3 December 2008
Najwa Petersen's Murder Conviction in the Cape High Court Proved Bittersweet for Several Trial Followers Who, While Relieved At the Verdict, Expressed Their Sympathies to Both Families.
For some it was a case of justice well served but others could not help sharing the heartache of the families of Najwa and her co-accused.
After Judge Siraj Desai completed his judgment yesterday, people outside the court expressed conflicting views, with some people feeling sorry for Najwa Petersen and some saying she and her co-accused got what they deserved.
Some followers of the trial cheered as investigating officers left the courtroom.
"We would like to say thanks to the investigating officers for the job well done and I wish all cases would end this way," said Farieda Hendricks.
She said she was glad that it was finally over and declared the outcome "fair justice".
"There is no evidence of who pulled the trigger so all of those found guilty must ride the same horse," she said.
Joseie Rusdien felt "justice has been served" but felt sorry for Petersen's children.
"As a mother myself, I feel very sorry for her children because they don't deserve what they are going through and what they are still going to go through," said Rusdien.
"Both families were suffering and I am happy that it has finally come to an end."
Miriam Holland said she felt sorry for Petersen.
"She is a lady, I am a lady and no lady wants to be in jail."
She said although she felt sorry for Najwa, she was satisfied with the decision.
Holland said all evidence presented in court "pointed" to Petersen as the "mastermind". "Everyone who is found guilty of any crime should be given a suitable sentence for the crime he or she committed."
Others said the verdict had renewed their faith in the justice system.
"Anyone could see she was guilty. It was all there. The courts just had to say so first," said Waseema Hercules of Mitchells Plain.
Kai Graca, 28, said: "The judge made a good decision. Everyone knew she was guilty from the start. Her sentence should be harsh. And other criminals should use this as an example."
Heinricht Speelman, 33, said justice was served.
"What that woman did was terrible. How can someone do that to a person they love? But that is greed for you, it makes you evil and she is evil."
Waseema Hercules, 26, said Najwa deserved to rot in jail.
"I knew she was guilty from the start, the whole world did. The writing was on the wall. She deserves what's coming her way, whatever that may be. I say she should rot in jail."
Nicole Riddles, 19, said it was "good to know there was still justice in this world".
"Everyone has been waiting for this day for two years. From the beginning it was obvious she was involved. It's appalling how anyone could do such a thing."
Linlee Adonis, 20, said he now had more faith in the justice system. "She is guilty and should be punished, she should get life.
"This verdict was long overdue but has made the whole of Cape Town very happy."
Joshua Nelani, 42, said Najwa should "pay for what she has done". "This decision was very good. This woman did a bad thing. I hope they put her away for a long time."
Meanwhile the fortress- style home the Petersen's shared in Grasmere Street in Athlone was yesterday tightly secured, windows shut and blinds drawn.
Some neighbours indicated that they had not seen anyone pass through the gates in weeks.
"It's dead over there, sometimes you see a maid busy, but that's all. The verdict was good and I am very happy. Now we will have to wait and see how long she is going to get," said a neighbour who declined to be named.
Another, said "what's done is done" but added the verdict was important to the family so that everyone could move on with their lives.
"We can't turn back the clock, it's done with. People just have to start dealing with it all now," another neighbour said.
Taliep Petersen's longtime friend and colleague, David Kramer, declined to speak to the Cape Argus.
The full judgment:
Republic of South Africa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division)
Criminal Case No: 02/08
In the matter between
NAJWA PETERSEN Accused 1
ABDOER RAASIET EMJEDI Accused 2
WALLEED HASSEN Accused 3
JEFFERSON TION SNYDERS Accused 4
and
THE STATE Respondent
JUDGMENT DELIVERED on 1 December 2008
DESAI J:
1. This case relates to the untimely and brutal death of music icon Abdul Mutaliep Petersen, better known as Taliep Petersen. The first accused was his wife. The other three accused are men she allegedly solicited to assist in causing her husband's death.
2. The court's assessors are Mr D Du T Marais, a retired magistrate, and Ms J J Thaysen, a practising advocate at the local bar.
3. The accused appeared before us on five different charges. The first charge is one of murder, it being alleged that on 16 December 2006 and at Athlone here in the Cape the accused unlawfully and intentionally either killed the deceased by shooting him with a firearm or facilitated the plan to do so. There is an alternative to this charge, namely a conspiracy to commit the aforementioned offence. The second and third charges arise from the firearm used in the incident. The accused are charged with being in unlawful possession of the firearm and ammunition. Counts four and five are charges of robbery with aggravating circumstances. It is alleged that threats of violence, and the firearm, were used to rob Achmat Gamieldien and his wife Insaaf. The various items stolen are specified in the indictment. I may mention at this stage that Achmat Gamieldien is Accused No. 1's son from an earlier marriage.
4. Accused No. 1, the 46 year old Ms Najwa Petersen, or Ms Najwa Dirk as she elects to be called, was represented by different counsel at various stages of the trial. She was initially represented by Mr C Webster SC in the Magistrate's Court and then by Mr H Raubenheimer SC. When the trial commenced before us, Mr Raubenheimer withdrew as her counsel. He was succeeded by Mr K P C O von Lieres und Wilkau SC who in turn was replaced by Mr J Engelbrecht SC. On at least two occasions these changes of counsel resulted in the matter being delayed for several weeks.
5. Accused No. 2, the 42 year old Abdoer Raasiet Emjedi, Accused No. 3, the 35 year old Walleed Hassen and Accused No. 4, the 31 year old Jefferson Tion Snyders were represented throughout the trial by advocates L Abrahams, P Scott and R Konstabel respectively.
6. The accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges. They elected to exercise their right to silence and accordingly did not furnish any plea explanation. Certain formal admissions were, however, made shortly thereafter. For instance, Dr S Potelwa's post-mortem report was handed up in evidence and the parties were in agreement that the cause of death as determined during the post-mortem examination and recorded in the report is correct. Photographs of the deceased's body, photographs and a plan of the place where the crime was committed, the record of a bail application by Accused No. 1 before Mr Robert Henney in the Wynberg Regional Court and certain cell phone records were also made available to the Court with the consent of the accused.
7. It was not really in dispute that the deceased was murdered during the night of 16 December 2006 by a person or persons who shot him in the neck with an unidentified firearm and that the incident took place in the house where the deceased resided, that is 101 Grasmere Street, Athlone. Nor is it in dispute that the deceased and Accused No. 1 were married according to both Muslim rites and the civil law since 1997. The marriage to Accused No. 1 was the deceased's second. He was previously married to Madeegha Anders with whom he had 4 children. Their eldest daughter, Jawaahier Petersen, was a witness for the State in this trial. Accused No. 1 has two children from two previous marriages, the one being Achmat Gamieldien, the alleged victim of the robbery. The items stolen from him and his wife that night are not in issue. The deceased and Accused No. 1 have a daughter, the nine year old Zaynab, who was the beneficiary of an insurance policy on the life of the deceased, valued at R5,3 million. Accused No. 1 suffers from a bipolar mood disorder or some such illness for which she is on prescribed medication. During the month of December 2006 there was telephonic contact on numerous occasions between Accused No. 1 and the witness Fahiem Hendricks. Accused No. 1 and Hendricks give different explanations for the calls between them. The resolution of this factual dispute is of some importance in the ultimate outcome of this matter.
8. Before dealing with the State's case against the accused, two other aspects warrant noting. While Ms S Riley, who appeared with Ms S Galloway on behalf of the State, was leading evidence against the accused, Accused No. 3 consented to the admission in evidence of an inculpatory statement made by him to the police. Moreover, certain admissions were made by him in terms of section 220 of Act 51 of 1977 ("the Act"), placing him on the scene and implicating him in the commission of the offences. Similarly, Accused No. 4's statement, made to a Superintendent M A Barkhuizen, was also admitted in evidence against him with his permission. In the said statement he placed himself on the scene for the purposes of a robbery but alleges that he left the house immediately prior to the deceased being shot. I shall revert to these statements at the appropriate stage in this judgment.
9. The evidence of the State's first witness, Mr Mogamat Riefaat Soeker ("Soeker") is probably of some significance, more especially in that he was the last person to speak to the deceased before his death. Soeker is Accused No. 1's cousin and resided for a number of years in a flatlet on their property. Soeker described the layout of the house as reflected in exhibit "A" and the extensive security system employed by the Petersens. His evidence in this regard was confirmed at the inspection in loco. It is apparent from his evidence that from the time of the so-called stabbing incident - I shall deal with this incident in detail later - in April 2006 until his death 9 months' later the deceased and Accused No. 1 had not shared a common bedroom. Soeker's attempt to describe their relationship as a loving one was not entirely satisfactory. In any event on the night the offences were allegedly committed, Soeker was with the deceased in his kitchen conversing from about 21h00 until shortly after 23h00. During the course of their conversation the deceased mentioned that he wanted to get another house as the children of his previous marriage no longer wanted to come to 101 Grasmere Street. Shortly after returning to his flatlet Soeker heard a noise. It sounded like a firecracker or a firearm going off. While he was in the shower, about 10 or 15 minutes later, his cell and landline phones rang. He then heard a commotion and saw Accused No. 1's family and the police outside. He checked his cell phone and saw that Accused No. 1 had called him at 23h54.
10. During his cross-examination of this witness, Mr von Lieres pointed out discrepancies with regard to the time of this call. It was pointed out, and Soeker agreed, that various people had remote controls giving access to the house. It also emerged from the cross-examination of this witness that from the upstairs area where the deceased was shot the front door to the house is visible.
11. I note one other aspect of Soeker's evidence. The witness Fahiem Hendricks ("Hendricks") was not seen visiting Accused No. 1 before 16 December 2006. Soeker saw him twice thereafter: Once at 101 Grasmere Street and then at a house in Gordon's Bay belonging to Accused No. 1's family. It was suggested that he was in the company of Accused No. 1 during the period of iddah, the period of "waiting" or "mourning" in which Muslim widows are expected not to be in the company of strange men.
12. The evidence of Inspector Brian Trevor Hermanus ("Hermanus") does not take the matter much further. He was the investigating officer for a very short time. He arrived on the scene after other police officers were already there. The deceased had already been certified as dead by Metro personnel but the body was still lying on the front floor about two meters away from the stairs. The deceased's head was covered with a towel which Hermanus lifted and saw the deceased's bloodied head. He found Accused No. 1 in an upstairs bedroom. Her daughter, Zaynab, was with her. Hermanus endeavoured to obtain from her information with regard to what had happened that night in the house. Accused No. 1 was quite clearly distraught. She was crying. More significantly, she was confused. It emerged later that she had already been seen by a doctor who had given her an injection. In the circumstances, not much weight, if any, can be placed upon what she told Hermanus at that stage. There are also the unsatisfactory features of the statement made by Hermanus which Mr von Lieres highlighted. Hermanus also interviewed Achmat Gamieldien with regard to the robbery and noted the broken door frames of two bedrooms.
13. The door frames, on both the doors, were kicked in by Mr Igshaan Petersen ("Igshaan") the next State witness, and his son Zahir. At about 11h56 on 16 December 2006 Igshaan received a call from his sister Ma'atoema to the effect that there had been a robbery at his brother's house and that his brother had been shot. Ma'atoema confirmed this aspect when she testified. It appears from the evidence that Igshaan resided in Glenhaven and Ma'atoema in Surrey Estate. Igshaan was thus much nearer to 101 Grasmere Street. When Igshaan and his son approached the deceased's house they saw another car already there. This car spun around and went to another entrance to the house. Koekie - one of the Petersen's domestic assistants - let Igshaan into the house. He went upstairs and found his brother lying in a pool of blood. A piece of cloth was stuffed in his mouth, his hands were tied behind his back with cable ties and his feet were bound with some sort of electric cable. Accused No. 1 and Achmat Gamieldien's family were locked in separate bedrooms. The doors of these rooms were kicked open by Igshaan and his son. Accused No. 1 and her daughter were on the bed crying. Accused No 1's father and brother also appeared on the scene and the father shouted "Taliep, skrik wakker" and then asked Accused No. 1 "How much money did they take, what happened, how much money did they take?" Accused No. 1 apparently answered but Igshaan did not hear what was said. Igshaan found the circumstances suspicious and told his son that they, the Dirks, had killed his brother.
14. It is apparent from Igshaan's evidence, as well as that of other witnesses, that the deceased's children from his earlier marriage spent alternate weeks with their mother and the deceased. However, after the stabbing incident in April 2006, they continued to visit their father but no longer slept at 101 Grasmere Street. Igshaan expressed views on the deterioration of his brother's relationship with Accused No. 1. These are highly subjective views and I am reluctant to place any weight upon them because of his intense hostility towards Accused No. 1.
15. Igshaan also testified with regard to his brother's financial affairs. Although he was the executor of his brother's estate, his evidence in this regard is somewhat garbled. The deceased apparently had about R18 000 in an account also operated by his wife. Save for that, there was little else. No immovable property was registered in his name and 101 Grasmere Street was in the name of Accused No. 1's family. It seems that they lived from the money they got from Dirk Fruit, a Namibian company or business which belonged to Accused No. 1's family. Money earned by the deceased from his musical endeavours was, it appears, invested with Dirk Fruit.
16. I shall not place any reliance upon hearsay testimony by this witness unless it is corroborated by other admissible evidence.
17. Some details of what happened that night at 101 Grasmere Street emerge from the testimony of Insaaf Gamieldien, Accused No. 1's daughter-in-law. She also testified about the activities of the occupants of the house on the preceding days.
18. Insaaf was temporarily resident at 101 Grasmere Street as she had just given birth to her first child and needed help with the baby. She confirms that Accused No. 1 and the deceased were sleeping in separate bedrooms at the time. The deceased left for London on 2 December 2006 and returned on 14 December 2006. He was fetched at the airport by Accused No. 1. The next day, that is the 15th, he and his son Azhar took part in a concert at the Luxurama Theatre. Accused No. 1 only attended the second half of the show as she had been ill that day and only wanted to see the deceased and his son sing.
19. On 16 December 2006 the deceased went to the 21st birthday party of Accused No. 1's sister's twins. Accused No. 1 herself did not attend the party. When Insaaf got back from the party, the deceased was already home. He was in one of the children's bedrooms with Accused No. 1. As she was not well he was with her praying in a rhythmic chant known as a "thikr". Insaaf retired to her room and, with her husband, watched a movie and fell asleep.
20. Later that night they were woken up by Accused No. 1 and an unknown man whose face was covered with a woollen balaclava and he had on white woollen gloves. Accused No. 1 switched on the bedroom light and shouted to Achmat that the man was there to rob them and wanted money and jewellery. The unknown man had a firearm in his left hand. He held it casually and it was not pointed at anybody. At one stage he told Insaaf and her husband that they must not try anything or get out of the bed. He took their cell phones, wristwatches, cameras and the other items listed in the indictment. He did not take her credit cards and, surprisingly, he did not go through her jewellery box. Accused No. 1 merely stood at the side of the bed crying. The robber wanted them to leave the bedroom but when the baby started moaning he left them behind and locked the door from the outside. Accused No. 1 was, however, taken out. He held her by her arm and she walked out. About 2 or 3 minutes later she heard a gunshot and then footsteps running down the stairs. She also heard the front gate banging and a car pulling away.
21. Accused No. 1 then shouted asking whether they were locked in and where the deceased was. Achmat told her to call Soeker and also gave her Walleed Dirk's number. They also shouted for Koekie. When Koekie came up the stairs she said there was something wrong with the deceased. Shortly thereafter Igshaan and the others were on the scene.
22. Insaaf was not subjected to lengthy cross-examination. While Mr von Lieres was examining this witness it emerged that Walleed Dirk's car was the first to pull up at the house. This is not particularly significant as the events occurred at a rapid pace at that stage. In any event we know from Igshaan's evidence that he was the first to enter the house. What is surprising is that Mr Konstabel, who appeared on behalf of Accused No. 4, asked this witness no questions. Of cardinal importance to his client's case is the suggestion that he left the house before the shooting. The evidence of this witness is that she heard more than one person leaving after the shooting. This aspect of her evidence was not challenged or clarified by cross-examination.
23. No one was arrested for these offences until 6 months later when Hendricks eventually confessed to the police of his involvement therein and agreed to testify on behalf of the State. That decision resulted in the present accused being arrested and charged. Hendricks was in protective custody and before testifying in this matter he was warned in terms of section 204 of the Act. Bluntly stated he gave evidence to obtain immunity for himself and quite clearly has a possible motive to tell lies. In the circumstances this court is acutely aware of the need to approach his evidence with caution and to look for corroborative evidence implicating the accused and other safeguards which reduce the risk of a wrong conviction.
24. Hendricks is not an impressive individual. He appeared dishevelled in court and sat in an awkward position, largely because of the bullet-proof vest he was wearing, consistently looking ahead of him and away from counsel, the accused and the public gallery. His evidence, however, was fairly coherent and logical and he did not convey the impression that he was being less than frank.
25. Because of the importance of his evidence to the outcome of this case, I shall deal with it in some detail.
26. Hendricks was 42 years old and ran a small business selling take away food. He was known by the rather crude but not uncommon nickname "Piele". His school-going child attended the Sunnyside Primary School. Accused No. 1's young daughter was also at the same school. He knew Accused No. 1 as a friend. His brother had worked for Dirk Fruit as a driver when he was involved in an accident which rendered him a paraplegic. This was about 24 years ago. He knew Accused No. 1 since about that time. Hendricks was friends with Accused No. 1's former husband, Mazaffar Effendi and they used to visit each other in their homes. Although they continued to make small talk whenever they met, he did not visit her at 101 Grasmere Street and did not know the deceased.
27. Accused No. 2 was a good friend of Hendricks for a number of years. Towards the end of 2006 Accused No. 2 came to stay at their house as he had no other place to stay. He met Accused No. 3 on one occasion when he came to their home to fetch spares for a car. He also occasionally saw Accused No. 3 at the mosque in Mandalay. He did not know Accused No. 4 at all.
28. Before the end of the last school term in 2006 Hendricks met Accused No. 1 at their children's school and asked for a loan of R10 000. He needed the money for his business. The money was given to him by Accused No. 1 at her home prior to the events giving rise to this trial occurring. The loan was given without any security and he was to pay it back in amounts which his business could afford. He repaid the whole amount after the incident which led up to this trial. He says there were other people present when he went to her home to repay his debt but is unable to say whether they saw him paying the money.
29. In any event, shortly after schools closed on 1 December 2006 Accused No. 1 sent her best friend Mymoena Bedford ("Bedford") to his house to obtain his cell phone number. He was not home but his brother gave Bedford the number. Accused No. 1 then phoned him and asked that he come and see her. He called at her home a few days later. She inquired from him whether he knew someone who could "do a hit" for her. He understood this to mean killing someone on her behalf. Although he dismissed her request at first, Hendricks relented when she pestered him with phone calls.
30. He approached Accused No. 2, who had recently been released from jail and was then staying at his house, for help in this regard. Accused No. 1 kept on phoning him to enquire if someone had been found to do the "job". Hendricks was unable to report any progress until Accused No. 2 told him that he had found someone. He did not ask who it was but told Accused No. 1 that a friend had found someone to implement her plan. She then asked him to come to her house.
31. At her home Accused No. 1 informed Hendricks that it was her husband who had to be killed. She asked that the deceased be shot and mentioned that she would open the gate for whoever was doing the job. Accused No. 1 complained to Hendricks that the deceased had done a deal in which he had lost a lot of money. She also indicated that they were going to get divorced and that the deceased would get half of all their money. She asked that the job be done after the deceased returned from London and told Hendricks that she would telephonically advise him precisely when it could be done. The payment to be made to the assassins was also discussed. She suggested that they be paid R100 000, of which R30 000 was to be available in the safe in the house and the balance was to be paid later. She promised to compensate Hendricks after everything was done and the insurance policies had been paid out.
32. The first lot of people selected by Accused No. 2 for this job were three young men residing in Hanover Park. A few days prior to 14 December 2006 Hendricks took Accused No. 2 to Hanover Park to see these men. They then took the men to Athlone and showed them where the deceased resided. Their role as potential assassins was, however, handicapped by the fact that they lacked transport.
33. On 14 December 2006 Accused No. 1 phoned Hendricks from the airport and informed him that the deceased was about to return from London and that she was there to fetch him. Furthermore, she wanted the deceased killed on their way home and it had to look like a hi-jacking. Hendricks phoned Accused No. 2 who told him that he was unable to get hold of the men who were to do the job. Accused No. 1 again phoned Hendricks when the deceased's plane was delayed but, it appears, Accused No. 2 still could not get the Hanover Park people together as they did not have any transport.
34. There was a similar problem the next night. On 15 December 2006 Accused No. 1 again called Hendricks. She told him that the deceased would be at the Luxurama Theatre that night and wanted him killed when he left the theatre. Hendricks called Accused No. 2 and once again he could not get hold of the men.
35. Later the same night Accused No. 2 arrived with Accused No. 3 at Hendricks' home and told him that he had now made arrangements with different people to do the job. Accused No. 2 was in his sister's car and Accused No. 3 in a bakkie. Besides greeting Accused No. 3, he did not speak to him. He left it to Accused No. 2 to show them where the deceased lived.
36. Earlier the same night, that is after the Luxurama concert, Accused No. 1 telephonically informed him that the deceased would be going to a 21st birthday party on 16 December 2006 and would be home early. Thereafter he would either be in his studio or watching television. She wanted the job done then and told him that everybody would be home by ten that evening. Hendricks gave this information to Accused No. 2.
37. During this time Accused No. 1 phoned him continuously. He was unable to say how many calls were made between them but there were many.
38. During the course of the evening on 16 December 2006 Accused No. 1 called Hendricks on several occasions. He tried to call Accused No. 2 but could not get hold of him. He eventually called "redial" on his second phone. This phone was sometimes used by Accused No. 2 when he did not have airtime and the last number dialled was that of one of the other persons involved in the hit. Hendricks spoke to him and found out that they were on their way to 101 Grasmere Street.
39. When Hendricks told Accused No. 1 that the people who would carry out the hit were on the way, she told him that it is only the deceased who must be shot and no-one else must be injured. He was also told that the deceased would be either in his studio on the ground floor or watching television on the upper floor. Hendricks gave this information to Accused No. 2.
40. The deceased's janazah, that is Muslim burial, took place on 17 December 2006. Hendricks heard from Accused No. 1 later that night. She indicated to him that she needed a chance to get the money. Two days later he was telephonically advised that he could get the money. This he did on 19 December 2006. When he got to 101 Grasmere Street, Bedford was there. She asked why he was visiting during Accused No. 1's period of iddah. Accused No. 1 then came down the stairs and told her it was okay and that she wanted to chat with him. Accused No. 1 then took Hendricks into the dining room where she gave him R70 000,00 in cash.
41. Hendricks took the money and during the evening he handed the full amount over to Accused No. 2 who took some of the money and gave the rest back to him. Accused No. 2 was to come back for more money whenever he needed it. With the money he took, Accused No. 2 bought himself a motor car and he bought Hendricks a light delivery van for which he paid R15 000,00.
42. He had more contact with Accused No. 1 in the subsequent weeks. This was when the police were questioning the suspects. Accused No. 1 would call him after one of them had been questioned by the police and they would discuss what to tell the police. When he was first questioned about the telephonic contact between them, he and Accused No. 1 decided to tell the police that they had a relationship. As a result, when they were questioned at the same time by the police, they gave this explanation. He later told the police that he was trying to sell a diamond ring for her. He testified that on an earlier occasion she had asked him to sell a diamond ring. Accused No. 1 wanted R80 000 for the ring and he could pocket whatever amount he got in excess of that. He could not sell the ring and it was returned to her.
43. Hendricks testified further that his first statement to the police was made when he was arrested for the unlawful possession of a firearm which he inherited from his father but failed to register in his name. He obtained the services of an attorney, a Mr Arnold, and was released on bail. Attorney Arnold also went to see Superintendent Wagter ("Wagter") about this case. He then advised Hendricks that the police had enough evidence against him and that he should either come clean or raise about R20 000 to R30 000 in case he was locked up. He went to see Accused No. 1 about this and she agreed to arrange the money. The next day he was contacted by Accused No. 1's father and told to collect R20 000 from the father's house. After he was placed in the witness protection programme, attorney Arnold deposited the money in his son's account. Hendricks then gave a full statement to Wagter and from that date he was kept in protective custody.
44. After this he co-operated fully with the police. At one stage he attempted to lead Accused No. 2, who was then staying somewhere in Strandfontein, into a trap at the shopping centre in Mitchells Plain. He arranged to meet him at Cash Crusaders in the centre while he waited in the shop with a number of police.
45. Accused No. 1's telephone number was saved on his cell phone under her nickname, Nade, and that of Accused No. 2 under his nickname, Rah.
46. Hendricks also says that he met Accused No. 1 on one occasion at her brother's home in Gordon's Bay. This was after the incident and while the police were investigating this case. He was told to go to her brother's home to tell her what the police had asked him and to decide upon a response. This was the stage when they decided to advance the story of a diamond deal.
47. The R20 000 was given to him to pay as bail if he should be arrested on this case. When he was arrested on the firearm case, Accused No. 1 urged him to go with her family members to see an attorney, Mr Norman Snitcher. Attorney Snitcher, however, told him to remain outside and he did not take part in their discussions.
48. Ms Riley also led this witness on certain cell phone calls received by him. These are the calls reflected on exhibit "F". Hendricks confirms that this exhibit correctly records the calls made between Accused No. 1's cell phone and his. On 13 December 2006 nine calls were made. On 14 December 2006 a further 26 calls were made of which 4 were from the Cape Town International Airport. 14 December was the day the deceased returned from London and these calls were made when Accused No. 1 wanted to know whether he had found people to do the "job". On 15 December 2006 four calls were made and then on 16 December 2006, the day the deceased was killed, 10 calls were made of which nine were in the evening. The first call to him thereafter was made at 26 minutes to midnight on 17 December 2006, that is, on the day of the janazah.
49. The witness also confirmed the correctness of exhibits "M" and "N". These are his cell phone records for the numbers 0729229617 and 0743402038. It appears that Accused No. 2's cell number was 0720109819. On 13 December 2006 Hendricks received a call from Accused No. 1 and after this he made two calls to Accused No. 2's number. The next day, 14 December 2006, he again phoned Accused No. 2's number after communicating with Accused No. 1. On the same day, Hendricks phoned Accused No. 1 on three occasions and then Accused No. 2's number. At 31 minutes past seven in the evening, he again phoned Accused No. 2.
50. On the day of the murder, that is 16 December 2006, Hendricks received a call from Accused No. 1 at 10h16. He phoned Accused No. 2's number at 16h58. After this he communicated with Accused No. 1 at 20h11 and then phoned Accused No. 2's number at 20h15 and again at 20h20. Hendricks again phoned Accused No. 1 at 21h20, 21h25 and 21h29. After this Accused No. 1 and he communicated at 22h23. Hendricks then phoned Accused No 2.s number at 22h26 and then again he phoned Accused No. 1 at 22h30 and 23h03 and Accused No. 1 phoned him at 23h26. Just after midnight, at 21 minutes after midnight, a call between him and Accused No. 2 followed.
51. Hendricks was subjected to a long and gruelling cross-examination by Mr von Lieres. Although apparent discrepancies emerged, as inevitably happens in such cases, the essential features of his version of events remained intact and plausible.
52. He conceded under cross-examination that he had also borrowed money from Accused No. 1 on a previous occasion a long time ago. On that occasion he had borrowed R20 000 and she had kept his bakkie as security. When he repaid the debt he got his vehicle back. He was allowed to repay the R20 000 as he could and she did not call to hear about the payments. Similarly, with regard to the recent loan of R10 000 there were no specific arrangements with regard to repayment. Though he had no knowledge about Accused No. 1 being serious about money, he concedes telling the police this when he was trying to give an innocent explanation for the calls she made to him.
53. Mr von Lieres spent some time on Hendricks' inability to explain why Accused No. 1 had to phone him to come and discuss the hit when she could just have waited for him to come when he made a payment. We know from later evidence that Bedford in fact went to Hendricks' house to get his cell phone number. Furthermore, Hendricks did not repay his debt over fixed periods. On the other hand it is apparent from all the evidence, that is if Accused No. 1's version is to be rejected, that she was in a hurry to have the "job" done.
54. Hendricks has more problems with exhibit "O", the statement he made to the police on 21 December 2006 when he knew that they were investigating the death of the deceased. It consists almost entirely of lies. He explains that he did it to protect himself and Accused No. 1. That may be an acceptable explanation but it certainly impacts upon his credibility. Another aspect of this statement which causes some concern is the averment that he borrowed R20 000 on two previous occasions and on a third occasion he borrowed R10 000. He then comments that she phoned him on one occasion when he fell behind with his payments.
55. Exhibit "P" is a further statement made by him to the police in which he told lies also to cover up for himself and Accused No. 1. This statement deals with the diamond story. Hendricks denied that there was any deal where Accused No. 1 had given him four diamonds to sell with the understanding that if he sold the diamonds at R250 000 he could get R10 000. This was the story that was discussed with attorney Norman Snitcher. He was sent out of the office when the attorney enquired who everyone was. He did not contradict Accused No. 1 when she mentioned the diamond deal because this was one of the stories they had made up to tell the police.
56. Hendricks seemed to suggest at one stage that he only contacted Accused No. 2 after he saw Accused No. 1 a second time about the hit. When Mr von Lieres put to him his earlier evidence in this regard, he conceded asking Accused No. 2 about finding someone to do the job as a result of Accused No. 1's persistent calls, that is, after the first visit in this regard.
57. Mr von Lieres then took this witness through everything that was said at the second meeting. Namely that she wanted the hit done on her husband and that she would pay R100 000, that the cameras on the perimeter of the house were not working, that she would see to it that the gate would be open, that no-one else must be injured and that she would look after him when everything was done. Mr von Lieres then pointed out to him certain differences between what he was saying in court and what was said in the statement, exhibit "Q", that is the statement made by him when he decided to speak the truth. Hendricks explained that he did not differentiate between the first and second occasion when he made the statement. It appears from the statement itself that he did differentiate between the two occasions. There seems to be some confusion in this regard.
58. Hendricks did not ask what he would get out of the job that Accused No. 1 wanted him to do. This is not as improbable as Mr von Lieres suggested it was, if one takes into account that he had on previous occasions borrowed R20 000 and R10 000 from her and, of course, she could land in trouble if she failed to pay him.
59. Mr von Lieres also put to this witness that as Accused No. 1 and the deceased were married in community of property, whether the deceased and Accused No. 1 divorced or if the deceased died, the accused would not be better off. I do not think the witness was in a position to answer these questions. I also do not agree with Mr von Lieres' allegations in this regard for reasons which are not pertinent at this stage.
60. Hendricks admitted knowing that he was busy with dangerous matters, that is, getting people to commit a murder, yet he persisted in what he was doing because Accused No. 1 had done him favours in the past such as lending him fairly large sums of money. He was also of the opinion that he would not really be involved in the murder because he would only be getting the people to do the act.
61. Mr von Lieres also put to this witness that there would have been insufficient time to set up the hi-jacking if the witness, i.e. Hendricks, was phoned at 09h31 and the deceased's plane was supposed to land at 10h30. There is no evidence which supports this proposition and, if the court is at liberty to take judicial notice in this regard, Hanover Park is an area not far from the airport or, I assume, the deceased could have been intercepted anywhere along the road to Athlone. Hendricks could not say what would happen to the advance payment of R30 000 if there was to be a hi-jacking. Perhaps this is an improbability, but is it significant? I suppose other means could have been employed to get the payment after the commission of the act.
62. A similar proposition with regard to the timing was put to Hendricks in respect of the proposed hit at the Luxurama. He was phoned at 20h30. The fact is we do not know when the show was to end. In any event, the hit could not be timeously arranged and furthermore Hendricks cannot be criticised if Accused No. 1 made unreasonable demands.
63. Hendricks admitted knowing Accused No. 1 for about 30 years. He denied borrowing R20 000 on two occasions and denied that Accused No. 1 was serious about her money and phoned people to pay. He denied he was given diamonds by her to sell or that she asked him to sell American dollars on her behalf. He also rejected Accused No. 1's version that she had given him diamonds to sell or that she phoned him with increasing frequency because she was worried about the diamonds. He reiterated his evidence that the two of them had made up stories to tell the police.
64. Hendricks admitted that he was at no stage arrested in this case and that he only made his statement, exhibit "Q" after about 6 months. Mr von Lieres also put to him that he knew of the American dollars in the house, that it was his idea to rob the place and that something went wrong during the robbery and the deceased was killed.
65. I have highlighted some of the more important issues which arose during the cross-examination of Hendricks by Mr von Lieres. Not all the issues, or possible discrepancies raised by Mr von Lieres have been referred to herein, simply because it would not be practical to do so.
66. In her cross-examination of this witness, Ms Abrahams pointed out to Hendricks that in exhibit "Q" he had not mentioned the first group of people obtained by Accused No. 2 to commit the murder. His explanation was fairly simple. He had not mentioned them in his earlier statement because they were not involved in the actual deed. A great deal of cross-examination on this aspect followed. It did not take the matter any further.
67. Hendricks conceded that he may have made a mistake by mentioning only one occasion on which he pressed "redial" to contact Accused No. 2 on 16 December 2006. He also confirmed phoning Accused No. 2 to meet him at the shopping centre in Mitchells Plain. This incident was set up so that he could point out Accused No. 2 to the police. Accused No. 2 arrived late and they collided when he was leaving the shop. Hendricks could not recall phoning Accused No. 2 and telling him that he was taking a long time to appear.
68. It appears that a number of calls were made from his Cell C phone, that is, with the number 0781698347, during the period 17 to 20 December 2006. Hendricks concedes this but says that it does not mean that he made all the calls.
69. With regard to the R70 000, it was apparent that Ms Abrahams misunderstood the evidence of Hendricks who did his best to explain that he kept the rest of the money in safe custody for Accused No. 2. Ms Abrahams, if I understood her correctly, suggested that this arrangement did not make much sense. On the contrary, it seemed quite plausible.
70. It was finally put to Hendricks that he was falsely implicating Accused No. 2 for two reasons, namely the belief that Accused No. 2 was having an affair with his wife and the fact that Accused No. 2 cheated him in connection with money Accused No. 3 had brought for certain motor car spares. Hendricks denied these allegations.
71. At this stage, Mr von Lieres sought the permission of the court to put certain further questions to the witness. This was allowed. In response to the additional allegations put to him, Hendricks denied that he had told Nanny - the Petersen's other domestic assistant - to tell Accused No. 1 that he had returned the diamonds to her if the police enquired about them. He added that Accused No. 1 had told Nanny to say that.
72. Cross-examination of this witness by Mr Scott and Mr Konstabel did not take this matter any further.
73. Tagmeeda Johnson, the deceased's sister, was also called to testify on behalf of the State. Ms Riley indicated to the court that portions of the evidence of this witness would be hearsay and sought permission to have it admitted in evidence. Mr von Lieres objected to this evidence being presented. The court decided to hear the evidence and indicated that it would decide upon the cogency of the evidence, and the weight, if any, to be attached to it at a later stage in these proceedings.
74. This court was called upon to exercise its discretion as envisaged in section 3(1) (c) of The Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988. This section affords the court a wider discretion when it comes to admitting hearsay evidence. It permits the admission of hearsay evidence if it is in the interests of justice to do so after having regard to several factors listed in the said section. The hearsay evidence, in this instance, was to be led to show a possible motive on the part of Accused No. 1 to have her husband killed. There was other evidence to the effect that the deceased was a private person whose tribulations were not publicly known. This witness was in a position to corroborate the evidence of Hendricks, the section 204 witness, with regard to the deceased's contemplated divorce and its financial consequences.
75. Ultimately, the evidence of this witness was not of any real significance in this matter. She spoke of her good relationship with her brother which we do not have any reason to doubt. She also confirmed what another witness had already said, namely that the deceased was a very private person. However, her view of the deceased's marriage to Accused No. 1, like that of her brother Igshaan, was clouded by an obvious dislike for Accused No. 1 and it is accordingly difficult to entertain her view in this regard as objective evidence.
76. A large part of her evidence related to the incident on 13 April 2006, that is, 8 months before his death, when Accused No. 1 stabbed the deceased with a knife. Her evidence of this occurrence is hearsay and of such little relevance that it can be safely disregarded. In any event, there is more direct evidence of the stabbing from one of the other witnesses. It is, however, not in dispute that the deceased spent the night in hospital after he was stabbed and Accused No. 1 received treatment at a private clinic for three weeks thereafter. There is also other evidence that from that date Accused No. 1 and the deceased also slept in separate bedrooms.
77. Mr von Lieres put to this witness that Accused No. 1 had been receiving treatment for depression before the stabbing incident and that the incident took place on the same night she was discharged from the Gatesville Medical Centre where she had been treated for depression. It was also put to this witness that Accused No. 1 does not deny stabbing the deceased but does not know how it happened. When testifying herself Accused No. 1 did not quite admit that she stabbed the deceased. She maintained that she did not know what happened.
78. There was nothing else of significance in the evidence of this witness and she was not cross-examined by counsel for the other accused.
79. Before dealing in some detail with the cell phone records and the expert testimony in this regard, I refer briefly to some of the other witnesses who testified on behalf of the State.
80. Mrs Ma'atoema Groenemeyer ("Ma'atoema") also one of the deceased's sisters, testified that at about 23h30 on 16 December 2006 she received a call from Accused No. 1 who told her "we have been robbed and Taliep has been shot". The telephone records show that this call was made at 23h51. She was unable to contact the police on 10111 and chose to drive with her husband to the Athlone Police Station. On the way to the police station she called Igshaan who lives nearer to 101 Grasmere Street. At the police station she met with a Munaaz Lawrence who contacted the flying squad via radio. Attempts were also made to contact Accused No. 1 on her cell phone and landline. They then heard police sirens moving in the direction of 101 Grasmere Street and left the police station. This witness also testified about a conversation she had with Accused No. 1 two or three weeks after the incident when Accused No. 1 allegedly told her what had happened. As the witness never mentioned this conversation to the police or at the bail hearing, the court is reluctant to place any reliance thereon and elects not to do so.
81. Munaaz Lawrence, from the Athlone Police Station, also testified. She essentially confirmed what was said by Ma'atoema. She was cross-examined on her statement in which she had recorded that Ma'atoema mentioned hearing a shot go off during the call she received from Accused No. 1. She conceded a possible error in this regard in that the statement was made two weeks after the incident had taken place.
82. Reference has already been made to Mymoena Bedford. She described her relationship with Accused No. 1 as sisterly. On 18 November 2006 she received a call from Accused No. 1 who asked her to obtain a contact number for Hendricks who lived about two streets away from her. She collected the number from his brother and gave it to Accused No. 1. She was asked under cross-examination how she remembered the date of Accused No. 1's call. Her reply was to the effect that it was her sister's birthday and she recalls they had eaten out. She confronted Accused No. 1 about her supposed relationship with Hendricks which she had been told at an interview with the police. She did not know who Hendricks was. At 101 Grasmere Street Koekie reminded her of the incident 2 or 3 days after the janazah when she ordered a man to leave the house because of Accused No. 1 then being under iddah. Bedford did not believe that Accused No. 1 would have an affair with "someone like that" who was "classless" - the latter being a comment not entirely without merit. In any event, Accused No. 1 told her that Hendricks owed her money and also sold diamonds for her. Furthermore, that he came to the house to repay the money. On one occasion she witnessed Hendricks handing over money to Accused No. 1. She testified that on an earlier occasion Accused No. 1 had asked her to have a diamond ring valued and to find a buyer for it. She had the ring valued - for R100 000 - but did not find a buyer. Except for that instance, she knew of no other diamond deals.
83. The evidence of Fatima Achmat ("Achmat") relates to the large sum of money allegedly given by Accused No. 1 to Hendricks on 19 December 2006. Achmat is the managing director of a property business and a business associate and friend of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 was employed by the same business. Her salary was structured in such a way that she would receive a monthly salary of R50 000 - whatever her commission - and the balance would be entered in a loan account. On 19 December 2006 Achmat was telephonically contacted by Accused No. 1 who wanted assistance to withdraw cash from her bank account. Achmat was unable to assist that day and asked her brother to attend to the matter. About a week later she spoke to Accused No. 1 who told her if there were any enquiries about the money Achmat must say that she had borrowed the money. Accused No. 1's explanation for this request was that she did not want people to know she had money as they pestered her for loans. Mr von Lieres informed the Court that Accused No. 1 did not dispute that R100 000 was cashed by a Shafiek Kamish at FNB Athlone on 19 December 2006. As a result of this concession by Mr von Lieres, it was unnecessary to call any further witnesses with regard to the cashing of the R100 000 by Accused No. 1.
84. The evidence of Jawaahier Petersen ("Jawaahier") is possibly of some importance as she is in a position to give direct evidence about the stabbing incident and, I suppose, the family living arrangements.
85. Jawaahier, who is the second eldest child born of the marriage between the deceased and his first wife, was working as a cosmetic consultant at that stage. She and her siblings lived with one parent for two weeks and then with the other for two weeks. This arrangement became more flexible as they grew older. When she reached the age of 18 she went to live permanently at 101 Grasmere Street - she was 22 years old when she testified. This arrangement came to an end when Accused No. 1 was discharged from the Crescent Clinic pursuant to the events of 13 April 2006.
86. On the aforementioned date Jawaahier came home from work just after eleven that evening. Accused No. 1 was in bed and the deceased was taking ablutions in preparation for his evening prayer. She and Accused No. 1 discussed the deceased's upcoming birthday on 15 April. Accused No. 1 appeared normal, that is her speech was not slurred and her eyes droopy as would be the case when she was medicated.
87. Almost 30 minutes later her sister Fatima told her that she had heard their father making a noise. As she did not wish to intrude upon the deceased and his wife she stood outside the door and heard him saying "No, Najwa". He did not sound right. She entered the room which was dark except for the blue light from a small television set which was on. There were no blankets on the bed and she could not see the deceased or Accused No. 1. She called out "Dad, where are you?" He told her to switch on the light but not to freak.
88. When the lights went on she saw Accused No. 1 in a praying or kneeling position with the deceased behind her, holding her hands away from him. Accused No. 1 had a knife in her left hand pointed towards the deceased. Everything was covered in blood and Accused No. 1 appeared "demonic" making strange noises.
89. The witness asked who was bleeding but received no reply. The deceased told her to call Accused No. 1's late father. Jawaahier first called the Gatesville Medical Centre before calling Accused No. 1's father. Both the deceased and Accused No. 1 were taken to the medical centre. The deceased was discharged the next day and Accused No. 1 was admitted to the Crescent Clinic for about 3 weeks. After her discharge from Crescent Clinic, Accused No. 1 slept in one of the other bedrooms while the deceased slept in the main bedroom. The witness no longer felt comfortable with Accused No. 1 and moved out. The other children continued to stay over but less frequently and eventually only visited their father but did not stay over. She agreed with defence counsel that on the night of the incident Accused No. 1 was "zombie like" but added that she can also make her eyes like that.
90. The policeman responsible for investigating the financial affairs of the deceased, Captain Wayne van Tonder, was a poor witness and seemed to come apart under cross-examination. It appears that he spent the last 5 years of his professional career at the Provincial Organised Crime Unit - Bellville South. He established that no immovable property or vehicles were registered in the name of the deceased. Quite surprisingly, he could not ascertain in whose name 101 Grasmere Street was registered. The deceased only had an Absa account in which the following deposits were made for the period 2004 to 2007:
2004 R 95 607,00
2005 R425 895,65
2006 R427 756,67
2007 R 5 822,00
Payments from the account were made largely for policies and to SAMRO, the agency for performing arts, and to David Kramer. It appears that from 2001 large sums of money earned by the deceased were paid over either to Accused No. 1 or to Dirk Fruit. Though Accused No. 1 had a number of accounts, Capt van Tonder limited his investigation to the FNB account in Athlone and an account held by her in Oshakati, Namibia. The latter account showed a balance of R259 963,00 on 6 September 2006. He was aware of the policy valued at R5,3 million of which Zaynab was the beneficiary. This had not been paid out to the knowledge of the witness but Accused No. 1 had made a request for the money to be paid into a Namibian account. Under cross-examination it appeared that the financial investigation was only completed a week before his testimony, the witness had not spoken to the attorney or the financial broker involved and was unaware that a trust was created for Zaynab, the beneficiary of the policy. He knew of the policies taken out against the life of the deceased where Accused No. 1 was the beneficiary. He became aware at a later stage in the investigation of the power of attorney held by Accused No. 1 and had not interviewed either Accused No. 1 or her legal representatives.
91. The deceased's partner, David Julian Kramer ("Kramer"), the person with whom he created musicals and songs for over two decades was also a witness for the state. He was called largely to explain certain aspects of the deceased's financial affairs. The deceased and Kramer often produced shows together which they financed themselves. The deceased's contribution in more recent years was paid with cheques signed by Accused No. 1. At the deceased's request, his share of the profits was paid either to "N Petersen" or to "Dirk Fruit". This was the position from about 2001.
92. The events leading to the examination of Accused No. 1's cell phone records and the link to Hendricks, appear from the evidence of Superintendent Piet Viljoen ("Viljoen"). He is a highly experienced police officer and on 17 December 2006 he received a request for assistance in this matter. At about 10h00 he went to 101 Grasmere Street. He met Accused No. 1 in a bedroom where she was being supported by other people. He introduced himself to her and asked what had happened. She told him they had been robbed. He noticed that she had two cell phones in her possession. She described the robbery to him and took him to a safe and told him that the robbers had taken money from it. He noted some jewellery, watches, handheld computers and old paper money still in the safe. He found this strange as these were items currently popular with housebreakers. When requested to, Accused No. 1 gave him her two cell phones and asked what he was going to do with them. He replied that it was for further investigation. She then asked that he return the Nokia as she used the phone for her business. When he refused she asked whether she could get a number from the phone. He gave her the phone. Captain Kenneth Speed ("Speed") then arrived and Viljoen asked him to photograph the contents of the safe and take possession of the cell phones.
93. Later at his office Viljoen withdrew information from the two cell phones obtained from Accused No. 1 and, by means of a special computer programme for this purpose, he found that the last three numbers dialled on 16 December 2006 from the Nokia phone were 0839297647 (Aeesha) at 00h22, 0828610054 (Fayruz) at 21h31 and 0761775529 (Madeegha) at 22h23. From the detailed particulars of calls made from this phone it appeared that one number that had been phoned was not reflected on the phone calls saved in the phone. This number was stored in the phonebook of the phone as that belonging to one "Fahiem Piele". The number actually saved by Accused No. 1 under the name "Fahiem Piele" was 0729229617. It belonged to a cell phone of Fahiem Hendricks. When Viljoen analysed it, he found that this number had been phoned from the Nokia cell phone about 10 times on 16 December 2006. It seems that these calls must have been removed from Accused No. 1's phone at some stage before she handed it over to Speed.
94. During cross-examination by Mr von Lieres, it appeared that this witness only made a statement on 1 April 2008. In this statement he stated that the 10 calls from Accused No. 1's phone were made to Hendricks on 17 December 2006. This is an obvious error. It was on 17 December 2006 that he noticed the calls made the previous day, that is, on 16 December 2006.
95. Viljoen also explained that Accused No. 1's Nokia is able to log 20 incoming calls, 20 outgoing calls and 20 missed calls. Information of the last call she made on 16 December 2006 should therefore still have been reflected on her phone when he analysed it.
96. Viljoen agreed that while he told the court that his evidence has always been accepted by the courts, on one occasion in the Cape Town regional court it was not accepted because the telephone number he referred to did not compare with the number contained in the Telkom list of calls.
97. Mr von Lieres put to this witness that the items left in the safe during the robbery were of no value to house robbers. Viljoen advanced several reasons why some or all of these items would not have been left behind by house robbers.
98. It was Speed's function to trace stolen property and investigate stolen cell phones. On 17 December 2006 he was given the further duty of investigating the security features at 101 Grasmere Street. He took photographs of the security measures at the house and compiled a bundle which was handed up as an exhibit. As he was told that the entrance control at the front gate did not work, he tested the gate and found it to be in good working order. The closed circuit television cameras on the property, as well as the electric fencing, were switched off.
99. Speed was called back by Viljoen to collect the two cell phones and to photograph the contents of the safe. After taking the photographs he found that the Nokia phone was not where he had left it. He asked Viljoen about this and was told that Accused No. 1 had asked for it. He retrieved the phone from her and both phones were taken to the offices of the police.
100. The detailed records of calls made on Accused No. 1's phones were obtained by Speed from the relevant cell phone companies. He also dealt in his evidence with the duration and frequency of the calls between Accused No. 1 and Hendricks for the period 13 to 17 December 2006.
101. Under cross-examination by Mr von Lieres, Speed indicated that he had asked both Hendricks and Accused No. 1 about the frequent number of calls between them. They first said it was all about a diamond transaction and later because they were having an affair. According to Speed no one living in the house was tested for firearm residue because at that stage none of them were suspects. He testified that for such a test to be really reliable it must be taken within two hours after a firearm has been discharged.
102. Mr von Lieres also endeavoured to point out in his cross-examination of this witness that Accused No. 1 did not only phone Hendricks during the period 13 to 17 December 2006, the implication being that there was nothing unusual about the frequency of their calls over this period. The actual details, as they appear from exhibit "M", paint a different picture. The calls between them for the period 4 to 20 December 2006 were as follows:
4 December 2006 - no calls
5 December 2006 - no calls
6 December 2006 - no calls
7 December 2006 - no calls
8 December 2006 - 2 calls
9 December 2006 - 1 call
10 December 2006 - 2 calls
11 December 2006 - no calls
12 December 2006 - no calls
13 December 2006 - 6 calls
14 December 2006 - 26 calls
15 December 2006 - 4 calls
16 December 2006 - 10 calls
17 December 2006 - 1 call
18 December 2006 - 4 calls
19 December 2006 - 2 calls
20 December 2006 - 1 call
103. The detailed cell phone records of some of the accused and Hendricks were made available to the court by witnesses whose evidence was formal in nature and not disputed. Of greater importance to this case was the evidence of Peter Schmitz ("Schmitz"), a scientist currently employed in the Logistics and Decision Support Department of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research ("the CSIR"). He does, as he puts it, spatial analysis from satellite data to GPS collected and cell phone data. In this case he was asked to plot the spatial and temporal paths of the accused at the time of this incident. Once he was in possession of the cell phone call data records he was able to determine the location of the cell towers. The calls made and received were linked to the towers that were used and a line was then drawn between the two towers. The usage of the towers gave an indication of how the people moved through space and the time of these calls gave an indication of what time of the day the call was made.
104. In this instance Schmitz drew maps showing the calls made and received by the relevant parties, collated calls which may be of importance in this case,
SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT!
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
HAVE YOUR SAY
Please enter your comment into the text box below.
Note: all comments are moderated (see our moderation policy) and may take some time to display, or may not appear at all.
If you would like to use an alias, please type it below. If you do not enter an alias you comment under a Anonymous byline.
Type your email address below - your comment will not be accepted without it. This is required as part of our moderation guidelines, but your address will not be published or distributed.
Lastly, to help fight spam, enter the letters in the image below as you see them.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Cape Argus. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
