Nel: We deal with the whispering, at first did he talk to her in a soft manner.
Nel: He testified in his evidence in chief, that he whispered. Then he stated that he spoke to her in a soft manner. It was important to him, he corrected me.
Nel: He was confronted with his actions, and realized that whisper would imply closeness and soft manner would imply that he was a distance away from her.
Nel: 13. We deal with the accused's actions with the activation of the alarm.
Nel: On his version, it become clear. Why would he bother to activate the alarm.
Nel: You just shoot your girlfriend, why would you activate the alarm. You think of taking your cellphone downstairs to put it on charge.
Nel: We know that he used that phone. Why would you put it on charge.
Nel: It shows that his thoughts were clear. It shows that his actions were intent,
Nel: He knew the alarm wasn't on. They had discussions.
Nel: Also the way it happened. He said he deactivated his alarm when he went downstairs to open the door.
Nel: Why would you, lets say by accident you killed your girlfriend. Why would he take his phone and put it on charge. The charger is downstairs.
Nel: When he carried her downstairs, Viljoen walked in. He and Viljoen then attended to her. So when did he have the opportunity to put the phone on charge.
Nel: Why would he do that?
Judge: Was he ever asked?
Nel: He was never asked, the people that were asked was Stander and Viljoen.
Nel: Viljoen stated that she made phone calls in the kitchen.
Nel: But the accused never himself.
Nel: My lady when he was tasked/pressed on the issue of the alarm. He said I am tired, my lady.
Nel: Then we say that the court will reject his version.
Nel: My lady we deal with the inferences and how the court should deal with the inferences.
Nel: It is indicated that the court just has to deal with the reasonable.
Nel: If the defence would argue that, that phone was there on the charger the previous day. How would you be able to deal with that.
Nel: Except that the accused stated that he used the other phone, the other phone that was found in the kitchen.
Nel: My lady I am not going to deal with the case law.
Nel: My lady, I think it deals with self-defence, it lies with tests.
Nel: My lady, we refer to "Ngobo". Where one can also establish the intention to murder.
Nel: Then my lady at paragraph 72, we say objectively evaluated there was no attack.
Nel: The accused failed to described the attack. At most it is the sound. The perceived attack was nothing more then a sound.
Nel: The door was locked.
Nel: We made this point earlier. In our argument the accused acted. He cannot escape the fact that he acted, by arming himself and firing through a door.
Nel: That is his version. So you wanted to confront them. "That is correct" and you did that by firing? " That is correct"
Nel: Even on his own version but we say paragraph 76 sets out the best scenario. He stood infront of the door and fired shots at the door.
Nel: It is not the missing, it is the intention to shoot whoever is in the bathroom.
Nel: I agree, I have read the defence heads.
Nel: You may deflect, by shooting at the door.
Nel: But if I know there is a person behind the door and shoot to kill and then later discover that ther person is Reeva.
Nel: Then by admitting what his had done. He has to admit that he fired to kill.
Nel: Without him admitting that he shot to kill, he cannot claim that he shot in self-defence.
Nel: Even to consider that the accused shot in self-defence, it would have to be proved.
Nel: They had just had a conversation. Then she gets up to go to the toilet. It is 3am in the morning. Why would she open the window. Why would she do that? She did not do that.
Nel: Why would she take her cellphone with her at 3am in the morning.
Nel: There is indication that she had done that before, it true. She spoke to the accused. But she was at this house. So why would she take her cellphone with her.
Nel: Then he is standing infront of the bathroom door, shouting her name. Why would she not answer.
Nel: He said "Reeva phone the police", she is in the cubicle, why would she not answer him.
Nel: She had to have got up and closed that door because if you are on the toilet, she would have had to get up and closed the door because it opens this way.