GUILTY South Africa - Gill Packham, 57, murdered, Cape Town, 22 February, 2018 *arrest*

[Hag]

Thank you once again for all the Posts JudgeJudi. I’ve watched the live feed and all clear today, apart from not being able to hear the Judge. It’s hard to watch this guy though. I’ll say no more! Hag

 

[JudgeJudi]

Thank you once again for all the Posts JudgeJudi. I’ve watched the live feed and all clear today, apart from not being able to hear the Judge. It’s hard to watch this guy though. I’ll say no more! Hag

I couldn't hear her either. I like seeing Galloway again and for once we seem to have a defence advocate who seems like a decent person. It's been quite a while since I've seen one that I've actually liked.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thank you very much JJ.

I have just had a chance to watch the afternoon session. There is something about RP that irritates me. At times he appears to be trying to be "too clever" with his answers. He has had a very long time to hone his alibi. It might be difficult to trip him up but, fingers crossed, the telephone details will prove he is a liar.

I thought he had a couple of hiccups along the way this afternoon but he is a cunning man and has done his homework.

I did wonder why the Prosecution did not make more of how Gill's number plates could have been removed from her car when it was seen on CCTV only 3 houses away from their home, being driven by a man and not Gill, within minutes of her leaving the house according to RP. Have I missed something?

 

[mrjitty]

Thank you very much JJ.

I have just had a chance to watch the afternoon session. There is something about RP that irritates me. At times he appears to be trying to be "too clever" with his answers. He has had a very long time to hone his alibi. It might be difficult to trip him up but, fingers crossed, the telephone details will prove he is a liar.

I thought he had a couple of hiccups along the way this afternoon but he is a cunning man and has done his homework.

I did wonder why the Prosecution did not make more of how Gill's number plates could have been removed from her car when it was seen on CCTV only 3 houses away from their home, being driven by a man and not Gill, within minutes of her leaving the house according to RP. Have I missed something?

Yes that evidence seems critical

 

[Hag]

SG: The pathologist noted something on your wife's left arm, like a brace around her arm. RP says there was nothing on her arm and he raised it with his legal team. It must have been something in the car boot, he adds.
Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter[/QUOTE]

Wondering what this could have been. ? Bracelets ? Restraint ? how could he be so certain there was nothing on her arm.

 

[Hag]

Yes that evidence seems critical

Critical indeed. There must be more to follow about this.

 

[tmar]

Thank you very much JJ.

I have just had a chance to watch the afternoon session. There is something about RP that irritates me. At times he appears to be trying to be "too clever" with his answers. He has had a very long time to hone his alibi. It might be difficult to trip him up but, fingers crossed, the telephone details will prove he is a liar.

I thought he had a couple of hiccups along the way this afternoon but he is a cunning man and has done his homework.

I did wonder why the Prosecution did not make more of how Gill's number plates could have been removed from her car when it was seen on CCTV only 3 houses away from their home, being driven by a man and not Gill, within minutes of her leaving the house according to RP. Have I missed something?

I have watched the videos of RP.
He irritates me also, Interested Bystander.
RP appears to be so arrogant, and I certainly hope he stumbles due to his perceived cleverness.
I want him to stutter away, when things get difficult.
I am waiting for Susan Galloway to nab him.
MOO.

 

[Manny8171]

Thank you very much JJ.

I have just had a chance to watch the afternoon session. There is something about RP that irritates me. At times he appears to be trying to be "too clever" with his answers. He has had a very long time to hone his alibi. It might be difficult to trip him up but, fingers crossed, the telephone details will prove he is a liar.

I thought he had a couple of hiccups along the way this afternoon but he is a cunning man and has done his homework.

I did wonder why the Prosecution did not make more of how Gill's number plates could have been removed from her car when it was seen on CCTV only 3 houses away from their home, being driven by a man and not Gill, within minutes of her leaving the house according to RP. Have I missed something?

I agree, he has tried to work out a plausible reasons for his actions that morning.
In South Africa car hijacking and murdering to steal cars are common. He has already planted the seed of construction workers across the street.
Removing number plates and leaving a car in an open space to see if the car has a tracking device is not uncommon. I've had two cars stolen, both recovered in open areas and stripped.


However what are the odds that on the day he has an argument with Gill,

• he decided to physically go looking for a car (speaks to no-one, no CCTV provided),
• his phone is inexplicitly off (Gill tracking him is weak),
• phones a colleague to say he will be late and make an excuse,
• and that day Gill is hijacked, murdered and burned in her car just 2+km's away.

I hope his story falls apart, I fear that the prosecutor may not have enough direct evidence of his involvement.
The defence attorney is calm and professional. So different to the Rhodes attorney.

 

[Interested Bystander]

WATCH | Death, fire and CCTV: How the state linked Rob Packham to his wife's murder

16 April 2019 - 09:16BY ANTHONY MOLYNEAUX


Article and video in Times Live

WATCH | Death, fire and CCTV: How the state linked Rob Packham to his wife's murder

 

[JudgeJudi]

Prosecutor Susan Galloway (SG) continues her cross-exam. She wants to clarify what Rob (RP) told his colleague at Twizza to say should anyone ask where he had been the morning his wife disappeared.

SG: Your colleague's evidence-in-chief was that you told him if anyone phoned, he should say you had been in a meeting at work. Under cross-exam, he again repeated the "if anyone phoned" aspect".

SG is bringing up this aspect because she pointed out yesterday that it's the first time Rob has brought up the possibility of his wife visiting his workplace, when asking his colleague to make up an excuse.

RP: That is what I told him, if Gill should phone the plant or visit the plant, then my colleague should tell her we had been in a meeting. SG: That [visiting] is something new that only came out during your evidence-in-chief.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

RP: I know exactly what I said to my colleague in the telephone conversation. He conceded under cross-exam that it is possible.

Judge asks RP what he told his colleague. He replies: I started by telling him that Gill was missing. I then said that if she called or came to the plant, to please let her know I had been there from about 8:30am.

SG wants to know why Rob wanted an alibi. RP says his wife often checked up on him. SG wants to know why he called that specific colleague. RP: He was more than a colleague, he was actually a friend and understood my personal issues.

RP: My wife would either call me on my cellphone or call the switchboard and speak to whoever. SG: Would it not have been better to call the switchboard then? RP: No, not at all. My colleague was my friend and I trusted him.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

SG: Why did you then send your colleague an SMS a few days later to remember your conversation?
RP: It came to my attention that social media was talking about me requesting an alibi. I wanted to clarify to him what our conversation entailed.

RP: It was either on social media or radio that I had spoken to a colleague asking for an alibi. That is not what I had done. That's why I sent a short message to him to remind him of our call.
SG: But your call had been for him to tell your wife something.

Rob says he was concerned that the media was sensationalising everything. "The report was inflammatory, sensational and factually incorrect".
SG: But your call was an alibi as your wife was concerned.

RP is getting worked up about State making much of his SMS to his colleague a few days later to remind him about alibi for his wife. He speaks quickly and asks not to be interrupted.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

RP: "I couldn’t help that in the meantime Gill had passed away. When I phoned him on Thursday morning, it was with the simple request . He then embellished it and misinterpreted it as an alibi for anybody. It was purely for my wife."

RP: Already the story was being twisted and manipulated in the media and I was very upset about that. The IO told me that I was a person of interest because I was the spouse. No more no less.

Judge Elize Steyn says RP is not answering the question.
RP: I don’t know. This was the day after, I was stressed. When I left home for work, I went via some car dealerships.

State wants to know why Rob didn't just phone the IO to set the record straight and say he had been looking for new cars for his wife the morning she had disappeared.
RP: The newspaper was full of speculation and private information.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

 

[JudgeJudi]

RP responds to State's theory on him cooking up an alibi: "I hear your speculation but it is not true. Not at all."

SG: I will argue that your initial thought was to create the impression that you were actually at work. That’s why you sent your colleague the message on Sunday evening to remember the lie you had told him. You then developed new info of looking for car.

SG turns to Rob's two phones (work phone and personal or 'burner' phone). She notes there was not much activity on his personal phone around the time of his wife's death. She asks what he did with this phone when not in use.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

Sorry for the late start. I forgot that daylight saving had ended.

He's such a smart arse.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I hope his story falls apart, I fear that the prosecutor may not have enough direct evidence of his involvement.
The defence attorney is calm and professional. So different to the Rhodes attorney.

Don't worry. Susan Galloway is an excellent advocate. Most murder trials are based on circumstantial evidence. Again, don't worry Manny.

I agree with your Rohde comment. Apart from the Judge, I couldn't stand anyone in that courtroom, including virtually all witnesses on both sides. I gave up on that trial.

 

[JudgeJudi]

State says that Rob's ex-lover had testified about him sending her a message the morning his wife disappeared. But phone records for both phones don't reflect that. RP says it may have been a whatsapp. State says there is no record of GPRS used.

RP: I cannot have sent her that message on work phone because it was turned off. It must have been private phone. Why it was not on the MTN sheet I have no idea. Maybe you will have to ask cellphone expert that?

SG wants to know why RP gave police the wrong pin to his phone. He replies: I didn’t. I gave the policeman involved the exact, correct pin number. He and the woman with him wrote it down. SG: But it was incorrect.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

I wish Galloway had asked him how often Susan visited him at work, in particular from the time that they were getting counselling.

Visiting him at his workplace is quite different to making a phone call. "My wife would either call me on my cellphone or call the switchboard and speak to whoever." That seems to have been her practice if she indeed she was checking up on him.

 

[JudgeJudi]

RP: I was not inclined to share my pin with IO because so much of our private information was out there. If they couldn’t find it or keep track of it [the 1st time], that was not my problem.

State turns to tyre print analysis and expert testimony that Rob's tyres examined a few months later did not match the print at the scene. SG asks why he changed his tyres.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

Um, he says he didn't change the tyres.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Asked why he changed his Audi's tyres, RP said he did not follow the question, then objected to the question and insinuation.

SG took him through photos of his tyres that were taken day after his wife went missing and then 6 months later. RP said he was sure it was his car where the number plate shows but otherwise cannot be sure.

State reminds RP that he admitted at start of trial that the photos were of his car. He says he was not present at all times when photos were taken. He also says he is not a tyre expert.

After a lot of back and forth, RP eventually admits the photos are of his car. But admits he is confused about the photos of the tyres being raised in conversation now.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

SG says expert could immediately exclude photos of Audi's tyres taken in Aug 2018 as those which made print at crime scene. RP says he is not surprised because he was having dinner with his sister and was never at the scene.

RP: I did not change the tyres of my car, my lady. SG: Where do they come from? RP: I told you I don’t know those tyres. I don’t know if they are mine. I assume they are not. If they don’t match my car. SG: Even though you admit photos? RP: Some of them.

Cross-examination can get very lively. Thank goodness for tea breaks so I can catch you up. We are back soon.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter