Palaver Report-De Villiers vs. State

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