done.
nel: he then pretended that he misunderstood my question.
Nel: My lady, "somebody saw you on the balcony" was never used. He repeated what I said.
Nel: My lady it is just a clear indication of the accused not interested in telling the truth.
Nel: 3. The accused now needed time for the deceased to go to the toilet, so that he can create a sound.
Nel: He then moved the fans. The accused realized that, that was one of the aspects of the noise.
Nel: He created another thing. And again my lady, not every untruth is important.
Nel: He had to wait for the deceased to get to the toilet and open the door. My lady, this is a significant indication of the accused's version.
Nel: My lady, when I started the cross-examination by referring to the hair clippers and he said yes.
Nel: The answer is just, the objective spending was there was only one fan plugged in.
Nel: The defence said they relied on the length of the cord. My lady, then the accused resorted to "I do not have a good memory of the event"
Nel: My lady, it is just not good enough.
Nel: He decides was is important because he is defending his life. My lady, it did not stop there, it carried on.
Nel: He then said he ran and tripped over a fan cord. My lady, which fan cord?
Nel: My lady now we have to think and take everything into account. He can hardly walk on his stumps. But he ran and tripped over a fan cord in the dark.
Nel: 4. With the mosaic pieces falling from the canvas. The defence very kindly referred to this paragraph of mine as making no sense.
Nel: I make good sense of it my lay.
Nel: He said he never put the fan there as in the photograph. He points to the duvet and says he put the fan there. Not one fan but boths fans.
Nel: But my lady it was so improbable.
Nel; We will argue at length as to why his version is improbable and not the truth. If Roux had this version that the fans were moved, why was it not put.
Nel: The only inference my lady is that Van Rensburg did what he had to do.
Nel: My lady I cannot think why if the defence did say that they will show that the scene was tampered with, why did they not prove it.
Nel: The defence had an opportunity to change things but they did not.
Nel: My lady, photograph 55 is a problem.
Nel: As it is there, the accused on his stumps cannot run there. He never ran to the balcony.
Nel: 5. We say that tampering with evidence will have a dominoe effect.
Nel: If you move one piece, there will be an effect.
Nel: He now has to create a version as to how the duvet got there. He then my lady, tailored a version.
Nel: Again, it is not a version. It is a knee jerk reaction. It is a reaction to his version coming together.