Acquit Waterkloof 4 - defence
2005-06-02 17:27
Pretoria - The defence in the Waterkloof murder trial on Thursday asked the court to acquit the four young men because the State could not prove the corpse found was the person they allegedly had assaulted.
Christoff Becker, Gert van Schalkwyk, Frikkie du Preez and Reinach Tiedt had pleaded not guilty to murdering an unidentified man in the early hours of December 1 2001 in Moreleta Park.
They also pleaded not guilty to assaulting another man on the same night in Constantia Park. The four were out clubbing in Hatfield earlier in the evening.
Advocate Jaap Cilliers argued in Pretoria High Court on Thursday that the body found in the park that night was not that of the man the accused assaulted.
He said it must have been a burglar who was injured while committing a crime in the area.
Cilliers said the man was probably injured on a palisade fence and he went to the park where he later died.
It was a known fact the park harboured criminals who returned to their haven after committing crimes in the area.
Defence claims there were two different men
Magistrate Len Kotze only had to find the State had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the man found in the park and the man allegedly assaulted by the four were not the same person.
"This would then mean the end of the State's case," he said.
Cilliers said the court had heard from witnesses how one of the four brutally kicked a man several times in the face with a steel-pointed shoe.
The impact of the kicks must have been such that the victim's face should have been disfigured. The man who was found did not have any injuries to his face.
He also had a severe cut-like wound to the back of his leg, which could have been caused by a palisade fence, said Cilliers.
He argued that the accused denied they ever stabbed their victim.
Bekker testified that the man they assaulted was big, but the corpse was that of a small-built man, he said.
Cilliers said: "This must be sufficient evidence to at least cast a doubt whether it is the same man."
Regarding the assault charge, the defence said it was physically impossible for the four to drive from Hatfield, assault a man in Constantia Park and then end up in Moreleta Park 14 minutes later. The State argued that this was enough time.
An impossible coinsidence - prosecutor
Regarding the murder, the State argued that the coincidence was too big that another man would die on the same night and in the same park, on the same spot where the four had admitted they assaulted another man.
"What is the coincidence that another injured man would go and lie on exactly the same spot as the man whom the accused assaulted. It is impossible," said prosecutor Johann Kruger.
Arguments will continue on Friday, when the State is expected to reply to the submissions made by the defence.
- SAPA