South Africa - Susan Rohde, 47, murdered, Stellenbosch, 24 July 2016

[JudgeJudi]

At the conclusion of Khan's EIC I thought he actually got the time of death wrong. Upon a second reading however, it seemed clear to me that the Defence were muddying the waters. I have a copy of Knight's Forensic Pathology and I worked it out myself and got the same time as Khan, but I know nothing about calculating the range. Even after being given a grilling by the Defence, Khan did not change the time of 5:40.

This suggests to me that the Defence have a problem with the time as stated by Perumal being 8:00.

If, as quoted above, he's done +-100 suicide hanging cases, 12 ligature strangulation homicide, 19 manual strangulation, 8 suffocation, this suggests to me that the Defence have a problem with the time.

This would appear to be supported by Mark Thompson (who worked with Rohde for 7 years) who entered the bathroom shortly after he had breakfast and said Susan was cold, porcelain white and had blue lips. This would correlate with Khan's testimony of Susan dying at 5:40. She wouldn't be cold, white and have blue lips shortly after 8:00] .

 

[Interested Bystander]

You are doing a great job JJ. For some reason I cannot get into this trial but from what I have read it looks as though Rohde is for the high jump.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Perumal’s full post mortem report can be found here.

www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-day-4-of-the-jason-rohde-murder-trial-20171012

Scroll down to 12 Oct 15:41 (4 pages) which appears second on the page, and then 15:42 (4 pages).

 

[JudgeJudi]

It appears to me that the Defence are concerned about the time of death.

When Mark Thompson (who worked with Rohde for 7 years) went into the Rohde bathroom shortly after having breakfast, he said Susan was cold, porcelain white and her lips were blue. This would correlate with Khan's time of death at 5:40. This definitely wouldn't be the case if, as Perumal said, she died at 8:00.

If the above is correct, Rohde is in a whole world of trouble.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't like (call that an understatement) the fact that he called Daniels to open the bathroom door. We all know how murderers like someone else to find the body, or second best witness them finding the body.

You can't open a door, so your mind goes straight to the type of lock keeping you out, is it a key in the lock from the other side, or just a twister. You look to find out how you can get in, especially if your thought has turned to having to get someone else to open it, to see if you can't do it yourself. It is utter nonsense that he doesn't know how to turn a flat screw fitting, really it is nonsense. I am not a great DIY person but commonsense tells me how I can turn that with a coin or something similar, without having to get someone else in and explain that my wife is in the bath and isn't letting me in.

No way would I call for help unless I had tried to do it myself first and couldn't and I thought the person locked inside had come to harm. Here was his perfect opportunity to go to Jolene, since Susan is not blocking him. Did he spend that opportunity he was always looking for without Susan peering over his shoulder, texting his lover, since Susan was not coming out of the bathroom? Imagine lying in the bath during a row with your husband and having a hotel handyman called to unlock the door after 20 minutes. Did he shout through the door, Susan I've got someone here to unlock the door so it's your last chance to let me in? Why phone her to communicate through a normal door, when she can hear him just as well if he speaks to her at the door? His call was to provide proof he tried to speak to her and didn't think she was dead. His call to reception was to get a witness to finding the body.

 

[JudgeJudi]

On page 25, JJ says pathologist Coatzee-Kahn saw the belt on the bed. Not sure about the context though.

Khan testified that he saw the gown belt left behind on bed.

That's all he said.

 

[JudgeJudi]

The defence have suggested that Susan was killed in the bedroom and dragged into the bathroom for the staging of suicide. It's interesting to note in the above pathology report that she had injuries to legs and toes on both feet, and abrasions on part of her body that could indicate being dragged.

State Pathologist Khan testified that the abrasion to body indicates dragging against rough surfaces. Hotel bedroom floor made of quite rough surface.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I dreamt of Susan holding my hand‚ Jason Rohde tells murder trial

"The other night I dreamt that she was standing next to me holding my hand. There's a lady in the gallery now who reminds me of Susan‚" he told Judge Gayaat Salie-Hlophe.

Note that he says "holding my hand", instead of "she was standing next to me and we were holding hands".

He's on trial for murder and is checking out women in the gallery.

 

[patCee]

I cringed when he said the women in the gallery reminded him of Susan. Horrible! So contrived. Re post mortem report, Kahn notes large bruising, IIRC on a leg and one other area, that are 7 days old. I think there was mention somewhere that Susan's father had an explanation for them. Does anyone know?

 

[tmar]

"The other night I dreamt that she was standing next to me holding my hand. There's a lady in the gallery now who reminds me of Susan‚" he told Judge Gayaat Salie-Hlophe.

Note that he says "holding my hand", instead of "she was standing next to me and we were holding hands".

He's on trial for murder and is checking out women in the gallery.

Yikes, what a Creep.
I have always disliked him and the last sentence adds to my distaste of him.
You're in a trial. Your wife is dead, yet you notice women in Court.

 

[Hag]

I cringed when he said the women in the gallery reminded him of Susan. Horrible! So contrived. Re post mortem report, Kahn notes large bruising, IIRC on a leg and one other area, that are 7 days old. I think there was mention somewhere that Susan's father had an explanation for them. Does anyone know?

It was said she was doing a handstand (as she often did) and fell onto a dumbbell. Hence the large bruise.

 

[patCee]

It was said she was doing a handstand (as she often did) and fell onto a dumbbell. Hence the large bruise.

Thank you, so yet another excuse then.

 

[Hag]

Thank you, so yet another excuse then.

Maybe not, as I think this info was given by her mother. So probably true.

 

[patCee]

Maybe not, as I think this info was given by her mother. So probably true.

Ah! That makes sense, I thought I'd heard it somewhere, and Susan was an athletic person.

 

[tmar]

It was said she was doing a handstand (as she often did) and fell onto a dumbbell. Hence the large bruise.

Yes, that bruise is explained.
How does he explain the many others throughout the body: the cut lip, near her eye etc
So she crawled to the bathroom, tightened the cord after she died, and the many other abrasions etc: wonder how these are to be explained.
If she was cold, why is he 'pretending' to do CPR, or is Susan perhaps going to be revived, as he only left her for a short time?
Hope to hear these responses.

 

[Hag]

Yes, that bruise is explained.
How does he explain the many others throughout the body: the cut lip, near her eye etc
So she crawled to the bathroom, tightened the cord after she died, and the many other abrasions etc: wonder how these are to be explained.
If she was cold, why is he 'pretending' to do CPR, or is Susan perhaps going to be revived, as he only left her for a short time?
Hope to hear these responses.

Details of how injuries received are quite precise. His elbow hit the tip of her nose. The soft part of his forearm hit somewhere else. The toe injury seems possibly contrived to fit what was found later. I can’t get why he “took their argument” to meet with his friends. Why not keep it private. These were his colleagues and he the CEO! The embarrassment alone..........

 

[JudgeJudi]

I cringed when he said the women in the gallery reminded him of Susan. Horrible! So contrived. Re post mortem report, Kahn notes large bruising, IIRC on a leg and one other area, that are 7 days old. I think there was mention somewhere that Susan's father had an explanation for them. Does anyone know?

Susan's mother provided a statement stating that Susan was doing a handstand and then fell on a dumbbell. She said that both she and Susan had very thin skin and bruised easily. When she saw the very large bruise, she placed a bandage on it. Susan's sister also provided a statement stating that she too saw the bruise days before the death.

 

[JudgeJudi]

You are doing a great job JJ. For some reason I cannot get into this trial but from what I have read it looks as though Rohde is for the high jump.

I certainly don't have much enthusiasm for this trial either but don't quite know why. Maybe it's because it pales into insignificance after Henri. I was so tired when I did those posts up the page that I posted them on the HvB thread!!! Fortunately I realised in time and was able to delete them. I also noticed I've been a bit repetitive, e.g. This appears to me, suggests to me etc. Apologies. I was running on empty.

Can't wait until Tuesday. I often think about that poor family when I go to bed at night. It's the stuff of nightmares.

 

[patCee]

Hag: ""I can’t get why he “took their argument” to meet with his friends. Why not keep it private. These were his colleagues and he the CEO! The embarrassment alone.........."

I wondered about that too particularly as Susan was ( his testimony) overtly acting out her distress over his relationship with Jolene. This may have suggested to other unknowing colleagues that she was unstable and giving him a bad time, justification for leaving her. Complete disregard for colleagues who had to witness their situation.
On the one hand in court he acknowledges responsibility for the marital situation, on the other he portrays himself as a victim of her emotional behaviour i.e. he complained that she was bullying him emotionally. It's the psychology that resulted in Susan's death that interests me in this case. That complete loss of self control and not caring about the consequences, or the arrogance where the perpetrator believes they can get away with it.

 

[tmar]

Details of how injuries received are quite precise. His elbow hit the tip of her nose. The soft part of his forearm hit somewhere else. The toe injury seems possibly contrived to fit what was found later. I can’t get why he “took their argument” to meet with his friends. Why not keep it private. These were his colleagues and he the CEO! The embarrassment alone..........

He wanted all to see there was an argument.
Therefore he can explain injuries.
Now, she is so upset, she commits suicide.
That is his account.
Who believes this? I certainly don't.