Judge: This court has however taken all the evidence into consideration.
Judge: There was a number of issues that arose in the court. These issues took a lot of time from the court.
Judge: These issues concerned were the police that may have contaminated the scene, the length of the extension cord.
Judge: The reason for that view will become clearer in this judgement.
Judge: Count 1, there were no eye witnesses.
Judge: There was no doubt of witnesses that were willing to assist this court in what they heard or what they thought they heard at the time of the incident.
Judge: This court is indebted to all the witnesses that sacrificed their time and effort to assist this court.
Judge: Gunshots, sounds made by a cricket bat hitting a door and screams in the early hours of the morning.
Judge: Gunshots, sounds from a cricket bat and screams will be discussed here under.
Judge: The state called various witnesses stating that they heard a woman screaming and that they heard gunshots.
Judge: The noises of a cricket bat, could easily have been heard as gunshot noises.
Judge: It has become evident that some of the sounds thought to be gunshots were actually the cricket bat hitting the door.
Judge: There was a misinterpretation of the gunshot noises and were actually cricket bat noises.
Judge: It would also mean that some of the witnesses missed some of the gunshots that morning.
Judge: Miss. Burger refused to concede that she could have missed the gunshots.
Judge: The evidence of the witness and her husbands was correctly critised in my view as unreliable.
Judge: After all they did not write there statements. They merely related there story to Capt. Van Aardt.
Judge: The witnesses would not have been expected to know what he had written.
Judge: Capt. Van Aardt was not called to explain why.
Judge: I do not think that Miss. Burger or Mr. Johnson were dishonest.
Judge: They stated that they were at first reluctant to come forward until the bail application. They simply related what they heard.
Judge: Evidence of these witnesses must then be excluded.
Judge: It is easy to see why the witnesses where mistaken about that morning. The distance from where they lived from the house of the accused.
Judge: Johnson and his wife were so sure that a couple had been attacked in their home, that he that morning wanted to do something about his own safety.
Judge: IN the present case we are dealing with sounds, voice identification and sound identification. Something that is more tricky in my view.
Judge: None of the witnesses had ever heard the accused scream or cry when he is anxious.
Judge: Thus they had no prior knowledge of who they had heard that morning. Even Samantha Taylor who said he sounded like a man, when he screamed.
Judge: Samantha stated that she had never heard him scream in an anxious situation.
Judge: The distance from the witnesses houses to the accused house must also be taken into consideration.
Judge: At the time of the incident there was no-one else in the house except the accused and the deceased. There for there could only have been one of them who screamed.
Judge: The post mortem that was performed on the deceased by Prof. Saayman, stated that the nature of the wounds would have resulted in almost immediate in-mobility.
Judge: The injured person would become unstable. It would also be a painful wound to the hip.
Judge: He also explained that the injuries would have resulted in the death of the deceased. Describing the head wound, he stated "immediately, incapasitating wound"
Judge: He or she would probably be immediately unconscious. There was also damage to the brain and damage to the skull.
Judge: This suggested that the deceased did probably not breathe for longer than a few seconds after the head wound.
Judge: This would then indicate that the deceased would not have been able to scream, as per what the witnesses heard.
Judge: The question is why did he scream? His version is that he screamed when he released that the deceased was not in the bed where he had thought she was.
Judge: continue to explain why most witnesses got their facts wrong. The fact that this case attracted much media attention.
Judge: Almost every witness asked under cross-examination if they followed the case on the media responded positively.
Judge: Mr. Fresco, who also testified. He took the witness stand with full knowledge of what he would be asked. He was not the only witness that had this disadvantage.
Judge: I am of the view that the probability that some of the witnesses failed to determine what they heard and what they had heard from the media.
Judge: Mrs. Van Der Merwe was in and out of sleep. Miss. Burger describes this as a confusing night.
Judge: It is not disputed that Mr. Stipp heard the first sounds and went to the house to assist and called 911.
Judge: Counsel submitted to the court correctly. He submitted further that Dr. Stipp's evidence was tailored. I do not agree with this sunmission.
Judge: I do not believe that he coloured his evidence in this matter. He told this court that when he arrived at the accused house. He witnessed the accused praying for the deceased.