BIB : I think where Op is in genuine trouble is that the evidence didn't really show an alternative series of events. None of his "experts" advanced his cause at all, leaving things pretty much exactly where he started, with the earwitnesses plus a lot of inexplicable evidence such as the photographs depicting the damage to the bathroom, the blood trail over the duvet, the position of the fans etc. Roux's had to do a lot of fiddling to get that timeline - using Johnson's "rough" notes which Johnson himself said were unreliable, rounding time estimates to suit his case, asking the court to discard earwitness evidence that doesn't suit his timeline, turning Dr Stipp's (0 second, likely an error) call to security into a conversation that the doctor had at his home yet at a time when Dr Stipp had actually arrived at OP's house but also suggesting that Dr Stipp's evidence was biased and should be rejected etc.
Having said that though he argues so convincingly and so well that if this was a jury trial I think OP would be in a better position. I am assuming that the Judge and her assessors will closely evaluate the presented evidence themselves and not rely on Roux's interpretation of it and that Nel, in knowing the strength of the State's earwitnesses, doesn't need to jump up and down telling the court what they need to infer. I am also assuming that, being trained in such matters, the Judge and assessors will be skilled at weighing up all the evidence and thus will not make a decision based on a single factor about the case ("help help help", or OP's disability=vulnerability argument) which would have been a potential problem with a jury, who, as we have seen on here, may well have contained a member who simply can't see past a single point to look at the wider picture. Because of the complexity of the case with OP's disability and his own high profile I would be a lot less confidant if this was to be decided by a jury. Although having said that I'm sure Nel's presentation and explanation of the facts would be very different if this were the case.
The other factor which makes me confidant is that the vast majority of posters here immediately saw Roux's trickery in skewing the timeline and also all of the other "cheap DT tricks" - OP's supposed puking, wailing "remorse", his memory lapses on the stand, the inconsistencies in his testimony, his shocking and sometimes frankly biased defence witnesses, lack of expert witness note taking, the late reports, the wailing of female ear witnesses imitating the crying that they knew was from a man etc. I'm sure we're a clever bunch but I'm equally sure that when it comes to criminal law and criminal defence, things that raise our "bull waste" hackles will also be noted by the Judge and assessors who are, I'm sure, able to more than match the cleverest of us intellectually and who will leave us all for dust when it comes to their knowledge of South African criminal law.
