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

[JudgeJudi]

Rohde: If it was easy, why would I wedge myself between a 30cm gap? Why would door not simply open?

Mr Daniels appears to be a decent follow. Very courteous when he knocked at your door at 221. On his version after opening door, he respectfully stood back. Rohde: Not aware of what he did after I entered the bathrom. Inside, I called for him.

Adv LVN: Mr Daniels said when he went into bathroom, person naked. That leaves an imprint on a male person in his position, having being trained to be respectul of privacy of any guest. Correct? Rohde: I'm sure he's trained to be respectful. Never disrespectful.

Rohde: Susan was not naked. She was wearing a gown. Why would Mr Daniels lie? He had no knowledge of what was going on in your room. He was asked to open a door.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

[Rohde: I put it to you, Advocate, that is not correct. Absolutely unbelievable. vd Spuy is going to have Rohde demonstrate how Susan was wearing the gown.]

State: Daniels saw legs. You saw feet. You called out to Mr Daniels, and he saw her naked. Rohde: That is incorrect. Susan as she was discovered by Mark Thompson and me, was wearing a gown.

[Rohde says he's thinking ahead. vd Spuy asks why and immediately goes on the attack. This is getting really interesting now.]

Daniels said he was trained not to interfere with guests' personal matters. Rohde asked him to help him remove cord form neck. Surely he should have seen the gown? Rohde starts speaking about the direction her body was facing.

Van Niekerk asks why Rohde is being sidetracked and not answering his question. He says accused's version is "all a lie. You have to recall what you said previously".

[BTW, when Rohde and Susan were walking along the path and she fell, she was only wearing the robe (gown) and had bare feet.]

LVN: You just left room after Susan tried to stop you. You went to Jolene Alterskye. Rohde: You put it to me that I left because I was CEO. LVN: You went knowing Susan following you; she can knock on door. Nothing to do with you being CEO? Rohde questions relevance.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

Rohde said his family was under impression he had murdered Susan, that is "what they had been led to believe". They asked him outright. He told them no.
LVN: You said you never laid a hand on her. Rohde: this is in the context of murdering her. "I never hit her."

"If you are asking if when I moved my arm back I deliberately wanted to make contact with her, no. I wanted to hit her arms away from me."

Adv Van Niekerk returns to Rohde claim that his wife had been wearing a gown when her body was found. Mr Daniels testified that she had been naked. Rohde concedes nothing would have obstructed Daniels' vision.

Susan Rohde's gown has arrived in an evidence bag.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

Tea break

 

[JudgeJudi]

Adv Van Niekerk asks Rohde if he agrees Mr Daniels upon entering the bathroom could have been Susan naked, could also have seen cord around her neck and fastened on the hook. Correct, Rohde says. Daniels demonstrated cord around her neck. Rohde says he recalls that.

Refers to how Daniels saw her being naked and held up by Rohde. That was his testimony, that is correct, Rohde replies. "I removed the cord from her neck. It wasn't tight because I could remove it easily," Daniels testified.

Photos shown of position in which Susan Rohde was found based on accused's version. Relatively straight back, upper legs horizontal to floor. Knees angled more than 90 deg; feet sideways, pointing to basin. Rohde says she was in a crouching position, leaning forward.

LVN: You recall in minute detail how your wife prevented you from leaving the room when you wanted to go to Alterskye and the struggle - as if well rehearsed.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

LVN says Rohde staged the scene. Rohde: that is absolutely untrue. No truth in that, none whatsoever.

LVN: if it was a knot - resultant noose can apply sustained force on neck. You said there was a tightness. There was a knot? Rohde says he is not an engineer.

I've made it very clear I didn't see how many loops around Susan's neck or if there was a knot on the cord.

She was suspended on the cord. You can't deny that? Rohde says he can't. LVN: Where is point of suspension? Either back of neck or side of neck, behind ear. We don't see clear marks on her neck or body. Difficulty is with tightness.

3 possibilities with a noose: *either 2 strands run together around neck. *2 strands run separately from the hook, one around neck and other loose. *2 strands ran together from hook, only one strand of knot goes around neck. Rohde says he is being asked to speculate.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

Rohde maintains Mr Daniels didn't simply lift the cord from Susan's neck.

Defence says it takes issue with the exhibit. Says witness asked technical questions and his evidence is being re-traversed.

Van Niekerk says he is dealing with the issue of improbabilities. "I need to challenge it."

A photo of Susan Rohde's post mortem being shown. Van Niekerk points out lack of bruising around her neck. She bruised easily. Rohde agrees.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

Defence objects. Van Niekerk says he is laying the basis for aspect of bruising. Judge Salie-Hlophe tells State to go through all the photos.

Adv Van Niekerk says it simply can't be true that Rohde's version is correct that the cord was tight, otherwise there would be signs of bruising. Rohde: well that's your version, advocate.

Adv Van Niekerk says theory is that legs were flat on the ground. The only inference to be drawn from Daniels' testimony is that Susan Rohde was in a lying position behind the door, and that Daniels had seen a single strand loosely around her neck.

Holding her up with front part of body towards and against you? Rohde says he was facing door area. Bath on his right, basins on his left. Gown would have covered her left shoulder? Rohde: Her gown was on. I can only tell you what I saw.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

Adv Van Niekerk: His eyes must gave been open; he had to remove the knot.
Rohde: I can't tell you what Mr Daniels saw. I am telling you her gown was on.
Was the right shoulder covered, Judge Salie-Hlophe asks. Yes, it was covered.

Van Niekerk says Mr Daniels wasn't there when cord was tied to hook of bathroom door, or when it was put "by whomever" around Susan Rohde's neck. Judge Salie-Hlophe tells him not to use "whomever".

Mr Daniels said she was completely naked. Rohde admits the handyman would have been shocked to have seen that someone had committed suicide. He says his wife was still warm. Could not recall her not breathing. ""All I was interested in was helping her."

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

Rohde agrees she was lifeless. "I don't recall thinking to myself 'Is she not breathing?'"

Adv Van Niekerk will deal with Susan Rohde's gown after a short adjournment.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

2. Coetzee-Khan (arrived 12:45pm) noted inconsistency between no faecal soiling on the door or on Susan's gown but faecal matter present between and under her buttocks.

Thompson said the position of her stool, urine didn't add up. Defence warns that his evidence sounds like that of expert.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Thompson:

Discomfort because Susan was naked, had massive bruise on thigh.
Thompson cannot explain why Susan is lying on a white robe in a picture taken at the crime scene. "I was crying and my tears were splashing on her naked breasts."
Can't recall everything at scene but her nakedness struck me. Her whole neck area was fairly bruised. Line around her neck is more clearly defined in photo than he recalls.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Adv Van Niekerk: Joep Schoof did have lunch with Mr Daniels and testified they did not discuss contents of his evidence. You accept that? Judge says the court must decide that. LVN: It was suggested Mr Daniels was coached by someone.

[I like the way this Judge is in control of her courtroom and very much engaged]

Mr Daniels had been asked if he had lunch alone. Daniels said he had. Photos of him and Schoof having lunch together. Rohde says if you lie under oath, you commit perjury.

Defence says the lie is that Mr Daniels said he was "stoksielalleen" [alone].

Mark Thompson arrived at some stage in the bathroom. When did you call for help with the door? Recorded as 8:22. Rohde says Daniels arrived 5 or 6 minutes later. Doesn't know when Thompson came into the bathroom. "Shortly thereafter."

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

LVN: Coming back from Jolene, you said you got undressed, got into bed and fell asleep. Why would she just stop fighting with you? You said you can't tell us. State is trying to understand how does it fit in with your wife's behaviour and your version.

[Rohde can't recall seeing the gown closed. We know the belt was on the bed so unless she was holding it across the front of herself, it would have exposed the front of her body.]

When he woke up, Rohde says Susan was sitting upright in bed, wearing a Spier gown. Can't recall if it was closed in the front.

Rohde says arguing continued. He says he was thinking about divorce, although he doesn't recall saying that to her. He said "We're done". Can't remember the response. Rohde says she had stood at foot of bed. She was upset, emotional. He went back to sleep.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

Rohde says he would have recalled if Susan had been standing stark naked.

van Niekerk is basically done with his XX
Short adjournment while both counsel see Judge in chambers.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I feel this may all come down to a battle between the pathologists. Perumal omitted a lot from his post mortem report so it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Would she have those abrasions if she was wearing the gown while being dragged?

I don't think so. I'm intrigued about the belt being on the bed. When Susan left the bedroom and was walking along the path with him, she must have had the belt on at that point. The question is, did she remove the gown and belt when she returned to their room and only put the gown back on minus the belt when she went into the bathroom.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Jane Newcombe, Susan’s psychologist said there was no indication at all that Susan was suicidal. She was anxious, but not depressed, suicidal. Her goal was to fix her marriage.

"Susan biggest fear was that her and Jason would not work through their problems and that her family would be affected".

"Susan was not a mouse, she came from background of volatile arguments, so could speak up".

Rohde tells Susan: "I'm all yours Sue'', 'I love and desire you Sue'', ''I don't want a divorce''. Psych says he was trying to show commitment.

And I’m trying not to show my utter contempt for this man.

When Carol Nader, the marriage counsellor, was cross-examined she said she had asked Susan if she was suicidal. Her reply was: 'No. I would never do that to my children.'

 

[JudgeJudi]

We're back. Trial adjourned until 9.30 tomorrow.

 

[Dora in the field]

And that was it for today. What highlighted the day for me, was Jason's selective memory. He remembers his every move when he tried to get away from Susan as she was holding him back, but cannot recall the way the electrical cord was attached around her neck. Why would a seemingly innocent fight between him and his wife be imprinted so vividly on his mind, and not the way he found her in the bathroom.

He told Susan it was over and then went to sleep. She said something back but he does not recall. (I am certain she would have been very vocal.) And when he woke up she was dead. Very convenient. Susan, who fought so hard to keep her marriage, was suddenly convinced that that was it; No argument, nothing. She then decided she could no longer live without her husband, went to the bathroom and took her own life. I find that very hard to believe, especially after stating to the marriage counsellor she would never do that to her children.

 

[CindyDean]

To be fair, I think it's understandable that one may not remeber vivid details when faced with a shocking situation. I have experienced this myself in a few traumatic situations and only a few details stand out and remain in the memory. However, the events leading up to the situation tend to be clear and memorable. That's my experience. What I don't understand, is what is all the emphasis about whether or not the shoulder was exposed?