South Africa - Martin, 55, Theresa, 54, Rudi van Breda, 22, murdered, 26 Jan 2015 #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
PrimeSuspect said:
RSBM - Tortoise transcription

In the result the court finds the accused has not shown good cause why he should be allowed to call the expert witnesses before testifying himself. The application as such in terms of S.151 (b) (i) is dismissed.

P Botha: As the court pleases my lord. But as I have indicated in the course of my argument and your lordship will no doubt recall, my client has now placed on record to the effect he'd made a decision that at this stage he does not intend to testify, and we will attend on 9th with your lordship's leave to call the witnesses that we intend to call.
Click to expand...

JudgeJudi said:
Desai said HvB had not shown good cause why he should testify last and dismissed the application.

Could someone please advise if I've misunderstood something along the way. I thought Botha still left it open as to whether or not HvB would testify in spite of Desai's ruling.
Click to expand...

Prime, I think we're getting the posts confused. Botha made an application for the 3 experts to testify first and Desai dismissed this application. However, Botha said that "at this stage he does not intend to testify". Desai reminded him that the court may make an adverse inference if this were to occur. Have I misunderstood what you're saying?

As things stand at the moment, the court will only use the initial statement. The plea explanation can only be used if he changes his mind and does testify, and Galloway said this as she must be able to cross-examine him on it.
 
JudgeJudi said:
Prime, I think we're getting the posts confused. Botha made an application for the 3 experts to testify first and Desai dismissed this application. However, Botha said that "at this stage he does not intend to testify". Desai reminded him that the court may make an adverse inference if this were to occur. Have I misunderstood what you're saying?

As things stand at the moment, the court will only use the initial statement. The plea explanation can only be used if he changes his mind and does testify, and Galloway said this as she must be able to cross-examine him on it.
Click to expand...

It seems like Botha is saying, 'we'll see'. Desai dismissed his application because good cause was not shown at that time. But we know this could be arranged, if the next witness or the 3rd one can't attend on due date, HvB could decide to testify. I'm confused JJ, seems like Botha could still get his way if good cause is shown, maybe even after all three witnesses have taken the stand.
 
https://twitter.com/ajnarsee

Olckers: goes through colour coded table, says 111 samples had the correct quantity of DNA for testing

Olckers: but 40 samples were below level of detection, without concentration, i.e. Samples quantity too small for testing
 
There's not the usual journos around because a new trial has started, Jason Rohde
Rohde, the former CEO of Geffen International Realty Franchises, is accused of murdering his wife Susan in their hotel room at the Spier Wine Estate on July 24, 2016, while attending Sotheby's annual conference.
Click to expand...

Wives still getting murdered :(
 
JudgeJudi said:
Henri van Breda has elected not to testify at this stage

Not testifying in your own defence is not necessarily a blow to your case.

In the State v Johanna Changisa (2011), Judge Phatshoane ruled (in part):

"A failure to testify will not remedy a deficiency in the State case such as the absence of apparently credible implication of the accused."

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-van-breda-team-defence-argument-20171009
Click to expand...

Fluffykins said:
bbm

BIB - Good grief, I've read that about five times and I'm still :waitasec:
Click to expand...


Here’s a bit more from the cited case:

”While an accused person's failure to testify may in appropriate circumstances be a factor in deciding whether his guilt has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, this is only so where the State has prima facie discharged the onus upon it. A failure to testify will not remedy a deficiency in the State case such as the absence of apparently credible implication of the accused”

In other words, the State must still prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and they can't use the fact that he chooses not to testify as further evidence of his guilt.
 
Olckers found that 111 samples used by the lab had the correct amount of DNA for Polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Olckers: 40 samples used are below input amount for PCR. Sample must be between 1ng and 2.5ng in terms of std operating procedure.

Standard op procedures state samples of same case shouldnt follow each other on worklist.Olckers found 116 instances where it did.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-van-breda-team-defence-argument-20171009
 
PrimeSuspect said:
It seems like Botha is saying, 'we'll see'. Desai dismissed his application because good cause was not shown at that time. But we know this could be arranged, if the next witness or the 3rd one can't attend on due date, HvB could decide to testify. I'm confused JJ, seems like Botha could still get his way if good cause is shown, maybe even after all three witnesses have taken the stand.
Click to expand...

I'm finding it confusing too Prime. As far as good cause goes, as far as I can see, that's done and dusted. He couldn't give Desai a good reason for wanting to testify after the experts.

My feeling is that depending on how the experts go, if Botha thinks they prove the State's experts didn't follow the SOPs in a way that makes their evidence extremely weak, he'll apply again at a later stage for Henri to testify. He'll say that the defence experts have proven that the court can't rely on the State's experts, not that Henri has changed his story to accord with the defence witnesses.
 
JudgeJudi said:
Desai said HvB had not shown good cause why he should testify last and dismissed the application.

Could someone please advise if I've misunderstood something along the way. I thought Botha still left it open as to whether or not HvB would testify in spite of Desai's ruling.
Click to expand...

So now Botha thinks he's making the rules, does he? That should sit well with Desai. :giggle:
 
Hag said:
It seems Botha said HvB may decide to testify last anyway! How can this be when he asked to do this and was denied? I'm baffled!
Click to expand...

I think we're all a bit confused about this. I haven't been able to find a law that emphatically states that an accused MUST testify first, only the fact, as Desai has stated, that this has been the practice for generations, or words to that effect. I wouldn't put it past Botha to use this as a ground of appeal if Henri is found guilty.
 
https://twitter.com/ajnarsee

Olckers: it's common to separate samples from different cases to prevent cross contamination

Olckers: the impact of non conformance can be that one sample contaminates another

Olckers: SOPs should be followed with "great care"

Olckers: non conformance must be registered so it can be corrected

Olckers: the forensic lab is not accredited which leads to questions of the quality of results
 
There are multiple lines of evidence which tell a consistent story in this case. As I’ve mentioned before, DNA testing more often than not is used to prove a person’s innocence as opposed to guilt. There is so much evidence pointing to his guilt and nothing factual to indicate there was an intruder/s in the house. No visible sighting despite cameras and patrolling guards, no alarms to indicate there was an intruder, no unaccounted for DNA, no hairs or blood from an unknown source, blah, blah, blah. And the biggest mystery of all, why did a person/s enter the house, steal nothing, know where to find an axe, murder 3 people, know that one was still alive and yet leave her for hours before ringing for help. It just defies belief.
 
Cape {Town} Etc ‎@CapeTownEtc
We're back after lunch and continue to hear from Dr. Olckers

Nick van der Leek‏ @HiRezLife
Court back in session. About a third of public gallery remain for afternoon session. DNA expert continuing.

Really disagree with expert invoking international standards in terms of standard operating procedures. Use local best practises.

Expert refers throughout to a sterile spreadsheet, no use of monitor to show where samples are sourced from crime scene - so far.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-van-breda-team-defence-argument-20171009
 
https://twitter.com/ajnarsee

We are back, Dr Olckers continues with her testimony

Olckers: now deals with mixtures of DNA, Mums DNA can be read into mixture of sons or her daughter DNA

Olckers: Marli and Henri genotype is 17/18, but Teresa is 16/17. Cannot be read into the mixture
 
bbm
JudgeJudi said:
I think we're all a bit confused about this. I haven't been able to find a law that emphatically states that an accused MUST testify first, only the fact, as Desai has stated, that this has been the practice for generations, or words to that effect. I wouldn't put it past Botha to use this as a ground of appeal if Henri is found guilty.
Click to expand...

JJ, I wouldn't put anything past Botha. I don't know how he lives with himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 134 more.
Total: 1,463 (members: 135, guests: 1,328)

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
1,328
Total visitors
1,463
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
598,664
Messages
18,084,709
Members
230,701
Latest member
Murphmaic
Back
Top