Nel: What was also interesting was when Johnson was cross-examined on what he heard and the shots. It then came out that he was lying. He was then able to produce a document, changed three times.
Nel: He then confessed that English was not his first language and that he had sent it in for checking by an advocate. That is indeed an indication of strong evidence.
Nel: We are not saying my lady, that the states witnesses are wrong. We are saying that witnesses cannot maybe remember minute details. We think they did quite well.
Nel: My lady before I deal with paragraph 121, shall we take a lunch adjournment.
Roux: I have no objection.
Nel: If it pleases my lady.
Nel: Regarding the cellphone charging. I find it on page 1932.
Nel: "I made the phone call before I picked up before I carried Reeva. I had it in my pocket.
Nel: "Who took it off charge?" "I did, my lady"
Nel: May I also then to my argument, the first defense when I quoted. For the court to accept that the accused had a response. In his own evidence he said "When I looked again I fired a shot"
Nel: But that is not so, my lady. It was put to Capt. Mongena that the accused fired two double taps. Later Roux, stated that it was not so but in rapid fire.
Nel: That will make his alliance in his evidence untrue. It cannot happen.
Nel: My lady, I wanted to make that clear. Page 72 of the heads we deal with a summary of Burger and how they are woken up with screaming.
Nel: Burger heard four gunshots, Johnson did not count the gunshots. What is important is the way in which Burger explained the gunshots. There was a pause between the first and the second and then rapid last two.
Nel: My lady that is the same in the way Capt Mongena described the scene. It is common sense, if I may put it that way.
Nel: Burger's story collaborates Capt. Mongena's description. Wolmarans says the closest he could get it was through B. Capt. Mongena got a laser through B to E. He did it here in court.
Nel: That shows that bullet B missed.
Nel: If one would say C is the second, or D was the second then it cannot look like this. We have that the deceased was a the toilet bowl with her head when she was hit again.
Nel: So the court cannot fail to find that Capt. Mongena's evidence is incorrect.
Nel: My lady, may I ask the court to affect another correction at page 73.
Nel: The one aspect of Johnson and Burger was before they knew who it was, they discussed it with other people. They could tell the court who they discussed what with and when.
Nel: The court should accept their evidence. Johnson, before he made his statement, knew objectively there was four shots.
Nel: He knew, but still he stuck to his version that he could not remember. Who would ever know if he heard four or five shots. Well knowing that there was 4 shots, he still made his statement that he did not know how many shots were fired.
Nel: He was intent on giving his version.
Nel: There it is my lady.
Nel: My lady, that with utmost respect, that someone knowing that it was four shots, would make a note for himself that he did not count the shots.
Nel: There is no reason to reject Johnson or Burgers' testimony.
Nel: The Stipp's also made statements, for the most their account was in minute by minute details. The ultimate question my lady is whether the court with reject their evidence.
Nel: The Stipp's, people on the estate, what is in it for them to lie or incriminate themselves. They observed and wanted to tell the truth as to what they witnessed.
NEl: The defense will indicate to the court, the little discrepancies. The court has got a perception of observing them that they were good witnesses.
Nel: Mr. Stipp made his statement at the police station, Mrs. Stipp did not even know.
Nel: Mrs. Stipp gave evidence that according to her there was a light in the bathroom, it was put to her that her husband disagrees. She didn't change her evidence. That is a guarantee of truthfulness.
Nel: If it is argued that they are not lying they are just mistaken. Then two groups of people who stay 100 metres away from each other and have never met before make the same observation.
Nel: She is fluish, lying in bed wondering whether she should get up or not. Her evidence with the first sound, she looked while sitting on her bed at the bathroom and saw the light was on.
Nel: If the light was on then it confirms that they were not asleep, the alarm was not activated, the fans were inside the whole time.
Nel:May we go to photograph 132, that is Mrs. Stipp's bed, the pillow there is where she rested her head. There is no way that she made it.
Nel: She got up and that is what she saw from the bed. The accused's bathroom is in visible sight from here.
Nel: What we have is a creditable witness saying when she woke up, she looked at that window and the light was on.
Nel: If the accused fired the shots while the lights were on then he knew who was behind the toilet door.
Nel: My lady, both Stipp's heard a woman screaming intermingled with a mans' voice.
Nel: On what was put to the witnesses, that the accused when he is anxious or feels threatened, screams like a woman.
Nel: Then we have a typically intermingled woman and mans' voice. There was no screaming before the first noise.