Roux: When did you find the fragment in the toilet?
W: After the crime scene was handed over to me.
Roux: How far is F in relation to the toilet door?
Roux: Would you expect it to enter the toilet bowl?
W: Yes, it is approximately in the same line.
Roux: If it hit F how would it get to the toilet?
W: Rebound, There is the toilet, but the toilet is over there, you can travel in a straight line if the toilet bowl was open.
W: It would not have had sufficient energy. The back part was again, in the direction of F, now it must come right over and then fall into the toilet bowl.
Roux: How would it now get to the back and then into the toilet bowl?
W: I don't know, it doesn't make sense to me.
W: The trajectory would not align.
Roux: What do you mean by that?
W: If you look at page 13, the abrasion is in a straight line, it should rather have been, a mark that came from that. I can't see how it came from a straight line.
Roux: Can you explain it in reference to this photograph, if the deceased was sitting on the magazine rack and you take point F and E?
W: It is difficult my lady, as I would have said it would have been from the right to the left and not in a straight line.
W: It doesn't make sense to me.
Roux: Paragraph 37.16, page 34.
W: Wounds to the back were caused by fragments, the wounds are also inconsistent with this type of ammunition.
W: The only reasonable manner could have been that her back came in contact to a hard surface, which could only have been from the magazine rack.
W: This is also consistent with Prof Saaymans' report of a hard blunt surface.
W: I even went so far as to take a ranger bullet and melt out the core so that only the jacket was left. The jacket of the bullet weighed 37g. If you take this into consideration.
W: Then you will get a very small piece of fragment.
W: Summary of the sequence of shots and the position of the deceased.
W: The deceased was in close proximity of the door when she sustained the injury to the upper arm. When she sustained her wounds to the finger and the head, she was not close to the door.
W: It would probably be bullet that hit E. The trajectories of the four shots into the toilet door. I agree with Capt. Mongena that the accused was on his stamps when he fired through the door.
W: The breaking of the toilet door by the cricket bat, I agree that the bat was used to strike the door to open it.
W: I agree that the door was first damaged by the bullets and then by the cricket bat.
W: Then sound recordings with cricket bat and firing of gun.
W: Test were done on a firing range, the purpose of the tests was to resemble if any the sounds of the shots and the cricket bat against the door.
W: Ammunition used was 127g Ranger ammunition with out the black tip my lady.
W: in conducting the tests it was decided to record the sounds. They were made from 60 to 180m away from the door.
W: In order to record shots in rapid concession was also done. The firearm that was used for this test was a Berita.
W: Although I am not a sound expert but a ballistic expert, I must point out that the sound was very loud.
Roux: Mr. Dickson gave evidence about a piece of the sole.
W: That is correct my lady.
Roux: What was your involvement there?
W: My lady, I went with Mr Van Der Westhuizen and I observed it. I went with Mr Van Der Westhuizen cut this piece out and he put it in an envelope.
W: On the 1 March 2013. I gave it back to him and he gave it to Mr. Dickson.
Roux: Did you make sure that the leg used to cut the piece from was in fact the leg that the accused used on the 14 February 2013?