Palaver Report-De Villiers vs. State

DE VILLIERS SS 207/2017

VS STATE (SOUTH AFRICA) De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 1

PAGE 2 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 3

index PAGE 5

.......... THE INVESTIGATION AND OTHER INFORMATION

PAGE 6

.......... COUNT 1 & 2 - EXPOSURE TO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

PAGE 44

.......... COUNT 3 & 4 - RAPE & SELF SEXUAL GROOMING

PAGE 117

.......... COUNT 6 & 7 - SEXUAL ASSAULT

PAGE 130

.......... COUNT 8 - SELF SEXUAL ASSAULT

PAGE 143

.......... COUNT 11 - FRAUD

PAGE 151

.......... COUNT 12 - FRAUD

PAGE 157

.......... COUNT 13 - FRAUD

PAGE 170

.......... COUNT 21 & 21 - SEXUAL ASSAULT

PAGE 178

.......... COUNT 27 - FRAUD

PAGE 184

.......... COUNT 31 - 38 - ACCESS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

PAGE 196

..............

ADDITIONAL POINTS

PAGE 4 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

The Investigation, Method and Other Information We at Palaver is proud to produce this report on the findings of the case State vs Dawie De Villiers.

The following documents were made available to do our investigation; • • • • • • • •

Head of Arguments Judgment Notes from Accused Available Court Records Interviews Leave to Appeal Documents Internet (research) Evidence

Throughout the investigation, we took all documents and cross-referenced them to all relevant documents, testimony, s and other material to get the report findings.

The Accused (Dawie) made his findings during the trial and preparation for the sentencing. The Court did not afford him that opportunity. The information was handed to us by his spouse and friend.

Our mandate was to assess and assess all counts based on the documents mentioned above and available court records. We also looked at the available evidence to validate that and link it to the findings in this report

Please note the following below are all the court records that is missing; • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Count 3 Count 4 Count 6 Count 7 Count 8 Count 9 Count 20 Count 21 Count 23 Count 24 Count 25 Count 31 to 38 Defense Chief Evidence Defense Cross Examination

(Second part of Transcript missing) (Second part of Transcript missing (Second part & mothers Transcript missing (Second part & mothers Transcript missing) (Complete transcript missing) (Complete transcript missing) (Complete transcript missing) (Complete transcript missing) (Complete transcript missing) (Complete transcript missing) (Complete transcript missing) (Complete transcript missing) (Complete transcript missing) (Complete transcript missing) De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 5

COUNT 1 & 2 EXPOSURE OF PORNOGRAPHY TO A CHILD

PAGE 6 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 7

According to the Judgment, the Judge highlighted the following evidence from the State Witnessed that testified.

STATE WITNESS - KEAGAN (PAGE 23) REF TO POINT D: He knows that his father took pictures of girls and saw them in his father’s bedroom during these sessions. He described one of the girls to be “very naked”, and he stated that he could see her “bum and part of her breast”. He estimated this girl to be between 16 and 18 years old.

REF TO POINT E: He stated that she had a cover on her “front private part” and could see her breasts from the side. He did not see anything covering her breast. In addition, he saw several girls dressed in this fashion standing in a row and awaiting for the accused to take their pictures.

REF TO POINT F: He described the girls as wearing small bikinis and that these “panties were in between their bums”. Michaela was with him at the time when he saw these girls.

REF TO POINT G: He stated that he saw pictures of girls in a similar state of dress on the accused’s computer.

DEFENSE WITNESS - KEAGAN (PAGE 86) REF TO POINT T: Count 1 and 2: Keagan and Michaela: He denied the allegation that he had exposed his minor children to pornography. His children visited him on alternate weekends and school holidays. He denied doing any photoshoots at his premises. They used to accompany him to do bikini and casual photoshoots. He denied that he had ever exposed them to nude photoshoots. He denied further that the children were ever shown any act that would constitute a sexual offence.

He admitted to watching pornography on one occasion with Sims and described it as an awkward experience, whereupon he burnt the DVD after viewing it.

REF TO POINT NN: He stated that Keagan saw him taking photographs of girls in bikinis and denied that the witness had seen part of a model’s breast and bum. He was of the view that the child did not understand the perspective of the photographs as he was still too young. He denied that this witness saw the girls wearing panties and bras.

PAGE 8 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

JUDGE MOOSA - KEAGAN (PAGE 110) REF TO POINT 41: On count 1, Keagan testified that he saw girls between the ages of 16 —18 years old at the accused’s residence, and they were dressed in such a manner that he was able to see part of their breasts and their bums. He saw a female whose breasts were not covered at the time when the accused was taking photographs of the girls. It is clear from his description that this witness was referring to the models wearing g-strings at the time when he viewed them being photographed by the accused. It was never put to this witness during cross-examination that the accused had never taken photographs of girls in g-strings in the presence of this witness.

In addition, he disclosed to the Assessor from the Teddy Bear Clinic, whose report was handed in by consent as Exhibit [‘AA’] that he had seen “people doing sex” on the accused’s computer and amplifying his response by stating “when they touch each others breasts” This evidence of the witness was never challenged during his crossexamination.

This witness gave his evidence in a clear and satisfactory manner having due regard to his relative youthfulness. It is clear that he would not have been able to provide such a description had he not observed the same. From the evidence led, it is clear that this witness viewed the buttocks of the girls and not the anus. However, he was exposed to girls clad in an explicit manner.

In terms of the contravention of Section 19(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 32 of 2007, the accused allowed Keagen access to his computer wherein he observed persons presenting themselves in an explicit manner and that the depiction on the computer of the accused was conduct that was sexually suggestive and displayed a form of stimulation of a sexual nature of a persons breasts.

PALAVER’S OBSERVATION We will focus extensively on point 41 of the Judgment ass this is the base of the guilty conviction. Should the State proof this beyond reasonable doubt the accused then are guilty as charged.. Should we not make such findings based in the witness’s testimony and other evidence led by the accused and his counsel, he is not guilty as charged.

Blow each page you will find our comments as side notes.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 9

THE TRANSCRIPT STATE LEADING THE WITNESS PERSAT: And what work did your father do? (What work did your father do?) --KEAGAN: He took pictures of girls.

PERSAT: Now Keegan, remember we consulted about this, and you informed me that these girls that your father was taking photographs of, you have seen. Do you remember that? (Do you remember when were consulting with the Advocate that you said to the Advocate, the girls that your father were taking pictures of, you have seen them? Do you remember that?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PERSAT: Can you tell the Court what you saw? (Can you please tell the Court what you saw?)

KEAGAN: Some girls were wearing bikinis and I can remember one girl, she was umm, she was very naked and I could see her bum from the behind. From the side, I could see a part of her breast and umm, ja 1 PERSAT: Can you tell the Court what you saw? (Can you please tell the Court what you saw?)

KEAGAN: Some girls were wearing bikinis and I can remember one girl, she was umm, she was very naked and I could see her bum from the behind. From the side, I could see a part of her breast and umm, ja.

PERSAT: Keegan, did you see this girl in person or did you see this girl any where else? (Dld you see this girl in person or did you see the girl any where else?)

KEAGAN I do not understand.

PERSAT: Okay, where did you see this girl? (Where did you see this girl?)

KEAGAN: In my father’s room.

PERSAT: Okay, umm what clothes did this girl have on? (What clothes did this girl have on?)

KEAGAN: She just had some umm, umm, umm a cover by the front, by the front private parts PERSAT: Then Keegan, do you remember saying to the Court that from the side that you could see her breast? Can you explain to the Court what you mean by that? (Do you remember saying to the Court that from the side you could see her breast? Can you please explain to the Court what you, what you mean by that?)

KEAGAN: I saw a part of her breasts from the side.2 1st description according to the witness referring to what he observed during the shoot.

2 State advocate intends to confirm the model’s nudity; the witness cleared this up and said he only saw “part” of her breast. This does not confirm nudity. We searched on Google “Models in Bikini’s and “Models in Swimwear”, and it is expected that models in those shoots wear bikinis whose side or part of the breast is displayed,

1

PAGE 10 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

PERSAT: And where there any other girls that you saw at your father’s house that were dressed in that way? (Where there any other girls in, that you saw at your father’s house that were dressed that way?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PERSAT: Explain to the Court, what you saw? (Explain to the Court what you saw?)

KEAGAN: I saw girls standing in a row, waiting for my father to take a picture. 3 PERSAT: What clothes did they have on? (What clothes did they have on?)

KEAGAN: Most of them were wearing bikinis but very, very, umm, very little, very small bikinis. I could see their bum because it looked to me as like they put their panty in between their bum. 4 PIENAAR: [intervened).

PERSAT: Keegan, just the last bit of what you explained, can you say it clearly into the microphone, please? (Keegan, just the last bit of what you explained, can you please say it over the microphone?)

KEAGAN: Umm, I saw, I saw girls who put their panties in between their bum.

PERSAT: Keegan, before we adjourned, you were describing the small bikinis to the Court. Do you remember that? (Before we adjourned, you were describing the small bikinis to the Court. Do you remember that?)

KEAGAN: yes.

PERSAT: Okay Keegan, now you explain to the Court the back of the umm, panties that were worn by these girls. Can you describe what you saw at the front? (You described also the back of the panties that you saw the girls wearing. Can you describe the front?) 5 including a large part of the bum or bum cheeks. It is not uncommon or unfamiliar.

3 We looked at the intention and purpose of the place and the shoot mentioned above surroundings. Here the witness is telling the court that while he was sitting and observing the shoot, his father and many other models were also watching the shoot.

Again this is common from a photography point of view. The accused did not do it in secret, nor was it done with unlawful intent.

4 Here the witness is telling the court that those models who were waiting their turn to be photographed were wearing bikini’s that to the witness “LOOKED” small. I considered the child’s age from the time the shoot took place to the time he gave his testimony. At the shoot, the witness was only 4 years of age; by the time he testified over 3 years later, he was just over 7 years of age. The witness is not verbalizing that his father was doing an illegal shoot. We are seeing from this that the witness was interested in his father’s work and that this particular shoot, which was a standard bikini shoot in the photography industry, was just that.

5 Here, the State advocate leads the witness with a false narrative that he testified or mentioned “panties”. The witness did not mention panties; it was clear he said “small bikinis” this is misleading by the State.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 11

KEAGAN: Yes, I can describe the front.

PERSAT: Please describe it Keegan? (Please describe the front?)

KEAGAN: In the front it is like a normal bikini but at the back it was not. It was umm, it was like a panty in between their bum. 6 PERSAT: Now, are there any other girls that you saw the front of their panties? (Are there any other girls that you saw the front of their panties?) 7 KEAGAN: No. PERSAT: Okay then Keegan, earlier you told the Court that there was one girl that you saw her breast. Do you remember that? (You told the Court intervened.)

PERSAT: Where you saw... Sorry Keegan, where you saw a part of her breast. Do you remember that? (Do you remember telling the Court that you saw part of the breasts?) 8 KEAGAN: Yes. PERSAT: Can you estimate to the Court, how old do you think that girl was? (Can you estimate to the Court, how old you think that girl was?)

KEAGAN: I think about 16 or 18. [intervened] MR PIENAAR: M’Lord, sorry 1 must object to that question. He is not an expert on this.

COURT: Ms Persad.

PERSAT: That is true, M’Lord but the witness did say that he saw the girl, which means he would be able to give you an idea. There is a difference between an one year old, a ten year old, and a twenty-year-old. 9 6 The State is trying to get the witness to imply that he could have seen the model’s vagina. The witness cleared that up by again testifying that the model wore a regular bikini. He did not say that it was underwear. He said it was “a normal bikini” Ti this point, and we can confirm there is no explicit sexual content or wrongdoing by the accused.

7 The State, for the second time, is telling the witness that he mentioned panties.

There is a massive difference referring to a pantie and a bikini. One is a model used to swim and move around in public, the other is private and a personal clothing item.

The State Advocate leads the questioning to the witness, and with that intention, the witness still does not imply that he saw any of the models in panties nor their private parts.

8 For the 3rd time, the State Advocate uses her questioning to imply that the accused exposed the witness to the models in an explicit manner. She immediately corrected herself and referred to the model’s breast “part of her breast” All the witness did was confirm that he did not see the model naked; he only saw what was sticking out from what was not covered by the bikini. We are still looking for a crime here and can only get that the witness did not see any model naked, not in an explicit way.

This is how any 7-year old male child would have described models in a typical bikini shoot.

9 We cannot agree with the State Advocate here. The child saw the models when PAGE 12 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

COURT: Opinion.

PERSAT: Yes. It is, I do agree, just the witness’s opinion.

COURT: Nothing can flow from it.

PERSAT: Yes, M’Lord COURT: Okay. The Court will allow it.

PERSAT: As the Court pleases, M’Lord. M’Lord, he had already answered it. He said about 16 or 18 years.

COURT: Okay.

PERSAT: Was there anybody with you, when you saw this girl? (Was there anybody with you, when you saw these girls?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PERSAT: Who was with you? (Who was with you?)

KEAGAN: My sister.

PERSAT: M’Lord, I need to clarify something. 1 was referring to this particular girl but I think there is a miss understanding between the intermediary and me because she, she put the witness girls but 1 was referring to one particular girl. So, I want ...[intervened] PERSAT: Yes. Umm, Keegan let us talk again about this girl that you said that you saw, a part of her breast, who you said to the Court is probably about 16 or 18 years old. Do you remember that? (Keegan, can you talk to the Court about the girl that you said you saw part of her breasts, who you indicated that she could be 16 or 18 years old?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PERSAT: Was anybody with you, when you saw that girl? (Was anybody with you, when you saw that girl?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PERSAT: Who was with you? (Who was with you?)

KEAGAN: My sister.

PERSAT: And your sister’s name is? (And your sister’s names is?)

KEAGAN: Mikyla.

PERSAT: Now, this girl that you were talking about that you saw a part of her breasts, did sheLi_i have anything covering her breasts? (This girl that you were talking about that you saw a part of her breasts, did she have anything covering her breasts?)

KEAGAN: No. 10 he was only 4 years old, now he is testifying about a shoot 3 years later, and the State asked him a perception question that no child of that age can guess. This question is irresponsible with the intent to get a minor to assume and imply that the models the accused took photos of were minors. The intention of the State is clear. The court should not tolerate this kind of questioning.

10 This question is widely speculative and leading. The witness already said he only saw part of the model’s breast. He also already confirmed that the models were De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 13

PERSAT: Okay Keegan and then Keegan is there anything that you watched on your dad’s computer that you wish to tell the Court about? (Keegan, is there anything that you watched on your dad’s computer that you would like to tell the Court about?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PERSAT: You can tell the Court, Keegan. (You can tell the Court.)

KEAGAN: I saw a few girls umm, almost the same as the previous girl that I was talking about and some of them who were wearing clothes. 11 PERSAT: And is that all that you saw? (Is that all that you saw?)

KEAGAN: Umm, I do not think so but I cannot remember umm PERSAT: Thank you, M’Lord. I have no further questions for this witness. M’Lord, sorry M’Lord. Just one minute.

PERSAT: Keegan, you remember when we consulted, I said to you that there is another lawyer in court? (Keegan, you remember when you consulted with Advocate that she said to you, there is another lawyer in court. Do you remember that?) 12 KEAGAN: Yes. PERSAT: Yes and Keegan, I also said to you that he can ask you questions. Do you remember that? (She also told you that he could also ask you questions. Do you remember that?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PERSAT: Okay. So Keegan, I am done with my questions for you. It is now his turn.

So, he is going to talk to you. (The Advocate is done with his questions, with her questions to you and now it is the lawyer’s turn to talk to you. Okay?) --- Okay. not naked, and to as an open-ended question is confusing to a child of that age and hard to follow. As we assess this from the outside, we have to try and think like a 7-year old and how the question was constructed. The State is trying to prove that the witness saw models naked and explicitly. The question does not give much thought to it: What kind of cover is the State Advocate referring to? She does not ask the witness directly if she had a bikini top on. A cover could be anything, a bikini top is exactly what it is, and the child witness did already testify that she had a bikini top on as he could only see PART of her breast.

11 The State Advocate asked the witness about what he saw on the accused computer, and he confirmed that all he saw were models like what he saw at the bikini shoot. The witness said that’s all he saw. We also studied the Teddy Bear Clinic Reports. With the State’s evidence, it is clear that this witness did not testify that he was exposed to any form of nudity/pornography or models explicitly or sexually.

12 The State concluded their questioning and has no proof that the witness was exposed to pornography beyond a reasonable doubt. We will now go back to point 41 of the Judgment. The court states that the models were “clad” explicitly. This is not true; the observation from the court was not proven nor verbalized by the witness. Therefore, the court was not correct in his Judgment, and the accused are not guilty of this charge.

PAGE 14 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

PERSAT: Thank you M’Lord.

NOTES FROM THE ACCUSED • Persat kept asking Keagan questions about the girls and what they wore on the shoot day. Numerous times, Keagan explained that he saw girls in bikinis, but one particular girl he guessed was between 16 and 18 wearing a bikini with her bikini bottom looking like a “g-String”. He further explained that he only saw PART of her bum and the side of her breast.

• Persat asked Keagan very specifically about what he saw on my computer, and Keagan said, “I saw a few girls umm, almost the same as the previous girl that I was talking about and some of them who were wearing clothes.”

• In the State’s evidence that Persat led, she did not establish any form explicitly related to the girls at the shoot. She also could not prove or demonstrate that what he saw on my computer was nudity or any form of explicit material related to the charges. Persat also did not tell Keagan what was written in the Teddy Bear Clinic report that he did not see any naked girls doing sex or even touching themselves. 13 THE TRANSCRIPT DEFENSE CROSS THE WITNESS PIENAAR: Now, you also said, before we come to this lady that there were girls in bikinis at the house. Is that correct? (You also said that umm, before you could come to this lady, there were girls, other girls in bikinis in the house. Is that correct?

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: And your father then took photographs of them. Is that correct? (And your father was going to take photographs of the girls. Is that correct?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: And you know, do you know that these girls were models? That was the reason, why your father took photos? (Do you know that this girls were models? That is the reason, why your father took photos?)

KEAGAN: Yes. 14 13 We have to agree with the accused observation here. The State Advocate did not prove the charge of Exposing the witness to pornography. One could have the wildest imagination, and it still does not constitute a crime. We must add that young and older women walk on beaches with their bums exposed, wearing bikinis that do not cover the entire bum. TV Ads, magazines, and other advertising material demonstrate a similar shoot and environment as the witness testified about. There is and was not a crime committed here; if the court says that he did, he then is making almost every parent a criminal and potentially creating a new standard that can never be accepted not in South Africa, nor any other part of the world.

14 The Defense Advocate asked an important question, which removes the question of lawfulness and intent. The witness was aware it was models, and he was De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 15

PIENAAR: Your father also took photographs of your of you, in a cowboy outfit. Can you remember that?

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR; Now, this girl that you told us that you saw a part of her breast, did she have a bikini top on? (This girl that you told the Court about that you saw a part of her breast, did she have a bikini top on her?)

KEAGAN: I do not understand umm what you mean. I do no understand...[intervened] COURT: What the Advocate wants to know, is that this girl that we are talking about, the girl we are talking about, currently is the one who you saw her breast partly exposed.

Do you remember that?

KEAGAN: Yes. 15 COURT: Now, what the Advocate wants to know is, when you saw this girl, did you see if she had a bikini top on?

COURT: It means that umm, counsel are you meaning a bikini top on the breast?

PIENAAR: Yes. COURT: What counsel wants to know is that did you see if this girl had on a bikini top?

If she was wearing a bikini top over her breasts?

KEAGAN: No. PIENAAR: So, you know what a bikini top is? Is that correct? (Do you know what a bikini top is?)

KEAGAN: Umm, not really.

PIENAAR: Do you know what a bikini is then? (Do you know what a bikini is?) --- Yes. What is that? (What is a bikini?)

KEAGAN: A bikini is what girls, umm what girls wear umm, I do not know what to explain.

PIENAAR: Okay. Let me then ask you this. Did this girl, with her breast, where you saw part of her breast, did she have a bikini on? (Umm, this girl that you saw part of her breast, did she have a bikini on?)

KEAGAN: Not a bikini. 16 aware that it was what his father did for a living. The State Advocate said that the accused “willingly, and unlawfully exposed the witness to child pornography. This did not happen. The accused did a bikini shoot with numerous models while the witness and his sister were with him. The children were not there alone, and many other models saw what the witness saw. I failed to mention that we did not observe the State calling any other witnesses to verify that the bikini shoot was done explicitly as the court claimed he did. The duty to prove to the court that the accused is guilty of a crime is their responsibility, and the State did not prove this.

15 The State advocate asked the witness this question, and here the Defense is correcting that.

This is further proof that the witness never saw any model in any form of nudity or clad explicitly, as the court stated.

16 The witness is confused and unsure what a bikini is, clearly overwhelmed by the questioning. However, what is evident is that the witness did not say he saw her PAGE 16 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

PIENAAR: What was she wearing? (What was she wearing?)

KEAGAN: Umm, by the front private part, there was just a cover. Only by the front private parts. 17 PIENAAR: Can I quickly just approach my [indistinct — 14:19:28] attorney, M’Lord?

PIENAAR: Now, Keegan can you remember that umm at the time or let me ask you this. Can you remember a lady by the name of auntie Esme? (Auntie Ester?) Esme.

(Esma?) Esme, E-s-m-e. (Umm, do you remember a lady by the name Esma?)

KEAGAN: No. PIENAAR: Esme, not Esma. (Esme, Esme?)

KEAGAN: No. ...[intervened].

COURT: The question that counsel put was is, do you remember the name of a lady, by the name of Aunt Esme? Aunt Esme?

MS MUHLARE: Do you remember umm, lady by the name of Aunt Esme?

KEAGAN: No. PIENAAR: Can you remember at a time, about three years or two years ago that you were at the Teddy Bear Clinic? (Do you remember the time about two or three years ago, when you were at the Teddy Bear Clinic?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: And can you remember that you talked there to a lady? (Do you remember that you spoke there to a lady?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Now, she asked you questions about what happened there at your father’s house, when you and your sister visited him. Is that correct? (This lady asked you questions about what happened at your father’s house, when you and your sister visited. Can you remember that?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Now, umm you were not there only on once or you were not there only on one occasion, you went back to see her again and then you went back to talk to her again. So, it was three times that you went to talk to this lady. Can you remember that? (Umm, you were not there once to talk to the lady. You went there again, again.

Meaning that you went three times to talk to the lady. Can you remember that?)

KEAGAN: No, I can only remember talking to her twice nipples of bare breasts. Instead, he only saw part of it, which means a bikini top must have covered it.

17 We have to point this out again, referring to our previous observation. The witness previously testified that the model had a bikini bottom on; now, he is referring to only a cover. It is clear that this witness no longer is following the questioning and referring to something else. Even though he still cannot see or say he saw anything sexual, the witness is now becoming inconsistent. The witness is only 9, and he is telling and recalling stuff that happened when he was 6. It is not easy or even possible for any child to give a clear and accurate account of things at such a young age.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 17

PIENAAR: Twice. Now, did you or let me ask you this. Now this, this lady that you talked to, do you know what was her name? (This lady that you talked to, umm do you know what her name was?)

KEAGAN: No. PIENAAR: Now, when she asked you questions about what happened there at daddy, at your dad’s house, did you umm, did you tell her about this lady that you, that you saw part of her breasts and that she only had something covering her front part? (Keegan umm, when that lady at the Teddy Bear Clinic, asked you about what happened, what you saw at the house. Did you tell her about the lady that you saw part of her breast?)

KEAGAN: Yes. (Did you?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Can you remember if she asked you if you saw any naked girls also in your father’s house? (Do you remember if she asked you about if you, if you have seen any naked girls in your father’s house?)

KEAGAN: Repeat the question, please.

PIENAAR: Can you remember if she asked you whether you have seen any naked girls that is girls wearing nothing, in your father’s house? (Do you remember if the lady asked you, if you had seen any naked girls at your father’s house?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Yes and what did you say to her? (What did you say to her?)

KEAGAN: Umm, I told her that I saw umm, I saw her bum and part of her breasts.

PIENAAR: Now Keegan, I have got the notes that this lady wrote down when she asked you this question. (The Advocate says, he has got the notes, where the lady wrote down, when she asked you that question.)

KEAGAN: [No answer].

PIENAAR: And the answer to this question, whether you had seen any naked girls in your father’s house. She wrote down that say: “No, not in your father’s or in your mother’s house”...[intervened] COURT: Sorry, Advocate Pienaar. Can I just ask, is the witness going to be called?

PIENAAR: I believe so M’Lord. I took it up with my learned friend and she says, she is going to call this witness.

PIENAAR: I will just repeat for you, ma’am. What the lady has written down to this question, whether he has seen any naked girls in his father’s house? She wrote down: “No, he has not seen any, not in his father’s or his mother’s house.” (Now Keegan, when you spoke to the L.... lady, when she asked you, if you had seen any naked girls, what she wrote there is, you said you did not see any umm, girls not in your dad, in your father’s house and also not in your mother’s house. What do you say about that?)

KEAGAN: Umm, I do not know what to say.

Okay that is fine...[intervened] PAGE 18 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

COURT: So, what is the answer? I do not want to say?

PIENAAR: He does not know what to say.

PIENAAR: Now, this girl that you say that you saw, the one with the part of her breast, where in the house did you see her? (This girl that you say that you saw part of her breast at the house. Which part of the house did you see her?)

KEAGAN: Umm, in my father’s room.

PIENAAR: Was she at the time when you saw her in the room, was she on the bed?

(The time you saw her in the room, was she on the bed?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Was she lying down? (Was she lying down?)

KEAGAN: No. PIENAAR: What was she doing? (What was she doing?)

KEAGAN: She was putting her hands on the wall and looking back. 18 PIENAAR: Now, when she had her hands against the wall, looking back. Was her back then, the back side of her, is that what you then see? (When she was putting her hands on the wall, umm the back side of her, is that what you saw?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Now Keegan, after you saw the lady at Teddy Bear Clinic, roughly about a year later, I know you do not know time but more or less a year later. Did you, did the police come to you and talk to you about what happened there at your father’s house?

(After you had seen the girl at your father’s house, after some time, say ...[intervened].

COURT: The question is, after you saw the lady at the Teddy Bear Clinic, plus minus one year later, did the South African Police Services, members of the SAPS come to you and speak to you about what you saw at your father’s house.

PIENAAR: (Sorry, Keegan. Here is the correct question. After you had seen the lady at the Teddy Bear Clinic, after a year or so. Did members of the South African Police come to your house?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Did they talk to you? (Did they talk to you?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Did they write down what you were saying? (Did they?) Did they write down what he was saying? (Did they write down what you were saying to them?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Now, did you tell them about this lady? (Did you tell them about this lady?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Now, when they wrote down, afterwards did they ask you to sign this 18 This question is crucial as it allows us to assess where the witness was in relation to the model’s position. He said she was looking back, and this means the accused took photos from her with her back facing the accused and the witness. This also confirms what the witness could and could not see, along with the models waiting their turn.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 19

statement or what they were writing down? (After you had spoken to them, they were writing down. Did they ask you to sign where they had written?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: Before they ask you to sign, did they read, did they read what you umm.

Did they read back to you what you were saying to them? (Before you could sign where they wrote, did they read back to you what you told them?)

KEAGAN: I cannot remember...[intervened] COURT: Sorry Mr Pienaar, [indistinct — 14:30:58] appropriate for you to put to the witness, did they read back, what they in fact wrote?

PIENAAR: Umm, M’Lord.

COURT: Because I think where you heading to is obviously, you want to put a statement to the witness and you are saying: “Did they read back what you in fact told them?”

PIENAAR: Yes. COURT: But I suspect that you are heading to what is containing in the statement.

PIENAAR: Yes. COURT: And do you not think the more appropriate thing would be to say: “Did they read back what was written in the statement to you?”

PIENAAR: Yes. COURT: Okay.

PIENAAR: I will just rephrase it.

COURT: Okay.

PIENAAR: Did they read back to you what was written in the statement? (Did they read back to you what was written In the statement?)

KEAGAN: I cannot remember.

PIENAAR: When you talked to the police, was your mother with you? (When you talked to the police, was your mother with you?)

KEAGAN: Yes. PIENAAR: And when you signed or when you signed your statement, did your mother umm, was she then with you when you signed it? (When you signed the statement, was your mother with you?)

KEAGAN: Yes...[Intervened) PIENAAR: Umm, when was the last time that you saw your dad, Dawie? (When was the last time Keegan that you saw your dad, Dawie?)

KEAGAN: Umm, I think three years ago.

PIENAAR: Do you know why you umm that was the last time that you saw him? (Do you know why that was the last time that you saw him?)

KEAGAN: No. PIENAAR: Did you ask your mother if you can go visit your dad, Dawie? (Did you ask your mother if you could go visit your dad, Dawie?)

KEAGAN: Umm, yes.

PAGE 20 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

PIENAAR: What did she say? (What did she say?)

KEAGAN: Umm, she said no. Umm, she told me my father was in jail.

PIENAAR: Are you cross with your dad? (M’Lord, the witness has a problem down.

Umm, if he could be given time for him to ...) ...[intervened].

COURT: Yes, Advocate Pienaar, can we just have few moments for the witness to just recompose himself?

COURT: Just wait for a few moments.

PIENAAR: Yes. COURT: Can you just explain to the witness that it is quite in order for him to become emotional. He must not feel for one moment that he needs to suppress himself. It is quite in order. If you can just explain that to him.

MS MUHLARE: Keegan, crying is in order. Okay? It is fine to cry. So, do not feel that you are doing a bad thing but we will give you time to recompose.

KEAGAN: Okay.

MS MUHLARE: Keegan, can we go on?

KEAGAN: Yes. COURT: Are you in a position... The last question that the Advocate asked you is, are you cross with your dad?

KEAGAN: No. 19 PIENAAR: Thank you, M’Lord. I have got no further questions.

COURT: No further questions. Ms Persad, any re-examination?

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS PERSAT: No re-examination M’Lord.

COURT: Thank you. This witness may be excused.

ACCUSED NOTES • Judge Moosa concluded our evidence and stated that I denied doing any photo shoots at this premises. I am not sure what shoot he is referring to? I never rejected doing any photo shoots at my house; however, we did not do many different shoots at my house throughout the trial. Unfortunately, I do not have evidence to prove this, as my evidence disappeared. 20 19 This is highly emotional and sad. We understood that this was the first time in three years since the witness saw his dad the last time. However, the witness said he was not upset with his dad, and the witness displayed no disappointment either. This does not look like children that were abused in any form.

20 We also did not see any evidence of this. If it is in the accused Chief-Evidence, we cannot deny not confirm this. Should this be in the case, we took a look at how this could have an impact on the accusation. If he said he did not do photo shoots at his home, that makes no difference to the case. If the accused did photo shoots at his home and does not believe the kids referred to that shoot at his home, it again makes no difference, and nothing can be taken from it.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 21

• Judge Moosa also stated that we did not put to Keagan that we did not do shoots in G-Strings; I am not sure why we had to do that as Keagan at the time of the shoot was only seven, and he said in the cross-questioning with PERSAT: “Most of them were wearing bikinis but very, very, umm, very little, very small bikinis. I could see their bum because it looked to me as like they put their panty in between their bum.” Keagan did not say it was a G-string, and he would not have known what it was either. He made it clear that it LOOKED like they put their panties between their bum. He also stated that it was small bikinis and did not know what a bikini was. He only said he saw the girls burn from the back. The State also did not mention that he says a G-String leading the evidence. Keagan would not have known or understood what a g-string is to accurately answer the question even if we put it to him. You get many different types of bikinis, and we cannot assume that he was referring to g-strings just because he said it LOOKED like they put their panties between their bum. The Teddy Bear Clinic’s report clearly states that Keagan perceived bikinis as underwear on page 7 (76). When I discussed this with Pienaar, and we looked at the statute of the Law, it does not make it illegal for a child or minor to see girls/women in bikinis or so-called G-Strings. 21 • Pienaar also asked Keagan if he saw anything on my computer, and he said he only saw what he saw at the shoot, referring to bikini and casual clothes. He also referred to the Teddy Bear clinics feedback in the report, where he clearly did not say there was any nudity when he saw the models on the computer. “Judge Moosa went further and highlighted in his summary the following; In addition, he disclosed to the assessor from the Teddy Bear Clinic, whose report was handed in by consent as Exhibit [‘AA’] that he had seen “people doing sex” on the accused’s computer and amplifying his response by stating “when they touch each other’s breasts” .27 This evidence of the witness was never challenged during his cross-examination.”

22

21 We took what the accused said here and understood the frustration. However, here is the point in all of that. The State failed to prove child pornography. The State could not prove the charges against the accused irrespective of what you call a bikini.

One should not focus on the language of a minor at such a young age. We need to focus on the charges and if the accused committed a crime. There is no crime here.

22 This is important to discuss. The State claims that the accused exposed his children to Child Pornography. We don’t understand if the charges are about the shoot at his house or what the witness says he saw on the accused computer. Which one is it? The State is not clear where the crime was committed, they also are using the shoot to say that was the place of the crime, yet they use the computer to justify the exposure. It is not clear and not related either. We will break this down as follow; The bikini shoot at the accused house was legit, and there was no crime. The computer images that were testified about was not sexual content. During his testimony, the PAGE 22 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

Judge Moosa used the Teddybear Clinic’s report against me as evidence to find me Guilty of the following charge.

COUNT 1: Keagan De Villiers, exposure of child pornography, or pornography to a child, in that upon or about the period March 2011 to March 2013 and at or near Kempton Park in the district of Kempton Park the accused did unlawfully and intentionally expose Keagan De Villiers to child pornography or pornography. 25 • It is clear that there was never any child pornography or pornography established by the State or by the Teddy Bear Clinic, yet the Judge used one part of the report out of context. It was also clear that Judge Moosa took upon himself to complete the work of the State to place a crime against me where the State failed to prove the charge against me. It is clear that Judge Moosa only used particular parts of the Teddy Bear Clinic Report of what was said by Keagan but ignored the professional opinion of Esme and her observation and the conclusion or report as a totality.

Pienaar asked Keagan if he saw anything else on my computer, and Keagan said just what he saw at the shoot, so there was no need to dig deeper into it. Keagan also said that he saw it, not that I showed it to him or forced him to look at anything, so except for the fact that the Teddy Bear Clinic clearly said I never exposed Keagan to explicit pornographic material, I do not see how he can use that to say I intentionally exposed him to pornography, let alone CHILD pornography.

SEE ADDRESS RELATED TO KEAGAN’S EVIDENCE — TRANSCRIPT DATED 20160927 PAGE 1-7 PALAVER CONCLUSION ON FINDINGS

These were the first two charges. To think that the accused two kids were testifying against their father where the State alleged he exposed his children to child pornography or pornography. What was more worrying was the allegation that he did it with intent.

We believe that both these charges were made against the accused to weaken his case. What could be worse in the public’s eyes than a father who could do such a horrible thing to his own 25 We do not believe that the accused ever exposed his kids to child pornography or pornography. This charge is a wildly speculative charge with no basis of intent or unlawfulness. The fact that the court ignored a vital part of the evidence is creating a question, “on what did he based his judgment if what the State had was nothing?”

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 23

children? We could not find any evidence that the accused did expose his kids to pornography. The court made a huge mistake to use phrases in a report to find him guilty on these charges.

The court did not consider the facts and the Teddy Bear Clinic Report in its totality. After three different assessments with a professional child psychologist, the findings on both kids were that they had the perception that a bikini is “bra’s and Panties” at a very young age. It was voiced in the report and the testimony of both kids that they were not exposed to any explicit “clad”, as the Judge stated. It is out of context, misdirected and not true.

The accused children demonstrated that they love their father. Both the kids were very young at the time of these shoots. Despite the effort from the State to come to the conclusion that the accused willingly and unlawfully with intent exposed the kids to pornography, it still does not meet the test to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have to agree with the accused that the State had no case and that the court convicted him even though there was insufficient evidence, if any at all, to convict him.

HE IS NOT GUILTY. MICHAELA DE VILLIERS JUDGEMENT – STATE EVIDENCE Page 24 Para D [d] She stated that the girls had to go to the bathroom in order to put on their panties and bras. (1) During this time she saw their breasts and bums. On occasion, she saw some of the girls wearing shorts, panties and bras.

Michaela Trial Record - SS207-2014 REC (2015-10-07) VOL 1 Transcript Page 63 para 2 MS PERSAD: These girls that you said that your Dawiedad took photographs of, did you see them? (These girls that you say your DawiePAGE 24 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

dad took photographs of, did you see them?)

--- Yes. And then Mikyla, what were they wearing? (What were they wearing?) --- One day, once the girls umm, had to go into the bathroom and I had to go with them and then I went with them and they were going to put on their panties and their bra but I saw their breasts and some of the private parts and I also saw their bum. 26 And besides these girls, did you see any other girls and if you did, can you tell us what they were wearing? (Besides these girls, did you see any other girls and if you did what were they wearing?) --- Other girls, one another day, we went somewhere and then my dad was taking photos of other girls. Some were in their shorts and some were just in their panties and bra. (1) 27 ACCUSE NOTES: 1 This was the first I heard of that. ~ Michaela was 3 the last time I saw her and about the same age. It was typical for the models and parents to look after Michaela when I was busy with the photos. Keagan was with me, and she was with the models.

I did not tell her to go to the bathroom with the models, but on a typical day, Michaela was with the girls when `I was working. I don’t see how it is pornography in the first place if they were just getting dressed, and it is even more bizarre to say I am guilty of a criminal offence as there was no intent again, and it is not unlawful for people to look after my daughter. Should the models who took Michaela to the bathroom not be arrested and accused of this crime?

Transcript Page 64 Para 2 I think the girl’s name was Nicky, she had blond hair and then her mother dropped her off and then we went there in the beach and then she was in her panty and bra, and my dad used to take photos of her against the rocks (2) 26 Michaela was 3 at the time of the shoot at the accused house, and she now is 6 or 7 testifying about the shoot. The State Advocate asked the witness what the models were wearing at the shoot, and we found that question strange and particular direct. If I ask my daughter what she wore a weak ago, she cannot answer me; here, a very young minor is asked to recall a particular shoot of a specific place when she was only 3 at the time? I can only conclude that someone discussed this with this child and told her. It is not justifiable to ask a child of this age about specific events.

27 Tt is the point I was trying to make. The witness is not direct in her answer, and the witness use language like “another day” and “somewhere”. How can the court allow a child witness of such a young age to speculate? Her answer could be to any shoot at any given time. It is one of the worst State questionings we have even come across in our lifetime. The witness refers to the models being in their panties and bra.

We studied the Teddy Bear Clinic’s assessment to get a professional opinion on how the witness viewed the models and their clothing according to her. They concluded that the witness does not refer to underwear but bikinis.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 25

and me and my brother were playing. 28 2

– It is clear that the bikini to Michaela was a panty and bra.

JUDGEMENT – JUDGE

Judgement page 110 & 111 On count 2, Michaela testified that on an occasion when she visited her father, she went with the female models to the bathroom, during which time she observed their breasts, private parts and “bums”. It was never put to this witness during cross examination that it was beyond the control of the accused, that this witness was taken to the bathroom, by the models. As such, it is clear in terms of Section 19(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act these girls were presented in an explicit manner to this witness and further that their genital organs were unduly displayed to Michaela. (3) The accused could have prevented such exposure. (4) The report of the assessor was handed in by consent between the parties as Exhibit [‘BB’]. This witness also gave her evidence in a simple and clear manner and cannot be unduly criticized. I accordingly accept the evidence of this witness. 29 28 We did do a lot of research to understand where this shoot took place. It was a shoot when the accused took the kids with him to East London. The models’ name was not Nicky. However, she did have long blond hair, and we did take a look at the photos. It was a bikini shoot with two sisters on the main beach in East London. This confirms that the witness does not see a difference between a bikini and a bra and panty. To the witness, it is the same thing.

29 The court concluded that the accused did not put to the witness that he was not in control when and with who she went to the bath or changing room during these shoots. We had to look at this, make numerous calls, and search the Internet on when a statement should be made to a witness in court. We spoke to attorney’s and advocates from South Africa and in other countries, and not one said that statement made by the sitting judge was correct or proof that the accused is guilty of exposing a child to child pornography. The closest we got was that the accused might have been negligent in assuring his child was not exposed to any illegal or unlawful behaviour, but in this case, that was not the charge. The accused also did not have to make such a statement as the onus lies on the State to prove that the accused committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused does not have to prove he is innocent, and the State must bring proof that the accused is guilty. The court used that failure to convict the accused is ludicrous.

Further, it was not possible for the accused to be in control. The accused had his son with him while he was working with models standing in a row to get their turn, which tells us that he was working alone and watching his son while the female models took it upon themselves to entertain and look after the witness. We can further see PAGE 26 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

• 3. It was clear during Keagan’s evidence that I was busy with the shoot and he was behind me while I was working, I did not have Michaela with me, and I did not know when and who got dressed, I have a camera to my face and my attention is with the model while I am shooing. 30 • I don’t get why I had to put this to my child in the first place. The judge asked the state advocate a question if his children walk into the bathroom and they see naked woman of it is unlawful, it was said during the time I was questioned by the state advocate, … It was said no.

• 4. There would not have been the slightest possibility that I could have prevented this.

I was a single parent, and I could not work and watch two children simultaneously.

Everyone knew when my kids were with me, everyone helped me, and if a model had to change clothes, Michaela would most probably go with that person to the bathroom to get dressed. I do not see how this could be unlawful. On South African beaches, people swim naked with kids all around them, and they go to the bathrooms where people get dressed. Does this mean all those who allow their kids on a beach now will have to go to prison?

SECTION 19 (A) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT 32 OF 2007, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: Exposure or display or causing exposure or display of child pornography or pornography to children: In terms of the definition of pornography in Section 1 of the aforementioned act – ‘pornography’ means any image, however created, or any description or presentation of a person, real or simulated, who is 18 years or older, of an explicit or sexual nature that is intended to stimulate erotic feelings, including any such image or description that the accused did not instruct or ask the witness to look at the models when they get changed. To assume that this is exposing a minor to child pornography is insane and again makes us question the judge’s ability to apply common sense, the basic principle of intent, and the law.

30 This does make sense. The accused is sitting with a child and is focusing on the shoot. Photography is like art, and you need to focus on the subject and constantly engage and direct the models to make sure the end product is good. Your focus is what is in front of you. There is no logic to assume that the accused had the intention to willingly or unlawfully get the witness exposed to models who changed, especially if he was not even aware who got dressed when they got dressed. The court cannot make such a claim, and this is also not enough evidence that a crime was committed with intent as the intention was to get the photos done nothing more, nothing less.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 27

of such person-31 (a) engaged in an act that constitutes a sexual offence; 32 (b) engaged in an act of sexual penetration; 33 (c) engaged in an act of sexual violation; 34 (d) engaged in an act of self-masturbation; 35 (e) displaying the genital organs or such person in a state of arousal or stimulation unduly displaying the genital organs or anus of such person; 36 (f) displaying any form of stimulation of a sexual nature of such person’s breasts; 37 (g) engaged in sexually suggestive or lewd acts; 38 (h) engaged in or as the subject of sadistic or masochistic acts of a sexual nature; 39 (i) engaged in any conduct or activity characteristically associated with sexual intercourse; or 40 (j) showing or describing the body, or parts of the body, of that person in a manner or in circumstances which, within the context, violate or offend the sexual integrity or dignity of that person or any other person or is capable of being used for the purposes of violating or offending the sexual integrity or dignity of that person or any other person. 41 Pornography, representation of sexual behaviour in books, pictures, statues, motion pictures, and other media that is intended to cause sexual excitement. 42 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

We will now look at the law the State said the accuse broke willingly and unlawfully.

State did not prove this - So NO! State did not prove this - So NO! State did not prove this - So NO! State did not prove this - So NO! State did not prove this - So NO! State did not prove this - So NO! State did not prove this - So NO! State did not prove this - So NO! State did not prove this - So NO! State did not prove this - So NO! State did not prove this - So NO!

PAGE 28 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

The state did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that I exposed Michaela to Child/ Pornography, there was nothing unlawful about my work, and there was only the intent to work and make an income while Michaela and Keagan were with me and where other people helped me out by looking after them.

PALAVER CONCLUSION ON FINDINGS

The first thing we’re told in law school was never to get emotionally involved in matters. We, therefore, will be careful not to get involved in that way, however, in this case where two young innocent children are “victims” one would immediately run to a conclusion “How could he do that to his own children?” Looking at all the evidence and what was said during the chief testimony we cannot say this any other way, but this was nothing more than a fishing expedition by the State. It is evident that the accused did not expose the wittiness (his kids) to photography let alone child pornography.

As independent case investigators, we look at the law and how it was applied. We took the evidence and test it as demonstrated above. The biggest part of these two charges was that the father/accused according to the State was that the accused must have arranged a shoot (PLOT), and get models which he will get to undress either in front of the children, other models and potentially their parents, or allow one child willingly by his instruction to go to the change room to specifically go look at the models’ vagina? (Unlawful Intent). This was not the case and there was not any evidence to prove that either. This was a normal day for the accused and his children. There was nothing illegal about the shoot.

It is in our view that the State did not have a case against the accused, they did not prove anything either, however, it is clear that the State wanted the court to believe that the accused has a problem and that whatever the State will present after the children De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 29

will distract the court, the media and public from the facts.

It is also clear that the accused just by being accused of violating his small kids to “Child Pornography” crucified him and made the path to a guilty conviction easy for the State. We did not come to this conclusion on its own, but when you look at the entire case and other findings it is clear that the State had to use these children for the sake of creating an emotional foundation.

The images below according to the court is clad explicitly and seen as child pornography. I need to remind the reader that we had to take what was perceived by the children and find the closest possible images to demonstrate what was seen.

The State never showed any photos to the children, and no proposition was put to them that what we are displaying below was actually seen by them.

Documents (Click on Link to Open) 1. Judgment 2. Keagan’s Teddy Bear Clinic Report 3. Michael’s Teddy Bear Clinic Report 4. Transcript Sentencing 5. Head of Argument - Defence

PAGE 30 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

THE A

PHOTOS

BELOW

IS

DEPICTION

BASED

ON

ONLY THE

DESCRIPTION THAT WAS GIVEN MY KEAGAN. THESE IMAGES WERE NOT USED OR PRODUCED DURING THE TRIAL.. THIS IS TO DISPLAY HOW WHAT TRIAL WAS DESCRIBED IS NOT CHILD PORT, OR FORTHE MATTER AT HAND ANY FORM OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OR PORNOGRAPHY. De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 31

PAGE 32 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 33

PAGE 34 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 35

PAGE 36 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 37

PAGE 38 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 39

PAGE 40 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 41

PAGE 42 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 43

COUNT 3 A CONTRAVENTION OF SEC 3 OF ACT 32 OF 2007 RAPE

PAGE 44 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

KAYLA KEMP – STATE EVIDENCE – JUDGMENT Kayla Kemp (‘Kemp’), the erstwhile pupil of the accused and complainant on counts 3 and 4, currently employed in the freight industry, testified, inter alia, as follows: [a] Kayla stated that she was born on 02 June 1995 and that she was a modelling pupil of the accused, whom she met during August 2010 (1). She subsequently attended his studio and commenced modelling classes after that.

She was 15 years old when she began her modelling lessons and in Grade 9. (2) Transcripts Pg 76 Para 1 - You informed the court that you had met Dawie De Villiers, the accused in this matter, in August 2010, in Kempton Park.

Transcripts Pg 76 Para 1 - He told me I must come to his modelling studio in Aston Manor House, and I convinced my mom to go with me. My mom had my baby brother and sister. Dawie told my mom that she needed to get out because the smoke machine would be bad for my brother and sister. But, then, my mom told him …

This was the first day she met with me during the week, and it was just an interview with her and her mom in the studio. The studio was an OPEN PLAN STUDIO; there were no other rooms besides the toilets outside. She refers to a smoke machine that was on and cautioned her mom not to be in the studio because of the smoke machine? There was no smoke machine in the studio, and she was clearly confusing this first appointment with her rape allegation.

She is also talking about a photoshoot on that day; there was no photoshoot, ONE photo was taken for her account profile.

On page 151 of the Cross-examination, she also told Pienaar that Dieter took photos at the studio.

Transcripts Pg 77 Para 2 We had modelling classes on Tuesday and Thursday nights.

Born in 1995 – Met in August 2010 – She was 15 and 1 Month – Testified in 2015 – She was 20. [b] She continued with her lessons for some time. She recalled an occasion when she was informed by the accused of a ‘disco shoot’ that was taking place at Aston Manor House, Kempton Park, during the evening. (3) De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 45

3. Transcripts Pg 77 Para 2 Dawie told me that we had got a photoshoot, a bikini photoshoot on one particular night. So, I arranged with my mom because we did not have transport at that time. But, I arranged with my mom so that my uncle could take me NOTES: ACCUSED: • Here Kayla testified that it was a bikini shoot, yet it was a disco shoot.

Transcripts Pg 167 Para 1 (Cross-Examination) And he specifically, according to you, or inform you that this will be a bikini shoot. --- Correct.

There is no doubt in your mind about this? --- No. He told me, he wanted to take more because, at the camp, he did not catch my photos because [indistinct]. 1 NOTES: ACCUSED: • The issue here is, the camp did not take place yet; it only took place six months after the accusation of rape… here are a few problems with this evidence.

• It was not a bikini shoot, and it was a disco shoot.

• I was not the photographer at the camp; it was DIETER; there was no way I could have told her I needed more bikini photos as I had never done any bikini shoots with her. So I was not involved with photography at all that weekend.

• The camp was also not just a bikini shoot, and it was for a calendar.

• This is clear that she is making up the rape.

Cross_examination Page 112 Para 4 - MR PIENAAR: Well, I find that very difficult to believe, Ms Kemp. --- It was either Geraldine or Tanya. I cannot remember which one. And do I understand you correctly that you wanted photos back from Dawie? --Yes. What kind of type of photos? --- Yes. We were taking disco photo shoots. 2 1 It is, in fact, pure speculation and a lie. We took a look at when the “Disco Shoot” was in relation to the available data of the shoot in the Freestate aka Calendar Shoot or Camp, and it is evident that the Disco Shoot was on the 2nd of September 2010. The Camp or Calendar Shoot was from the 11th to the 13th of February 2011. According to the Defense Counsel, this information was dealt with during the accused Chief Testimony. This is a lie by the witness. The Defense of the accused asked the witness if she was 100% certain that the shoot at the studio was a bikini shoot. However, it was a theme shoot relating to disco themed photos, and the witness justified her lie by referring to a shoot the accused did not even do.

2 The witness told the Defense Advocate that she wanted photos from the disco shoot, and when she was asked what kind of photos, she confirmed the photos were, in fact, disco photos. This in itself is creating massive gaps in the testimony of this PAGE 46 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

NOTES: ACCUSED: • To Pienaar, she admitted that she was in the disco shoot, so the rape did not occur because she never left. Her chief evidence she said she went before the shoot happened, as illustrated in point 11 below.

During her cross-examination on page 169, the last paragraph, she was tested about why she did not put a regular top on as it was cold, but here she gave a reason why the focus needs to be on the time aspect. “Was it still winter when you went there, for the shoot, the bikini shoot? --- No. Because we did a photo camp, bikini shoot about a week before and the weather was nice. So, no, I do not think so.” 3

• There was no camp before the rape! The camp took place in FEB 2011. If the rape witness; she testified first it was a shoot in the evening which was bikini photos, although the accused the photographer at a camp. Furthermore, the camp only happened six months after the alleged disco shoot, so according to the witness, she had to get more photos done from a shoot that had not happened yet?

3 TThis was a massive fail from the witness. The disco shoot was in the summer (September). So, if the witness testified that the rape took place a week after the camp, this did not happen at the disco shoot in September 2010. The rape then must have taken place on the 17th of February 2011. That then would not be possible as the photos of the disco shoot clearly show the shoot did happen on the 2nd of September 2010; therefore, it is impossible to assume the rape, according to the witness, did happen a week after the camp as there was no shoot of that kind in 2011. That in itself is completely messing up the rape charge.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 47

had taken place a week after the camp, she would have been raped in late FEB 2011. There is no proof of this, and I did not see Kayla after the camp again. [c] She arrived early and observed that no other models were present at that stage.

The accused instructed her to wait upstairs whilst informing her that the other models were running late. (4) He then played music,(5) whilst putting on the disco lights and smoke machine. (6) 4 4. Transcripts Pg 79 Para 3 So, when I got there, there were no models, and yes, I was early. So, he told me, I must just go wait upstairs.

NOTES: ACCUSED: • She testified that there were no other models and that they were running late; this was 02 September 2010 (Thursday), a school day, so it was after school, she lived in Edenvale, and with traffic and distance, it was common cause she must have arrived at around 15h30. \ 5. Transcripts Pg 79 Para 3 Yes, Kayla? went to get changed.

---

So, he put on some music, and I

NOTES: ACCUSED: • There was two double 18” Speaker that we used for events. We used the sound system during training evenings. They can go extremely loud. It is important to note that this studio was in a Corporate office block; no noise was accepted during the day until 7 pm. Top View of Studio – Next to us was a Stationary store, with other lawyers and accountants. No way the music could have been loud for other people to hear it. 5 4 This part of the witness testimony is causing a lot of doubt. The accused know that models and parents are on their way to the studio. He confirms this with the witness. He does not go up with the witness as he instructs her to wait upstairs. He must have then met her outside or at the bottom of the entrance. She goes up, and he eventually goes into the studio to play music. They both are still waiting for the other models to arrive. According to the witness, he does not only put on music, but he also put on disco lights and the smoke machine. We looked and assessed the photos of all the models at the disco shoot, and not in one image can we verify that there was a smoke machine or disco lights. This contradicts the evidence of the witness completely.

5 This is a verified fact. We contacted the offices and asked the policy regarding noise from tenants, and they told us that no noise, including music that another tenant can hear, is permitted until 18h00. This is punching more holes into the witnesses testimony. If she had only arrived at the studio around 16h00 to 16h30 and left by 17h15, the accused could not have put music on to disturb the other tenants. Furthermore, it is still unclear who told the witness to change into a bikini. How did she know what to PAGE 48 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

6. Transcripts Pg 79 Para 3 MS PERSAD: Yes, Kayla? And then what happened?

--- So, when I went to get changed, he put on some music. He put on disco lights and a smoke machine.

NOTES: ACCUSED: • There was no disco lights or smoke machine in all the photos handed in as evidence.

This is an unverified accusation. [d] Kemp returned to the room where the photo shoot was going to take place, dressed in her bra, bikini bottom and skirt. (7) The accused then told her to sit on the couch next to him. She duly obliged, whereupon the accused put his hand on her leg and began kissing her. She told the accused to stop. (8) The accused responded by saying to her that he was only doing what was right whilst pushing her onto the couch’s armrest.

(9) 6 7. Transcripts Pg 80 Para 1 I wore my bra. had a bikini top that had a clip at the back. As I fitted it on, it popped. So, I was in Yes, Kayla? --- And then, I still had my bikini bottom on. Then, I walked …[intervene] NOTES: ACCUSED: • We provide the court with the photos taken from the laptop in and during court with the supervision of the state advocate, Mr Pienaar and the police officer.

• The photo (See Attached) was where Kayla wore a PINK TOP and BLACK PANTS. There are no photos of Kayla with a Bikini. The clothes she wore for the disco shoot were the theme, not a bikini.

• She said the bikini ‘CLIP’ broke and had to use her BRA; as a professional photographer, there would have been no way to shoot a “BIKINI SHOOT” where a change into if it was a disco shoot and not a bikini shoot?

6 The witness testified that she changed into a bra, bikini bottom and a skirt. She then sat on the couch opposite the open studio door, and he kissed her, which led to the rape because the accused said he did what was right. Just reading that part of the testimony is not making sense. I am going to put it in perspective. The accused play music. The witness got dressed while they were waiting for the models as they were running late already. That is cause to believe that those models will arrive anytime in the next few minutes. The witness, with a bra, went and sat next to the accused and put his hand on her leg. She does not jump up or question him. The accused then start to kiss her and, out of his own, justify his actions before he raped her, telling her he is doing what is right. Without her resiting with an open studio door, he then forces her over the arm rest of the couch? None of that is making sense! We observe that the accused must be stupid or brave and had no worry about raping a minor, getting caught in the act, and going to prison.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 49

model where two different clothing items in the first place.

• She added that she had a SKIRT on with the BRA and BIKINI Bottom; there is no proof of this.

IMPORTANT FACT • Kayla gets to the studio by 15h30; it is a disco shoot where she is asked to shoot in a bikini; she later said that after the rape, which to her version was before the models got there around 5 pm. Yet she told the State that she was only in one shoot, the Disco Shoot of which she didn’t do because she left before the shoot started, yet later she contacted VAN WYK complaining she didn’t get those photos and that she was raped.

• The photos clearly show that she did participate in this shoot and that she did not leave by 5 pm as per her RAPE claim; she left before 9 pm.

• It is clear in the photos of the Disco Shoot that 1. She was there and did not leave by 5 pm 2. She did not wear a skirt, bikini with a bra 3. There was no disco lights or smoke machine 4. There could not have been noise and; CLEARLY, HER RAPE VERSION ON THIS ALONE IS NOT POSSIBLE 8. Transcripts Pg 80 Para 3 MS PERSAD: Yes, Kayla? And then? --- And then, at that time, there were still no models coming for the photoshoots. Then, Dawie told me, I must come and sit on the couch, next to him.

Yes, Kayla? --- So, I did. Then, he put his hand on my leg. And then … [intervene] COURT: Sorry. Hold on a second. The accused then put his hand on your leg. Is that what you said? --- Yes, My Lord.

Okay. Just take it easy and take it slow.

MS PERSAD: Okay. Kayla, and then, what happened? --- Then, he started kissing me. I told him, Dawie, stop, Dawie, stop.

• Kayla said she sat next to me where I placed my hand on her leg, kissed her, and she twice told me to stop. Pienaar did test her on this…

Transcripts Page 182 / 183 Para Last and First So, the music was not loud? --- It was loud. But, we were sitting next to each other. It was loud. Were you shouting?

Were you shouting at each other to hear what the other one was saying? --- Well, PAGE 50 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

we were raising our voice, so it is, yes. Are you sure about that?

---

Yes.

NOTES: ACCUSED: • Kayla was adamant that the music was loud, so loud that we could, according to her evidence, not have a normal conversation.

Transcripts Page 183 Para 2 But, there is a, Ms Kemp, there is a big difference between talking and raising voices. You see, you are only saying this now because I am, with all due respect, I put it to you. I am busy putting you in a corner now. This is why we are raising, and you are saying this now. Any comment on that? Do you agree with me or disagree with me? --- I agree with you, Sir. 7 NOTES: ACCUSED: NOTE: Here, Kayla admits she makes things up when Advocate Pienaar put her on the spot.

Pienaar pushed her to point out a very important lie during her cross-examination, again see the TIMING. Transcripts Page 185 & 186 You never, or yesterday, you said to us that you screamed, stop, stop. --- I did scream, stop, stop. Yes. Sorry? --- I did, yes.

Did you scream, at the top of your lungs …[intervene] --- No …[intervene] For him to stop …[intervene] --- Not at the top of my lungs. No. Why not? --- Because there is no point of screaming on top of my lungs.

COURT: Sorry? What was the answer? --- There was no point in screaming on top of my lungs.

MR PIENAAR: Why not, Ms Kemp? --- Because no one was going to hear me.

MS PERSAD: My Lord, I did not get the last bit. Because?

COURT: Because nobody would have heard me. There was no point.

MR PIENAAR: For starters, for starters, people downstairs? --- It was at night.

No, no, no. You arrived there in the afternoon, you told us.

--Ja. Late in the afternoon. When I left, it was dark. (a) No. I am not talking about when you left. I am talking about now this incident on the couch. People downstairs could have heard. --- No one was there. I do not think so. No one was ever there when we had classes. It was the time when we had classes. (b) Are you guessing this now, that none of them was ever there, downstairs? Are you saying people were not working …[intervene] --- I am not saying …[intervene] 7 The witness was explicitly asked if the music was loud, she was adamant it was loud, and the State Advocate questioned her, and the witness, without hesitation, replied with a “yes”. The Defence Advocate tested her, and she eventually admitted to Mr Pienaar that she was lying. This was not the first lie she was telling.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 51

After five o’clock …[intervene] --- I said, I do not think anyone was working … [intervene] (c) Yes …[intervene] --- Because when the Dawie said the photoshoot is between our class time. That was our class time, and there was no one; we had classes before that. There were no people there when we had classes. (d) Madam, Ms Kemp, with all due respect, you told us that the classes were in the afternoons. --- Yes. I think it started at five or half-past five and ended at about seven. (e) 8 Another person that might have heard, if you shouted at the top of your lungs … [intervene] --- No. There was music …[intervene] Is the security guard at the gate …[intervene] --- No. There was music and all. The office and the security thing is way, and it is far.

No, Madam. It is not. I put it to you it is 20 metres, as the crow flies. What do you say to that? --- To me, it is far.

Okay. So, we have got it now, and you did not scream at the top of your voice.

You only said to him, stop, stop. --- Yes. (f) NOTES: ACCUSED • Here she contradicts herself, and she told the court that she left before 5 pm, now she said she left when it was dark… In September in Gauteng, it only gets dark at or around 6 pm. So if she left before 5, it was not dark at all.

• She claims she did not scream that I should stop because no one would have heard; this is a massive contradiction.

• It was a weekday, and the people worked until roughly 6 pm • She said no one was there during classes, it was not the question, and she said she did not scream at me to stop as I kissed her before the actual rape, yet she confuses herself and talks about when people are not there when we have classes.

This is proof that she was not raped and made this up. There is nothing precise or accurate about her statement.

8 The Defense questioned the witness by asking when she claimed the music was loud. The witness was caught out and pushed into a corner, and she assumed that at the time of the music before the rape, the people working in the office park had left already. This is causing a significant problem with the witness account of the rape. She testified, and according to her, she left before any model arrived. She testified that it was already dark, that is not true. The witness left the studio before the tenants in the office park. It could not have been dark. It does not get dark at 17h15, and if it was dark, she must have been at the studio still just before 19h00. If she was there, then the other models must have arrived already and then there are no ways the witness and the accused was alone. The witness is not telling the truth, which is a massive issue with her testimony.

PAGE 52 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

• She assumes that no one was working on a perfectly normal working day. It is irrelevant to her not screaming for help; she did not scream because the rape did not occur. She had to make it believable but got her facts wrong completely.

• Again she is contradicting herself, and she said the shoot was after the class, which makes my version accurate; the shoot did take place after the class, which started before 8 pm, during the classes accordingly to Kayla she was not there because she said that her dad picked her up before anyone arrived. The classes started at 5h30pm, and she left already. She was already raped and left; how could she know what happened during or after the class? If she was there, other models were there, and everything she claimed is false. The rape could not have taken place, and we could not even have been alone, for that matter.

• The proof we handed in shows Kayla was indeed in the Disco shoot, and that evidence proves that she was not raped. This evidence was not dealt with by the Judge at all.

• This confirms my version and shows that Kayla was never raped or even alone with me.

• Here she changed her version (lie) that she screamed, now I only told her. This again contradicts her claims about the music being loud. Because it never happened, we were not alone, as she claimed, and the rape could not have taken place.

Kayla was a terrible witness, and she kept changing her story to the extend where she admits to Advocate Pienaar that she is making things up when she is pushed into a corner. So how could this Judge say she was good, reliable and precise in her testimony ??

Transcripts Page 84 para 4 COURT:

What did he say?

---

Please, I said,

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 53

please stop, please stop. No. What did, after he started kissing you and you told him that he must stop …[intervene] --- He said …[intervene] What did he then say? --- He said he is only doing what is right.

He is only doing what is? --- Right.

What is right? --- Yes. Just stop there.

• This was all that was said, and I still don’t get what she is trying to say. [e] He thereafter put on a condom on his penis and penetrated Kemp. She told the accused to stop on two occasions, to no avail. He continued until he ejaculated and got off Kemp. (10) She got up and ran to the bathroom, locked herself into the cubicle and got dressed. She thereafter telephoned (11) Transcripts Page 85 & 86 - Okay. Stop, Kayla. Yes, Kayla. And then? --- He had my hands above my head. (a) Then, he took out a condom and he …[intervene] Just… Okay. Stop for a minute, Kayla.

COURT: And he then took out a condom? --- Yes, My Lord.

MS PERSAD: Then, what did he do?

--He put the condom on. Then, he penetrated me. I am telling him, Dawie, please stop, please stop. But he just did not want to.

Okay. Kayla, stop for a minute.

MR PIENAAR: My Lord, I could not hear anything; after the words, he put it on. I could not hear anything else after that.

COURT: Kayla, is it correct that you said to this court that the accused put the condom on, and he penetrated you? --- Yes, My Lord.

And you then said to Dawie, Dawie stop, stop, and he did not want to. --- No. Is that what you said? --- Yes, My Lord.

Okay. Now, again, my appeal to you is that counsel for the accused is having extreme difficulty in hearing what you are saying, as well as the court. Please put the microphone right next to your mouth and speak up as loudly as you can. --- Yes, My Lord.

Thank you.

MS PERSAD: Okay. Kayla, where did he put the condom on? --- He put it on his penis. (b) And then, you said that he penetrated you. With what did he penetrate you? --With his penis.

And where did he penetrate you? --- In my vagina.

And then, what happened, Kayla? --- And he ejaculated, and he got off.

Then, I ran to the bathroom, and I Is that correct?

Okay, Kayla. Wait a minute. Kayla, are you okay? --- I am fine.

Are you okay? Just breathe a little. Just take a minute or two. You are going to PAGE 54 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

have to tell us what you said now, again, because you are a bit tearful and we could not hear you. I did the part that he ejaculated. Then, thereafter, you were not too clear about what happened. --- Then, he got off of me. Then, I ran to the bathroom. (c) NOTES: ACCUSED • Kayla is testifying that I was pushing her over the couch’ armrest; whiles doing that, I took the other hand, unbuttoned my pants, took a condom out, and put it on with one hand while I was holding her hands above her head. I will bring in Advocate Pienaar’s cross-examination on this just now.

• This is also confirmation that she must have seen my penis. Adv Pienaar did test her on anything that stood out or was unique, it was handed in as evidence, and the Judge did not deal with this evidence in the Judgment.

• She said after I ejaculated (must have been quite quick), she ran to the bathroom.

She must have seen the condom with the semen, or how did she know I ejaculated?

10 – See point 8 Her father and requested him to fetch her. She waited in the cubicle until her father arrived. She then proceeded to the motor vehicle whilst crying. She told her father that she was feeling unwell and that the smoke machine had given her a headache. (11) She did not inform anyone of the rape as she was afraid that her parents would stop her from attending modelling classes, which would sound the death knell of her modelling career.

11. Transcript Page 87 Para 4 COURT: So, you told this court that your dad then said to you that he was outside. Once you received this information, you proceeded outside. You got your stuff, and you went outside. You were crying at that stage. Your dad then asked you what happened. --- Yes, My Lord.

MS PERSAD: And then, what happened, Kayla? --- Then, I told my dad I was not feeling well. I think the smoking machine gave me a headache.

• 15h30 Kayla arrived

Time Stamp of alleged Rape

• At approximately 16h00, we sat down, and the alleged rape took place • 16h10 – Alleged rape over - Duration 5 – 10min • 16h15 called dad • 16h40 – 17h00 – Dad arrived It is clear by her testimony that she must have left by 17h00. 9 9 Okay, let us walk this through again. The witness sat next to the accused on the couch, and he placed his hand on her leg. She does not respond. He then starts De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 55

NOTES: ACCUSED • She could not have been in the shoot, yet she was • There were people in the office park working, yet she said there was none • She could not have left in the dark, and it was way too early, • Music was not permitted during the day until 6h30pm, yet she claimed the music was loud.

• She never called her mom or dad to come to verify her testimony. [f] She saw the accused again at the next modelling class. (12) The accused told the girls that he wanted to meet with each of them individually. Each of the girls was called separately into the room. (13) The accused told Kemp to stop spreading stories about his modelling company Modeling SA. He further told her that she was a whore and a bitch and should stop spreading stories about his modelling agency. (14), The accused reached into his pocket and handed her a morning-after pill. (15) 10 kissing her, and she still does not respond. He then took both her hand, and she still did not respond. He holds both her hands above her head while he pushes her over the couch, takes out a condom, and still does not respond, jump up, scream for help or anything! She sees him open the condom and place it in his penis and wait until he penetrates her, and then she says, “Stop Dawie, Stop”. All of that happened and did not show any resistance. She waited for him to penetrate her and only asked him to stop. I find that extremely difficult to believe.

Now we will address the timeline. The witness arrived at approximately 16h00; by 16h15, she had already got raped, then she went to get dressed and called her dad. He is 11km away from the studio and arrived at around 17h00. Nowhere does she testify that Dawie tries and calm her down or keep her from saying anything to anyone. He allows her to go her way without fear of calling the police, telling her dad, and having actual proof get to go to a doctor or hospital where they can take a DNA sample, including a rape kit done. Her dad arrives before any other model arrives, and she leaves by lying to her father. We cannot accept that this is even plausible. Nothing about this makes sense.

10 There are a lot of unanswered questions with this. So, she got raped by the accused on Thursday, 2 September 2010, and she said nothing to anyone, and with the shock and trauma she experienced, she returned to the Studio where the accused told all the models that he wanted to see of them alone. The accused then agrees to be alone again with him without warning or cause; go at her and tell her she must stop spreading rumours about his “Agency”. That is impossible, and the accused did not have a business Modelling SA. The witness was not part of Modelling SA, and it was not an agency. According to our research, the first time the accused announced that he now is acting as an agency was only in early 2012. It gets better; the accused, 5 PAGE 56 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

12. Transcripts Page 88 Para 2 - Can you tell us about when you saw the accused again? --- At our next modelling class • The next class was Tuesday 07 September 2010 – 5 days later.

13. Transcripts Page 88 Para 2 - MS PERSAD: And then, what happened, Kayla?

--- He told us there was a whole group of girls. He told us, no, he wants to have a meeting individually, with all of us.

Okay. Stop, Kayla. And then, Kayla? Then, he called us individually up, into the room, where you just take photos. All of us were standing out there by the passage.

• This was strange; why would I call them into the room alone? Kayla did not elaborate on what stories or why I suggested she did? This discussion never took place.

• This also confirms the layout of the studio. The door is at the stairs where you come up, looking directly into the studio where the couch was against the wall; if I were busy having sex with her, the very first person walking into the studio would have seen me on top of Kayla. Yet, we never closed the door or locked the door.

Kayla was tested on this, and she admitted again for lying about this fact.

13. Transcripts Page 88 Para 2 - MS PERSAD: Yes. What did he say then, Kayla?

--- I must stop spreading stories about his company. I am such a bitch. No one is ever going to love me. I am a whore. 11 Stop, Kayla.

COURT: Ja. Sorry. Once, just go slowly, please. Do not let us now get excited. You said that the accused told you to stop spreading stories about his modelling company, days after the rape, manage to buy a morning-after pill, and while all the other models are thereafter, he shouted at her and told her she is a whore and slut still incriminate himself further by handing her a morning-after pill. What stopped her from calling all the models and showing them what the accused just did? Nothing, but none of that happened. Again, looking at the witness’s testimony, we find it difficult to establish a point where we can say there is no doubt that she was raped. The more we got into the details of her testimony and looked at the plausibility, the harder it became to see the truth in what she was telling the court. We cannot agree with the judgment that this witness was precise and accurate, not consistent.

11 We find this statement to be random. The State did not ask her why or how the accused would know that no one would love her. We share the opinion of the Defense Counsel that she was making things up, basically lying to create events that did not happen. This sound like a person who was told what to say but could not remember all the details, dates, times and people.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 57

Modelling SA …[intervene] --- Yes, My Lord.

And what did he say thereafter? --- He told me, I am such a bitch.

He told you that you are a bitch. --- Yes, My Lord.

Hold on. Yes? --- And I must stop talking, stop about his company and … [intervene] MS PERSAD: Sorry, Kayla. Say it again? And you must stop? --- I must stop saying bad stuff about his company.

Okay. Stop.

COURT: But, I thought I heard you saying, what were the words that you used just now? You said the accused told you that you are a bitch. --- And I am a whore.

NOTES: ACCUSED • This is a massive contradiction – The company was not called Modelling South Africa, It was called The Model and Talent Academy. She was a student at a modelling school. I don’t understand what she possibly could have said about a company she knows nothing about. This is proof that she was in contact with Ravi.

Dominique Rensley, Ravi Raja and Dion Van Wyk started the accusations, which was when Dominque and I broke up, and that company was called Modelling SA. This confirms the conspiracy between them. It was not me telling her not to spread rumours; she was part of the rumours before the trial started.

15. Transcripts Page 90 Para 1 - MS PERSAD: And what did you say next? --And then, I just looked at him. Then, he gave me the morning after pill.

COURT: You said I then looked at him? --- Yes. And what happened after that? --- Then, he handed me, he reached in his pocket. Then, he handed me the morning after pill.

He reached inside his pocket, and what did he do? --- He handed me over a morning-after pill.

NOTES: ACCUSED • This did not make sense, we “Had sex” on a Thursday, yet I gave her the morning after pill five days later? This is a lie and made up.

• The only morning-after pill she ever received from me was the one SHE and SPIROS were asking me to get. How else did I know that; 12 12 This stood out. The accused openly admitted he gave her a morning-after pill, not the one the witness claimed after she was raped, but the accused gave an answer that cannot be a lie. How did the accused know that the witness and a Spiros slept together to make that up? When the witness said she was a virgin, and the Defense Advocate asked her if she had sex with Spiros, she admitted that what the accused told the court was true and dismissed the witness’s version. It is not possible to make PAGE 58 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

• She was in a sexual relationship with him • That she dated him during the time I met her • Just knowing about him in general • This also confirmed my version and that it was impossible to give her a pill that would have no effect. She is using her and Spiros’s situation to blame me for rape. [g] Kemp told the accused that what he had done to her was wrong. He retorted by telling her that she should not say anything to anyone as he would come after both herself and her family if she did say anything. (16). The accused dismissed her, and she did not communicate further with the accused until 2013. (17) 16. Transcripts Page 90 Para 1 - KAYLA KEMP: (s.u.o.)

COURT: You may continue. --- Thank you, My Lord. I think the last thing that we, the last thing that we that you said to this court before we took the short break, is that he told me not to say anything to anyone. If I did so, then what would have happened?

--- He told me that he would come after myself and my family NOTES: ACCUSED • This is a massive lie, and this conversation never took place. The next point is proof of this.

17. Transcripts Page 93 Para 1 - MS PERSAD: the accused? --- No. Not until 2013.

Did you communicate further with

NOTES: ACCUSED • What Kayla is stating here completely contradicts and nullifies this entire rape claim. She said that we never saw each other again after that last class on Tuesday when I gave her the morning after pill and told her I would come after her if she told anyone. Here is the problem; • Kayla was part of the academy up until the calendar in 2011.

• The calendar was part of my business, Dieter worked with me, and we took the models to a camp in Du Rust in the Free State. So if she never spoke to me again for all that time, how did we communicate with the camp? She claims the camp was before the rape; it is not possible as it was six months after the alleged rape.

So she made this up and is not telling the truth.

• The chat in 2013 was also not between her and me, and it was as the evidence that we handed in that it was, in fact, Ravi and her • From the time of the camp to date, I have never spoken to her again. up such an accurate claim. The State did not challenge this evidence.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 59

[h] Later, she communicated with one Dion who had asked her whether she had been to the accused before. She informed him that she knew the accused and was not who he says he was. Further, that the accused had raped her, Dion then informed her that she should not worry as a team of investigators working on the matter regarding the accused and that justice would ultimately be served. (18) 13 [i] 17 & 18 Transcripts Page 93 Para 2 - MS PERSAD: What did you tell Deon, Kayla? --- I told him that Dawie is not, who he claims to be and that he raped me and …[intervene] •

Adv Pienaar did deal with this matter intensively. I will elaborate on our evidence.

[j] A few days later, she received an invitation on BBM from a person who gave himself out under David Toddy. (19) She duly accepted the 19 Transcripts Page 93 Para 2 COURT: Okay. Stop. Yes. You got this invite on BBM. --- By the name David Toddy. By the name David Toddy? --- Correct, My Lord.

MR PIENAAR: Is it Toddy or Toddler?

COURT: Toddy. T o d d y? --- Correct, My Lord.

Mr Pienaar, Toddy, T o d d y.

MR PIENAAR: Thank you, My Lord.

COURT: David Toddy. --- Correct, My Lord.

Okay.

MS PERSAD: And then, what happened, Kayla? --- So, I accepted. Then, a couple of minutes later, his name changed to Dawie CEO or something. 14 13 This was disputed by the Defense Advocate when he asked Dion who told him about the rape. She denied the witness claim that she told him. Dion said Ravi informed him. I have to question this then; if the witness did not tell Dion, who told him? The witness said she only told Dion, yet Ravi reported this to Dion? The accused argued that there was a plot to frame him. The State and the Court dismissed those claims. The evidence (see below) clearly showed that Ravi pretended to be Dawie. It is not our opinion but proven through all the evidence. For this reason, we do not see the truth or accuracy in the witness’s testimony that the accused would only threaten her five days after the rape at a modelling class.

14 The witness testified and said she got a BBM invite from the accused. I find that strange that he will invite a person and then change it to his actual name. We can confirm that the accused had the same messages from a “Dawie Toddy” when a mother took screenshots from a Dawie Toddy asking her daughter for pussy pictures.

The mother immediately confronted the accused at the time this happened in 2013. At the exact moment when this took place, the accused was on a flight to Port Elizabeth PAGE 60 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

This David Toddy that you referred to, did you communicate with that person on BBM? --- I never, I did not. No. NOTES: ACCUSED • This was the states “witness” evidence to confirm Kayla’s version. The State used this to pin the accusations against me.

• I have a problem with Kayla’s “A few days later” She said in the previous point that we did not have any contact until 2013; here it is a few days later. So this again contradicts her entire version.

• We handed to the court intensive evidence to prove that the BBM PIN used in the messages between Kayla and me was, in fact, RAVI’s PIN. ~It was in black and white. There was a complete transcript handed in there. Kayla, Dion, and Ravi planned the plot of rape against me and that evidence was completely ignored by the Judge. We handed in; • Emails to agencies across the globe informing them about this very BBM Pin stealing people’s identities, • We handed in original copies of the messages that warned models against Ravi with that very BBM PIN. • We handed in original BBM messages with my pin showing that I was in PE at the time and had no communication with Kayla.

• We handed in all the BBM phones confirming the BBM PIN that Kayla referred to did not belong to me.

• The BBM messages were handed in with the same pin showing she was talking to Ravi.

The evidence we provided the court was overwhelming, yet it did not matter to the Judge. (confirmed). The accused asked the mother to save all those messages and verify the BBM pin. The mother did that and provided a copy of the messages to the accused.

They confirmed together that the BBM pin used was the BBM Pin of Ravi Raja, the same person who spoke to the witness with an identical profile when he asked Danica for pussy pictures. Those messages were handed in as evidence along with all the Blackberry devices and emails (see below) and it confirmed that the BBM used to address the witness was identical, and that is proof that it was not the accused who spoke with the witness. Further, the accused also handed in a transcript of BBM messages where DION, RAVI and the witness discuss how they will frame the accused.

All of the above evidence was ignored by the court.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 61

Page 29 Invitation and shortly thereafter observed that the name had changed to Dawie CEO…… Unfortunately, the witness was unable to remember further. 15 Identification details. [j] She did not have any BBM exchange with David Toddy. Dawie CEO… then wrote to her that he had not raped her but that they had made love. He then asked Kemp if they could do it again and asked her for pictures of her vagina. He further told Kemp that he had naked pictures of her and would post these on the internet if she did not send him the requested pictures. (20) She asked him what naked pictures he was talking about, and the accused did not respond. (21) She became scared and sent the BBM exchange to Dion, who informed her that she should not worry as the matter would be sorted out. (22) She thereafter deleted the accused as a BBM contact.

20 - Transcripts Page 94 COURT: Sorry. Just stop there. You said he said hi. And then?

--- My Lord, I cannot remember exactly word for word, but …[intervene] But, just give the court the thrust or the jest of it. --- He told me that he did not rape me. We made love and …[intervene] MS PERSAD: Okay. Stop, Kayla. Continue, Kayla. You said and? --- He told me that he did not rape me. We made love. Then, he asked me if we could do it again.

Then, he asked for some pictures.

COURT: Sorry.

MS PERSAD: What pictures, Kayla? Give me a minute before you answer that, Kayla. What pictures, Kayla? --- He asked me for pictures of my vagina. He told me that he has got naked pictures of me, as well.

Okay. Stop, Kayla. Yes, Kayla? --- He told me he has got naked pictures of me. If I do not send him pictures, he is going to post it on me.

COURT: Sorry. If you do not send him pictures, what is he going to do? --- He is going to post the naked pictures.

MS PERSAD: Okay. Stop. Yes, Kayla? --- So, I asked him, what naked pictures?

He did not answer me. Then, I got scared. Then, I told Deon about the BBM’s … [intervene] 16 15 The witness testified that she did not send the actual messages to the SAPS. Instead, she shared them with Dion. Dion made copies and handed ott to WO Banks.

The State, the witness and Dion could not explain how the messages from Ravi Raja got mixed up in between and how it was possible that Ravi Raja used the same BBM Pin as the messages from Dawie Toddy, later David CEO...

This is not making sense; we will break the concerns down. Dawie, out of the blue, sent the witness a BBM message 3 years after he raped her in 2013. This all happened in the same year that he got into a serious relationship, a deacon at his church, had PAGE 62 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

NOTES: ACCUSED This, to me, makes NO SENSE; • She got a BBM message from me, I assume in 2013, 3 years after the alleged rape! Without warning, I immediately say I did not rape her; we made love!

• Then I asked her if we could do it again, admitting to raping her in 2010??

• I then ask her for a photo of her virgina, yet I have naked photos of her already?

The question is, where was this evidence? When were these photos taken, and where were they taken? If I have photos of her naked already, why would I want her to send other photos and then threaten her to pose illegal naked photos of a child and complicate myself and my reputation?

• The messages were very specific and all out of the blue, yet in that same discussion, a message from the same Ravi got mixed up.

• Kayla did not produce the original copies, many of the messages were incomplete, and she admitted that those were all sent to DION. In addition, she did not have the phone where those messages were received and sent.

21 - Transcripts Page 94 Para 4 - COURT: pictures. He did not answer.

You say you asked him what naked

NOTES: ACCUSED • Kayla claimed that I admitted to rape in the BBM exchange, yet “I” could not answer which naked photos I had of her. a successful business, and coincidently, the same year Carte Blanche attacked him with these rape allegations, the police arrested him? Over and above all of the media slandering he daily faced from social media, which all was connected to Dion and Dominique, he still confirms that he raped the witness and made it like love-making. He then threatens her again by asking for photos of her vagina? Not only is the accused threatening her, but he also said he already has naked pictures, that is she is not going to send him any pictures, he will further incriminate himself by posting nude photos of the witness she does not even have an idea where he got it from or when he took it? This entire testimony stinks of all the lies! We are reading this because either the accused is highly dumb, or it is not him. I will go with it is not him. We agree 100% with the accused that he was set up and that the witness was, in fact, with proof and used as a pawn to frame the accused. We would love to have an open discussion with the Judge and ask him if he minds explaining and answering on camera under oath how he got to his conclusions and judgment that this witness did not lie, that she was consistent and precise? This witness is the exact opposite, the evidence is overwhelming, and nothing she testified about so far is clear or make sense.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 63

• If she were in the shoots where naked was taken, she would have known and not asked? If she did not take photos naked before, why did she GOT WORRIED and sent the messages to a stranger? It is because the BBM exchange was not between us, and it was just as confusing to her as it is to me. [k] She identified the BBM exchange between herself and the accused, which she had forwarded to Dion. The exchange mentioned above was provisionally handed in as Exhibit “D”. (21) 17 NOTES: ACCUSED These images you are seeing now was all handed in and the State was suppose to bring the original device. Also note that the quality is really bad, the set we gave had 2 sets of BBM Messages, the one from my BBM Phone, and these images with the BBM Pin exposed where we proved to the court that these messages was in fact the BBM’s of Ravi Raja.

This was one of the three messages where Kayla and Ravi spoke during the same time he pretended to be “DAVID” Danica ELLE Magazine.

21 – We handed the Judge a lot of evidence that the Judge chose not to mention, change, or add information that was not part of the trail Pienaar did not accept the authenticity of those messages – Page 102 para 2 MR PIENAAR: My Lord, I am going to, provisionally, it can be handed in. I am not admitting the authenticity of that.

17 Will Hearsay Evidence be admitted during my Proceedings? Before we can determine if they can use hearsay evidence during proceedings, is it essential to know what the meaning of hearsay evidence is: “Hearsay evidence” means evidence, whether oral or in writing, the probative value of which depends upon the credibility of any person other than the person giving such evidence. In this case, one can not argue that what the court did here was to accept that the Defense did not accept the authenticity of these BBM Messages. That made it more hearsay and was only accepted provided the State could give the original source. In essence, that did not happen, and this evidence remains unaccepted and should not or could not be used.

There are two ways to look at these BBM messages, and none of the two outcomes favours the State. The first is that it is evident that the accused did not send the BBM messages. That was proven beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be argued. The second is that the messages cannot be used as hearsay evidence are not accepted in any court. The court made that order when the Defense objected. On both those outcomes, the BBM messages are not favouring the State.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 69

THE ABOVE IMAGES WAS COLLECTED BY THE ACCUSED IN 2013 WHEN A MODEL INFORMED HIM ABOUT THIS SCAM. THIS IS WHERE THEY EXPOSED RAVI RAJA THE FIRST TIME. IT WAS NOT ONLY DISCOVERED BY THE ACCUSED BUT CONFIRMED IN AN EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN HIS AGENCY AND FORD MODELS IN THE UK.

SEE EMAILS BELOW

Dawie De Villiers (Group CEO) From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Dawie De Villiers - Group CEO <dawie@msagroup.co> 29 November 2012 08:24 AM 'nsmith@fordmanagement.com' Ford Models - Scam Adriana Ford Models.jpg

Importance: Sensitivity:

High Confidential

Good Morning Ford Models I hope this email will help us to clear the matter with urgency.

In the past week an “individual” with the name Adriana has services the Blackberry members inviting them from a BBM Pin: 274CE541. This person claim to be your senior booker and what he / she does is asking random girls for photos and it end up asking them for nude photos and then offers them contracts with FORD Modelling Agency and magazines like ELLE and so forth.

I was flying to the Port Elizabeth and a very strange thing happened. This same BBM Pin became me, people were invited by this individual as David from Modelling South Africa and then told models to delete my “OLD” pin due to the fact it is giving me issues and they need to accept the “NEW” pin. This all was brought to my attention by one of our models when I landed. I started to investigate the matter and approached our local Police organized crime unite and when we got hold of this person she was Adriana from Ford Models again. She claims to work for your UK branch and gave us websites and links which still does not proof this this person is under your employment? We need to know if you recognized the PIN, the person and if it was one of your employees who is doing this?

I also would like to ask you to please help us track down this person if it is not you and to confirm your findings on this matter to send us a letter in your company letterhead singed by your CEO please. We will hand such a letter to the authorities and media to stop this person making form models this massive scam and this will prevent both of us getting our names smothered by such a sick individual.

Please feel free to contact me directly to discuss this matter. I am the Chief Executive Director of Modelling South Africa (PTY) Ltd and also listed with Agencyfile and a client of CDS. Best Regards,

1

The Modelling Group (MSA) From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Chantel Cloete <chantel_cloete@yahoo.com> 28 November 2012 06:27 PM admin@msagroup.co adriana Screen_20121128_17209.jpg; Screen_20121128_17353.jpg; Screen_20121128_ 172025.jpg; Screen_20121128_172031.jpg; Screen_20121128_172116.jpg; Screen_ 20121128_173445.jpg; Screen_20121128_173452.jpg; _Certification_.htm

name:Adriana female email: booker@fordmodels.co.uk based in london uk she said this bbm pin 274ce541 is the agencies site pin where everybody adds them to find out more about ford models her work is based on lingerie models... she had a status update saying: what r people adding me for msa stuff??? i asked her who is msa she said people are adding me the want msa i have no cooking clue why people are posting our company pin from our site... i have a few screenshots of her profile and some of the things she replied on about what we chatted kind regards chantel....

1

[l] She spoke to one Sasha of Carte Blanche and confirmed that she had made a statement to the SAPS during 2013. She approached the investigating officer approximately two weeks later with a request to allow her to not continue with the matter, as she was in matric and wanted to complete her studies; she had a 2 – 3-month-old baby to take care of. (22) 22 - Transcripts Page 106 Para 2 - Yes, Madam …[intervene] And then, you spoke about it, and you said that you wanted to drop the charges because you were in matric and had a daughter. --- Yes. And I need to finish my studies. Yes. You need to finish your studies. So my question is, did you reduce that in writing into a statement for the SAPS? --- Yes, Madam. Okay. Thank you, Kayla.

18

NOTES: ACCUSED • Kayla did withdraw her charges exactly one month other the original statement was handed to Veronica (investigating officer) • Kayla was 16 or turning 17 when she had her child. She not once during her evidence made mention that she no longer trusts men or that she can’t do modelling further. Her main concern was that she couldn’t trust agencies – the problem is that I was not an agency when I met Kayla. So that again just proves that everything Kayla said was made-up. It was all fabricated. [m] During cross-examination, she stated that she had contacted Dion upon the recommendation of a friend (23) and, during her exchange with him, informed him that the accused had raped her and refused to provide her with her photographs. (24) 19 18 We are not sure what is the relevance here. We can take from this that the witness still had sex as a minor. Was the father of that child prosecuted for statutory rape? She did withdraw her charges against the accused (see statement below), yet the State refused her request.

19 Here the witness confirmed that she was in the disco shoot, yet she testified before the models arrived and long before the shoot. She did not mention a single thing about the actual shoot that evening. She made it clear that she left after the accused raped her. How is it possible she got to go to a “stranger” and tell him about the photos she did not get and the rape? This contradicts her testimony. The one cannot happen if the other did happen, so if she was raped, there could not be any disco shoot photos. If there were disco photos, she could not be raped, and everything she said was a lie. We have the photos, and it was the disco shoot; that’s undeniable, and for that, she did do the shoot and could not be raped. According to the judgment, I also need to point this out, and she is now calling Dion a stranger. Yet, the Defence’s BBM transcripts that were handed in as evidence show Dion, Kayla and Ravi comfortably discussing the plot against the accused? We need to ask, why is this court ignoring PAGE 76 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

23 - Cross-Examination Page 112 Para 3 - MR PIENAAR: Who was this friend you referred to? --- I cannot remember.

COURT: Sorry? --- I cannot remember.

MR PIENAAR: Well, I find that very difficult to believe, Ms Kemp. --- It was either Geraldine or Tanya. I cannot remember which one.

NOTES: ACCUSED • She said she could not remember who the friend was, and it was one of two other models, “Tanya or Geraldine.”

• She conveniently could not remember who told her about Dion, yet none of the two people came to testify to verify her evidence.

24 – Refer to Points 17 & 18 [n] She had observed that the accused had removed his shirt at the time when she returned from the bathroom before he raped her. She did not find this conduct strange as the accused usually removed his shirt during previous photoshoots. (30) 20 NOTES: ACCUSED • This is insane; Kayla admitted we only did the disco shoot, of which, according to her, rape allegations could not have taken place. The reason why this is a false statement is that; • It would have been the first shoot with Kayla.

• She was in no other shoots to observe me without a shirt.

• The Judge mentioned “SHOOTS” plural, which means there were more than one, and yet there is not one photo to prove that there were any other official shoots where I took Kayla’s photos.

• She subsequently unilaterally disclosed that she had a sexual relationship with the accused on two previous occasions, before the rape. (31) She felt obligated such substantial evidence?

20 This statement made by the witness is widely speculative. We took this point and assessed the number of photo shoots the witness did with the accused to find if he did remove his shirt during shoots. (a) The witness started in June 2010, and Dieter took one Studio photo (not a shoot) of the witness for her membership profile.

Then the accused did the only shoot with the witness, the disco shoot. The witness’s only other shoot was the camp’s calendar shoot, which was not done by the accused.

This makes her accusation that it was not weird for her to see him without a shirt is a total lie. There is no proof, not in the transcripts, and not in all the photos we looked at. This never happened, and this is proof that the witness made this up to justify her lie about the rape.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 77

Message between Kayla and Ravi, rest of discussion missing. This was handed is as message chain betwen the “Accused” and Kayla

The Rest of the messages is between the “Accused” and Kayla. This evidence was only provisionally accepted provided the original device or messages can be produced, manae messages in the chain was un accounted for. (This was the State’s Evidence)

PAGE 78 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

Above are more BBM Messages that was slipped in during Kayla’s testimony, she could not explain why they were in between these messages.

to engage in consensual intercourse with the accused during August 2010, as her mother was unable to pay fees, and the accused had said that he would sponsor her. (32) 32 - Cross-Examination – Page 183 & 184 - You have no idea what is, why he is doing this. --- No. Am I correct …[intervene] --- At the time …[intervene] You had no idea, at that time, why he was doing this. --- It was probably because he said he would sponsor all my photoshoots and stuff. Of course, he did not, or he did, but maybe this was like payback.

COURT: Sorry. Just repeat that? You said no idea; what was your question, Mr Pienaar? No idea why he was doing this?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, My Lord.

COURT: And what is your response thereto? You said something about payback.

--- My mom could not afford us to do modelling, and Dawie said, do not worry. He will sponsor me. Maybe this was like payback because we did not pay him any money.

You say so maybe this was payback, or so this was payback. What is your response? Did you say your mom could not afford fees and did not pay any money, so? --- Dawie said he would sponsor me …[intervene] Yes …[intervene] --- So, maybe this was like payback.

MR PIENAAR: Why do you say it is payback if he, according to you, you said he would sponsor you? Payback for what? For not paying the money? --- No. I do not mean it like that. It is just, and now he has got an advantage over me.

There was no discussion about your contract or sponsoring or anything like that when you joined him on the couch? --- No. Alright. So, now this happens, and you think this is payback. Did you ask him, why are you doing this? --- Yes. He said he was going to do what was right. 21 NOTES: ACCUSED • There is so much wrong, and this is hearsay, said she THINKS it’s probably payback. The issue here is she was a student, and the agreement with payments was between her mom and I.; • She started in Middle July 2010 • If they didn’t pay, it would have been for only the month of August.

• There was never a discussion between Kayla and me about her August fee not being paid.

• She then said it was not about the money, but I have an advantage over her – THIS 21 This is hearsay, and the witness is talking about a payment that was not discussed with her. There was no corroboration from the witness mother confirming this. This has no meaning, and the court should not have accepted hearsay.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 83

DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! [p] She admitted that she had lied when she testified that she was a virgin at the time of the rape as she was very scared;(33)* further that she did not want the SAPS to pry further into this matter and wanted to withdraw the matter as she was desirous to focus on her studies and her daughter. She admitted that she should have told the truth from the beginning. However, she stated that she was a virgin when the accused first had sexual intercourse with her. (34) 22 34. Cross-Examination Page 212 Para 4 - I am sorry to ask you this. But, at the time of this intercourse, were you still a virgin? --- Yes. Did you sustain any injuries during the intercourse? --- No. So, I take it that you never went to see a doctor or consult a doctor after this?

--- No. 23 NOTES: ACCUSED • She lied blatantly about this, which means the person who had a sexual relationship with her “SPIROS”, which at that time I believe was older than me, was sleeping with a minor and the State did nothing about this; 22 We are astonished by the justification and acceptance of her consistent lies.

If you can hide and lie about that, you can and will lie about anything or everything else. There is a thing called the cautionary rule for single witnesses. The witness was a single witness, and with no caution, the court considered that she had no one testifying what she said was true about anything she said. When witnesses were asked about what she said, Dion, the WO and Yolandi testified against the witness, although all three were State witnesses. She is ongoing spreading rumours, using hearsay and lie, yet the court said she was concise and could not find any reason why she would lie? This is shocking! If we look at this witness, we see the following; she was sexually active before she met the accused. She and the boyfriend had sex and asked the accused to assist them in thinking she could be pregnant. She then accuses the Accused of rape and later a sexual relationship; after that, while in school, she still shows the sexual activity as a minor and fall pregnant while in school, and the State and court see her as the victim here? We cannot overlook her character, not her behaviour. She is a compulsive liar. She is not honest to the SAPS, the State or the Court, she admits to making things up (lies), and her story she is telling does not add up, and with all of that, the accused supply evidence proving that he was in no discussion with the witness about the rape or anything related to sex. All of that, and the court could not find any reason to think just maybe she is lying?

23 No DNA or Rape kit = No physical proof of rape. The Defense Advocate did ask the witness if she reported the rape and her excuse was she was scared her mom was going to stop her modelling. That does not sound like a person that was traumatized by rape.

PAGE 84 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

• The State ignored this, yet used the excuse for lying under oath in court because she was scared.

• She said we before the rape had a sexual relationship; what was she scared of then? This is nothing more than an excuse for the court to make her version believable, although all she did was lie in court, changing her story every time she was caught out.

• The court justifies her lies and ignores the facts and evidence left by the defence. [q] She was adamant that the accused had sent her the BBM messages and denied the allegation that she was a pawn in a game that was being played by Ravi Rajah and Dion against the accused. (35) Further, that only the accused knew that it had to be the accused who sent her the BBM messages as he was the only one who knew that they had sexual intercourse at his house, as stated on the last page of Exhibit “D”.

(36) 35 & 36 Cross-Examination Page 255 Para 2 - So, what I want to put to you, Ms Kemp, is that you are merely a pawn in a game that other people are playing against Dawie. That is what I am putting to you. What is your response?

--I do not understand. You are being used, by other people, to frame Dawie.

NOTES: ACCUSED • Kayla knew that those BBM messages did not come from me; she spoke to Ravi simultaneously; the State gave a message from Ravi to Kayla with the messages they claimed to be from me by accident. So, Kayla, Ravi and Deon, as per the evidence handed in, showed they were, in fact, discussing how they were going to frame me, that the details were not that I could be the only one knowing about it.

Still, the person pretending to me knew exactly everything about this. [r] She stated that the consensual intercourse took place at the accused’s house before the camp the models attended at De Rus (37) and that the rape had taken a week after the camp mentioned above. (38) She stated that she felt disgusted with the accused after the consensual intercourse and felt like a prostitute. (39) 36. Cross-Examination Page 283 Para 1 MR PIENAAR: Thank you, My Lord.

COURT: And where did the, where did this relation take place? --- In his house. (a) Can you recall the day or the date of the month? --- No. I cannot.

Sorry? I did not hear you. --- No. I cannot.

Is there any reason why you cannot recall the day, date, or month when this took place? --- No. (b) The second time, when was the second time that you had consensual intercourse De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 85

with the accused? --- In his house. (c) When was this? before camp. His kids were there. (d) 24 NOTES: ACCUSED This is very important to note;

---

Also almost, just

She said we had a sexual relationship, yet she cannot remember when or where we had sex. In her chief evidence, she said we had a sexual relationship with me when I offered to sponsor her; Cross-Examination Page 282 Para 1 - Now, did you, shall I ask you, when did this sexual relationship start with the accused? --- When he offered to sponsor me.

Sorry? --- When he offered to sponsor me. And when was this? --- It started in about August.

24 TThis is another example of selected memory loss. The witness states that there was sexual intercourse with the accused at his house. The Defense Advocate questioned her and asked her when this took place. She cant remember. Then it was also not the first time, and she testified there was also a second time. This, according to her, happened just before the camp in August? There was no camp until February 2011. Here are the things the court is not considering: The rape, according to her, was at the start of September 2010, she only joined the classes in late July 2010, and within one month, she now claimed they had a sexual relationship to pay for her modelling classes. After enjoying sex without force, the accused asked her to shoot where he decided then to rape her because, according to the witness, his reason was that it was the right thing to do.

I have to ask, why did he not then keep on having a sexual relationship, much more minor issues...Why the trouble of raping someone that's already giving you the pleasure of sex willingly? She then makes one massive mistake, and she claims that this relationship happened at his house, knowing he is a single parent assuming there will be no witnesses to her mad lies. She is accusing him of having this relationship is not his, and it is also not any residence. It is his parents, and it is a home-based business with staff. There was no explanation given how the accused managed to get to his parent's house, nor could she remember what the house looked like inside. All that meant was that she never went into his parent's house, as the accused parents testified it. The witness made vivid accusations where they had sex. When she got tested on that, she changed and suddenly corrected her claims, and on that got caught out again lying. She claimed there was a couch in his bedroom. When the Defense proved that she was lying, she changed her version to say it was a couch in the living room, and she just could not remember where the most prominent place in the house was. This is causing more doubt that the witness spoke the truth about anything.

There was no evidence that this was true. It was a big lie!

PAGE 86 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

NOTES: ACCUSED • Again the timing is a problem; I only met her in July of 2010; within a few weeks, we had a sexual relationship as payback because she could not pay her fees. The fees were not discussed, her mom never came to testify to affirm the evidence.

• Just after Pienaar pushed her, she blatantly forgot when we had this sexual intercourse; She then made a big mistake as she could not keep track of her lies; She said the second time we slept together was a few days before the camp, which was six months AFTER the alleged rape.

• She gave her evidence and said the rape took place two weeks after the camp where the relationship was before the rape. Therefore, neither the rape nor this absurd sexual relationship took place.

• The State and Judge made a big mistake; Kayla said we slept together at my house, it was not my house; she later admitted it was the house opposite the sports grounds which belonged to my parents. Here are the problems the State and Judge ignored • Kayla and I must have had sex during the week between 8 and 2, the same time she was in school and before my brothers came home. How did she get to me during school? I did not have a car?

• My parents were working from home, and they had never seen Kayla before. The domestic and my grandmother were at the house all the time. They never saw me with any girl, as my dad did not allow that.

• If it were, on the weekend, they would have met her then, and they had seen Kayla before.

• My stepmom testified that Kayla never put as much as a foot in their yard.

• Kayla could not remember where the room was; she was tested and could not remember anything of the house.

• There was no sexual relationship, no rape and everything Kayla told the court contradicted. She told the court that the Investigator lied to the court; she said DION lied about who told him about the rape. She admitted to Advocate Pienaar that she indeed is lying and making things up on many occasions. She could not remember things where she was caught out lying. She could not tell her left from her right; she did not bring one witness to court to bring any evidence to prove what she told the court. [s] She did not confide in her cousin about the sexual relationship she had with the accused as she was afraid that her mother would find out and further that her mother had not known that she was having sexual intercourse with the accused. (40) Further, De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 87

she did not divulge this fact to the investigating officer as she was disgusted with herself and scared to have divulged this fact to the State Council. (41) NOTES: ACCUSED • 40 – 41. These statements prove that Kayla, from the days of telling Dion, Ravi, Dominique, the state advocate, Sasha from Carte Blanche, was lying and in court making stuff up. It was not in her statements, not in her chief evidence; it only came about when Pienaar caught her lying about her being a virgin and when we requested my laptop to prove the Disco Shoot photos. [t] She stated the only reason she made such disclosure during her crossexamination was that the defence had requested the accused’s laptop computer. She was afraid that they would have found something relating to her consensual sexual relationship with the accused if he had made a recording thereof. (42) Cross-Examination Page 287 Para 1 - Because I was scared they would find something on the laptop, in case Dawie recorded it.

What do you mean by this response that you were scared that they would find something on the laptop? What do you mean by this?

--Because they were asking for the laptops, I was scared Dawie recorded us having sex. It would be on his laptop.

Now, it was put to you, during cross-examination, that, and perhaps listen carefully to this question. That may be, you are being used, in this particular matter, to come and falsely implicate the accused. What do you have to say about that? --No. 25 25 The witness gave herself away, claiming that she was scared that the accused recorded him having sex with a minor? This does not make sense. Why would the accused incriminate himself by recording himself having sex with someone he should not have sex with. We looked at the context and cannot agree with the Court. The witness knew that they never had sex, and that way, no recording was possible. The only logical explanation was that she knew that the Defense had evidence to prove her lies, and she got scared and wanted to change her rape to consensual sex. It was a way to mitigate her lies. That did not work out well for the witness. The State Advocate and the Court are ignoring that the State would have found evidence against the accused if there were any naked photos or sex videos of the witness and the accused.

The SAPS and the State were well aware of that fact. Yet, the State Advocate still argues that the witness lied because she was scared of something the State knew did not exist? This argument offers nothing more than proof that the Court, ongoing accepted the witness lies and, every time justify it and made excuses on her behalf.

Should judges not be unbiased?

PAGE 88 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

NOTES: ACCUSED • This again has no basis for accepting Kayla’s lies referring to the “Sexual Relationship.”

• The police were investigating my laptops for anything related to child pornography.

The State did not find anything related to Kayla on my laptop. The request was made in court. Kayla was not scared because of potential sex tapes as there was none to start with; she was scared because she did not know what to accept and when Pienaar questioned her on that, she got scared and was caught out and immediately made up that we had consensual sex and that all before the rape to justify her claims for the reason why we had sex. [u] She appeared on Carte Blanche because she felt pressured to do so and was afraid for the matter to have been reported to the SAPS. She subsequently spoke to the investigating officer and gave them a short version of the events so that they could leave. (43) NOTES: ACCUSED This is proof that the court used every excuse to justify Kayla’s shortcomings and lies. This is proof that there were doubts and that the State could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am guilty of rape. [v] She was adamant that she was telling the truth relating to the two previous consensual sexual encounters with the accused and the rape. She stated that she felt disgusted after the rape and felt lost and let herself go. She further realised that her mother was correct and that she should have listened to her and not started modelling classes. 26 [w] She explained that she had cried through most of her testimony, as it was an emotional struggle from the very first day as the accused had promised her a modelling career, which never materialised. (44) She felt disgusted with herself as she viewed herself as a prostitute on the basis that she had consented to sexual intercourse with the accused on the two occasions, as he was sponsoring her(45) 27 26 TThis has no meaning!! Her opinion does not overpower testimony and evidence. She, not the State, did not prove a sexual relationship.

27 Okay we took it upon us to look at her modelling background, the length of her career, including her achievements as a model to establish any promise where she can get to as a successful model. All this happened within the first two months of her modelling career. She has no previous experience, and she is only a started, still doing classes and not qualified as a professional model. Her excuse for crying in court was not because she was raped, her reason was all about the disappointment of a broken promise, yet she managed to be in a calendar? She claimed that she was not upset about the hurt or suffering caused by the rape, and she was more concerned about her modelling career. Again we did a bit of digging, and the witness did not stop De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 89

44. Cross-Examination Page 296 Para 1 - Sorry. Hold on. It has been an emotional struggle from day one; why? --- Because Dawie promised me a modelling career, and it never happened. I am disgusted that I even had a sexual relationship with Dawie. I am disgusted that I should have spoken up earlier about the rape. But I did not. It is just, for me, it is degrading to know that I am a mother, and I am sitting here, in this court, trying to explain myself. So you say it is an emotional struggle from day one because the accused promised me a modelling career, and it never happened.

NOTES: ACCUSED • To Kayla, the only thing that she was upset about was that she was not successful in her modelling career and blamed me for it.

• She did not distrust men, or could not keep a boyfriend, had a bad relationship with her dad or other men. However, she could still put blind trust in other photographers, pose in shoots at a young age that was very provocative and have children while in school, yet the only thing to her through all of this was she was upset because I did not make her successful!! I did apparently not keep my promise. [x] She stated that she had attended counselling and was not forced to testify against the accused. 28 THAT, IN ESSENCE, CONCLUDED THE EVIDENCE OF THE 4TH WITNESS, her modelling after she parted from the accused. She did modelling with Tania and Ravi, who used the accused identity to incriminate the accused for rape. She again lied!

28 Before I get to the Defense Evidence, we are well aware of what we call here the RED LINE Test; let me explain. The State witness gives her testimony. That is what we call the red line or first proof. Every time a witness makes a statement, it builds on the foundation of the case. The more proof is given, the stronger the foundation gets, as soon as the Defense testify that the red line is the test. The more the Defense give more robust or more substantial evidence, the weaker the foundation of the State witness gets until either the foundation gives in or the foundation stand. Just by assessing and investigating the State witness Chief Testimony, the witnesses and their testimony’s and the cross-examination the State witness foundation gave in, we have not even discussed the Defense testimony yet. It is already as clear as daylight that this rape charge has no merit and that nothing is proving that the accused is guilty of this charge. It is quite the opposite. The witness perjured herself repeatedly, and according to the court, she is reliable? Anyone with half a brain cell can tell that there is no rape. Sadly, an innocent man was convicted and sentenced to a life sentence. As an organization, we will reach out to every person tried by Acting Judge Cassim Moosa to assess if he usually punishes people on weak cases like this. We will make all of our findings available to the public, media and authorities. The Chief Justice should review this case and remove Acting Judge CasimMoosa from the court immediately.

PAGE 90 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

KEMP. KAYLA KEMP – DEFENCE EVIDENCE – JUDGMENT PAGE 87 Counts 3 and 4 (Kayla Kemp): Kemp joined Model Talent Coaching Academy on 24 July 2010 and attended Tuesday and Thursday evenings classes. (1) The first and only photoshoot she had done at Aston House was after classes on 02 September 2010. (2) The shoot, together with other models, commenced at 19h15 and ended at 20h20. (3) He denied that a smoke machine was used during the shoot—the defence handed in exhibits NN1 and NN2. The exhibits mentioned above are of Kemp and indicate that the files were created and modified on 24 July 2010. (4) 29 NOTES: ACCUSED

1. Kayla did confirm this.

2. I will attach the photo with the metadata.

3. The photos prove that there was no smoke machine or disco lights in the photos to prove Kayla’s version. This does prove that she is lying and that the rape never took place. 4. The Judge said that the photos were CREATED AND MODIFIED on 24 July 2010. This is factually false. a.

The dates on the image are as follow; i.

Created: (Date it was saved on my computer) 05 October 2010 ii.

Modified: (Date the photos were taken, when the camera was used and modified (made) the image and stored it on the memory card. 02 September 2010 29 The court is incorrectly stating the evidence here. We also had a look at the evidence and the explanation on the metadata. It does not make sense for a shoot to occur two months before the actual shoot. Both the witness and the accused confirmed what happened on the 2nd of September 2010. The facts are on the evidence that was handed in and displayed uncontested. According to the photo’s meta-data, the word CREATED refers to the date it was inserted into a computed and saved on another drive. The SLR camera uses an SD card. When the photo is taken, the camera store (modify) a picture and save it on the SD Card. That is the time and date of the shoot, and this is not “modified” data outside the function of the camera. The date on the meta-data confirms the shoot date, an undisputed fact. The ACCESS date changes when you open the photos. It is a usage trace data function. This was thoroughly explained and not disputed during the accused testimony. The court makes a bold incorrect claim that the meta-data was tampered with. The court failed to mention that when the accused got access to this information (photos), it was done in court in front of the SAPS, the State Advocate and Clerk of the Court. There was no tampering, the State did not make such an argument, and the court accepted that evidence.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 91

iii.

Accessed: Was when we were in court saving it to a CD.

• The Judge made this statement up—the transcript where the CD with the photos of Kayla is not available. Pienaar specifically dealt with the authenticity of the photos and the metadata where it was explained to the court, and there was no objection by the State or court. So the Judge is implicating that we changed the metadata, and there is no proof of this. I have it in hard copy, and there is NO DATE of JULY on the Disco Shoot Photos as stated by the Judge. He did that to satisfy Kayla’s version; he had no intention to be fair and acknowledge the evidence as all parties accepted it.

He denied that he wrote the messages contained in Exhibit “D”. He denied that the BBM pin belonged to him. He stated that his BBM pin at the time was 2A8377B7 and not 274CE541 as per the documents handed in by the defence. He denied that the BBM pin in Exhibits H1, H2, H2 (b), H2 (c), H2 (d), H2 (e) and H4 were his. He confirmed that the pin on Exhibit H2 (a) belonged to him. In addition, he denied writing the messages as contained in the Exhibits mentioned above. (5) 30 NOTES: ACCUSED 5.The BBM Pin 274CE541 is proven that belong to RAVI, not me. The evidence was overwhelming and not dealt with by the Judge. We gave emails, letters, posts on social media to prove that my profile was cloned years before I knew that it would be used in court. This was all dismissed, yet the Judge accepted and used evidence that was not accepted by my council. The court again had no intention to apply the real evidence to satisfy the evidence given to the court, yet leave it out on purpose to satisfy Kayla’s accusations. [x] He confirmed that he was the author of Exhibit “OO”, was handed in by the defence.

In essence, informing the recipients that someone had copied his profile picture and 30 The Court is correct, that was a fact, yet to the Court, it meant nothing. The difference here is that the witness did not have the originals that the State advocate used. The accused had his own set with the exact same name display with his own BBM profile and pin and that of the fake profile and pin. Again that was not the only proof, and the Defense gave over 200 documents and emails confirming their evidence. We managed to get some of them. It is undeniably shocking to see the Court ignore such strong evidence to dismiss the evidence of the accused to accept a single witness word despite all the inconsistencies, lies, inaccurate dates, times, places and no one to corroborate her version. The Court further ignored that the State’s witnesses said that this witness was lying, she admitted to lying to the judge and everyone else during her time in the witness stand, yet the COURT took the word of a single witness above all else.

PAGE 92 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

status. Further informing them, inter alia, that “ I will be back in JHB on Wednesday and the mother, model and myself will open a case at the SAPS as we already found out who this person is and get him arrested…..”. In addition, he wrote an email to Ford Models requesting information regarding the information of the individual who had given out that she worked for the modelling mentioned above agency. The defence handed a copy of the email as Exhibit “PP”. He confirmed that Denika Bischoff was one of his models but denied being a finalist in Elle Magazine. (6) 31 NOTES: ACCUSED 6. The Judge mentioned the exhibit and handed in the evidence; he does not deal with it where it is clear that the above mentioned BBM did belong to Ravi and not me; it is the point I am making in point 5 above. [y] He denied that he ever had consensual sexual intercourse with Kemp (7) and further denied the allegation that he raped her. He stated that the allegation of Kemp that he had consensual intercourse with her at his residence is false. In support thereof, he stated that his parents never allowed him to take girlfriends home, and there was always someone at home. (8) He admitted that he gave her a morning-after pill, but that had nothing to do with the rape. It dealt with another discussion that he had with Kemp. (9) 32 NOTES: ACCUSED • 7 – 8. My stepmother did testify that this is true. Unfortunately, I do not have any transcripts to account for what was said and the questions asked. I have the house plan presented to Kayla, where she could not even point out the room where she claimed we had sex.

• I have pointed out with evidence why this never took place, and it is Kayla’s testimony that contradicts her evidence.

9 . See Point 11 [z] During cross-examination, he admitted a ploy by Ravi Rajah and Van Wyk to taint his reputation. Further that this plot might extend to other persons besides Kemp.

(10) It was put to him that this fact was not put to the witness Van Wyk during his 31 Again these are factual documentary evidence, and they cannot be disputed. It was not argued nor dismissed. So why is the Court mentioning it, yet ignoring it, same as point 30?

32 Again these are facts with witnesses corroborating his evidence. It has merit.

The Defense does not have to prove themselves to be innocent, the State has the onus to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and all we have seen so far is doubt from the witness, not the accused. His evidence is overpowering the witness in all regards to her accusations.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 93

cross-examination. (11) 33 NOTES: ACCUSED 10 – Pienaar did put this to Kayla; • We gave overwhelming evidence to prove that Kayla, Dion and Ravi sat behind this as they all were part of the plot against me that Dominique started.

• 11. This is false, it was put to Dion, and the Judge confirmed it. I will highlight this in the transcripts of Van Wyk. [dd] He was unable to provide any explanation as to why the contents of Exhibit “LL” were never put to Kemp (12) during her cross-examination. He confirmed that he had joked with Kemp in the presence of her mother and step-dad. He confirmed that he enjoyed a good relationship with Kemp and was friends on Facebook. He was adamant that she was lying to the court when she testified about the incident where he put his hand in her pubic area. He concluded that she has only come to lie because she has been motivated by Carte Blanche. In addition, they added that she had come to court to fabricate a version against him and did not know what she would gain by making such allegations against him.

NOTES: ACCUSED • 12 – This is not Kemp; this relates to Claudia 34 Judgement [43] On counts 3 and 4, Kemp was a single witness who testified regarding the events of that day. This witness was highly emotional during her testimony regarding the fact that the accused had unlawfully and intentionally sexually penetrated her without her consent. (A) During her cross-examination, this witness admitted that she had engaged in consensual intercourse on two previous occasions with the accused.

(B) Her mother was unable to pay the modelling fees to the accused, and she provided the sexual favour as a means of payment to the accused. (C) NOTES: ACCUSED 33 It is not speculation. There was a full transcript handed in as an Exhibit with proof of the lot, it was clear who the three people were who had that discussion before the rape allegation, and the three people, according to records was Dion, Ravi and Kayla. This is not hearsay, and this is not the accused’s opinion. This is in a verified document as part of the evidence in court. Facts are facts!

34 The accused is accurately stating that this has no relevance to charge 3.

PAGE 94 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

• She testified about a meeting with the accused the following day wherein he gave her a morning-after pill. (D) She did not communicate with the accused again until 2013. (E) During such BBM exchange, the accused said that he did not rape her and made love to her. (E) She was adamant that he had raped her. In addition, he asked her to have a relationship with him and for pictures of her vagina. (F) The accused has a bare denial of these allegations and is adamant that this witness is just a pawn in the game of her handlers. (G) However, this allegation was never put to this witness during her cross-examination. (H) Kemp stated that the BBM message clearly shows that it was the accused who could be the only one who wrote such a message as the matters were within his direct knowledge. (I) This witness did not immediately report this matter to anyone but subsequently did so to Van Wyk (J) and later to Louw and Carte Blanche. I duly take cognizance of this fact when appraising the totality of her evidence. This witness gave her evidence in a clear and concise (K) manner and had due regard to the nature of the allegations and her relative youthfulness at the time of the commission of the offences. One cannot unduly criticise her evidence. (L) This witness did not exhibit any bias towards the accused when she testified during these proceedings.

I pause to mention that Kemp persisted with her allegation of rape against the accused from the start and subjected herself to undue criticism, ridicule and all the other negative elements that go with the complaint of rape. She appeared to be resolute in her allegations against the accused. (M) 35 NOTES: ACCUSED The Court is wrong in all aspects of that judgment. We have independently pointed out and shown that the Court made an incorrect judgment through this report. This witness was not clear, and she was not concise. She was only emotional due to anger and disappointment in her modelling career. This witness had no regard for the truth; she lied and made things up. She was everything but resolute. This witness had no backing in any of her accusations; everything the State used, e.g. the BBM messages, was proven to be from Ravi and not the accused.

The Court was so caught up with her tears that it clogged up his ability to judge this case on merit and truth. He is so distorted by the media that he had to make false statements, misinterpret and voice facts based on the evidence presented by the Defense. This Court had no interest to give the Accused the benefit of the doubt despite his accurate and consistent version and evidence. We have studied the Leave to Appeal. It was also evident that this Judge has no concern for the proof and truth.

He hides behind his power and authority to dismiss the Accused and remove an opportunity to voice all these findings in a court that would overturn his judgment. Is that maybe why the DEFENSE entire court record also disappointing?

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 95

• A. I have provided a lot of evidence that prove Kayla could not have been raped or had sex without her consent.

• The main fact remains that her evidence contradicts her time and placing of the alleged rape, the camp, the disco shoot, the photos, and BBM messages, her first reporting and no eyewitnesses, no DNA evidence and no collaboration of any witness she mentioned.

• B. See Notes from State and Cross-examination • C. See Point 32 • D. There was no evidence led by the State or Kayla that I met Kayla the next day to give her a morning-after pill; she said it was given to her at the next modelling class, which was the next Tuesday, five days later.

• E. See Point 15 • F. See point 19 • G. See points 34 – 36 • H. It was put to Kayla, and the Judge still explained it. See Point 34 to 36 • I. See point 19 • J. Van Wyk said she did not tell him, Ravi told him. She said her cousin could have told Ravi, but she never told her because she was scared, another contradiction and lie.

• K. The Judge said Kayla’s evidence was clear and concise.

• a. Clear Evidence (Kayla was nowhere near clear or reliable.)

CLEAR EVIDENCE THELAW.COM LAW DICTIONARY & BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 2ND ED. Evidence that is clear, unambiguous, relevant, and reliable proves something beyond a shadow of a doubt.

• b. Concise - giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive. (Kayla was not concise, she kept on forgetting, changing and lying PAGE 96 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

about her evidence) • L. For the court to say he cannot criticise Kayla’s evidence after all the contradictions, lies and memory loss where she was caught out lying is prove that the Judge had no longer the interest of justice in interest, rather the sensation of persecuting me and imprisoning me to make a point out of me as stated in the Judgment.

• M. This statement is shocking – Resolute - firmly resolved or determined; set in purpose or opinion. She did not want to proceed with the charges. She was scared she would be caught out lying. I do not see how the court could come to this at all!!

LIES NOT MENTIONED IN THE JUDGMENT 36 NOTES: ACCUSED 1. Page 175 – Said she had to walk around in her bra in the studio if she tells her mother she will let her stop her from doing modelling, that it is okay of the other people see her it will not be the first time. 37 2. Page 176 – She asked her uncle to bring her to the academy because her mother did not have a car; that is false; her mother drove a Ford. Her uncle was never at the studio. Then she said she could not ask her uncle to bring the bikini because they were not close – this uncle did not have a name, nor did the State call him to testify. She also said that her father picked her up, so they don’t have a car, yet he had a car to pick her up after the rape, yet her uncle 38 must bring her to the studio.

3. Page 178 - She blames the BRA for the rape; it is because of the BRA that I alleged raped her. If she had only walked in a bikini top, the rape would not have happened. 39 4. Page 179 – She claimed her UPPER body was bent over the armrest of the couch, this while I held her TWO hands with my ONE hand and with that position still managed to get a condom out of my pocket, put it on with ONE HAND and rape her. The court did not mention that if I had a condom in my pocket, the rape must have been planned? So why would I walk with a condom in my pants pocket? 40 5. Page 182 – She said while I pushed her upper body over the armrest holding both 36 The accused took the time to study the judgment in preparation for his Leave to Appeal; based on this, we will not verify his claims to see how accurate he was with his argument all along.

37 Fact, but more importantly hearsay.

38 FACT, FACT FACT - well observed.

39 Fact, but more importantly hearsay. She did not provide the court with the bra or a description of it, not was there any photos of her in a bra.

40 FACT De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 97

her hands above her head, I unbutton my shorts, I took out a condom, I opened the condom with my teeth, put the condom on my penis with my one hand and she still could not get up. 41 6. Page 183 - Pienaar caught her making up the lie that the music was loud; Pienaar put it to her that she is making up lies, and she agrees. 42 7. Page 184 – Pienaar asked her if she asked me why am I raping her; she said I said I was doing what was right; Pienaar asked her if she asked me what I meant by that, she said she did not think about that! 43 8. Page 185 – She said she arrived late afternoon; when she left, it was dark; during her chief testimony, she said she left early, as I have demonstrated regarding the time 44 frame of the alleged rape 9. Page 185 – She claimed that she could not scream for help because no one was working, then when she was questioned, she changed her answer and said she THINK no one was working. It was a normal work weekday. The Guards are there 24 hours a day. 45 10. Page 186 – Pienaar said that the guards could have heard her scream, she said no they are too far, yet Pienaar put it to her it is not even 20 meters, she claimed to her that it is still far. 46 11. Page 187 – 188 Kayla is explaining how I held her hands; she could not wiggle both her hands out of my one hand because to her I had a strong grip, with the other hand, I unbutton my pants while lying on top of her legs, still holding both hands above her head getting my pants to my ankles. She could not remember if I had underpants on through all of that. She could not kick me off as I was lying on top of her legs. 47 12. Page 188 – She realised that this did not make sense; she changed her story and said I pushed her calf down with my foot. In that impossible position, I still managed to push my pants down to my ankles. 48 13. Page 189 – She was asked if I was standing or lying next to her; she adamantly said I was lying semi over her; basically, I was pressing her legs (calf) down with my one foot, my body next to her body while I am holding both her hands above her head whiles her upper body is bent over the couch. I still managed while all 41 Fact, her argument was not proven.

42 FACT 43 Fact, she had no answer because she was not raped.

44 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

45 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

46 Fact, her opinion does not matter, facts do.

47 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

48 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie. That is not remotely possible to do, and you cannot have your one hand above the head of a person and with your other hand without losing the other hand to reach your ankle.

PAGE 98 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

this took place to use my other hand and get my pants loose and right down to my ankles. “This is impossible.” 49 14. Page 192 – Kayla choked, asked for two minutes as she realised it no longer made sense. 50 15. Page 193 – She now testified that my body was NEXT to hers while in the position as mentioned above. She said my chest was facing her. I will break this down. I am lying now on my side; while lying on my side, I am still holding both her hands above her head with her upper body over the armrest, which means her lower body must be next to my chest, which makes my arms extremely bendable and long, with that I took a condom out of my pocket, unbutton my pants and pushed it to my ankles. This all happens whiles holding both her hands. 51 16. Page 194 is a massive contradiction; she said I am lying next to her, yet my pants fall to the ground. 52 17. Page 196 – Pienaar put it to Kayla that what she was saying was impossible; Kayla’s response was, “That is what happened” 53 18. Page 199 – She explained I used my right hand to hold both her hands – I am right-handed. She said while I was lying next to her on my right side next to her I used my left hand (weak hand) to put on the condom while my right hand was still stretched out above her holding her down. There are two very difficult scenarios here; (a)If I lay on the left of her body, I must have lied down on my right hand, which must be bent over an armrest; it is physically impossible to hold a person down like that, my left hand would be free to move, but the problem is it was my weak hand, and my body was against her body, I had to adjust myself to get my penis into a position to put a condom on. So this is why Pienaar said it is impossible. (b)If I were on her right-hand side, holding her hands above her head with my right hand, it would mean I am now lying on my left arm, which too will completely make it impossible to do any of the things she described. (c) She was trying to create an aggravating scenario that would sound like rape. If there was any sex, this could not have been done, making her rape claim even weaker.

The fact remains, her evidence already demonstrated that she did not leave, she never got picked up from her dad, and the day went on as normal where she didthe photo shoot, and no rape or sex took place 54 19. Page 207 – Pienaar questioned her and asked if she saw my penis; she 49 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

50 We cant agree nor deny. We did not see the witness in court 51 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

52 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

53 Fact, Defense advocate was making a stand, not asking for an opinion, and based on the response from the witness it is clear she was lying.

54 FACT, we tested these scenarios and he accessed is dead accurate in his assessment.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 99

said yes as I rolled the condom over my penis. He asked her very specifically if she saw anything unique about my penis, like a mark or 55 anything, she said NO! 20. Page 208 – This is yet another impossible position – Half her body was over the armrest, which means that her buttocks must be close to the armrest, the armrest is in a higher position, she was on the couch, which means her bum and legs was flat, my chest must be still next to her lower body. I am still holding both hands, without moving her down; I get in between her legs, buttocks down, upper body up, and I manage to pull her skirt and bikini bottom away and in that awkward position still penetrate her?? She made it clear that what I just explained is, in fact, a fact. This then must mean that I must have a penis at least half a meter long?? It is impossible to go up in someone while that person’s bum and vagina pull downwards. 56 21. Page 218 – She admits to lying to the court about being a virgin. 57 22. Page 240 – Page 249 – This is the messages between Ravi, Deon and Kayla with the plot. 58 23. Page 249 to 255 – I gave evidence with Ravi pretending to be me; there is the proof where he admitted his plan and mentioned the Danica name that was used in the fake profile. The court did not believe my evidence, yet it is black and white here. 59 24. Page 256 – Kayla acknowledged that there were no naked pictures taken of her, yet she was scared I might have it on my computer. The BBM messages where she alleged that I said I would post the non-existing naked pictures she got scared? 60 25. Page 257 – She implicates the Warrant officer Banks; she said she did tell the WO about the rape in the studio, although she wrote in her statement it was at my house. The WO denied that she knew anything about the studio. Then Kayla told her cousin to know, yet her cousin never came to testify. 61 26. She then lied and said she did not want to tell the police or the state advocate about the studio because she did not want to answer questions!! 62 27. Page 259 – Pienaar put to her that rape is rape, yet Kayla said that it is better to say the rape happened at my house because it is more private. This is nonsense! 63 28. Page 256 – It is again weird that in 2013 out of the blue, I asked Kayla about 55 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie. The Court also did not deal with this evidence.

56 Same as point 54 57 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

58 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

59 FACT not disputed.

60 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

61 Fact 62 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

63 This is possible if not 100% true.

PAGE 100 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

the rape; this is just after the BBM messages between Ravi and Dion discussing how they are going to get me, and in that, I randomly ask if she is with RAVI? The issue with this is, she left my studio in 2011 after the camp; I had no business with her to worry where she models, so for me to ask a specific question about Ravi is just proof that it was indeed Ravi creating a chat with Kayla to implicate me to use as evidence against me. She knew because her answers were just as random yet perfectly put together. 64 29. Page 273 - Kayla’s evidence said the camp was two weeks before the rape, the time during the rape. She now said that she told me at the camp that she no longer wanted to have sex with me, then two weeks after the camp, I raped her.

This is not true, and the camp took place six months after the disco shoot. I never saw or spoke to Kayla again until I saw her in court. This is a massive lie, and she is misleading the court. 65 30. Page 275 – Kayla, in her evidence, said I called her alone into the room at the next class, the Tuesday, to tell her she must stop telling stories about my company, where she makes a statement that “A LOT” of models knew what happened at the camp. And it was because of that reason why I called her into the room to tell her she must stop, and this was not possible. The camp took place six months after the disco shoot, so then there was no next class, no calling them separately into a room, no handing her a morning-after pill, no rape, everything is just made up and not possible. So HOW CAN THE JUDGE SAY SHE WAS PRECISE AND SUCH A RELIABLE WITNESS IF NOTHING SHE STATED IS NOT POSSIBLE? 66 31. Page 282 – The Judge asked Kayla how long after we agreed to have a sexual relationship did we have sex with; she said two weeks. This then means we must have slept together by the beginning of August 2010, and she claimed to feel bad about “ALL” the money I paid for all her shoots and to do modelling… The lie is clear, and she only did modelling training at the studio, which was R250 per month; there were no shoots yet, I paid no money for any shoots that could not have taken place yet. She only did the Disco shoot, which was a free shoot; she said she left before the shoot, yet she cried by Dion that she never got those photos. The only other shoot I know of with us she took part in was at Du Rust 6 months later. It was a sponsored calendar shoot. So again, it is just proof that the rape just could not have happened, and her excuse for agreeing to have consensual sex with me does not add up as per page 282! 67 32. Page 284 - She said at the camp I was only sleeping with her, but she knows 64 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie. Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie. State could not explain.

65 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

66 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie. PLUS we also question the Court’s statement and finding?

67 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 101

that I slept with many other girls. There was no proof of this let by the State. It is hearsay. 68 33. Page 284 – She said the next time at my house, she was watching my kids, Yolandi was a state witness and my children, and that was never mentioned to any of them to confirm this. 69 34. Page 287 – if the rape took place after the camp, it must have happened in March April 2011; the disco shoot took place just as she stated in her chief evidence that it took place on 02 September 2010. So here is she lying again because she cannot place real-time and real events together? Again, it was like she was sticking to a script with wrong facts. 70 35. Page 295 – Kayla now tells the court I took her virginity, yet she admitted to Pienaar she had a sexual relationship with SPIROS, who she knew what before she met me!! 71 36. Page 301 – Pienaar asked Kayla again about my penis; she again she do not remember anything that stood out. Right after the cross-examination, we offered a medical expert to look at my penis and show the court what Kayla was stating was a lie; I went to the bathroom, took a photo, and it was accepted into the record evidence. This was direct proof that Kayla never saw my penis, and the Judge failed to deal with this evidence. 72 37. Page 303 - Kayla said to Pienaar, my children will testify that we had sex; the State never put that to me or my kids. 73 38. Page 308 – Kayla said no one was watching my kids, yet Yolandi, the kid mother, was there for that exact reason, and she never testified that Kayla was watching the kids. 74 39. She could see from the pool that I had GROUP sex with the models, and the door was open. Yolandi testified and said that was a lie. This proves that Kayla is a liar and is making stuff up. She is a compulsive liar, yet the Judge doesn’t see her lies. There is no way that the Judge used the cautionary rule with Kayla. 75

68 This is an interesting point, this show motive why she lied, it was revenge that the accused showed no interest in her.

69 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

70 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie, undisputed and no explanation given by the State.

71 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

72 FACT, court accepted the evidence and this was not dealt with by the Court in the judgment.

73 Fact, Witness was not called. Hearsay 74 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

75 Fact, her version was destroyed by that lie.

PAGE 102 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 103

PAGE 104 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 105

PAGE 106 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 107

PAGE 108 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 109

PAGE 110 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 111

PAGE 112 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 113

PAGE 114 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

PALAVER’S FINDINGS As stated before, this is a sensitive matter, and as an organisation, we are aware of the nature of the charge and the person mentioned.

However, we must assess facts and provide an accurate non compromised finding.

We had to study many documents, and we again found that the accused was wrongfully convicted.

There is no doubt that the court did not look at the Rape charge in its isolation. The court was wrong and misdirected itself by ignoring facts, evidence and taking the emotions from Kayla as more value, including the influence of the media over everything the Defense argued.

Looking at the evidence and the judgment, including the chief testimony and cross-examination, there are more than enough proof and doubt not to give a guilty finding.

David is correct by calling the justice system out for failing him and his family despite all efforts to get a fair trial and a justice willing enough to assess the facts as set out in this report. We are taking our hats off for his accuracy and the amount of work put into his case assessment.

Again, we also understand that it is not the correct path to take on the judiciary. It is hard to hold back in this case. We are looking at a person who has been sentenced for the next 20 to 30 years behind bars. This is a highly sensitive matter when you see the incorrectness and injustice done here. Therefore, we can conclude to say it is a disgrace to see how the State advocate had to create a case to prove a point. We have to mention that this case was a media sensation, so much so that the court took it at liberty to start the judgment with these words “LIGHTS, CAMERA, MUSIC, ACTION....” This is a man’s life, not a movie set!

Again, David is convicted and given a life sentence for something he factually did not do. This should not have happened, and sadly there are De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 115

no consequences to the authorities involved.

We hope that this report will open the eyes of the media, the public, and any legal representative.

Rape in itself is something that people do not want to talk about. We at Palaver understand that some women and children are going through this. We will never condone such behaviour, but would it be a fair thing to assume that all people (men) who are accused of such a crime is automatically guilty? Should the test in matters like this not be done with a much higher standard to get to the truth? It is easy to cry “rape”. The questions we asked ourselves was; 1. Did David rape Kayla?

2. What evidence do we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did rape, Kayla?

3. What evidence did the accused have to prove the latter?

4. Was Kayla honest?

5. Was Kayla’s testimony consistent?

Did she have any witnesses who could corroborate her testimony?

Was the evidence that was used good enough to prove the crime?

We can say with confidence and accuracy that none of the answers we got from the assessment of this case fell in favour of Kayla. She was not honest, she was not consistent, she lied, she made stuff up which she confirmed she was doing. Kayla had no corroboration. The documents that were used was poor and provisionally accepted. The State had a person who was over-emotional for reasons we cannot say.

There was more than enough evidence led by the defence to create a lot of doubt and proof that the accused in fact did not rape Kayla, nor did he have a sexual relationship with Kayla.

All this is from the Judgement, and it is for that reason we are firmly pointing out that David is innocent.

PAGE 116 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

COUNT 6 & 7 A CONTRAVENTION OF SEC 5 OF ACT 32 OF 2007 SEXUAL ASSUALT

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 117

Judgment - State Evidence Caroline Henrico (‘Henrico’), the erstwhile pupil of the accused and the complainant on counts 6 and 7 testified, inter alia, as follows: [a] She stated that she was born on 19 January 1993 and currently 18 years old.

She was a modeling pupil of the accused, whom she met during 2008 at a modeling competition called Model Cup. The accused was becoming a member of Model Cup, which was owned by one Dominique Rensley. [b] She recalled an occasion when she was rehearsing late at night with other models, for a fashion show that was going to be held the following day at a competition called YOTM. Her father was not allowed into the venue as the girls were not appropriately dressed and to protect them. (1) 1. Transcript page 324 Para 1 - I can remember one competitions name YOTM (Year of the Model), where the top 20 had a fashion show afterwards. We were busy exercising for the show.

a. I was not involved in YOTM.

NOTES: ACCUSED

b. Dominque Rensley use to do photography for the competition. c. I only heard during the trial that she was in this fashion show. [c] She was dressed in a panty and corset and seated. The accused joined her and sat next to her. Shortly thereafter he touched her inner leg and upper thigh, whilst telling her that she is a clever girl and that she would not tell anyone, especially her parents. She immediately stood up and walked to another part of the venue. (2) 1 2. Transcript Page 328 Para 1 & 2 - MS PERSAD: Yes, Caroline, and then what happened? --- At this rehearsal my father was not allowed into the venue because the girls were very exposed.

Okay, stop there.

COURT: Sorry, what did you say? What did you say? --- My dad was not allowed into the venue where we were rehearsing because we did not have our full wardrobe yet.

You say: “Your dad was not allowed into the venue, because you did not have a 1 This is hearsay and her opinion. We could not find any corroboration from a witness to verify this. Furthermore, according to the records on the Internet, the accused was not part of that event once before.

PAGE 118 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

full wardrobe.” --- Yes, the clothes that we were supposed to do the fashion show in was not ready, all of it. So to protect the girls. (a) Okay. To protect the girls what had happened? --- However, Dawie was inside.

Sorry, it was to protect the girls. --- Just to… I felt it was to protect us, that there was no one and you can be comfortable. Because I was wearing like a panty and a corset.

A corset. 2 MS PERSAD: Yes, Caroline, and then? --- Then Dawie came to sit next to me.

Then, so that nobody could see, he would touch my inner leg and my upper thigh. He always told me I am a clever girl and I will not tell anyone.

NOTES: ACCUSED • She testify and say her dad was not allowed in the venue. Because the were not fully dressed • In the same breath I was there, a person who was not in any way part of the competition. A complete stranger is allowed to be with the models there they get dressed??

• I was not at that event and I did not see, nor sit next to Caroline at YOTM. There is no evidence that prove I was there. 3 [d] She stated that she had regularly communicated with the accused on mixit and facebook. She recalled an occasion when the accused sent her messages that made her feel very uneasy. The conversation was initially friendly wherein the accused stated to her that it was better that they remain as friends, and during such exchange the accused wrote to her on the chat that he would give her an orgasm with just his tongue and hands. (3) 3. Transcript Page 328 Para 2 - We also had communication on Mixit and Facebook.

One night he sent me some messages that made me very uneasy. I do have the messages because I saved them.

What did the messages say? [e] She made a copy of the facebook chat so as to prevent the accused from deleting it, which was handed in as Exhibits J1 – J3. She referred the court to the following excerpts on Exhibit J3: At 01.12am the accused wrote as follows: “ok waar is soen, 2 We found nothing of this to be true. Dominique was the only one who was part of the event, and the accused was not involved at that event. It is an external event not related to the accused. According to the records, there is no evidence showing the accused being at that event or allowed to be at that event.

3 We can now verify that this is true.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 119

vat en hoe is daar net waar ek jou kan wys. Ek sal jou n org laat kry sonder om… net met my tong en hande!” At 01.14am the accused wrote as follows: “is dit rof ? rof is as ek jou vat en net goed…..sonder enige stories.” *(4) 4 4. Transcript Page 330 Para 2 & 3 - COURT: So, Ms Henrico, you basically tell the Court about the messages and you say the messages are here with you on your phone. You will have no objection to letting the state look at your phone in terms of the messages? --- It is not on my phone. I saved it at that time. I felt uncomfortable with the conversation so I saved it.

Okay, where did you save it to? --- A few months later Dawie blocked me from Facebook, so it was not available anymore. But I saved it beforehand. I saved it on Microsoft Word and I printed it out.

So you have got it? --- We do have it, yes.

Okay, good.

What was the nature of the messages? --- It was first a friendly conversation and then (witness is crying). Dawie told me he thinks it is better that we just be friends.

Sorry? --- He said he thinks it is better if we are just friends. I did not understand where it came from because I did not think that we were anything more. I just replied like it is a normal conversation and later on in the conversation he sent me a message saying that he would give me an orgasm using just his tongue.

• See Judgment Point D.

NOTES: ACCUSED

• Caroline produced a document where she claim I had a conversation with her, Pienaar tested her and questioned the authenticity of this copied document during the trial and agreed only to accept the document when Caroline can present the actual computer. This evidence was not accepted by my counsel.

• The Facebook messages was not complete and there was no proof that it was in fact messages that was send to her from me. [f] She further testified that sometime during July - October 2008 there were modeling classes at the Fourways Mall. The accused had requested her to assist him in carrying 4 We find this far fetched. There are a lot of problems with the witness’s explanation of what she copied into a text file and not screen printing the messages. We did this exercise, and we could not get Facebook messages to copy as she did. According to her testimony, the messages she copied were also objected to by the Defense Advocate due to their poor quality. The Court instructed her to bring the original file to Court, and that did not happen. The messages were not accepted and are currently hearsay evidence and cannot be verified that they were not tampered with or edited.

The accused carried no knowledge of chatting to the witness on Facebook.

PAGE 120 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

items from his motor vehicle, which was parked in the basement parking of the mall.

She duly accompanied him and upon their arrival at the car, the accused pushed her against the car and kissed her on her mouth. The accused put his tongue into her mouth whilst holding her body. The kiss lasted for a few seconds and when he removed himself she was unable to move as she was shocked. The accused apologised and they then departed for the venue. (5) 5. Transcript Page 331 Para 2 - Okay madam, in the year 2008 there was another incident that also occurred between you and the accused. Can you inform the Court about that? --- During my modelling period we had classes, modelling classes at Fourways Mall. Dawie told me I must help him to carry some things from his car.

Yes, madam. --- When we got to his car he pushed me against the car and kissed me.

Where did he kiss you, madam? --- He kissed me on the mouth and his tongue was in my mouth.

How long did this kiss last for? --- A few seconds.

Yes, madam, and then? --- I remember his hands were on my body and then the kiss stopped. But I was shocked so I did not do anything. I could not move.

COURT: You say: “I was shocked and I could not move.”

NOTES: ACCUSED • We did asked Caroline to stand next to me in court to demonstrate the possibility of this claim, it was clear that what she testified was completely not possible.

She did not immediately report this incident to her father as she was shocked and embarrassed. Further, she did not reveal this incident to the other models as they were merely her acquaintances. (6) NOTES: ACCUSED 6. I could not find any part of the state evidence or cross-examination where this statement was verbalised by Caroline [g] She subsequently informed her mother about this incident, in light of a further incident. The accused had requested her to work at his house during the vacation.

In addition, he told her to wear loose clothing that would come off easily and that she should not wear any underwear. She felt extremely uncomfortable and reported this to her mother. She feigned an illness and as a result did not go to the accused’s residence. She subsequently proceeded to SAPS Hercules in order to lay a complaint against the accused. (7) 5 5 According to the records, this was the same case he was arrested for in 2009.

This case was heard at the Pretoria Magistrate Court and eventually dismissed. This De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 121

7. Transcript Page 332 Para 1 - Did you tell anybody about this? --- When I told…

I told my mom about it because Dawie arranged for me to go and work at his house during the school holidays. He told me on WhatsApp to wear loose fitting clothes that can come off easily with no underwear.

Yes, madam. --- I did not feel comfortable with this so I told my mom because I did not know what to tell him, the reason I cannot go.

Madam, you… [Intervenes].

COURT: Sorry, Ms Persad.

You said you told your mom because? What was the reason you told your mom? --- I realised it was getting to a place where I will not be able to handle it myself.

What would you not be able to handle? --- The things he said to me, like the loose fitting clothes and wearing no underwear. He also said we will not be doing a lot of work. There will be no one home. It was coming closer to the time that I would need to go to his house and I did not know what to say why I could not go.

• I was arrested in 2009 for sexual harassment, the news papers said I asked to swim naked with a girl, I had no idea that it was something Caroline accused me off, eventually the case was dismissed in the Pretoria regional court.

• I did testified that I did not ask Caroline to work for me, I was working from home with the Rensleys and did only hear from this when we appeared in court with Caroline.

Transcript Page 332 Para 3 & Page 333 Para 1 - MS PERSAD: Then, madam, you explained to the Court about the accused kissing you. When was this? --- I do not know the exact date. It was in 2008 and it must have been before October month, between July and October. Because I met him the first time in July.

Then, madam, did you report this incident to the South African Police Service?

--- We did go and made a case against him.

When was that? --- It was at the end of 2008 or the beginning of 2009.

At which police station did you report the matter? --- Hercules Police Station.

COURT: Hercules Police Station.

MS PERSAD: Did anything happen further after you laid a complaint? No, nothing happened further.

Did you give them a statement? --- I did give them a statement, my dad wrote out a statement.

Then, madam, regarding this Kempton Park case you furnished another statement to the South African Police Service. --- Yes. A new statement because the includes her Statement, the Facebook messages. The court found that the witness did not have sufficient evidence, and the case was dismissed. With that in mind, the accused was charged twice for the same crime, which was already heard and rejected.

PAGE 122 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

previous statement was a bit… [Intervenes].

Transcript Page 334 Para 1 - COURT: So let us just go back. The state counsel had asked you: “Did you report the matter at the SAPS” and you said to the Court that at the end of 2008 beginning of 2009 you had made a report to the SAPS Hercules.

Then, you then said to this Court that you gave them a statement, nothing happened further.

Just tell the Court from there. --- Then, the first statement I made was a bit messy. It was a bit not well constructed.

Ja. --- So they took a new one a few years later.

Which forms the body of this case? --- Yes. Thank you, Ms Persad. 6 [h] She was of the view that the accused had no right to joke with her in the facebook exchange, as she was only 15 years old. In addition, she did not know how to respond as she saw the accused as an authoritative figure. The accused had previously said to her that if she followed what he told her, he would take her and 6 girls to Italy. She did not reprimand him as she stated that the accused was an authoritative figure and that it was not in her a place as a child to do so. (8) 8. Cross-Examination Page 351 Para All - Ja. --- But in our… all the models we talk, we all said we do not actually know what his actual age was. He might have even been 34.

Uh-huh. --- But he said he is 29. He said that to me.

Now, why did you… I am asking you again, why did you give that response.

“You are only just 14 years older” meaning what? --- It was sarcastic.

Sorry? --- It was sarcastic.

Sarcastic? --- Yes. Why? --- Because that is my personality, I make jokes to state facts. We were, according to me, friends. I called him ‘oom’ a few times; it was a joke between us.

When he asked me why, I told him you are only 14 years older than I am as in a joke.

I was as in sarcastic.

Madam, from your side, when you made this joke did you expect him, like you say knowing him now, did you expect him to make jokes back? --- We always… we were friendly with everyone. It was not just me and him.

Hmm. --- We were always friendly, always making jokes in the modelling industry.

So yes, I did expect him to do that.

The rest of the messages, as was read, I am not going to read it out into the 6 This confirms that the accused was arrested and on trial in Pretoria. Case dismissed by that Court and convicted by this Court for evidence provisionally accepted as the Defense did not accept it.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 123

record. I do not want to belabour the record. But the rest of the messages did you then take it up as a joke? --- No. Why not? --- Because I did know him and I knew it was not a joke. The way he had previously touched me, looked at me.

We are getting to that. --- Okay. A joke can also just go up to a certain point; you do not make that kind of jokes with 15 year olds. If it was a friendly conversation I think as an adult you do not make that kind of jokes with a 15 year old.

Well, with all due respect, Ms Henrico, today’ teenagers and the time when you were a teenager is very different from when I was a teenager. --- I agree, but I was not exposed to things like that and that is why I was so shocked and took this to my mom. [i] She had reported the conduct of the accused to her mother who is a Captain in the SAPS and subsequently to her father who is employed in the IT industry. Her father assisted her initially to write down the statement at the time when the matter was reported to the SAPS Hercules. (9) NOTES: ACCUSED • This facebook messages was copied, pasted into word and like I have mentioned, not verified as I know I have not spoken to Caroline about any sex or related matters.

9. Cross-Examination Page 372 Para 2 - MR PIENAAR: At that time was your father not employed in the IT industry? --- Yes. He did not assist you at all in saving these messages? --- I did not tell them when I copied and paste it; they did not know anything yet. My dad was actually… my dad did not help me, no, he did not.

Any reason why not? --- I do not know.

Because he is an expert when it comes to computers and stuff, do you agree with me? --- Yes, but as a child I think we all should grow up and learn to deal with circumstances on our own. That is why I tried to handle it on my own.

At that time your mother was also in the service of the South African Police Force, is that correct? --- Yes. What was the rank that she had at that time? --- I do not know. I believe she was a… I do not know.

Cross-Examination Page 373 & 374 - Now, when you went to the police station did you then take a copy to be very specific now, let us be very specific. Did you take a copy of Exhibit J1, page 1, 2 and 3 with you to Hercules Police Station? --- Yes. You mentioned… who assisted you there at the police station? Was it Swanepoel?

PAGE 124 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

--- I do not know.

You do not know. Your statement that was taken at the Police Station was it in Afrikaans or in English? --- I do not know, the statement is available though.

What statement? ---The initial one.

The Hercules statement? --- I think I did see it afterwards.

Where is that statement? --- To be exact, my father wrote the statement, so he wrote it in English because my dad is an ex police officer. So he knew how to do it.

He wrote it and I signed it and we gave it in, so he has a copy.

He kept a copy you say of that statement? Did your father keep a copy of that statement he made? --- I believe so, I do not know. You know computers crash with thunder. It is on the computer so we can ask him, but he should still have it.

Madam, the question, with all due respect, was a very simple one. Does your father have or did he keep a copy of that statement. Now, you mention computer crashing and thunder. Why mention that? --- Because I know a few years ago it was a big thing that the thunder shocked our line and we lost everything. He could recover only some things from the computer. 7 [j] She denied the proposition that it was normal practice for the accused and the models to hug and kiss each other on the cheek when they met. (10) 10. I could not find any part of the state evidence or cross-examination where this statement was verbalised by Caroline That in essence concluded the evidence of the 5th witness, Henrico.

Judgment Defense Evidence [n] Counts 6 and 7 (Henrico): He denied all the allegations as contained in the indictment. He stated that he could not have kissed her as she is taller than him. (A) He stated that he did not recall telling Henrico to work for him during the school holidays and denied ever having a conversation wherein he asked her to wear loose fitting clothing. (B) He was not given the reason as to why he was initially being arrested by W/O Swanepoel. (C) He later found out that he was at the SAPS Hercules and appear in court a few times. The matter was subsequently withdrawn against him. He denied ever sending Henrico the messages as per Exhibits J1 – J3 (D) 7 The reason why this is so important and well observed by the DefenseAdvocate was that the Statement and evidence that was handed into Swanepoel (WO) at the Hercules Police station would have shown that the new information and the information are different.

Instead, she rewrote and backdated the new statement and confirmed that there was an original statement. The question is, why? Was she coached because she had already lost this case before? Is it allowed to have double jeopardy in South African Courts?

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 125

NOTES: ACCUSED A. I could not find any part of this in the cross-examination – It must be in the missing transcripts B. This evidence is false, Pienaar did question her and she said I said that no one will be home. She told her mom and to that point in court it was the first I heard of this.

The rest of the transcripts are not available so it is not possible to highlight all the facts here.

C. The charges was not withdrawn, the case was dismissed by the court due to not enough evidence.

D.

See Judgement point D below

[qq] He met Henrico (counts 6 and 7) through Rensleigh and confirmed that she had done a few competitions with him. Henrico’s father wanted to buy into his business and when the accused exhibited resistance, the relationship between them became strained. He stated that as a result of the aforementioned, Henrico did not have such a close relationship with him. He denied the messages contained in Exhibit “J” and denied the allegations therein. He stated that Henrico was lying to this court when she testified, and further that the documentary evidence has been manufactured. (D) He cited the fact that she had liased with Rensleigh and that this was the cause of her lying to the court. (E) 8 • See point D of the judgement below. I cannot confirm any evidence as I have no access to the rest of the trial record.

JUDGMENT [44] The complainant Henrico testified in respect of counts 6 and 7. This witness gave her evidence in a clear and concise manner. (a) She stated that the accused initially touched her thigh at a YOTM competition in Fourways.(b) He subsequently kissed her on another occasion on her mouth and his tongue was inside her mouth. It is clear that such conduct clearly falls within the ambit and definition of sexual assault as contemplated in Act 32 of 2007. (c) In addition, this witness produced documentary evidence to this court of a text exchange between the accused and herself wherein he stated that he will make her have an orgasm with his tongue and hands. (d) 9 8 We do not see any problem with that version based on what we saw so far in the court record. ~There is no proof that it is not true.

9 There is no evidence of this. It is her word, and it is the responsibility of the State to prove the accused guilty. This was not done. The witness gave testimony with a printed word document that had no proof besides the name Dawie, no photo, PAGE 126 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

It must be noted that the conspiracy theory was never put to this witness during her cross examination. It was clear that this witness did not have any bias or any other agenda to falsely implicate the accused in the commission of the offences. (e) 10 NOTES: ACCUSED a. Her evidence was not clear, not concise. She did not answer all the questions. It is just so difficult to highlight all the evidence, because of the incomplete trial record. b. See Point 1 c. See point 2 d.Defense did not accept the evidence and it was only PROVISIONALLY accepted.

Transcript Page 338 para 2 - COURT: The only way for that determination to be made by this Court is to give the state the opportunity to be able to lead the evidence in respect of that document and at the end it is for the Court to then make the determination, having due regard to the caution in S v BM to the weight that should be applied to the evidence.

Transcripts Page 343 / 344 Para 1 - MR PIENAAR: Indeed, M’Lord. The reason why, I just want to place on record, the reason also why we objected to this, because for us it was pretty clear and it has now been confirmed that it was copy and pasted and copy and pasted using a Word document. That is not the original like a Facebook italics et cetera, et cetera.

Transcripts Page 342 Para 2 - MS PERSAD: M’Lord, the state was not aware of the fact that this document would be in dispute. M’Lord, if it still is on the computer then the computer is not here, unfortunately. So, I would ask the matter to stand down so that we can get the computer to court.

COURT: Well, you do not want to perhaps just lead this evidence first and then let us see what Mr Pienaar has to say, whether he would insist on the computer …

[Intervenes]. no bio, nothing and it was also not accepted by the Defense. We find it very difficult to trust the Courts assessment on what is consistent, accurate or concise looking at the history with his judgment in the previous four counts.

10 We disagree with that assessment. The accused had all the right to believe this was Dominique and his wife’s doing. The accused got arrested right after their fight in 2009. The WO-Swannepoel interfered with a civil matter on behalf of Dominique, and he was also the same IO who did the investigation and charges against the accused then. Dominique and her parents were house friends, and she was one of Dominique’s models. There are many reasons, and Dominique did testify acknowledge he was the one who asked them to lay charges then and again this time De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 127

MR PIENAAR: She can produce it just at a later stage.

COURT: Yes. MR PIENAAR: Provisionally we can proceed.

COURT: Yes. Yes. E. I CANNOT CONFIRM THIS DUE TO THE MISSING TRIAL RECORD.

PALAVER CONCLUSION This was quite an interesting case to assess. We would like to address yet another individual that had a history with Dominique and his wife.

The most interesting part of the witness testimony was the accusations regarding the “Facebook” messages. They are not from Facebook. One could see that they have been made on an office word document and there is no evidence that they have not been tampered with. We agree that the court provisionally accepted those messages with the agreement the original messages must be provided by the witness, this never happened. It is for that reason we do not believe it can be considered. Sadly, it is the second set of unauthenticated documents the court relied on.

This witness also opened a case in 2009, that was dismissed in the Pretoria Court, yet this court find him guilty? Why? Just because she said so, and could not prove it.

This witness make a lot of claims that we find was all hearsay and speculation. The State’s argument was poor and lacked a lot of substance.

The court keeps on stating that these witnesses are clear and concise, it is the exact opposite. She was not clear, she was not concise and she lied.

PAGE 128 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

We assessed the judgment and find that the court was more interested in the accused guilty, and the opportunity to make an example of him.

We again say we understand the danger to call out the judiciary of South Africa, and it is not normal to openly state how bad this judgment is. It is evident that the accused did not stand a chance against the State.

We look at the evidence and we find that the State did not have to prove anything.

We have to ask that you look at each charge in isolation. It clearly was not how this case was done, and it would be unfair not to look at all the facts and evidence separately.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 129

COUNT 8 A CONTRAVENTION OF SEC 7(B) OF ACT 32 OF 2007 COMPELLED SELF SEXUAL ASSUALT

PAGE 130 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

JUDGMENT STATE EVIDENCE Shayna Daniels (‘Daniels’), the complainant on counts 8, 9, and 10 testified, inter alia, as follows [a] She was born on 12 December 1988. She first met the accused on facebook and during this exchange he told her that he wanted to meet, with a view to her subsequently approaching various schools about Modeling Cup, as a career.

NOTES: ACCUSED • No she approached me to become a FHM Homegrown Honey • She only later said she would also be interested in helping with Model Champs SA [b] She subsequently met with him at his offices in Bryanston during February 2008.

The accused spoke to her about his modeling campaign and Modeling Cup. He showed her photographs and she recognised many of the girls on his computer. 1 NOTES: ACCUSED • I cannot recall showing her any photos on my computer [c] The accused then told her that he needed her photographs and that he required these for his partner Dominique. (1) He indicated that he would take the photographs and she agreed. (2) The accused then took a head shot of her, whilst she was seated on the couch. (3) The accused then asked her as to what style of photos she would shoot, whereupon she replied that she was versatile. (4) She told him that she could send photographs from her portfolio. (5) The accused asked her if she could pose in swimwear and lingerie, to which she replied that she could do both. (6) NOTES: ACCUSED • 1. No I said if she wants professional photos done she would need to ask Dominique, I was not a photographer and had no equipment to do shoots. Dominque and Nicole did the photos. I only did the event planning for the Model Championships • 2. It was only after she insisted to take it with the digital camera I had.

• 3. There was never a photo like this presented by the state.

• 4. We discussed her wanting to become a homegrown honey for FHM, She stopped on the way to a lingerie shoot by me to discuss this. I made it clear we do not deal 1

We cannot verify this.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 131

with FHM and she will need to go ask Dominique to take pro photos.

• 5. Can’t recall her ever mentioning this.

• 6. She suggested that I take photos with a basic camera just for her own use.

Maybe I could see if she has talent. I agreed to tke a few shots, but it was with a very basic camera (It was a digital camera) [d] The accused kept assuring her that she had the look, drive and passion to be a model and to be in the industry. (7) The accused then said to her that they would proceed to the studio in order to take photographs. (8) She told him that she did not have any swimwear or lingerie at that stage. The accused told her that it did not really matter as the photos were only for himself and Dominique and that they would be the ones viewing them. (9) 2 NOTES: ACCUSED • 7. I did think she was pretty enough to be a model, she was very persistent and she was not shy and I believed with the limited knowledge I had about FHM she could do it.

• 8. She never said anything that she didn’t have, the discussion was not what we going to take photos in, it was done in the clothes she had on, she then took her clothes of as we took the photos to the point where she had nothing on.

• It was a lie that she must go to the “Studio”, she was told to go wait outside at the pool, I later found her upstairs in my bedroom. She did not want to take photos at the pool. If she was told to go to a studio, then it means I must have camera equipment which she did testify was not a professional camera, so why would I have a studio yet I have no camera equipment.

• Then also when she noticed it was just a bedroom, why was that not questioned?

Because she is making this all up.

• She even forgot about her lies and said that I used “STUDIO LIGHTS” which was impossible because the digital camera could not be used with studio light.

• 9. I did not say it was for me, it was for her. I was not going to use it for anything that is why I gave her the photos when we were done. [e] The accused then led her upstairs and into a bedroom, which she thought was a 2 Based on the available information, the accused did not do photography. He had no equipment nor knowledge to lead a model in a shoot.

PAGE 132 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

studio. (10) He told her that he was going to take photos of her, whilst continually telling her that she had what it took to be successful in the industry and that she would do well. (11) 3 NOTES: ACCUSED • 10.

Clear contradiction from her, I did not led her to the bedroom, she went there herself. She was supposed to be at the pool outside. We did discuss the camera and it already then was clear that she must go to Domique to do a professional shoot, why would I tell her I am not a photographer who has no equipment, yet I make her believe we going to shoot in a studio?

• 11.

No ideal what this means

He told her that he needed photographs of her in only her underwear. She responded by telling him that she was wearing unmatched underwear and that she had not come prepared for a photo shoot. The accused kept telling her that she was beautiful and that she should do the photoshoot in her underwear; further that the photographs were only for reference purposes and for the consumption of Dominique. (12) NOTES: ACCUSED • 12. I did not ask her to shoot in her underwear, that was her suggestion during the photos. She took her clothes of and said it was for her own portfolio. [f] She complied with his request and the accused began taking photographs of her in her underwear, whilst continually complimenting her on her beautiful body. The accused then instructed her to remove her bra, to which she responded that this was not agreed upon at the commencement of the photo shoot. She was reluctant to comply and said that she did not want to remove her bra. The accused then approached her with a view to assisting her in removing her bra. She held onto her bra and chest, whereupon the accused told her that he would show everyone what a whore she was by allowing herself to be photographed in her underwear. (13) 4 NOTES: ACCUSED • 13. There is a massive problem with this statement, we are in the process of taking photos, I only have unprofessional photos which at this stage must have been in 3 There is no trial record to verify the information. We have the judgment and the notes from the accused. We cannot do a proper investigation outside the documents that were handed to us that form part of the docket.

4 This does not make sense. The accused is trying to get her to pose with no bra.

She refuses and threatens her? That will automatically expose him should she report this to the SAPS?

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 133

her clothes she had on, I ask her to remove her bra and if she is not going to do it I will expose her? I then also helped her removing her bra and with all this going on she must have been extremely uncomfortable already and wanted to leave? Yes she does not leave and as the naked photos that was handed in as evidence she never looked upset yet more if she was enjoying herself.

• I NEVER took her bra of or even suggested she should.

The accused insisted that she take her bra off whereupon she reluctantly complied and said to him that she would not show any of her body parts. The accused instructed her on the positions that she should take up whilst he continued taking photographs of her, whilst she was on the bed. (14)

• 14.

NOTES: ACCUSED I did not insist on anything.

[g] A short while later, the accused then came close to her and instructed her to now remove her underpants and to pose as if she was enjoying it, failing which he would let everyone know as to how quick she was in removing her clothes. (15) She told him that she was uncomfortable with what was happening and he responded to her that no one is going to see the photographs of her. He further told her that if she did not comply he would make sure that everyone would know what a whore she is and that no one would respect her, and that she was easy. (16) Further, that he would post her photographs on the internet and which would result in her parents knowing how cheap she was. (17) NOTES: ACCUSED • 15. I did not ask her to remove any of her clothes, according to her she was already uneasy as I keep on threatening her and then instruct her to “Look like you enjoying it”?? Again, according to her I threaten her I will expose her, which means if she had to leave and I do that I would expose myself.

• 16. She is repeating the same thing, This was clearly a lie and when Pienaar questioned her I remember she got upset and the judge had to warn her with regards to her language in court.

• 17. If this was true she would have had evidence to prove she was forced to take these photos. [h] The accused then got onto the bed from behind her and put his arms around her PAGE 134 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

whilst holding tightly onto her. He then said to her “Look what you doing to me, and that he has not had a woman touch him in a very long time”. Further said that “no woman has made him this hard” whilst rubbing his penis against her buttocks. She told him that she was not comfortable with what was happening and that she wanted to leave. The accused responded by squeezing her and holding her tighter. She tried to wriggle out from his grip, but he just continued squeezing her tighter whilst rubbing his erect penis against her buttock. She felt very intimidated by the accused. (18) NOTES: ACCUSED • 18. Just this alone is clear proof what she said is NOT possible, I had a baby 3 children already with Michaela my daughter who was just born. So, how is it possible that no woman has touched me in a long time yet I am engaged and living with the mother of my kids? “no woman has made him this hard” Again a clear made up lie, how could I say this? This made NO sense at all.

• Here is the thing, she is lying butt naked on my bed, I go lie behind her only to rub myself against her, surly if I was that aroused I would have had sex with her?

She left and did not say a word about this to her friend who apparently gets told everything? She was almost raped by a man she barely knew and the only concern to her was “Her photos” Transcript Page 468 para 3 (Botha) - Yes. --- Okay. Well, Cheynad came to me.

Because she is my best friend she phones me about everything. She phoned me up and she was in tears. If I can remember correctly we met in my car.

You can proceed, madam. --- If I can remember correctly we met in my car and she came to me and she told me about a photographer that had taken photos of her.

COURT: Sorry, you met in your car and then? --- Yes. She came to my car and obviously I could see that there was something wrong. She started telling me the story about how she went to a photographer.

Just a moment. She went to a photographer? --- She went to a photographer and was forced to take naked photos or get undressed for these photos. She said she was very concerned about the…[Intervenes].

She was forced to take naked photos? --- Sorry?

She was forced to take naked photographs? --- Ja, well, to get undressed for photographs.

MS PERSAD: Yes, madam. --- Okay. She was just telling me about the… I cannot remember the details of what she told me, but she told me that she was very worried about these photos that were taken. That she went to his house. They had taken photos of this and she had come to me, she was crying and that she was worried about… [Intervenes].

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 135

COURT: Just one second. --- Sorry. I though it was this recording it. The writing down, oh, okay.

She was crying? --- She was crying and I tried to console her as much as possible, to tell her not to worry about it. That if anything had to come up with the photos or anything that we would deal with it at that time. 5 NOTES: ACCUSED • THIS IS PROOF THAT SHE MADE UP THE WHOLE STORY ABOUT ME PUSHING MYSELF AGAINST HER, IF THAT WAS TRUE SHE WOULD HAVE TOLD BOTH, THIS IS EXACTLY WHY PIENAAR DID NOT EVEN QUESTIONED HER ON THIS! THERE WAS NOTHING BUT HER CONCERN ABOUT THE NAKED PHOTOS. [i] The accused subsequently let her go and she got dressed. She asked the accused to delete the photographs as she was not comfortable with them. The accused then apologised to her for his conduct and added that he did not know what came over him. He thereafter informed her that he would delete the photographs and told her that he liked her and that they should go for coffee sometime. The accused told her that she must not forget to attend the training, as it would be a great opportunity to meet with Dominique. She attended the training and that was the last time that she saw the accused.

NOTES: ACCUSED • I did not apologise for something I did not do or at least didn’t see was a problem, If I wanted to hide anything from this I would have deleted the photos but I have her a copy and kept the others. [j] On 28 March 2009 at 6.36pm, she received an email from the accused’s fiance, Yolandi Jacobs (‘Jacobs’), wherein she accused Daniels of being a home wrecker and cheap. This mail was also copied to the accused. On 30 March 2009 at 10.23pm, Jacobs forwarded her a further email, attaching the photographs of Daniels that were taken by the accused in the bedroom.

NOTES: ACCUSED • Yes Yolandi did email her, Yolandi testified saying she took the photos from my computer to hers and emailed Shayna On 31 March 2009 at 08h37, the accused wrote to Jacobs wherein he stated, inter alia, that “I will murder that slut believe me”. She identified and confirmed the email 5 Looking at the witness of Shayna, her friend Botha said the witness told her she was worried about the photo and what would happen to them. We do not see Botha confirming any details about the sexual assault?

PAGE 136 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

exchange that took place between herself and Sims which was handed in as Exhibit C, during the evidence of Sims. In addition, she identified herself in the 3 photographs that were taken in the accused’s bedroom. [k] Her email account was hacked and she opened a criminal case in this regard.

The hacker was emailing her from her own email account. She received threats to send more photographs. She refused to comply and the culprit said to her that her photographs would be posted on social media. The photographs were posted online and her contact details were included on the page.

NOTES: ACCUSED • There was no proof of a case or any emails being hacked, she claim this was me yet there was never any proof from the state to confirm this, Pienaar made it clear this is not true and hearsay. [l] She informed her friend Felicia Botha about this matter and more especially about the emails that she received from Sims. She did so as she did not have anyone else to turn to, at that stage, and due to the fact that the accused made her feel worthless and dirty. She was trying to deal with it on her own and wanted the incident to go away.

(A) 6 NOTES: ACCUSED • A. There is NO proof of Botha testifying that Shayna discussed the emails to her.

This is made up by Judge Moosa. See transcripts above in point 18 [m] She commenced her modeling career at the age of 18 and had done photo shoots in underwear and lingerie for her portfolio. However, she had never done any “implied nudity” poses before the day when she went to the accused in Bryanston.

• LIE – Ill attach the photos

NOTES: ACCUSED

[n] She confirmed that she had appeared on Carte Blanche and had only told her mother what had happened to her and what the accused had done to her, after the broadcast. She stated that the accused had made her feel dirty and worthless. [o] She met Dominique Rensley at the training session and after she opened the criminal case against the accused at Edenvale SAPS. He did not urge her to open the criminal case against the accused.

6

Botha did not mention one word about emails. This is incorrect.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 137

NOTES: ACCUSED • Pienaar questioned about this case and there was none • [p] She stated that she was approached by a lady from Carte Blanche who told her that there a few cases against the accused and asked her if she would give a statement.

She agreed to give a statement and to appear on the broadcast. [q] She vehemently denied that she falsely implicated the accused. She further denied the allegation that Dominique and his wife had prompted her to falsely implicate the accused. [r] She denied the allegation that she was the one who told the accused that she needed photographs of her in lingerie. She further denied the allegations that she had insisted that the accused take the photographs with her personal camera, and that he subsequently upon her insistence used his digital camera to take the photographs.

NOTES: ACCUSED • See there was no professional camera used, meaning no lights = She is making this up. [s] She denied the allegation that she unilaterally went upstairs to the accused’s bedroom and waited for him in her lingerie and that during the photo shoot she began undressing on her own. She stated that the accused was very manipulative and due to the fact that he had realized that she was new to the industry, he preyed on her.

She further denied that the photographs were taken with her co-operation and free will NOTES: ACCUSED • LIE – She was not new to the industry (See attached photos) [t] She told the court that the reason why she cried during her testimony was due to the fact that recollection of the ordeal pains her, as she had never spoken openly about it before, and that she feels degraded by this incident.

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 7th witness, Daniels Judgment Defense Evidence [f] Counts 8,9 and 10 (Daniels): He had been communicating with Daniels on facebook, for a period of time. On this day of their first meeting, she informed him that she was on her way to a casting 7 and wanted to meet with him in order to discuss few opportunities 7 This casting was a lingerie shoot, yet according to her testimony, she did not PAGE 138 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

in the modeling industry. He agreed to meet with her and they accordingly met at his residence cum offices in Bryanston. She informed him that she would like to be a homegrown honey for FHM magazine. He informed her that he was only involved in championships and does not work with FHM magazine. She explained to him about the competition and asked him if he could help her with the taking of some photos of her in lingerie. [g] He told her that he was not a photographer at that stage and could speak to Rensleigh, on her behalf. She responded by advising him that she did not need professional photographs. He informed her that he had a Samsung digital 8camera at the time. He informed her that he would prefer using his camera over the one that she had in her motor vehicle. They agreed and he thereafter informed her to wait for him near the swimming pool, as he had some work to complete. [h] A short while later he proceeded to the swimming pool area, and discovered that Daniels was not there. The domestic worker informed him that she had seen Daniels proceeding upstairs. [i] He the walked upstairs and came upon Daniels who was sitting on his bed, in only her jeans and bra. He then commenced the photo shoot which subsequently ended in Daniels being completely naked and posing on the bed. She initially removed her jeans, thereafter removed her bra and finally her g-string panty. [j] He denied that he had asked her to remove her panty or to be naked. She did not object when he took the naked photographs of Daniels. [k] He denied ever telling Daniels that Rensleigh was his business partner and that he would need to approve the photographs. He only told her that if she required professional photographs then he would refer her to Rensleigh. [l] He denied ever making any physical contact with her during the photoshoot and further denied ever telling her as to how easy she was and that she was a whore. He did not hear from Daniels after the photo shoot, and further denied ever personally threatening to kill Daniels [m] He denied ever writing any of the emails from the email address dawie@ samodelchamps .co.za, as his access was deleted after the fight that he had with the have matching underwear?

8 This confirms the accused’s version that it was only a digital camera. We looked at Samsung SLR or similar cameras, and none, especially not at that time. A Samsung digital camera does not work with professional studio lights. That contradicts the version of the witness.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 139

Rensleighs. [ff] He admitted that he would accept the evidence of Daniels when she says that she did not receive her photographs from him. He stated that he had done her a favour in taking the photographs and that he could not remember about what exactly happened, after he saw her sitting on the bed with her jeans and bra. He maintained that the events took place as he had testified in his evidence in chief. The poses in the photographs came from Daniels and he did not instruct her therein. Her behaviour was sensual and sexy and he did not stop her when she was removing her clothes, as he was of the view that is what she wanted [gg] He denied receiving the mail of Sims dated 28 March 2009, as he was in Margate and that he did not have access to his mails as the Rensleigh’s had terminated his email account. He further denied sending the mail at 7.36 pm to Sims, as he had no access to the email account - dawie@samodelchamps.co.za. He denied that he was the author of the email exchange between himself and Sims and was of the view that the Rensleigh’s were the authors of the mails. However, he could not recall as to whether this allegation in respect of Exhibit “C” was put to the Rensleigh’s, during their cross examination. [hh] He stated that Sims lied in her emails (Exhibit “C”) and stated that it was her opinion that he was the only one who had knowledge of the matters discussed therein.

He stated that the motive that she had was because she was hostile as a result of their breakup and further that he had reported her husband to the authorities, for consuming drugs. [ii] He stated that Daniels was lying to the court about the allegations against him and that she is melodramatic and a drama queen. He stated that she was method acting during her testimony in court, by crying and being emotional. He was of the view the reason Daniels implicated him is because she is embarrassed about the mails that she received from Sims and that in order to justify herself she made the allegations of a sexual nature against him, through the help of Carte Blanche.

He stated that it could be possible that the plot between Ravi Rajah and Van Wyk extended to Daniels, as well. He agreed that this version was never put to Daniels during her cross examination.

Judgment [45] Shayna Daniels testified in respect of Counts 8, 9 and 10. She was adamant that PAGE 140 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

the accused unlawfully and intentionally incited her to remove her clothes and took nude photographs of her. This witness was highly emotional during her testimony and her evidence regarding the incident has been corroborated by her friend. I have weighed up the totality of the evidence and not convinced that the accused’s version of the events is to be preferred over that of this witness. The accused’s version on these counts is riddled with inconsistencies. I have found her evidence to be credible and satisfactory in all material respects, regarding the allegations on counts 8 and 9 NOTES: ACCUSED • Her friend DID NOT Corroborate her testimony, she only spoke about that she was with me and she took naked photos. NOTHING else PALAVER CONCLUSION

There is much speculation from this witness and much doubt. When we put the evidence together to find the crime, we could not get to that as the court did in his judgment.

Shayna made this massive claim that she was sexually violated and gave this account of everything in the accused home. It is farfetched and unrealistic to put it together with all the evidence.

It is impossible to get them the witness and the accused actual testimony; all we have to rely on is the judgment and notes. It is just impossible to trust the judgment at this point, and even without the entire court record we still do not find enough proof that this crime was confirmed. There are a lot of accusations and no evidence.

The State needs to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and this is not the case here.

Shayna did not disclose this to her best friend, and she was only concerned that someone might see her photos. She decided to take nude photos and regret the accused fiance saw them and went at her on discovery. It was not a matter of crime, and it was an embarrassment.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 141

Looking at Shayna’s conduct on videos and photos found on the internet and handed to us by the accused, it was no secret that she liked to take nude and semi-nude photos.

We have discovered shocking material during our investigation.

Yet, she cried wolf on TV. Dominique, his wife and Shayna did use that shoot as an attack on the accused by the State.

Regarding the emails, the accused explained how they could be accessed and used from a server; that is a fact and was not considered by the Court. On technical issues like that, an expert should testify.

We have to be bold to state that the Court displayed a bias against the accused..

We would highly recommend the State produce the transcripts of this victim.

PAGE 142 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

COUNT 11 FRAUD

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 143

Judgment State Evidence Dominique William Thomas Rensleigh (‘Rensleigh’), a professional photographer, businessman and entrepreneur testified, inter alia, as follows: [a] He became friends with the accused as a result of a business venture. The accused was a motivational speaker and Rensleigh asked him to judge at one of the events, which was called Model Cup. The accused was impressed at the ideology of Model Cup, inter alia, that it was used as a medium to motivate youngsters and that modeling was now conducted as a sport. After judging in a few events, the accused exhibited his interest to join Model Cup. NOTES: ACCUSED • Rensleigh and his wife decided that they did not want to get him involved in Model Cup and started Model Champs, which they ran with the accused. [b] The accused moved from Alberton to Bryanston and insisted on using Rensleigh’s office furniture, which was valued between thirty to forty thousand rands. (1) In addition, he begged Rensleigh to use a Fuji camera that belonged to his father, in order to do castings. (2) The accused convinced Rensleigh to enter into an equal partnership. As the events progressed, Rensleigh put in most of his resources from Model Cup into Model Champs. He paid the crew and team, used his sound and lighting, 1. Transcript Page 587 Para 4 - What was the value of these items? --- Well I priced the boardroom table itself was anything between R30 000.00 and R40 000.00 1 although that is not what I paid for it, but I had a buyer for it, but he was adamant that no please can he use it for the Bryanston Office because really the Cherry Wood looked nice, and it was very appealing and you look professional when you have got the whole setup.

2. Transcript Page 588 Para 2 - He also begged me for one of my cameras because he wanted to hold his own castings. That was the camera that my father gave me a Fugi Camera that I used to go on holiday to take pictures because I do not like to take my pic bags on holiday, and did not get paid for the photographs that he took at the Model Champ events. In addition, both himself and his wife invested their expertise and paid for the marketing and printing costs for Model Champs. (3) 2 1 The witness is giving an estimated value based on a potential buyer, which there is nothing to back this up. One can also not assume a value in what it can sell for. You can only use the asset value or cost of the item and what it is worth that was not established.

2 His wife testified and said that the camera was not his fathers. He never got it PAGE 144 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

[c] He continually confronted the accused about the proceeds that were received from the various events and discovered that there was no banking account for the entity.

All the monies received were going into the personal account of the accused. The accused always had excuses each time when he was questioned about the monies.

His family was living on the breadline, whilst the accused enjoyed a lavish life. [d] He had not received any proceeds from the events, save for the photographs that he took at the events. The relationship between them deteriorated which eventually led them to part ways. The accused then began taunting them via e-mail and swearing at them. He told Rensleigh that he was selling his furniture and the Fuji camera. 3 [e] He valued the total resources that was put in by him as being between R 150 000,00 – R 200 000,00. He stated that he also suffered reputational damage both to himself and to Model Cup. 4 [f] He denied that he had ever told the accused to take pictures of Daniels. He admitted that he knew Rajah, as he had judged with him on a few occasions. He further corroborated the evidence of Van Wyk regarding the modeling industry standards.

He always brought these standards to the attention of incumbents, at his workshops. [g] The accused was to have paid him for the furniture, which he never did. The camera was on loan and the accused had never returned it to him. He felt really disappointed at the conduct of the accused, which resulted in serious financial implication upon both himself and his wife. [h] The accused’s banking details were on the competition entrance forms of Model Champs and this was done at the behest of the accused, who informed him that it would be better if his details appeared thereon. Save for the one occasion when he received a small amount in cash from the accused, which was not even 50% of the turnover, he did not receive any other monies, in respect of the turnover from the various events. from his dad, which contradicts the witness’s evidence.

3 This eliminates the criminality of the case, and the accused warns the witness that he must go and collect his stuff. If not, he will sell it. The accused only intention was to get the witness to collect his property; where is that against the law? Plus, if the witness ignore him or tell him he does not want it as he did testify, how did he break the law?

4 This is not a fact; is it the witness guessing, and the Court cannot value and convict someone on a crime for something that cannot be proven. The best that could have happened here was to refer this matter to a civil dispute.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 145

[i] He disputed the version of the accused that the operational costs were high, as Rensleigh had provided all the lighting, sound and photography for the event. In addition, there was no cost for the use of the venue. As such, he bore all the costs and could not understand as to what costs the accused had incurred. All the accused was required to do was to market and manage the event; and to recruit new people for the events. [j] He denied the allegation that he was jealous of the accused. He was adamant that there was a partnership between him and the accused who failed to act in terms of such partnership. There was absolutely no transparency on the side of the accused. [k] He confirmed that Exhibit “U” was a post from his facebook page, during 2012, which called for people to approach Model Cup with evidence against the accused. 5 That in essence concluded the evidence of the 18th witness, Rensleigh Nicole Rensleigh (‘Nicole’), the wife of Rensleigh testified, inter alia, as follows: [a] That they met the accused via a website that she created for business opportunities during early 2008. He was invited to be a judge at one of their modeling events, as he indicated to them that he was a motivational speaker. He was part of a panel of five judges. [b] She confirmed that they had subsequently become friends with the accused and he requested them for an opportunity to become involved with them in the modeling industry. She corroborated Rensleigh’s evidence regarding the involvement of the accused in SA Model Championships. She was clear that they had offered the accused the opportunity to develop the project and that they would share 50% of the turnover of SA Model Champs. 6 [c] She generally corroborated the evidence of Rensleigh in relation to all matters that he testified about. She was clear that during 2008 the turnover was shared equally between the parties as they were operating SA Model Champs. However, they had not received any share of the turnover during 2009, when the accused took over Model Champs. The accused did not act and perform in terms of the agreement which they had.

5 This is all part of the plot the accused mentioned throughout the trial.

6 The dispute was not about sharing the profits while working together from the witnesses property using his equipment. The accused refused to give them 50% of the earnings having to pay for all the expenses, whiles the witness and his wife took 100% of the money from the photos and videos from the events the accused hosted.

The witness did not pay a fee or share in his earnings.

PAGE 146 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

Exhibit “V” was handed in by this witness during cross examination, which detailed the history, income, expenditure and other disbursements of Model Cup and Model Champs. [d] The last event that they had jointly with the accused was on 28/29 August 2009.

The difficulties that they had been experiencing with the accused came to the fore at this event, which included discrepancies and irregularities, which caused them to part ways. The Rensleigh’s accordingly informed the public through their website that they had distanced themselves from SA Model Champs and would be continuing in the industry as Model Cup. The accused retaliated by sending out an email wherein he indicated that the information furnished was a scam and advised his models to ignore such information. [e] She confirmed that both herself and Rensleigh were involved in the investigation of the accused. They assisted various complainants with the opening of criminal cases against the accused, and also accompanied them to the SAPS. 7 [f] She confirmed that SA Model Champs had it’s own website that the Rensleigh’s were paying for. She created an email address for the accused, as the website had it’s own administrative system. She denied ever accessing his email during 2009.

She stated that she removed the content of the website after their argument in August 2008. As such the accused was unable to have access to his emails. She did not terminate the domain.

NOTES: ACCUSED • Shortly thereafter, the accused set up a new domain and email address which she did not have access to. [g] She denied ever using the accused’s email address to communicate with people.

She denied writing any mails to Sims as per Exhibit C – page 4. [h] She denied the allegation that it was the accused who terminated their relationship.

She was adamant that it was them that broke up with the accused.

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 19th witness, Nicole.

JUDGMENT DEFENSE EVIDENCE Dominique William Thomas Rensleigh (‘Rensleigh’), a profession 7 Confirms point 5

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 147

[a] Count 11 (Rensleigh) – He met Rensleigh during 2008 in Sandton, after seeing the aforementioned’s contact details on a website. He was informed by the Rensleigh’s that they were involved in network marketing. He informed them that he was involved in Miss South Africa and he had coached her for Miss Universe and Miss World. They appraised him of their company called Model Cup. [b] They asked him if he would be keen to judge for them in some of their events. After the first event he was asked if he would like to judge again for them and to become more involved. He indicated his willingness, but indicated to them that he has his own business called Master Minds SA. He agreed to judge again, with the understanding that his duty was to judge and to put the event together. They indicated to him that he would get 50 % of the takings of that day. This arrangement was the commencement of their working relationship. He denied that he ever gave out to them that he would enter into a partnership with them. [c] He denied ever assisting them with any events during 2010, having due regard to page 11, Exhibit “V” and adding that the sketch does not depict the relationship between him and the Rensleighs. As their friendship and business relationship continued Rensleigh said to him that he could have the office furniture 8, as he did not have any place to keep it. He then collected the furniture from Midrand where the items were purchased by Rensleigh and took them to his residence in Bryanston.

He subsequently took the furniture from Bryanston to Rustenburg. He experienced financial difficulties [d] As their friendship and business relationship continued Rensleigh said to him that he could have the office furniture, as he did not have any place to keep it. He then collected the furniture from Midrand where the items were purchased by Rensleigh and took them to his residence in Bryanston. He subsequently took the furniture from Bryanston to Rustenburg. He experienced financial difficulties which caused him to fall into arrears with his rental. The landlord instructed him to leave the premises and refused to give him the furniture that was in storage, until he paid the outstanding rentals. He did not make such payment and thus was unable to reclaim the furniture.

He denied ever stealing from or defrauding the complainant of the amount of R 200 000,00 (two hundred thousand rands) [e] He parted ways with the Rensleighs at the beginning of 2009, as a result of an argument over the sharing of the proceeds from the events that were being held, 8 How can the accused defraud the witness if he gave the office furniture to the accused, but more importantly, how is it fraud if the accused wants to return the property to the witness?

PAGE 148 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

[vv] He did not return Rensleigh’s furniture after their final breakup during August 2009, as the aforementioned did not ask him for the return of the furniture. He stated that they fabricated evidence, referring to the camera, and that they did so in order to add value to their lies. He admitted that he did not have any documentary proof from the landlord in Rustenburg confirming that he had exercised a lien over the furniture.

He stated that the diagram in Exhibit “V” was clearly incorrect and that no close corporation was registered. He denied the evidence of Nicole to the effect that she had no access to the emails. He concluded that Nicole could have used his email as she had control of the email.

[46] The complainant Rensleigh on count 11 has given his evidence in a clear, concise and confident manner and without any bias towards the accused. 9 His evidence is corroborated by his wife relating to the allegations contained in the charge of fraud against the accused. 10 I am unable to level any criticism in respect of the evidence of this witness, coupled with all the documentary evidence that has been produced during his testimony and that of his wife. I have looked at the merits and demerits of the evidence of this witness and accordingly accept his version. In addition, I am not convinced that this witness hatched a plan to conspire against the accused, as he would have done so in 2009 when their relationship fell apart and not wait until 2013.

I accordingly reject the version of the accused on this count.

PALAVER CONCLUSION

This was a highly confusing matter to assess. We will start with the witness “Dominique”. Just by listening to the trial audio, we found Dominique to be extremely arranged, and his conduct was aggressive and disrespectful. He answered questions that were not asked; he could not stop boasting and showing off in court about who he was, and what he felt was achievements. He was, in our opinion there to be the hero in this case. He wanted the credit for getting David to be convicted and sentenced.

9 The Court is incorrect; points 5 and 7 show that the witness and his wife were utterly out to go after the accused to get him removed from the modelling industry.

This contradicts the judgment of the Court.

10 This is also inaccurate. The wife testified that they were not partners. There was no partnership, and that the accused broke away and started his own thing. She also testified that they wanted to control everything, including the accounts of the accused, of which they had no claim or right to by law.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 149

His testimony was that he was not a partner, yet the charge is that the accused lured him into a partnership. So, if the witness testified that he was not a partner, then there was no partnership. It was evident that they did work together but under no duress.

It is more clear that this was a business dealing between two men who did not get their way, with the one being greedy and the other trying to survive and being successful without the help of the witness. So, naturally, that did not make him happy.

It was clear that this self-proclaimed hero needed media attention and used models and the media to take revenge on the accused.

Throughout the different cases, We have noticed that the witness had his hand in many of the charges and was the main instigator with Dion Van Wyk to get Carte Blanche to attack the accused.

On the other hand, the Court was cough in the web of lies and did not assess the evidence correctly, the witness made a claim of R200 000 in damages, yet there was no proof of the value the State prosecuted the accused on.

There was no case here, and the findings are shocking.

PAGE 150 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

COUNT 12 FRAUD

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 151

JUDGMENT STATE EVIDENCE Yolandi Du Toit (‘Du Toit’), the complainant on count 12 testified, inter alia, as follows [a] That she was born on 23 June 1983. In the year 2010, she received an invitation from the accused on facebook, for a model shoot. She attended the shoot in Pretoria, which was done by the accused. She paid for the photographs and received them from him.

[b] She recalled an incident where she made a payment of R 1300,00 (one thousand three hundred rands) to the accused for an artistic nude shoot. The photo shoot was subsequently done, in the presence of her mother. The accused asked her to sign a consent form, which she refused to do (1), as she did not want her pictures on the web. (2) She never received these photographs from the accused.

She made several requests to him and on each occasion, he had an excuse regarding the photographs. He asked her to sign the consent form, which she refused to do.

Transcripts Page 451 Para 3 - Yes, madam, and then? --- For the second shoot I made payment at his home in Kempton Park.

Which year was this in? --- It was also in 2010 (1) , a few months after the first shoot.

You said you made payment, how much did you pay? --- The amount was R1 300.

Who did you pay it to? --- I paid it to Dawie.

For what? --- It was for the artistic nude shoot.

PAGE 152 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

COURT: For what? --- Artistic nude shoot.

Autistic [spelt]. --- Artistic, yes.

Artistic is something different, I could not correlate that. --- Yes, M’Lord.

So it is artistic nude shoot? --- Yes. 1. Transcripts Page 452 Para 1 - Yes, madam? --- Thereafter I never received my photos. Dawie said I should sign a consent form, but I refused. I told him that I did not want my artistic nude photos on the web because it is private.

NOTES: ACCUSED Did you ask the accused for the photos, photographs? --- Yes, I did.

• Shoot was not in 2010 – It was in the 17th of May 2011.

• Because of my reputation it was a full nude shoot (I have the images) it cannot be released without a Model Release – She refused to sign it which means I am not allowed to release them.

• The other demand was she wanted the unedited photos, which I never gave a model, they then go and edit and give it to other to edit and that is a massive risk for a photographers reputation.

Cross-Examination page 455 Para 3 - Furthermore, if needs be, the accused will deny that he wanted to place any nude photography, photographs, of you on the website because it would not be good for the business and the models’ parents that he had dealings with at the time. --- But that I did not know. I did not know if he would put it on.

NOTES: ACCUSED • She testify she refused to sign the model release form because I wanted to put it on our website, yet when Pienaar questioned her she said she did not know if I was going to put them on the net. This confirm my reason; • The process is, A model pay for the theme shoot, then after the shoot they come and choose the photos they like and get charged a fee per edit upon the signature of the release form. I only edit those that is paid and a release is signed for.

1. Cross-Examination page 455 Para 1 - Did it also occur after the second shoot, the nude shoot, that you sat down had a discussion about the photos? --- Yes, we did that.

Now, what is this form, can you just explain to us again that he wanted you to sign, on your version now? --- The form he wanted me to sign is a consent form. The consent form is an authorisation for him to use my photos on his website.

This form that you are referring to is it also known as a ‘model release form’?

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 153

--- I am not sure.

Because if necessary the accused will testify that he asked you to sign a model release form which you refused. --- He did not say model release form he said consent form.

It had nothing to do with placing it on the web, There has never been one nude or as much as NOTES: ACCUSED a lingerie photo on our websites.

2.

I could not release the photos; a.

The shoot only was paid for…. i.

It was a R1300 for the shoot ii.

R35 per edit, she chose the photos, after that she refused to sign the Model Release and then demanded she wants all the unedited photos because she paid R1300. I explained that was for the shoot “My time and use of equipment. Editing is not free time or a free service. They got angry and left. [c] She was surprised to receive an invitation from the accused during 2012 for photo shoots. She replied to his invitation wherein she told him that he had the “nerve” to invite her when in the first instance she had not received her photographs. The accused did not respond to her. [d] She did not receive her photographs, nor the refund of R 1300,00 (one thousand three hundred rands) from the accused. [e] She emailed Carte Blanche after viewing the broadcast about her complaint. She was referred to a member of the SAPS and accordingly opened a criminal case against the accused.

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 11th witness, Du Toit Elizabeth Du Toit (‘Elizabeth’), the mother of the complainant on count 12 testified, inter alia, as follows [a] That the accused is known to her, as she had met him on several occasions when she had taken Du Toit for photo shoots. [b] She confirmed that the accused was paid the amount of R 1300,00 (one thousand three hundred rands) for the artistic nude shoot, and that they had never received the photographs, nor a refund from the accused.

PAGE 154 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 12th witness, Elizabeth.

JUDGMENT DEFENSE EVIDENCE [s] Count 12 (Yolandi Du Toit): He confirmed that he did a nude photoshoot for her in the presence of her mother and a makeup artist. He was duly paid for this photoshoot.

A few days later they attended at his premises in order to select the photographs that they liked. He required Du Toit to sign a release form before he edited the photographs.

She refused to sign the release form and said that she required all her unedited photographs. (1)

1.This was my argument

NOTES: ACCUSED

Due to this dispute between the parties she never received her photographs. He stated that the amount of R 1300,00 (one thousand three hundred rand) was paid for the photoshoot and not the photographs, and that there was an extra cost for the editing of the photos. (2) NOTES: ACCUSED 2. This was common cause with my work He conceded that she could have subsequently received a facebook invitation due to the fact that she was on the mailing list. He recalled that DuToit’s mother had called him and threatened to expose him. He denied the allegations of fraud and stated that when he received the hard drive from the investigating officer, during the trial, he realised that there were unedited photographs of this witness on the drive. He subsequently gave them the unedited photographs on a memory stick, during the trial.

It was never his intention to defraud this witness. (3) NOTES: ACCUSED 3.

To proof my intent was never not to give her the photos but to protect the reputation and honour my agreement we had once she pays for the photos, I showed kindness and the willingness to solve this in a friendly way, yet the judge still found me guilty.

JUDGMENT [47] The complainant Yolandi Du Toit testified in respect of Count 12 regarding the fact De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 155

that she paid the accused an amount of money, as per the indictment and that she did not receive her artistic nude photographs. Despite numerous requests, the accused failed to provide her with her photographs. Her evidence is corroborated by that of her rmother, Elizabeth Du Toit. Both these witnesses gave their evidence in a clear and concise manner, without any bias against the accused. The accused was unable to say whether this witness was involved in the conspiracy against him PALAVER CONCLUSION

This witness was terrible. She made demands to have photos that did not belong to her and had no right of having.

The State and Court found the Accused guilty on a fraud charge where the SA Police was the reason for the accused not having access to the photos. It was out of his control, and this is not a criminal matter.

This is a civil matter and should not have been heard in a criminal court.

Du Toit used anger for her unreasonable demands to testify and get her way in court.

The court ignored the Release Contract, which is not to be dealt with in a criminal court.

PAGE 156 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

COUNT 13 FRAUD

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 157

JUDGMENT STATE CASE Rene Viljoen (‘Viljoen’), the complainant on count 13 testified, inter alia, as follows: [a] She met the accused on facebook during 2011, after he requested a friend request, which she accepted. She observed on his facebook wall that he was selling shares in his photography and model studio. She duly sent him an enquiry and requested further information regarding the shareholding. [b] The accused provided her with further information and advised her that the business was doing well and came across as very convincing. These representations piqued her interest further, which caused them to subsequently meet in Kempton Park, regarding their partnership. It was agreed that the company would be called R & D Modeling and Photography Studio. (1) 1. Transcript Page 404 Para 3 - Yes, madam. --- I sent him an inbox and requested more information regarding the shares. He became telling me and everything sounded very convincing. He told me how well the business was doing. We then agreed on a date to meet at his home in Kempton Park. Okay, madam, what was the name of this modelling and photography studio? --- R & D Modelling & Photography International.

Transcript Page 405 Para 1 - MS PERSAD: Yes, madam you can continue. --Before we met at his home we talked about the shares and the price. He told me it was R50 000 for 49 percent shares. [c] They had several telephonic discussions, prior to the meeting. During these discussions she was told that a 49% share holding would cost her R 50 000,00 (fifty thousand rands). She then applied for a loan from her bank, which was subsequently granted. The accused continually pressurised her for the funds. (2) She stated that the accused flirted with her on BBM and during their numerous telephonic conversations.

The accused continually pursued her, despite being told that she was currently involved in a relationship. (3) 2. Transcript Page 405 Para 1 Yes, madam and then? --- We discussed this for a while over the phone and I said I will go to the bank to see if I could secure a loan.

In the interim I went to the bank where I made an application for a loan. He really pressed me for the money. He pressurised me for the money. He flirted a lot with me on BBM and over the phone.

3. Transcript Page 405 Para 2 & 3 He flirted a lot with me on BBM and over the PAGE 158 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

phone. COURT: He what? --- He flirted.

He flirted. --- Yes. On BBM and? --- Over the phone.

Ja. --- At that time I was in a relationship with a detective from the Witbank Police Station.

MS PERSAD: Yes. --- He then said to me that he thinks this thing was meant to be.

COURT: Sorry, when you said: “he” who were you referring to? --- Excuse me?

When you say: “he”? --- Dawie.

What did Dawie say? --- Dawie said there is a reason why he and I met along the way. How him and I will fit together. I kept on saying to him that I am very happy in my relationship. [d] The accused instructed her to deposit the amount of R 40 730,00 (forty thousand seven hundred and thirty rands) into an account in Cape Town, for the purchase of a camera. She thereafter met with the accused in Kempton Park to pay over the balance of the money to him, in cash. (4) She did not receive any receipt from the accused for these disbursements. She further stated that she did not have any documentary proof of the transactions, as the documents were destroyed when she moved house. (5) 4. Transcript Page 405 Para 1 - MS PERSAD: Madam, did you in fact get that loan?

--- Yes. Then what happened? --- I got the loan. I informed him that I got the loan or rather received the loan. He asked me to transfer the following amount R40 730 into an account of someone in Cape Town 5. Transcript Page 405 Para 1 Madam, do you have any document showing proof of payment? Unfortunately, I moved a lot in the interim and my ex got rid of everything. [e] The accused had a contract that reflected the amount that was paid by this witness and it was further agreed that the accused would repay an amount of R 2500,00 (two thousand five hundred rands) each month into her account, as she was permanently employed. (6) Further, that the accused would run the business. She only received one instalment of R 2000,00 (two thousand rands) from the accused. The contract was handed in as Exhibit “O”. (7) 6. Transcript Page 407 Para 1 - Did you discuss the R50 000 loan that you took?

--- Yes. What did you all discuss? --- Because I have permanent employment we verbally discussed that he would pay every month R2 500 into my account. That he would then run the business from his side.

7. Transcript Page 407 Para 1 - Did you receive any money from the accused? --De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 159

The first time I received R2 000. That was the first and the last payment I received She wanted to refer the contract to her attorney for advice. However, the accused indicated to her that it was in order as it was drawn up by his attorney and that they should not waste time and commence immediately. Further, that the accused was very convincing. (8) NOTES: ACCUSED 8. There was no evidence let by Rene where she said she want it to be referred to her attorney first, this was mentioned when Pienaar questioned her about why did she sign immediately.

Cross-Examination Page 414 Para 2 - Now, if we go back to the agreement, you read through this agreement before you signed it. --- Yes. You had the opportunity to tell the accused that I want to maybe get an opinion on this or I want to maybe go to a lawyer or I want to think about it. But you were not compelled to sign there and then. You had the opportunity to make choices. --- I did ask if I can take it to a lawyer and he said to me that it has already been through his lawyer and that we needed to start the business as soon as possible to make money.

He was very convincing. [f] The accused further requested help from her for the purchase of a motor vehicle that would be branded in the name of the company. She informed him that she did not qualify for any further amounts and directed him to approach his parents, in this regard. The accused informed her that his parents had passed away. (9) 9. Transcript Page 407 Para 2 - Did you contact the accused further? --- Yes. Shortly thereafter he asked me if I could help him buy a motor vehicle and we would have branded the vehicle in the company’ name. I told him I managed to secure the loan and that I did not qualify for any more than that. I then asked him if he could perhaps ask his mom or dad for assistance and he told me his parents had passed on.

Page 46 [g] She contacted the accused to enquire about the outstanding payments. The accused always had an excuse and a different story regarding these payments. As time went by, the witness began experiencing greater difficulty in getting hold of the accused. She continually demanded her money from the accused. The accused subsequently blocked her on BBM and refused to answer any of her telephone calls.

The BBM exchange was handed in as Exhibit “P”. (10) PAGE 160 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

10. Transcript Page 407 Para 2 & 3 - Yes, madam, any other contact with the accused? --- After a while I then asked him when the other money was forthcoming and every time he had a different excuse. We then clashed on BBM and I told him I wanted my money with interest.

Yes, madam, did you get your money? --- No. He was getting ugly and started to block me and deleting me from BBM and he also blocked me on WhatsApp. Did you correspond with the accused via Facebook? --- Only at the start. After he deleted me from BBM and blocked me on WhatsApp I sent him normal text messages.

When I phoned him he cancelled the call.

She was blacklisted and made arrangements to repay an amount of R 200,00 – R 300,00 per month. She was still paying this amount as at the date of her testimony, with the outstanding balance being R 80 000,00 (eighty thousand rands). (11) 11. Transcript Page 408 Para 2 - Now, madam, this loan that you spoke about did you pay back the monthly instalments? --- Yes, after finding out what the debt amount was I started paying R200 to R300 monthly. I am still paying to date.

So if I understand you correctly, was there a period when you were not paying? --Yes. What is the present amount outstanding on that loan?

About R80 000. [h] It was verbally agreed that the accused would pay her the amount of R 2500,00 (two thousand five hundred rands), in order to repay the loan. (12) Further, that this status quo would continue until she was able to join him permanently in the business.

It was further agreed that she would assist him on the weekends with photo shoots.

(13) 12. Transcript Page 410 Para 2 - MS PERSAD: Yes, M’Lord, that would be ExhibitP. Madam, do you know what the accused was talking about in that text? --- Meaning?

Yes. What was he talking about? --- He was talking about my help in the business. But as we discussed verbally that I was like a silent partner because I was permanently employed with another company. That is why we agreed that for the first while he was going to pay R2 500 into my account for the loan to go off because I had to pay the loan back.

13. Cross-Examination Page 425 Para 4 - Yes, but you can do that after hours. You have got family. You have got friends. You have got Facebook. There are a lot of ways to source clients. You do not have to be working the whole day. You can do it after hours or on weekends. --- I did try but for girls to go from Witbank all the way to Kempton Park nobody was really interested.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 161

Would you agree with me that he raised the issue of breach of contract to you? ---Yes. [i] She denied the allegation that the R 2000,00 repayment that she received from the accused was an ex gratia payment. She stated that the accused only paid in the aforementioned amount as he did not have the entire amount. In addition, he told her that he was waiting for monies from models. (14) 14. Cross-Examination Page 436 & 437 - I also put it to you that the accused paid back the first amount of R2 000 to you. It was not a payback on the loan because he will deny that it was an agreement that he will pay you the money R2 500 per month.

But that R2 000 was an ex gratia payment from him seeing that the business had just started and that he could not penalise you in the first three weeks for the business not coming from the ground. --- Yes. Would you agree with that? --- Yes. COURT: Did you understand the question? The question is… Mr Interpreter, perhaps you should just interpret it for the witness. The question is that the R2 000 that was paid to you, by the accused, was an ex gratia payment. It was a once off payment because he did not want to see you suffer.

MR PIENAAR: He did not want to penalise her because the business had just started.

COURT: He did not want to penalise you because the business had just started.

MR PIENAAR: He could not expect you to bring in work in that first three weeks.

COURT: So he says the reason he…. You have told this Court that the accused in consideration of your verbal agreement made only one payment of R2 000. You recall saying that? --- Hmm. Yes. Alright. Now, the accused… your version is that in support of what you are telling the Court regarding the loan arrangement and the repayment terms he only paid R2 000 back to you. --- Yes. The accused is now saying hold on, the R2 000 that I paid you was a once off payment to you. --- No. It was not as a result of me repaying the loan, but it was just a once off payment to you because he did not want to penalise you in the three weeks, because the business had just started. What is your response to that? --- No. He said to me that he did not have enough at that time because he was still waiting for money to come in from the models, from their portfolios et cetera. That is why he did not have the full R2 500. [k] That she spoke to Sasha of Carte Blanche who had advised her to open a criminal case against the accused. She was adamant that she would nonetheless have proceeded to open a case against him, of her own free will and volition. [l] The accused had never shown or received the books of the business, nor any profit PAGE 162 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

and loss statement.

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 10th witness, Viljoen.

Judgment Defense Case [a] Count 13 (Viljoen): He testified that Viljoen had not complied with the agreement and denied ever receiving any letter of demand from the attorney.

NOTES: ACCUSED • This was not verbalised by Viljoen. This is added by the Judge! I did testify that she did not comply to the agreement and it was clear according to the Exhibit (agreement) that she was in breach. I even told her to go to a lawyer and asked her to sue me so we can go to court. [mm] He admitted that Viljoen had paid him R 50 000,00 (fifty thousand rands) for a partnership and that the witness was lying to the court about the monthly repayment that he was to have made each month. (1) He admitted that he did not make the profit and loss statement available to Viljoen.(2) He reiterated that he had told Viljoen to go to court I order to sue him. Accordingly he was waiting for the summons. (3) He kept the equipment that was paid for by Viljoen in lieu of the expenses of the partnership.

He was unable to provide any documentary proof that the company was running at a loss, as all his documents went missing when he was in prison awaiting trial. He admitted that Exhibit “P” did not contain any information that the company was running at a loss, however, he stated that he had informed her verbally about the losses that were being incurred (4) He was adamant that she made these allegations due to the fact that she was pressured by debt and that she was part of a conspiracy with Carte Blanche, to falsely implicate him.

NOTES: ACCUSED 1. I do not have and transcripts with my chief evidence, I did not need to agree or deny that she paid the R50 000 for the partnership, it was in the agreement that she signed.

I did agree that she did pay the equipment money directly to the ORMS – supplier in Cape town. a. There was no written or verbal agreement about repayments. b. It was a partnership with a 50/49% ownership, it was not a loan I took from her or the bank.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 163

c. I did not ask her to take out a loan, she testified she approached me when she saw the offer, how would you enquier about buing into a business but you don’t have funds to do that, when you make a loan; i. You get a partnership of 49% ii. You don’t need to invest any time in it while the other partner work, take risk and is responsible for all the expenses and losses iii. You get the loan paid back irrespective if there is any profit to do so.

That is not a partnership then!

2. Viljoen had no right to any further business after she Breached the agreement. I made it clear that if she wants anything from the business she needs to go see an attorney. I was more than willing to produce those documents in court.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PIENAAR: M’Lord, I have got one question. One or two questions.

Madam, you told the Court that you were told that you had full access to the books of the business. --- Yes. Did you ever request to exercise that right? --- No. No further questions, M’Lord.

NOTES: ACCUSED • 3. Yes, it was instructed and she acknowledged that I did suggest that. This was the message I have send her; • His reply was: Rene I told you before you must get me in court. You are right your name appears there and you are in breach of contract it is not even funny. So please do not give me shit unnecessary and go to court please. Everything has been handed to my attorney and we will wait and see what happens. You were never involved from day one and your contribution to the business was zero/nil as the contract • 4. I had to run and pay rent, transport, venue hire and many other costs, many months I did not make enough money to pay the some expenses, the business was not making a profit, my step mother helped me out by purchasing more equipment to expand my business. Again it was within my right.

Judgment [48] Rene Viljoen testified in respect of Count 13 regarding the allegation of fraud against the accused. She testified that she had paid the accused the amount of R PAGE 164 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

50 000,00 in terms of an agreement between the parties, for shares in the accused’s company. The accused misrepresented to her and ultimately she lost the money that she had invested with the accused. The accused admits that he received the monies, but denies that she had complied with the agreement. (A) This witness produced documentary evidence in support of her allegations. (B) This witness gave her evidence in a clear, concise and uncontradicted manner.(C) There is no allegation made against this witness that she is part of a conspiracy. There was no indication of bias towards the accused when she testified.

NOTES: ACCUSED • A. There was no evidence that she was misrepresented with the business proposal.

If I already made a lot of money and was doing so well, why would I sell shares to a person who will not be actively be involved in the business. The intention was clear in the agreement, she gets half the business for R50000 and her time to help me grow the business, the agreement is clear that we share all profits and losses equally. The agreement also is clear how we will be paid, salaries was never set, it was based on the profit of the company. There was no misrepresentation by me.

• B.There was nothing Rene said that was clear, she made allegations of which the state did not prove. We gave the clear evidence, the agreement is a legal binding document, the few BBM messages she brought to court also back my evidence that she was in Breach and that I asked her to proceed to a court as the agreement stated to resolve the matter. There were many contradictions and proof that there was no crime here; • “Neither partner shall receive any salary for services rendered to the partnership.”

• a. That the contract was not signed at the police station, yet the police stamp is on the document.

• b. My parents are dead • c. It was an established business, yet she was asked if it was a newly stablished business and she said “Yes” • d. She did not think it was important to tell the court I refused her to take it to her attorney.

• e. She willing signed (accepted) the partnership agreement (The terms and Conditions) • f. That there was separate agreements.

• g. I don’t have a car De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 165

h. I flirted with her • i. The business is doing well • j. That she told me about making a loan before and on the day of signing the agreement.

• k. That she asked me to put it in the contract and I said no it is fine.

• l. She agreed it was a new business that must generate its own income, still expected payment from day 1.

• m. That she had an obligation to source new business, yet she did nothing and still expected payment.

• n. She agreed that she was in breach of the agreement.

• o. Why she did not go to see an attorney yet she dated a police officer and her friend is an attorney?

• p. She only presented half the messages.

• q. She did not have the phone where the original messages was send from.

• r. That she did speak to an attorney, yet she cannot remember what was discussed.

• s. That there were more messages about the discussion that she is in breach and the fact that she must proceed to court.

• t. On page 430 Pienaar told her she is lying and making stuff up, one minute she cannot remember, the next minute she can… “How do we go from I cannot remember if I was making the messages initially to now a little bit later on when you are being put into a corner specifically remembering that you made these copies and that he suddenly disappeared from your screen. --- Because I am thinking and it is coming back to me. So if I continue to cross-examine you, your memory is going to get much better, is that what you are telling the Court? --- No.” PIENAAR: I put it to you that the last part of your testimony is a fabrication. You made that up because of the fact that you were put in a corner. Your initial answer was: “I cannot remember if it was me who made these copies.” Until you suddenly had the revelation that you made these copies. --- Because I just… it just hit me that I was busy screen capturing the messages.

COURT: We finish this witness. The reason we wanted to sit in the lunch break was that we wanted to get your evidence over and done with so that you do not need to come back again. But I can see that you are visibly upset. You obviously are emotional and I believe that it will only be fair to give you a fair opportunity to recover. *Proof that she was caught out lying, so she was not “This witness gave her evidence in a clear, concise and uncontradicted manner” PAGE 166 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

NOTES: ACCUSED • There is no crime here, she was not concise and she did many time contradict herself as pointed out.

• C. She was part of the entire Dominique, Dion and Carte Blanche crew who was going at me from the beginning.

• D. The judge also made sure he led Rene in questioning so that she could change her answer (see point 14)

PALAVER CONCLUSION

This is clearly not a criminal matter.

The State did not prove a criminal case here. It was a dispute between two people; the one who entered into a partnership who expected to be a partner, yet at the same time wanted the accused to repay her total investment and still benefit from the business.

We further have to inform you that the victim did not want to be responsible for her partnership. The accused informed her about her lack of interest and involvement. He even when as far as asking her to proceed to a court for them to get to a conclusion on the partnership.

It makes no sense to sell a share, for the buyer to then LOAN you the money and expects the buyer to repay the investment and still call it a partnership. It is not anywhere in the contract, there are no text messages to prove these claims that the accused agreed to that, and the State did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed fraud.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 167

PAGE 168 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 169

COUNT 20 & 21 A CONTRAVENTION OF SEC 5 OF ACT 32 OF 2007 SEXUAL ASSUALT

PAGE 170 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

JUDGMENT STATE EVIDENCE Claudia Kraukamp (‘Kraukamp’), born on 14 May 1995 and the complainant on counts 20, and 21 testified, inter alia, as follows: [a] She met the accused through a friend of hers that was his modeling student.

They communicated on BBM, as he had obtained her details from facebook. She subsequently attended a test shoot which resulted in her entering into a contract with the accused. She was 16 years old. [b] Sometime later during 2011, she attended another photo shoot at the accused’s residence. Her mother had dropped her off at the residence of the accused in Kempton Park, after being told by him that she could leave.

NOTES: ACCUSED • According to the photos she only did one photoshoot at my house in Kempton and that was the Angel and Daemon shoot, I have not ever told a parent before that they should or could leave. [c] She was dressed in a mini dress and they initially sat in the lounge. As a result of a query, the accused advised that she could leave her shoes in his bedroom. They both then went to his bedroom. The accused then sat on the bed and she was standing in front of him. The accused then lifted her dress and put his hand on her thigh and pubic area; it was underneath her underwear. He thereafter pulled her onto the bed in such a manner that they were lying next to each other. Whilst the accused was holding her, the domestic worker appeared and told him that the other models had arrived. The accused then looked at her and got up.

NOTES: ACCUSED • This is a lie, I never touched Claudia in an inappropriate manor.

• The image below is the cottage where she • said she was alone with me, the domestic walked in, • I did not have a domestic working for me, it was a 1 bedroom cottage and I was working from the cottage at the time. [d] She and the other models accompanied the accused and his team mates to his cricket match, after the angel and demon photo shoot, in order to render support to the accused. This was at the request of the accused. The other models departed at 20h00 and she remained until midnight. She returned with the accused to his residence, as De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 171

her mother was fetching her.

She entered his residence in order to collect her handbag. Whilst standing at his glass door, the accused held her tightly on her waist and kissed her on her lips. The kiss lasted for approximately one minute. She left thereafter.

NOTES: ACCUSED • She and the other 2 models did go with me to the cricket, She left the action cricket with a friend not with me.

• She was a smoker, she had her handbag with her at the cricket, this is proof that she never come back with me.

• I never kissed her and I did testify that I would never kiss a person that smoke and I have never at one go kissed a person for 2 minutes before. [e] She recalled an incident where she received an amount of R 3000,00 or R4000,00 from her mother to pay the accused, for printing calendars that she would appear in, for the year 2013. She subsequently received calendars from the accused, which did not contain any photographs of her, but off other models.

She questioned the accused about the calendars and he responded that she would PAGE 172 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

have been in the calendar if she were at the photo shoot. In addition to the calendars, the accused owed her photographs from seven photo shoots.

NOTES: ACCUSED • This is correct, she did pay the money to be part of the calendar, she never pitched up and we still had expenses as it was a non-profit calendar for the SAAF. It was budgeted to the cent. She was responsible to pitch up for the shoot and she didn’t.

I cannot be held responsible for a model if they book and pay and is a NO SHOW. NOTES: ACCUSED • See attached Calendar (PDF) [f] She requested the accused for her refund. Approximately a year later during 2013, and in pursuance of the aforementioned request her mother and her met the accused at the Mugg and Bean to once again discuss the refund. The accused indicated that he would return the money as soon as he could; further that he was busy at that stage.

Despite such undertaking the accused did not return the monies to her.

NOTES: ACCUSED • I do not ever recall discussing refunds with the mother. [g] She told another model Jessica about the incident where the accused put her hand under underwear and later informed her mother, as well. She made such disclosure to Jessica who believed that there was something going on between this witness and the accused. Jessica had informed her that she loved the accused and thought that he also loved her.

NOTES: ACCUSED • This is related to Kayla Kemp [h] She stated that she had only received photographs from her test shoot and that she had requested the photographs from the accused before the expose on Carte Blanche and before his arrest.

NOTES: ACCUSED • She did receive all the photos from shoots we did, include shoots she did not pay for. This was handed in as evidence [i] She testified that the accused had at a certain stage come to her home and told her mother that he wanted to marry her and insisted. Her mother told him that she was too De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 173

young and she treated it as a joke.

NOTES: ACCUSED • I was invited for supper, she was smoking and still a minor, I always told her mother she shoot stop, she said she can’t make her, maybe if she marry a guy one day that would not like it he can get her to stop, I made a joke and said ill marry her and then I can tell her to stop, they were both into the joke and still made a fake “marriage certificate” that was all over by the time I went home. [j] She stated that she had absolutely no reason to lie about the incidents that she testified about and further that she would benefit absolutely nothing from lying about the accused. [k] She further agreed that she would not have been in court had it not been for the intervention of Carte Blanche. However, she was never forced to testify against the accused. Further that she had a fairly decent relationship with him.

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 8th witness, Kraukamp Jona Petronella Lubbe (‘Lubbe’), the mother of Claudia Kraukamp testified, inter alia, in respect of counts 22 and 23 as follows: (duplication) [a] That she had first met the accused at bootcamp when Kraukamp was modeling for the accuse [b] She recalled the incident when she paid an amount of approximately R 4000,00 to the accused for photoshoots and calenders that featured Kraukamp. She did not receive a receipt, despite requesting same on numerous occasions; and the accused made an excuse each time.

She requested the calendar on numerous occasions from the accused, who continually made excuses, inter alia, that the printers were busy with the calenders. They never received the requested calendar from the accused.

NOTES: ACCUSED • Again, she was not in the calender, the calenders was printed and distributed to the models and given out at the SAAF Airshow. I still don’t understand what calender she is asking for as Claudia did not do the calendar. [c] She stated that her daughter made a report to her regarding an incident wherein PAGE 174 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

the accused pulled her to the bed and tried to insert his hand under her dress.

NOTES: ACCUSED • Here the mom testify “I tried” it did nit happen but their stories does not line up. [d] She confirmed that she and Kraukamp had met with the accused at the Mugg and Bean in order to discuss the outstanding photographs and calendar.

Page 44 [e] She stated that the accused indicated to her that the photographs required to be edited, however they did not receive any of the photographs. She confirmed having seen some of the photographs on his computer. However, she was of the view that the delay was unnecessary and unacceptable. At no stage, did the accused ever indicate that he had difficulty in providing them with the photography.

NOTES: ACCUSED • They did come and choose the photos that I did edit and gave to her through Facebook.

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 9th witness, Lubbe.

JUDGMENT DEFENSE EVIDENCE [o] Counts 20 and 21 (Kraukamp): He confirmed that the witness had attended at his residence in Kempton Park, for a photoshoot called Angel and Demons. He denied ever putting his hand underneath her underwear, as alleged in count 20. He admitted that she had attended the cricket match in the company of other models. However, he denied that she had returned with him to his residence after the match.

NOTES: ACCUSED • Correct, she did not come home with me.

He stated that she received the photographs from the first photoshoot. The calenders were given to the witness, who had to sell them in order to cover the costs and the expenditure in relation to such calenders.

NOTES: ACCUSED • NO, she could not have sold the calenders, she was not in it. She was part of it but did not pitch up.

He denied that he had met Lubbe and Kraukamp at the Mugg & Bean, as testified to by De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 175

these witnesses . He stated that they had met at his offices and Lubbe had requested him if they could get some photographs from the photo shoot. He told Lubbe, who was his friend that he would send her photographs, once he had edited them. He cannot recall if he had edited the photos and had given them to the aforementioned, as he gave first preference to his paying clients, above others. Exhibit “LL” was handed in by the defence containing pictures of Kraukamp. The accused stated that he had obtained these from her facebook page.

He denied that he ever had any intention to defraud the complainant, as per count 22.

NOTES: ACCUSED • Her mother is a singer, they come to my house to look at the photos and discuss some event where they wanted me to be part of. I never met them at Mugg & Bean [ee] He was unable to provide any explanation as why the contents of Exhibit “LL” were never put to Kemp {CLAUDIA) during her cross examination. He confirmed that he had joked with Kemp in the presence of her mother and step-dad. He confirmed that he enjoyed a good relationship with Kemp and that they were friends on facebook.

He was adamant that she was lying to the court when she testified about the incident where he put his hand in her pubic area. He concluded that the only reason that she has come to lie is due to the fact that she has been motivated by Carte Blanche. In addition, adding that she has come to court to fabricate a version against him, and did not know as to what she would gain by making such allegations against him.

JUDGEMENT [49] The complainant Claudia Kraukamp testified in respect of counts 20, 21 and 22 against the accused. She gave her evidence in a clear and concise manner and cannot be unduly criticized in respect of her testimony. She stated that the accused had initially placed his hand on her thigh and pubic area, whilst they were lying on his bed. Later that day he kissed her on her mouth. She testified that her mother had paid an amount of money as per the indictment and despite this fact she did not receive her photographs. Her evidence in respect of the fraud was corroborated by her mother Petronella Lubbe – the complainant on count 23. It is clear that the fraud was not perpetrated against Kraukamp, but against her mother. The evidence of Lubbe was satisfactory in all material respects and I have no reason to prefer the accused’s version over hers.

NOTES: ACCUSED • Claudia said she was in the bed with me, the domestic walked in, there was no PAGE 176 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

statement or testimony from this “Eye” witness. It is a lie. She still after that “incident” stayed with us, do the angel and daemon shoot, still go to cricket with me and not a word was said to anyone. Then she tells her mother and they did not go to the police? It never happened and I know Pienaar tested her on this and her mother and it was clearly a lie.

• I do not have transcript to show what was asked.

PALAVER CONCLUSION

This is clearly not a criminal matter.

The State did not prove a criminal case here. It was a dispute between two people; the one who entered into a partnership who expected to be a partner, yet at the same time wanted the accused to repay her total investment and still benefit from the business.

We further have to inform you that the victim did not want to be responsible for her partnership. The accused informed her about her lack of interest and involvement. He even when as far as asking her to proceed to a court for them to get to a conclusion on the partnership.

It makes no sense to sell a share, for the buyer to then LOAN you the money and expects the buyer to repay the investment and still call it a partnership. It is not anywhere in the contract, there are no text messages to prove these claims that the accused agreed to that, and the State did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed fraud.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 177

COUNT 27 FRAUD

PAGE 178 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

JUDGMENT STATE EVIDENCE Zanalee Smith (‘Smith’), the complainant on counts 26, 27 and 28 testified, inter alia, as follows [a] During this meeting the accused told her that he wanted her to work for him as a model scout. She had to look for other girls that were presentable and who had the basic look of a model. She was told by the accused that she needed to attend an assessment, which comprised of taking of her measurements, a test shoot and to see how comfortable she was in front of the camera. She was further informed that there were three divisions in the shoot, namely casual, swimwear and formal. She was told that she needed to bring these items with her when she attended the assessment.

She subsequently met the accused at his residence in Kempton Park, for the test shoot • INNOCENT as per judgment [b] During this meeting the accused told her that he wanted her to work for him as a model scout. She had to look for other girls that were presentable and who had the basic look of a model. She was told by the accused that she needed to attend an assessment, which comprised of taking of her measurements, a test shoot and to see how comfortable she was in front of the camera. She was further informed that there were three divisions in the shoot, namely casual, swimwear and formal. She was told that she needed to bring these items with her when she attended the assessment.

She subsequently met the accused at his residence in Kempton Park, for the test shoot.

• INNOCENT as per judgment [c] They discussed the shoot and proceeded to a derelict building situated next to his residence. At a certain stage during the photo shoot, the accused told her to change into her swimwear. He insisted on applying the shimmering dust onto her body. The accused then told her to open her legs during the shoot, which made her nervous. He then asked her if she wanted music, as it would calm her down.

• INNOCENT as per judgment [d] The accused then asked her to stand against a wall with her arms above her head in order to give definition to her body. He approached her and fixed her arms. The accused then attempted to kiss her on her mouth. She pushed him away lightly, and De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 179

requested him to remain professional, otherwise she would leave. He stated that she may have misread the signals and that it would not happen again and giggled. He said “ Moenie worry nie, ek gaan jou nog kry”. She felt very insecure as a result of the accused’s conduct. They thereafter proceeded to another site for further photographs.

• INNOCENT as per judgment [e] She continued modeling for him and initially paid him R 3000,00 for the assessment, test shoot and the photographs. She downloaded 35 of the 50 photographs from facebook. She subsequently paid him R 1500,00 at the beginning of 2013 for photographs in respect of a second shoot at the African Lodge in Kempton Park. She recruited two other models for this shoot. She did not get paid for recruiting these models, nor did she receive her photographs. (1) Transcripts Page 823 - R3 000, this was for my assessment and my test shoot to get the photos as well.

Did you receive any photographs?

I received approximately 35 out of the 50/50 promised photos, but they were only posted on Face Book and I had to download them myself.

Were there any other photographs that you paid for?

My second shoot, we went to African Lodge somewhere in Kempton Park, I cannot really remember the name.

Okay. Yes? I paid R1 500, we had, it was me and two models that I have recruited. They have received their photos but I did not receive mine.

Was the R1 500 only for the photographs?

Yes. Okay.

Because it was on location Dawie also had his expenses towards the lodge basically.

You said you did not receive the photographs, would I be correct in saying that you did not receive any of the photographs?

From the second photo shoot, none.

So madam, how were these payments being made to the accused?

My mother paid by EFT. NOTES: ACCUSED • This is such a straight forward case.

• The R3000 was for the Assessment & Photo Shoot she received.

• R1500 for the photos of the camp which was not long before my arrest. All my hdd was taken and Zanalee and many others could not have received the photos as I was not in position of these photos.

• R1500 for the photos which was handed to her in court.

PAGE 180 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

• The judge found me guilty on R1500 which was handed to Zanelee in court as I did not have access to those photos because the equipment was taken by the police. [f] At the time of their initial discussions, the accused had informed her that he would pay her an amount of R 14 000,00 for 40 models recruited. She recruited 8 models for the accused and was not paid for her efforts. In addition, it was agreed between them that she would work on the weekends at the Sports arena for photo shoots. It was agreed that she would be paid an amount of R 150,00 per hour for services rendered.

Despite her having worked for 19 hours, she only received R 150,00 for the Saturday and R 200,00 for the Sunday.

• INNOCENT as per judgment [g] She began becoming agitated about her payments and when she asked to be properly remunerated, the accused said that he would do another photoshoot for her and would offset the cost against the commission that she would have received for recruiting the models. The photo shoot never materialised and the accused had not performed as per their agreement.

• INNOCENT as per judgment [h] She admitted knowing Van Wyk and that her father had assisted her in contacting Carte Blanche. In addition, she communicated with other models relating to the accused. The accused subsequently found out and told her that he would take her to court for defamation and for bad mouthing him. She confirmed the contents of the email, which she received from the accused and it was handed in as Exhibit “W”.

Not relevant. [i] She was adamant that the accused tried to kiss her and later flirted with her and threatened to kill her boyfriend.

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 20th witness, Smith.

JUDGMENT STATE EVIDENCE [a] He denied the allegations on counts 26, 27 and 28 in respect of Smith. He admitted to having touched her during the photo shoot in order to help her with her pose and stance. He was of the view that she lied about his conduct as a result of her having to abide by her statement. He had approached an attorney to assist with charges De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 181

of crimen injuria and defamation of character against Smith, but did not know what became of these allegations. He was of the view that Smith made the allegation of sexual assault, as this is the allegation in the industry that grabs everyones attention.

He admitted that the contents of Exhibit “MM” were never put to Smith during her cross examination. In terms of the emails she had scouted only 7(seven) models. She was duly paid for the seven models that she had brought in to the agency. He paid her the amount of R 800,00 (eight hundred rand) in order to motivate her and to perhaps cover the cost of her fuel, and did not include monies for any other work.

She did not pay for the photographs and had provided her with some of her photographs on facebook. He admitted that he reprimanded Smith about her boyfriend and it was possible that problems started between them, as a result of this. In addition, he was of the view that she was influenced by Van Wyk. We handed in a lot of evidence related to the 15 photos including giving it to Zanalee in court, none of that is mentioned here and the cross examination with Pienaar is missing.

JUDGMENT STATE EVIDENCE [51] Zanalee Smith testified in respect of counts 26, 27 and 28 against the accused. In respect of count 26 she testified that the accused tried to kiss her on her mouth during a photo shoot. This witness gave her evidence in a satisfactory manner and cannot be unduly criticized. It is clear from her evidence that the accused in fact did not kiss her and said to her that he would get her later. As such, it is clear that the conduct of the accused does not fall within the contravention of Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. • INNOCENT as per judgment R 4500,00 for the photographs from her photoshoot. Despite demand on numerous occasion the accused did not give her the photographs. The accused’s version is that she paid for the photo-shoot and not the photos. I have carefully looked at the totality of the evidence on this count and accept the version of Smith over that of the accused NOTES: ACCUSED • As states above, the judge made a mistake with the evidence led by the state that she did not get her photos, I am charged for fraud of R4500 of which her evidence only demonstrates photos to the value of R1500.

PAGE 182 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

• This is proof that I got found guilty on a charge where; • She did receive the R3000 before the matter was in court • I had NO access to the equipment and as a result of the police having the equipment got accused for committing fraud.

• She accepted that and took the photos during the trial.

In respect of count 28, the witness alleged that she was promised an amount, as per the indictment for work that she was to have performed on behalf of the accused. From the totality of the evidence that has been led before this court, I am not convinced that the State has been able to prove the allegations against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused is given the benefit of the doubt on this count.

• INNOCENT as per judgment PALAVER CONCLUSION

One more poor judgment. Although the accused was found not guilty on most of the charges related to this witness, there is no way the court had sufficient evidence to conclude that he is guilty of fraud; in the worst-case scenario, this matter should be disputed in a civil court.

This is not a criminal matter.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 183

COUNT 31 - 38 A CONTRAVENTION OF SEC 24 (B) OF ACT 3 OF 2009 ACCESSING OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

PAGE 184 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

STATE EVIDENCE [6.25] Charl Louw (‘Louw’), testified, inter alia, as follows: [a] He is currently employed by KPMG and at the time of the investigation was employed

by Custom-made I.T. Solutions. He is a qualified EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE), which is an international certification. In addition, he holds a diploma in Criminal and Forensic Investigation from the University of Johannesburg. [b] He conducted investigations on electronic devices that were handed to him, and formulated a report of his findings, vide Kempton Park CAS 51/09/2013. [c] He confirmed that the integrity of the devices was properly maintained from the time that he received it from the investigating officer until it was returned. Further that he has the documentary proof of the chain evidence in respect of the handling of the exhibits. [d] The process involves the investigated media to be connected to a device that can only read the contents and not write to the electronic device. A bit file image is created and the original drive is put back into storage with a unique serial number being allocated to such device. The new bit file image is used for analysis and purposes of investigation. There is no chance of the original being contaminated or changed during this process. [e] He identified the evidence inventory report; acquisition report; examination report; 4 x Appendix A-D and 2 x DVD set with reporting documents and export files. The report was handed in as Exhibit “Z”. [f] He stated that he found pornographic images on the various media, inter alia, 360 (three hundred and sixty) multimedia/video files containing sexually explicit material (page 7, paragraph 16). He referred to paragraph 18 and stated that he found one nude image of the accused and a number of semi nude images of young models (teens to early twenties) and images of nude adults.

At page 10, paragraph 31, he stated that the recovered picture and/or multimedia file content seems to contain nude and/or semi nude content of more mature teenagers (possible age group 18 – 20 years old) and/or early twenties.

Page 70 [g] In addition, he stated that his investigations also revealed that, inter alia, the De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 185

following websites containing pornographic material were accessed: 02 MARCH 2011: GALLERIES.TRYTEENS.COM

NOT CHILD PORN 04 MARCH 2011: VIDEO.TEENSEXMOVS.COM

NOT CHILD PORN PAGE 186 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

05 MARCH 2011: VIDEO.TEENSEXMANIA.COM

SAME SITE AS ABOVE - NOT CHILD PORN 08 MARCH 2011: MY 18 TEENS.COM

NOT CHILD PORN CASUAL TEENSEX.COM

NOT CHILD PORN FREE NASTY ANGELS.COM

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 187

NOT CHILD PORN GALLERIES TEEN LOVE BLACKS.COM

NOT CHILD PORN WILD THUMBS.COM

THERE ARE NO SUCH PORNOGRAPHY DOMAIN 14 FEBRUARY 2012: TEENDREAMS.COM NOT CHILD PORN 12 MARCH 2012: / TEEN PORNTUBE.COM PAGE 188 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

/ IMAGE SEARCH CONDUIT.COM / SEX AND CTI (SEARCH) / TEEN AND PUSSY / TEEN + PORN

NOT CHILD PORN

17 SEPTEMBER 2012: TEENS-VIDEO-SEX-SOURCE IMAGES 2: YOUNG PORN VIDEOS.COM IMAGES 3: YOUNG PORN VIDEOS.COM

NOT CHILD PORN 26 DECEMBER 2012: SEARCH.BABYLON.COM/TEENS+SEX+VIDEO

NOT CHILD PORN De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 189

[h] He did not tamper with any of the information that was on the devices and all the items on the delivery note were handed to Banks, at the end of the investigation.

That in essence concluded the evidence of the 25th witness, Louw.

DEFENSE EVIDENCE [ss] He denied that the ipad had contained pornographic images and that he had never seen any of the images prior to receiving the contents of the police docket. He stated that those images were placed on the ipad ex post facto, after the equipment was confiscated from him.

He was of the view that Banks and Langerveldt had placed the pornographic images on his ipad. He does not trust the investigating officer and relied upon her interview with Carte Blanche, wherein she stated that she will ensure that she puts the accused behind bars. Further, that he does not trust Carte Blanche as they could also tamper with the evidence.

• •

NOTES: ACCUSED NOT RELATED TO COUNT 31 – 38 Judge is not discussing my evidence \ JUDGMENT

[52] I have carefully appraised the documentary and viva voce evidence in respect of counts 31 – 38 and it is clear that the images on the various media fall within the definition of pornography and the documentary evidence clearly shows that these were accessed by the media that was confiscated from the accused. The witnesses in this regard have given their evidence in a clear, uncontradicted and satisfactory manner. I accordingly reject the version of the accused in this regard.

NOTES: ACCUSED I was not charged with access to pornography – The Charges; • Count 31 – Accessing child pornography •

Count 32 – Accessing child pornography

•

Count 33 – Accessing child pornography

•

Count 34 – Accessing child pornography

•

Count 35 – Accessing child pornography

•

Count 36 – Accessing child pornography

PAGE 190 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

No doubt in our mind, should the Court have tried him in these charges separately, there would never be a single conviction.

Out of all the charges against David, these eight charges were the easiest to assess and find no case here. Moreover, these charges were dead in the water before it was even reported and significantly when the State witness testified and confirmed that David did not access any of these sites and that there are no children in any of the links.

There is no secret that the Court had no interest in letting David walk away from this free man. This is clear for looking at how the judgement was written. However, the Court did not assess the evidence, and as David’s counsel said “The Court did not deal with this evidence and the State did not prove these cases beyond a reasonable doubt.”

It is not in the interests of justice to convict innocent people. There is a reason why a court has a sitting judge; he/she should be fair at all times, assess the cases on merits and facts.

We can with all confidence say that Acting Judge Cassim Moosa in fact did convict David incorrectly, and in any other country, it would have raised a lot of serious questions and could have led to severe legal and correction action to be taken, even a possible disbarment and removal of his law license.

We are not attacking the Court, but based on our findings David should be granted an opportunity to appeal. It would be only possible if he has the entire Trial Record. If that is not available full reconstructions should be done. There is no way for the Defense, in this case, to otherwise show the courts where the court in quo made errors.

The court transcripts are vital to the success of this appeal.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 191

• I am concerned that the State did not put this to Keagan, yet judge Moosa put it against me to say that we did not challenge Keagan with this either. In consultation, in her first session with Keagan, the Assessor questioned Keagan and asked him to explain this (see page 8 of the Teddybear Clinic report) and made it clear that Keagan could not give further information. They did not mention this in the second session. He was asked in the last and final session if he saw any naked girls at my house, and he said he did not ever see any naked girls at my home or his mother’s house. He made it clear that the models at the shoot had bikinis and regular clothes. 23 PERSAT did not ask Keagan anything about this to clarify the matter. However, we did look at the entire report from the Teddybear clinic. It was evident that Keagan referred to “naked” girls as being dressed in bikinis and the Assessor concluded on page 11, paragraph 4 that he was NOT exposed to sexual intercourse and what he did see on my computer was in fact of girls posing, which was the editing of the photos and not sexual content. (Girl’s touching their breasts could have been a pose (with a bikini on NOT naked as he said on many occasions he did not see naked girls) that one of the girls did on a photo I was editing.)

In point 8 of her conclusion, the Assessor of the Teddybear Clinic comes to the following observations; “NO EXPOSURE TO EXPLICIT PORNOGRAPHY MATERIAL WAS VERBALISED BY THE CHILD.” 24 witness made it clear that it was photos similar to what he saw at the shoot. The Teddy Bear Clinic addressed that in detail and concluded that what the child spoke about was not pornography or models in sexual or explicit poses. There is no clear evidence from a quoted word or phrase that it was sexual and not explicit. The child was 6 when he saw the photos, and he made no mention during the trial that those photos were sexual or explicit. The court made a massive error and did take this out of context.

23 The accused is stating an important fact here. The State produces no evidence, not the Teddy Bear Clinic that the witness was ever exposed to any nude models, nor verbalised that the models wore clothes of a sexual nature. The fact here is the opposite.

The witness only experienced shoots with models in bikinis and regular casual clothes.

24 After carefully assessing the State Evidence, including the witness’s testimony, the crossexamination of the Defense, and the Teddy Bear Clinic Report (Exhibit “AA”), this concludes that the State did not prove a crime. We cannot ignore Teddy Bear Clinic’s “Esme” the psychologist’s findings, and the court failed to consider that report in its complete form. The court took the idea and perception of the State, not the witness and convicted the accused of doing a regular photo shoot. I have to ask an obvious question the State failed to bring to the courts’ attention.

The SAPS had access to all the accused computers, including hard drives, yet we do not see any supporting evidence of a shoot where the accused took photos of models in bikini’s where their breasts were exposed. The State did also not provide a picture of models he took photos of that was dressed explicitly. The State did not prove that the accused exposed the witness to any model in any clothes being of a sexual nature or clad explicitly as the count stated.

PAGE 192 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

•

Count 37 – Accessing child pornography

•

Count 38 – Accessing child pornography\

NOTES: ACCUSED • There is no law to say a person are not allowed pornography, there is no illegal element to these charges as set out, yet the judge made a massive mistake by finding me guilty in 8 counts of ACCESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY which clearly was not proved by the state.

• Even if this were my pornography (which it was not) it would not constitute a law being broken. The state failed to prove CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. Yet the judge did not care if I was really guilty or not, he was only interested in proving to the media and the public that I am a bad person irrespective the evidence in front of him.

• All the links and websites related to those searches clearly show tht there is NO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. • LOUW himself testified that there are no children in there websites “At page 10, paragraph 31, he stated that the recovered picture and/or multimedia file content seems to contain nude and/or semi nude content of more mature teenagers (possible age group 18 – 20 years old) and/or early twenties” this was images related to these websites in the links and searches found.

22/03/2016

Exploited College Girls ­ Record Keeping

18 U.S.C. 2257 Record Keeping­Requirements Compliance Statement All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual portrayal (motion pictures or still images) of actual sexually explicit conduct or otherwise in ExploitedCollegeGirls.com were at least eighteen (18) years of age or older at the time the visual image or depictions were created. The required records with respect to the motion pictures and still images contained herein are in compliance with all record keeping and labeling requirements of Title 18 United States Code § 2257 and are kept by the CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS:

Copyright ©2005­14 ExploitedCollegeGirls.com

PALAVER CONCLUSION

We assessed this evidence with much caution, and we have not found any traces of Child Pornography, nor did we find any pornography implicating that it could look like child pornography. http://exploitedcollegegirls.com/2257.htm

1/1 De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 193

22/03/2016

Teen Dreams > The Web's Favorite Teen Mega Site

MENU CLICK TO JOIN NOW

Over 1.4 Million Photos

Over 2.100 HD Movies

Over 5.600 Teen Models

View All

Latest Teen Videos

http://www.teendreams.com/t4/index.php?nats=MC4wLjEuMS4wLjAuMC4wLjA

1/19

22/03/2016

Teen Porn Videos and Sex Videos | PornTube ®

ÕÜ

p½½ ¶ÄÅÁÀÅ µ¶Âº´Æ¶µ ¹¶Ä¶ºÀ ʶĶ ±Æ ½¶±ÅÆ

ÕÜ ü ü ü ÖÖÙÛ ÕÜ ü ü ü ÖÖÙÛ

ü

̶±ÄÅ Á· ±¸¶ ±Æ ƹ¶ ƺ¿¶ Á· ÂÄÁµÇ´ÆºÁÀ

q ¾

e¶´Áĵ ¶¶ÂºÀ¸ e¶ÃǺĶ¿¶ÀÆÅ ¾Á¿Â½º±À´¶ qƱƶ¿¶ÀÆ

q ¾

µÁ´Ç¿¶ÀƱƺÁÀ ºÅ ¿±ºÀƱºÀ¶µ ²Ì ƹ¶ ºÀµºÈºµÇ±½ ÇŶÄÅ Á· ƹºÅ źƶ

7

ü

22/03/2016

TeenDreams

TeenDreams.com Custodian of Records

USC Title 18 Section 2257 Compliance.

In compliance with the federal Labelling and Record ­Keeping law (Known as 18 U.S.C. 2257), all model located within TeenDreams.com were 18 years of age or older during the time of photography and/or videography. All models proof of age is held by the custodian of records listed below. All the content is is full compliance with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257 and any associated regulations. Some of the images appearing or otherwise contained in or at the web site, contain visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, and, as such, are exempt from the requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. '2257 and C.F.R. 75.

As this domain is owned and based in the UK, due to the UK Data Protection Act, we are unable to make public any information of the models private details. We are willing to help members of any proper authority with any pertinent information concerning our material. Under UK laws no information may be given about a third party, without that persons consent.

Any questions relating to the content on TeenDreams can be directed to support@dream­cash.com

http://www.porntube.com/tags/teen

AEBN 6919 Melrose Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90034

Aaron Turnbull 4535 30th St. Suite 211 San Diego CA 92116

Airwood Media 30100 Town Center Drive, Ste. 294 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677

Arsenal Computer(web­legal.com) 9650 DeSoto Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311

AdultCzechContent Jindrich Henry Castulik Dedicka 28 62700 Brno Czech republic

AdultStockPhoto John Fox 1629 NW 84 Ave. Miami, Fl 33126

AVN Publication, Inc. P. Fishbein 9414 Eton Ave. Chatsworth, CA 91311

Bacchus Releasing 9718 Glen Oaks Blvd.

Sun Valley, CA 91352

Amateur Cutie Content JW Junker, Esq. ­ COR for KISS 4 Impact Productions, Inc., 3004 N. 68th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85251.

Beano Publishing, LLC 30100 Town Center Drive, Ste. 294 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677

BestAdultContent.com (aka: BAC) Graziadei and Cantor Ltd 302 East Carson Ave Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89101

Blane R. Richard III 1066 Timberline Rd. Apopka, FL 32703

Carter Stevens

CD Asian.net Steve Hackworth 43­23 Colden Street Apt. 25N Fushing, NY 11355

Lexington Ave. PAGE 194 - De Villiers Butterball vs State Mcfadden - Palaver Report727 Pocono Summit, PA

2541 Carman Crest Dr., 2nd Floor,

18346

1/1

22/03/2016

Terms and Conditions | LiveJasmin

Terms and Conditions The Terms and Conditions below are the shortened version of the full Terms and Conditions that we strongly recommend to read by click here.

1.

LiveJasmin.com does not send You spam messages! Promotional emails might be sent to You about LiveJasmin.com or about its partner­websites with the option to unsubscribe from the mailing list. The messages sent to subscribers are Transactional or Relationship Messages as that term is defined under the CAN­SPAM Act of 2003.

2.

We never share your personal information or email address without your former consent*. Therefore, your information is always safe with LiveJasmin.com!

3.

At LiveJasmin.com the Subscriber is King, being provided access to a free and payable online adult interactive website in which Adult Service Providers (ASP) over the age of 18 carry out live webcam shows.

4.

LiveJasmin.com strongly recommends You to consult its excellent content and unbeatable price list, including credit compensation, refund and means of payment established for each service and country. This information, without prejudice of the set forth in the full Terms and Conditions, can easily be found on the website and at the following contacts: dditservices.com or help@dditservices.com.

5.

LiveJasmin.com’s services are only available for persons over the age of 18 (21 in some regions).

6.

As an adult you declare to have the inalienable right to read/view any content you deem advisable. Moreover, you declare that reading and/or viewing Adult entertainment content on the website does not in any way infringe the norms or law of your neighborhood, town, city, county, state or country.

7.

You also declare to currently reside in the country which you truthfully and accurately indicated in the form provided to log into LiveJasmin.com and undertake the duty to immediately inform, within 24 hours, of any change of residence by sending an e­mail to help@dditservices.com in compliance with the set forth in the full terms and conditions.

8.

LiveJasmin.com is hereby authorized to process technical data related to Your visits to LiveJasmin.com. You also authorize the processing of Your personal data provided during the registration process in accordance with the Privacy Policy foreseen in the full terms and conditions.

9.

All contents and materials provided on LiveJasmin.com, included but not limited to live camera streams, images, graphics, applications and texts shall be used only for personal purposes. These materials shall be the property of LiveJasmin and are protected by applicable laws.

10.

Under no circumstances shall LiveJasmin.com or any of its related, affiliated companies be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential or

http://new.livejasmin.com/en/terms­and­conditions/?psid=ed_ttnt0lsb&utm_source=promotools&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=awets#address

1/4

We do not understand how the Court could conclude that he is guilty of accessing child pornography. On the lowest of the highest standard, there is no crime here.

Not only did the websites display no traces of any form of child pornography, the site certificates, the custodian certificates, the websites usage policies or the State’s witnesses have implicated David.

This is a nothing burger and a disgrace that an experienced officer of the court can get this wrong.

We saw a noticeable trend as we worked through all these charges and convictions. The State Advocate and the Court were not fair or interested in facts. What we concluded was that the State went out of their way to crate this picture that they are dealing with a serial criminal.

I have to be open to saying that the South African justice got it wrong! No disrespect intended.

De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 195

Additional Points There is one thing that we need to address. We had to ask the accused to give us some answers t the best of his ability. The obvious question we had to start with; 1. Why would all these people in this case lie? His response was that he cannot speculate or talk about their behalf. He made an interesting statement where she explained that to him it was not about their lies, but about his truth. He said that he gave the truth and backed it up with as much evidence as he could find. He was not in court to prove anything but had to defend himself. All he could do was to give the court honest answers with the backing of evidence.

2. Why would you take photos of models under 16 in bikinis? He explained it was just how it is in the modelling industry. We did confirm this by contacting a couple of agencies in Europe, SouthAfrica and the United States.

3. Do you feel you had a fair trial? He said at the time of the trial that was how he saw it, but he did notice that it was not about fairness when the court gave the judgement. He noticed that all his evidence and facts during his Chief testimony were not dealt with in the judgement. He then realised the unfairness and bias of the court. He made it clear that he lost all confidence in the justice system. All he desires is a fair opportunity to appeal and let another court look at the evidence and make an honest judgement.

We asked many other questions. What we can say is that David and his family did not show they are not sensitive to the nature of the case. They do however feel that David’s case was more about proving a point to the public because of the media’s involvement. To us, we cannot say we do not agree.

David does deserve a fair opportunity. We urge people to pre-judge him on the number of charges and look at each case and the evidence like we did. He is innocent.

PAGE 196 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report

THE INTERNET, GOOGLE, SOCIAL MEDIA DISCOVERIES We also took a look at what was said about David’s case vs what was said in court.

With NO surprise we found a one-sided sensational media outburst. At face value, it immediately paints this picture that JUSTICE WAS SERVED! The intention of the media was dishonest and bias against David and his defence.

We have done an enquiry from a couple of online media outlets and it come to our attention there was only ONE reporter in court during most part of his trial. That was then paid for by the various outlets and published. Carte Blanch was only there the first, and again the last day. Star News Paper was twice in court and Media 24 got the info from the same person as mentioned above.

There was one particular article about David during his incarceration. The Department of Correctional Services put out a press release about David having a sold phone where they claimed he was running his agency from Prison. We did call the National Office to enquiry about the findings as stated in the press release and to date, they have not provided us with any evidence that the statement that they made was factual.

We explicitly asked if they make public announcements about all prisoners who are caught with cell phones in prison and they said no they don’t, they also could not provide us with the reason why they made a public statement about David. We further investigated and find that he was not running his modelling business from prison. The business closed immediately after his sentencing. DCS is refusing to provide any further information about these allegations, and therefore it is our submission that it was part of the refusal for him to receive his study material and equipment. A court order eventually was issued against DCS. We need to be careful not to take everything the media say as biblical proof.

The matter at hand is his constitutional rights, and not what the media has said about his in the past.

Palaver De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report - PAGE 197

PAGE 198 - De Villiers vs State - Palaver Report