Examples of Rouxs duplicity at the bail hearing:
12:50 Roux says the State omitted premeditated murder in the charge sheet. He says the document states murder.
On page 1 it says "Murder" and on p.2 it says "Murder that is pre-planned or premeditated".
12:53 Roux says the fact that Pistorius and Steenkamp spent the night together is consistent with a loving relationship and is inconsistent with murder.
1) OP had never told Reeva that he loved her.
2) How is spending the night together consistent with a loving relationship. Killers can spend every night with their wife or partner.
3) Roux is also saying they spent the night together and this is inconsistent with murder. The sheer number of women who are either married or in relationships who spend most if not all nights together and are killed by their partners in SA is mind-boggling.
12:55 Roux says the defence demonstrated that every allegation made in the charge sheet against Pistorius does not support the States claim that he planned to murder Steenkamp. Roux adds that Pistorius could have killed Steenkamp in the bathroom if he wanted to murder her.
The locked toilet door explains why Steenkamps bladder was empty when she died.
Compare this statement to 13:46 where he says
Pistorius didnt know the toilet door was locked.
We only have OPs testimony that the door was locked. This is not proof.
13:38 Roux continues his closing argument. He says although Pistorius lives in a secure estate it doesnt exclude the fact that violent crime has happened in such estates before. He quotes an incident where a wealthy CEO was shot in a secure estate in Pretoria as an example that living in a secure estate doesnt tip the scale.
The fact is that only 11 crime incidents were reported in OPs estate over a period of 3 years. Of those, one was the killing of Reeva and another OPs so-called stolen watch. Of the remaining 9, the others were cases of fraud and theft and a house robbery on 24 October 2011. There were no other house robberies or burglaries.
13:43 The defence says Nels argument doesnt prove premeditated murder. Roux says Botha conceded that if Pistorius shouted out to an intruder, its plausible to think Steenkamp couldve locked herself in the toilet to save herself.
Its also plausible that the door was unlocked.
13:44 Roux says Pistorius carrying Steenkamps body downstairs shows positive steps to save her life.
Prof. Saayman said that Reeva did not take more than a few breaths after suffering her head wound. No blood was found in her airways, suggesting she only breathed only a few times before dying. This testimony was not contested by the Defence. As he sat with her for "I don't know how long" what were the positive steps - we know he didn't ring for an ambulance immediately but chose to ring a buddy. Or was it putting his fingers down her throat when she was obviously already dead. Dr Stipp said her, corneas were already drying out which was a sign of her demise
13:46 Nair asks why a burglar would lock himself in a toilet.
Roux says
Pistorius didnt know the toilet door was locked. Then why did Roux say earlier that it was. (see 12:55 above).
13:48 Roux concedes that there may have been an argument between Pistorius and Steenkamp, but there are no witnesses to confirm it.
Why would he make a concession like this? Obviously he wants to see what evidence comes out at the trial before making any such admission one way or the other.
14:05 Roux moves on to the States witness accounts that screaming was heard an hour before the shooting. He hammers the State for using a witness who alleges there was screaming in the house, but who cannot identify the voices.
Roux own witnesses, the Nhlegenthwas and Motshuanes - who were next door neighbours on either side of OPs house - couldnt identify the voices either.
14:09 Roux responds to the magistrate by drawing doubt over the distance the neighbours houses are. He then says the witness statement does not fit in with the applicants version of what happened. Roux criticises the investigating officers testimony of another witness who says she heard screaming and then gunshots.
How can Roux assume that the applications version is the truth and not a complete lie/fabrication. Has he never had a client who lied before.
14:26 Roux to Nair: We appeal to you to find there exists no objective facts to show this is a Schedule 6 offence. He says there was no motive for the murder. This was an extremely loving relationship. (Pistorius cries as his brother comforts him)
Where was any proof provided that it was a loving relationship. Surely he cant be referring to the whatsapp messages because
1) OP never said he loved her and . Boo, xx etc. mean absolutely nothing.
2) Reeva said that she was scared of him sometimes and how he snaps at her. Other things were also mentioned in these messages which demonstrated things werent all peaches and cream.
14:36 Roux says the firearm going off at the restaurant does not prove Pistorius has the propensity to commit crime. He says Pistoriuss row with soccer player march Mark Batchelor wherein he said he would break Batchelors legs, was merely an expression. You dont mean anything by it.
So a threat is not a threat, just meaningless words? Yet when a murder has been committed and an accused has previously said words to the effect, Ill kill you or any other form of threat, thats one of the first things thats raised.
http://www.enca.com/south-africa/day-3-pistorius-bail-hearing
