-93-
These are problems Members of the Jury that have not
really been sorted out. Was there a struggle, was there
a fight? The accused tells you no.
Members of the Jury,
he is the only person who was there, and he said there
was no fight. The lady tried to grab him from behind
because he was at her back, but she missed him, she
couldn't hold him, she did not succeed. He tells you no
fight. You see he tells you that the scratches he
Those
had were scratches from the bushes, and when he got those
scratches he wasn't wearing those rubber sneakers.
rubber sneakers were in the bag. So these are the
problems that you will have to decide. I should mention
that there were two expert witnesses from the U.S.A.
One witness, Hippard, tells you about the similarity of
the cords. Members of the Jury his evidence is not
terribly important because the accused is not making an
issue over that, he has told you that he did cut a piece
of cord, so really and truly Hippard's evidence is not
vital to you. And the other witness, Alvin Hodge, he
told you that he had to do the grouping of the bloods,
that the lady's group was group '0' and the accused's
group was group 'A'. and that you cannot have two groups
in one person. And he told you that the trousers had on
the two groups. Well, perhaps that is fair enough, but
how did the trousers get blood from the accused, because
those trousers were at the toilet, and if there had been
no struggle and fight how could his blood have been on
it. Where did his finger get cut? Might have been the
knife, might have been when he used the knife,
knife cut him. I don't know. However, this trousers had on
some of his own blood and some of the lady's blood.
+
You may therefore want an explanation.
the same
I can't tell you
5
10
15
20
25