Tensions rise during cross-examination in Oyster Bay murder case

Things became tense in the Humansdorp regional court on Tuesday morning when defence attorney Paul Roelofse, right, cross-examined WO Xolile Kato
HEATED EXCHANGE: Things became tense in the Humansdorp regional court on Tuesday morning when defence attorney Paul Roelofse, right, cross-examined WO Xolile Kato
Image: EUGENE COETZEE

The bail application by murder accused Rob Evans got off to a rocky start on Tuesday morning when his lawyer and the magistrate clashed in court over his line of questioning.

Defence attorney Paul Roelofse was busy with his cross-examination of the investigating officer when magistrate Deidre Dickson questioned whether he was speculating.

During the drawn-out bail bid in the Humansdorp regional court, WO Xolile Kato had testified about the crime scene and the investigation which followed when 36-year-old Vanessa van Rensburg’s body was discovered on the floor of her boyfriend’s holiday home.

Evans is accused of murdering Van Rensburg at the Oyster Bay house during the Easter weekend.

Kato had testified earlier on the extent of Van Rensburg’s injuries, and had painted a picture of the crime scene which included shards of a broken glass and a whisky bottle which he believed to have been the murder weapon.

On the 10th day of the formal bail bid on Tuesday morning, Roelofse continued his cross-examination of Kato in a bid to poke holes in the state’s case.

He pressed Kato on his earlier claim that there had been no sign of forced entry at the house.

He also asked whether Kato had checked if the garage door was intact.

Kato admitted that he had not inspected the garage door, and that he had in fact not even gone into the garage during the course of his investigation.

Roelofse then put it to him that another person could have entered the house through the garage.

Kato responded that this was unlikely as the interleading door between the garage and the house had been locked from the inside.

When Roelofse tried to question him further on the status of the garage door, Dickson interjected to warn him that he was “leading the court into speculation not supported by evidence”.

She said this would not assist her in deciding if Evans should be granted bail.

Roelofse insisted his questions were important because the state had argued that there was no forced entry, suggesting that Evans had been the only other person inside the house at the time.

He said he needed to test this properly because the possibility remained that another person could have been inside the house at the time of Van Rensburg’s death.

Dickson then ordered Roelofse to cease his current line of questioning, and to instead focus on what the state had presented to the court as evidence.

After the heated exchange, Roelofse asked for an adjournment.

The bail application continues.

The Herald


subscribe

Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.