Rape accused has no defence

Convicted rapist Stephen “Foxy” Isaacs has no witnesses to back his claims he did not rape a nine-year-old girl before leaving her for dead, prosecutors argued on Wednesday.

The State also slammed the accused’s complete denial of the savage assault as the rape trial entered its final stages.

But Isaacs’ lawyers hit back saying there is no “proof” he is responsible for the vicious attack that forever changed an innocent young girl’s life.

The showdown played out in the Western Cape High Court on Wednesday as closing arguments in the trial got underway.

Prosecutor Jacomina Swart told the court that the child had proved to be a reliable witness who was able to identify the man who attacked her and left her for dead.

Swart told trial Judge Lee Bozalek that, despite the physical disability the girl was left with as a result of the attack, the child was able to give the court an accurate account of her ordeal.

“From the beginning, the child identified (Isaacs) as the man who attacked her,” she said.

“She knew the accused (Isaacs) well and she gave an accurate description of him when she testified.

“She was known to (Isaacs) and on his own admission, she saw him as a friend and someone she could trust.

“The description she gave of the clothes he was wearing on the night (she was attacked) matched the description given to the court by State Witness Gert Carstens.”

Swart told the court that the doctor’s report of the injuries the little girl suffered painted a horrific picture of an extremely violent assault.

The girl’s face was covered with scratches and bruises.

She was strangled with such force that she passed out and her brain was starved of oxygen for a prolonged period of time.

“She (the child) said she was burnt on her arm but if you look at the pictures of her injuries, it is clear that there are also cigarette burn wounds on her thigh,” Swart told the court.

She said this was done to make sure the child was dead.

“He knew that she would be able to identify him because she knew him,” said Swart.

“The reason he burnt her with the cigarette after he strangled her was to see if she was dead.”

Swart told Bozalek the fact that the accused went on the run the moment he heard that he had been implicated in the attack on the child, even though he was on parole, was proof of his guilt.

But Isaacs’ lawyer Paul Barnard has urged the court to dismiss this evidence, saying it amounted to nothing but a witchhunt.

He told Bozalek the State’s witnesses had not added any strength to the case against his client and did not prove that Isaacs was the man who attacked the child.

“The evidence of the 17-year-old and Carstens does not implicate him in these charges,” said Barnard.

But Bozalek dismissed this argument and told Barnard: “It doesn’t matter, it places him in the same place as the child on the day of the incident.”

Bozalek was also critical of Isaacs’ alibi that he had been drinking beers with people from the area on the day the young girl was attacked.

The judge slammed Isaacs’ description of his physical state on the October 2010 night as “pleasantly drunk”.

“He says he drank six cans of beers and then at least seven quarts of beers, then at least another three more beers and he called himself pleasantly drunk,” the judge said.

“Pleasantly intoxicated is two or three glasses of wine with lunch. It doesn’t matter over how long you have been drinking.”

These are the main points made by the State pointing to Isaacs' guilt:

*He was seen with the girl on the day she was attacked;

* He was the only person the girl named as her rapist;

* Although he claimed to have an alibi, he did not call anyone to testify for him;

* He went on the run immediately after he found out she survived;

* He admitted lying to the police, the child's family and his sister.

His lawyer argues the following:

* No DNA evidence to link him to the rape;

* He denies that he was with the child on the day of the attack;

* He claims the child is confused about who attacked her;

* He was framed because he has was on parole for a sex crime;