7 minute read
COUNT 31 - 38 - ACCESS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
[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.
Advertisement
[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 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
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
NOT CHILD PORN
GALLERIES TEEN LOVE BLACKS.COM
NOT CHILD PORN
WILD THUMBS.COM
THERE ARE NO SUCH PORNOGRAPHY DOMAIN NOT CHILD PORN
12 MARCH 2012:
/ TEEN PORNTUBE.COM
/ 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
[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
• 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
• 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.
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 pornography.
We do not understand how the Court could conclude that he is guilty of accessing child pornography. On the lowest to 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 a sitting judge can get this wrong. State Advocate and the Judge were not fair or interested in facts. They 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 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. However, the Court did not assess the evidence, and as David’s counsel said it “The Court did not deal with this evidence and the State did not prove these cases beyond a reasonable doubt.
We highly recommend that this Acting Judge get removed from any other cases and that the South African Justice Department review all his cases.
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. I can with all confidence say that Acting Judge Cassim Moosa has bought the entire Justice Department in disrepute, and severe legal and correction action should be taken, even a possible disbar and removal of his law license.
#DAVIDSHOULDBEFREE
#DAVIDISINNOCENT
