Friday, March 29, 2024
24 Hour News


BABY *Railen CASE RESUMES IN THE HIGH COURT TODAY WHERE THE MOTHER AND BOYFRIEND…

BABY *Railen CASE RESUMES IN THE HIGH COURT TODAY WHERE THE MOTHER AND BOYFRIEND ARE ACCUSED OF HIS UNIMAGINABLE CRUEL…

By , in Uncategorised , at 14th Jul 2018


BABY *Railen CASE RESUMES IN THE HIGH COURT TODAY WHERE THE MOTHER AND BOYFRIEND ARE ACCUSED OF HIS UNIMAGINABLE CRUEL DEATH AND SERIAL ABUSE

UPDATE DAY 3, Courtesy of Women and Men against Child Abuse. Please like and follow their page.
(All info from https://web.facebook.com/WMACAKidz/ Women and Men Against Child Abuse please like and follow their page)
BABY *DANIEL CASE RESUMES IN THE HIGH COURT TODAY WHERE THE MOTHER AND BOYFRIEND ARE ACCUSED OF HIS UNIMAGINABLE CRUEL DEATH AND SERIAL ABUSE

Day 3 Summary follows below / …

Accused Number 2 (Boyfriend) has been called to the Witness Stand and is been cross-examined by his Council. This is the first time since the start of the High Court that the mother’s boyfriend is testifying!

In the background of our team photo, the brilliant Prosecutor, in this case, is Steven Rubin – We are starting slowly with the boyfriend’s version of what happened on the Friday morning.

Defence – Mpho: Accused Number 2’s (Boyfriend) Counsel
Defence – Mario: Accused Number 1’s (Mother) Counsel
State Prosecutor: Steven Rubin

We are starting slowly with Accused Number 2 (the boyfriends) version of what happened on the Friday morning – the day *Daniel was burned.

Accused Number 2 says – *Daniel’s older brother had a runny nose and both children were not at school. I prepared breakfast as usual and after that, both the boys wanted to watch a movie as they always do. I was outside working on the bakkie. Like normal *Daniel would come from watching the movie halfway through and interest himself with what I was doing. The boys after their movie and being inside they like to be outside in the yard. They were not fond of being inside. They were playing normally. *Daniel was working with me on the bakkie and he would pass me the tools that I needed and he would bring them along. His clothes were also greasy. We decided later in the day that they should get in the bath. I told the older brother to get the pyjamas ready and that *Daniel and I would do the water. It was around 17:30 before mom got home.

Defence – Mpho:
When you decided it was bath time, where were you and where were the boys?
Accused Number 2:
We were in the backroom together that is when I asked the older brother to get the pj’s ready. *Daniel followed me into the house. As we got into the bathroom I opened the hot and cold water a little bit. I told him to get undressed so long. I told him I was going to get his brother. On my way to the backroom where the older brother was at the end of the passage was the dining room area. As I reached the dining room I heard the banging of water and falling into water and at the same time screaming out in pain. I immediately ran into the bathroom. I heard the banging continuously with him struggling. His arms were reaching out to me. When I grabbed him out of the water I realised the water was very hot. While he was in my arms I closed the hot water tap and I realised the cold water tap was closed. I grabbed the towel that was behind him and covered him. I rushed to the room that the brother was in. *Daniel was in pain and he was crying and he was sore. I did ask him to tell me when he would go into the water when it was hot. He said he wanted to reach for the stone that cleans your heel and put it into its position.

When I carried him to the room where his older brother was I tried to console him and find out where it was sore and after noticing he was red in certain places on his body. His back was red and his feet were red and I knew that the hot water had definitely hurt him. I opened the cupboard in the room where we had some medication and there was ointment and I read on the box that it stated for burns and stings and redness I thought it was the right ointment on his face and his hands and his back all over. At this stage, he had already stopped crying. We decided to cancel the bath for both the boys and just put on some pyjamas. *Daniel wanted to dress himself and I was there to assist him. He wanted to dress himself like normal. The older brother was there too and we were getting dressed together.

Defence – Mpho:
At that stage where was your daughter?
Accused Number 2:
At that time she had not arrived from creche yet. There was transport that dropped the kids. Just after 6pm that was when he came to drop her off. He handed her over to me. He noticed *Daniel and older brother in the room playing. I remember he told *Daniel it was cold and he should get dressed. Both the boys replied “We are uncle.

We sat together and watch a movie. I sat with my daughter on the bed and *Daniel sat on the sleeper couch with his older brother and we continued to watch the movie.
Defence – Mpho:
When you were going to prepare the bath water was there anyone else, any family that was in the house there is evidence that your brother and your mother live in the house?
Accused Number 2:
They were not present that day.
Defence – Mpho:
At any stage did they come back during the period between the bath and when you were watching TV with the children – Did you at any stage leave the children in the room alone?
Accused Number 2:
Because my daughter was back home I couldn’t leave her and she was awake. She was too small for the boys to watch. I had to be there and wait until Accused Number 1 got home… She arrived home at around 7pm. *Daniel’s older brother went and opened for her when she entered the room *Daniel was dozing off watching the movie. As soon as Accused Number 1 came home I was not friendly with her at all because of the unresolved argument the previous day.
The argument continued about her snooping through my phone. It got heated and got to a point where she wanted to go out for a smoke. As she, the mother was standing outside by the door I said: “Our relationship is F***ED up for good this time”. I remember physically touching Accused Number 1 and placed my fist on her cheek. It was before I said the statement. Before she went for a smoke.

Defence – Mpho:
Why did you do that?
Accused Number 2:
I was frustrated with Accused Number 1 and whenever I spoke about something serious with our relationship she would walk away. I was frustrated. I tried to explain to her how she would feel if I was to use my strength and power like she does. We had issues where she was not herself. She was standing against the cupboard. I placed my fist against her cheek and I asked her how she would feel if I was to beat her every day. It was to ask her. It was after that physical altercation she needed to get away from me. She asked me if she could go smoke. I said she could not just walk away during the conversation. She sarcastically said can I go smoke now? As she was going to smoke that is when I said “Our relationship is F***ED up for good this time. She didn’t respond she stood outside smoking.

Defence – Mpho:
When she was smoking, where were you?

Accused Number 2:
I was still on the bed.

Defence – Mpho:
From where you were sitting could you see Accused Number 1 and was anything said?

Accused Number 2:
Yes, I could see her. I told her *Daniel fell into the bath today you must check on him. She finished her smoke and went to *Daniel.

Defence – Mpho:
When she was outside, where were you?

Accused Number 2:
I was on the bed

Defence – Mpho:
Where was Daniel?

Accused Number 2:
He was closest to me, I could reach him first.

Defence – Mpho:
You mentioned that after she smoked what did she do?

Accused Number 2:
She walked towards *Daniel to check on him and she killed the cigarette and walked to *Daniel. She checked immediately.

Defence – Mpho:
What was *Daniel doing?

Accused Number 2:
He was in laying down. The pillow was high underneath him he had just shortly fallen asleep.

Defence – Mpho:
What happened when she approached him?

Accused Number 2:
I was still in the room with my daughter. I turned to do something on the PC and walked out also to light a cigarette. Thereafter we returned to the room the argument was not finished. We were still arguing about the same thing. We were nasty to one another we stayed out of each other’s way. It was after she checked on *Daniel I do not know exactly what she was doing.

Defence – Mpho:
Time?

Accused Number 2:
It was before 20h00 maybe 19:30.

Defence – Mpho:
After that…?

Accused Number 2:
We argued I would leave to go outside I was busy trying to stay away from her. I came in I would tell her if this was what she was going to do she better leave. I fell asleep first. We were lying in bed together.

Defence – Mpho:
She said she walked up to go and look at *Daniel?

Accused Number 2:
I only found out that she checked him at 11pm. I did not know she had woken up. When she was speaking to a family member, but it was later in the day. It did not phase me at all that she checked him at 11pm because I remember the door opening in the early hours of the morning. She spoke to *Daniel and he spoke back that he wanted to go to the toilet.

Defence – Mpho:
Did you see Daniel go and pee, did you hear?

Accused Number 2:
I heard her voice letting him know that he could go and pee. I heard her.

Defence – Mpho:
Did she mention *Daniel – how did you know if it was Daniel or the older brother?

Accused Number 2:
The older brother would not ask to go – he would get up and go by himself.

Defence – Mpho:
You are only assuming that it was *Daniel who she was speaking?

Accused Number 2:
Yes.

Defence – Mpho:
On the night of the 24th – your behaviour was testified that you did not want her to go near *Daniel?

Accused Number 2:
She walked to *Daniel straight after I told her he fell in the bath.

Defence – Mpho:
She testified that you never told her *Daniel fell in the bath)?

Accused Number 2:
I would say that is a lie.
Defence – Mpho:
You mentioned that after you had picked up *Daniel from the hot bath you noticed he was red on his back and on his feet is that correct?

Accused Number 2:
Yes

Defence – Mpho:
We will refer to the post-mortem album.

Accused Number 2:
The redness was not as bad, but it was all over his back. His back, his complexion was very fair his back and his feet were first. His feet I only noticed after I put the ointment on. In front of his legs and on his face. The pictures the redness and his chest were faint. It was very faint. I could only later see the marks even the splatter on his face.

Defence – Mpho:
The mark on his right cheek to his chin was that how it was?

Accused Number 2:
No, I didn’t notice it this is very bad. I didn’t see any redness in the bathroom.

Defence – Mpho:
And the right foot? Do you see that his toes are even darker

Accused Number 2:
Yes – black.

Defence – Mpho:
What was the state of his feet when you took him out of the bath and put lotion on?

Accused Number 2:
It was red, and he complained that it was sore. It was not this red and there was no skin coming off his feet at all it was just red, and I applied the ointment on. He then dressed himself and he did put socks on. It was not black. It was not this red.

Defence – Mpho:
There is evidence that has been led by Dr H that during the PME it appears that save for the burning and burn marks, other marks were found that indicate that there was blunt force that was applied to different parts of his body including his head?

Accused Number 2:
*Daniel always bumped himself and hurt himself. He would not tell us unless it was bleeding. The other marks he had on his body were from before the burns.
Defence – Mpho:
Did you on the day in question or the day before that – assault *Daniel.
Accused Number 2:
No, I did not, not on the side of his head or his arms or his chest.

Defence – Mpho:
Referring to the imprint abrasion. When you took *Daniel out of the bath was that injury to the head there?

Accused Number 2:
I did not notice it at all.

Defence – Mpho:
Can you tell us how that may have come to be?

Accused Number 2:
Maybe from his fall in the bath.

Defence – Mpho:
My colleague is going to argue that you were the one who was taking care of *Daniel and was with him throughout the day, therefore, you should be in a position to explain that injury?

Accused Number 2:
I did check on him after he was dressed. Something this big would be easily noticeable. He would have told me it was sore there. It would have left a knob or a bump on his head.

Defence – Mpho:
After – was there any bleeding anywhere on his body?

Accused Number 2:
No there was no bleeding anywhere on his body.

Defence – Mpho:
I will now take you through to what Accused Number 1 says she thinks happened. She says when she checked on *Daniel he did not have the marks as depicted in the pictures – can you comment?

Accused Number 2:
That should not be possible she should have seen the marks I saw the marks.

Defence – Mpho:
She mentioned that she only saw marks on the left temple)?

Accused Number 2:
When she walked to *Daniel I was not standing there. I left her to check on him. I did not make too much about it. After I told Accused Number 1 to check him and she walked away after checking him. I did not see any danger of the redness of his skin.

Defence – Mpho:
She testified that she believes when *Daniel went to pee you woke up and went outside and poured the hot water on him?

Accused Number 2:
That seems a bit outrageous to make sense. He would have made a noise. For me to go and boil a kettle and follow him to go pee it is too far-fetched and it is not something I would have done.

Defence – Mpho:
The question is did you do it?

Accused Number 2:
I definitely did not.

Defence – Mpho:
She mentioned that on the night of the 24th you were behaving strangely.
Do you have any comment?

Accused Number 2:
I don’t know what strange is. We were arguing it was loud and we were swearing.

Defence – Mpho:
In her affidavit she mentioned that after you said you F***ED up *Daniel for good and she looked at *Daniel she saw some red marks and she asked you if you had anything to do with those marks.

Accused Number 2:
I jumped up and I told her to ask him. She asked why he is drowsy. I said she had just woke him up. This was after she had checked on him.

Defence – Mpho:
She further testified before this court that after *Daniel’s burial it is because of the threats that you had made to her that you would harm her children if she did not come back to you?

Accused Number 1’s Advocate – Mario:
Objects and says Accused Number 1 says she went back because she found out she was pregnant and was threatened.

Defence – Mpho:
Did you threaten Accused Number 1 or her children after *Daniel’s burial?

Accused Number 2:
No, I did not.

Defence – Mpho:
Throughout your relationship with Accused Number 1, were you or did you at any stage assault her?

Accused Number 2:
I and Accused Number 1 had a previous altercation where I slapped her. She was behaving very badly, disrespecting me and she had been drinking. We forgave each other, and it never ever happened again. This was after *Daniel’s death. It was after she had come back to me. Our relationship was just not the same anymore.

Defence – Mpho:
It is evidence before this court by Dr H that the extent of the injuries on *Daniel are not consistent with him falling into a bath, do you have any comment?

Accused Number 2:
Only that they should do another assessment. It must be rechecked. It must be redone by someone else. I don’t know.

Defence – Mpho:
She further testified that it is more likely that *Daniel was put in the hot water and held down.

Accused Number 2:
If I did that it would have had to be during the afternoon. If I did that he would have definitely told his mom.

Defence – Mpho:
It is further or there is further evidence to the effect that on the following day when you discovered that *Daniel had died you did nothing to assist in the form of calling for help or consoling Accused Number 1. Rephrase: What happened that morning? (of the 25th)?

Accused Number 2:
When I woke up I noticed *Daniel laying slightly off the sleeper couch. I called out his name, but he still didn’t respond. I jumped out of bed first. Accused Number 1 followed me asking what was wrong? When I got to him his eyes were still open. I took him off the couch and put him down to try do CPR. while I was trying to do CPR, she was jumping hysterically asking me to do something. I tried, I tried to do something. I was pressing on his chest it sounded like he was coming to. The air was coming out of his lungs. I noticed that it was a bit late. She said to me please do something. I said there was nothing I could do. She looked at me in disappointment then picked me up screaming up to my mom and everyone who could help. I ran outside to a friend close by. To a friend who was a paramedic. The uncle told me he was not there. They called emergencies from across the road. I gave them the address and they said there was someone nearby. I ran towards home but panicked and went to make sure that they got the right address. They made another call to confirm they said someone was coming and then I ran back home. When I got back to the room Accused Number 1 was standing over *Daniel. My mom was standing there. She took off his socks and asked what was wrong with his feet? I told her he fell into the bath. He looked very different than the day before. We were now confused as to why he was deceased when he was fine the day before.

Defence – Mpho:
Evidence was led that during 2015/2016 *Daniel was admitted to hospital for fractures to his body – can you tell us what happened?

Accused Number 2:
I was lying underneath the car. *Daniel and his elder brother were playing on one Bicycle. It the elder brothers bike. *Daniel had a bike, but it was damaged. He preferred the bigger bike anyway. While lying on the concrete on the left-hand side of me, I head the bike fall and him coming down about 3 meters from where I was. He could not have been on the bike because it was too big. I saw him land and I got up from under the car, picked him up and consoled him. I took him to his mom and she checked him. I went back outside.

Defence – Mpho:
Was he then attended to?

Accused Number 2:
He complained that it was painful for a short while. I am not sure if Accused Number 1 put a bandage over or just consoled him. I was not the one who attended to him. He said it was his arm. I told his mom that *Daniel fell off the bike and she attended to him. We didn’t realise that he needed the hospital immediately. It was only after it started to swell that we realised that he was in need of the hospital. I can’t remember who took him because we were at the hospital many times. I am not sure on which incident we went if it was for his arm or for her pregnancy where I went to the hospital with them.

Defence – Mpho:
What about the incident he was taken to Raima Moosa Hospital?

Accused Number 2:
It was for his leg. We were looking after a family members house and I was outside with the boys. The older brother was watching TV when *Daniel fell out of the tree. I heard the loud bang of him reaching the floor under the tree. He was crying but not hysterical. I picked him up and as I held him in my arm, moving him I saw his leg was looking different to his other leg. I ran to tell Accused Number 1. Accused Number 1 was sleeping inside. The only means of transport we had was a motorbike. I went with my cousin who was the driver. *Daniel and I were on the back seat.

Defence – Mpho:
At admission how is it that he was admitted at Raima Moosa as *Daniel with your surname?

Accused Number 2:
When we arrived, the nurse asked if we lived nearby because we needed the birth certificate. I told her if they needed the Birth Certificate, they could bring it. They asked if I was his dad and I said yes. I gave them my particulars. I did not say he was *Daniel with my surname. But if they had asked, I would have said yes as I considered him my son.

Defence – Mpho:
The doctor who attended him there testified that she noticed he had a previous injury on his elbow and she also noticed that there was bruising under his eyes and bruising over his right nipple and bruising under the left rib cage.

Accused Number 2:
The bruising under his clothing I do not recall seeing. I know he ran into the sliding door chasing the kitten out of the house. It was in Naturina. This was before we went to look after the family members house. It was about the day before we left.

Defence – Mpho:
The doctor also testified to the effect that you were very attentive more so than what she would experience with other parents. You were very attentive to *Daniel.
Accused Number 2:
Yes, it was horrifying to see his leg swinging in the wrong direction. I left him on different occasions where they wheeled him to places I was not allowed to go.

Defence – Mpho:
She also testified that he appeared to be docile?

Accused Number 2:
Please, simply the word Docile…

Defence – Mpho:
Sort of withdrawn but if I may put it like this – he did not appear to be himself. He was almost scared, and he was not active?

Accused Number 2:
That was *Daniel’s nature, the nurse did ask every time she touched him why he was not screaming or crying. I explained that that was his nature once he stopped crying he would not cry again. *Daniel was not a cry baby. I think they expected him to be crying more.

Defence – Mpho:
Let us start with the elbow fracture, did you inflict this injury upon *Daniel?

Accused Number 2:
No, I didn’t.

Defence – Mpho:
And the leg injury?

Accused Number 2:
No, I did not. I have given him a hiding on his bum before but nothing that would be severe.

Defence – Mpho:
Did you at any stage use objects to hit him?

Accused Number 2:
No never.

Defence – Mpho:
You refer to him as your boy – is that correct?

Accused Number 2:
Yes.

Defence – Mpho:
On the 24th, did you have any reason to hurt *Daniel?

Accused Number 2:
None whatsoever.

Defence – Mpho:
Remember you were fighting with his mother and the fight had rolled over from the day before.

Accused Number 2:
The fight had nothing to do with the boys.

Defence – Mpho:
Coming back to the injuries noted by Dr Yachad, you were with him every day, how is it that you did not know about these bruises?

Accused Number 2:
I was with him every day but honestly, I never witnessed every fall he experienced. For example, when he bumped into the door, I heard it but I did not see it happen. Usually, I am with them every single day.

Defence – Mpho:
You heard my colleague arguing that because of these patterns of injuries and the doctor saying that the elbow and femur injuries when looked at together are considered to be non-accidental injuries. The inference being that these injuries were inflicted purposefully being that *Daniel was being abused?

Accused Number 2:
I disagree with that. *Daniel was a very busy toddler. He was a rough boy. He did not like wearing shoes, for example, it would not faze him that his nail was almost gone. He would not complain about that. He was free and loving being outside. He got hurt more than his elder brother did.

Defence – Mpho:
Did yourself or Accused Number 1 abuse *Daniel?

Accused Number 2:
Accused Number 1 did not, and I did not.

Defence – Mpho:
Is there anything that you want to tell the court?

Accused Number 2:
I thought of so many things that I would like to say but it does not come to mind now. I would like the court to know I also want to know how my son died. If I had known he needed medical attention I would have taken him to the doctor like I always do. Without him having told us I was at ease. I did not think he would die after falling into hot water. I did not know he needed emergency medical assistance. I would have taken him to the hospital if I had known falling into the bath would kill him…

*No further questions from The Defence: Mpho (Accused Number 2’s Council) for the witness.

Mario – Accused Number 1’s Defence:
I was hoping that I would be able to start today, it is almost 3pm it has been a hard day can we take some more time. My learned friend has taken his time. Can we ask that it be rolled over until tomorrow? I will have my cross-examination finished before the end of the day tomorrow.

Prosecutor
My only concern is that we will not finish by Friday and will have to postpone to October being the next recess and I am not available in that time.

Defence – Mario: Accused Number 1’s (Mother) Counsel
Cross-examining Accused Number 2 (Boyfriend) Counsel

Defence – Mario:
When you were asked about your relationship you told us how you met her and when she moved to Johannesburg. And you were asked to comment, and you said you agree with her testimony?

Accused Number 2:
The way we met, yes.

Defence – Mario:
So, when did you meet?

Accused Number 2:
Dates are very difficult – perhaps 2015.

Defence – Mario:
Would you agree that you actually met around September or August 2014 and it was only in 2015 that she moved in? You testified that it was not a challenge for you to get acquainted with the boys because you are an experienced father, why would you say that?

Accused Number 2:
I have dated a mother and she had a 2-year-old and he is now 15. We lived together, and we were together for about 10 years. There were no allegations of abuse against her son.

Defence – Mario:
Are you the biological father of other children?

Accused Number 2:
Yes – 5 children.

Defence – Mario:
When was your 3rd child born?

Accused Number 2:
While I was already dating Accused Number 1.

Defence – Mario:
Who is the mother of this child?

Accused Number 2:
Natalia.

Defence – Mario:
If I understand correctly, you were having a relationship with Accused Number 1 and your ex is that correct?

Accused Number 2:
No, when we broke up it was before Accused Number 1.

Defence – Mario:
Would you agree that your daughter was born on the 9th July 2015?
Accused Number 2:
I am not sure.

Defence – Mario:
Counting backwards 9 months means you were having two relationships. That is why there was a constant argument with Accused Number 1. The evidence was that your daughter was born while you were in a relationship with Accused Number 1. You also mentioned that when Accused Number 1 moved to Johannesburg, you mentioned it was difficult for you to live like other couples because you were relying on your mother?

Accused Number 2:
Financially we were relying on her. I could not provide for her because I had no income.

Defence – Mario:
Accused Number 1 testified that she was retrenched in December 2014 and when she moved in January 2015, she received a pay-out that she used to survive.

Accused Number 2:
Yes, I remember. She did use that money. We were not paying any bills so that money was used to assist my mother with food and clothing that we needed. She wanted her own things because she was new in Johannesburg. The money was spent to survive. We were still relying on my mom.

Defence – Mario:
You also mentioned you were close to *Daniel and he would assist you when you were working on cars. From what age would you say *Daniel was assisting you with the tools?

Accused Number 2:
Close to just over a year.

Defence – Mario:
You said you were taking care of the boys once Accused Number 1 started working. Prior to that would you say Accused Number 1 was the dominant caregiver?

Accused Number 2:
Yes.

Day 2

Day 2 continued with the Re-examination of Accused Number 1 by her council. It emerged that information presented to the court today was NEW information. The state re-examined the witness to corroborate the new evidence.

This new evidence is PIVOTAL in that it supports the charge of negligence laid against Accused Number 1.

The defence re-examined Accused Number 1 starting with the evens that happened when she arrived home on the night of the 24th.

The court was to understand that when she arrived home, she had an argument with Accused Number 2, she was holding the baby who she then placed on the bed. It is not clear as to who handed her the baby when she arrived, and where the infant was when she went outside to smoke. She told the court the reason she put the baby down was that she did not want the child to be exposed to the cigarette smoke.

The Defence said to her: “You will remember that when you were cross-examined the question was posed to you to ask why you would run to *Railen when the accused said to you “I F***ED him up for good this time”.

Accused Number 1 said she went to check on *Railen because it was instinct to check if the child was okay. She said that Accused Number 2 was looking at *Railen and that her first motherly instinct was to make sure her child was okay because she says she looks after her child and loves her child.

When Accused Number 1 returned home that evening she claims that she looked at *Railen and did not see any burn injuries on his face, not even bruises. However, in previous testimony, Accused Number 1 told the court the mark she saw on *Railen’s left side of the face was not very large and she thought it was an imprint from the cushion on which he was sleeping.

The Defence questioned Accused Number 1 about her relationship with Accused Number 2 and that it, in fact, it continued after *Railen had died. She was asked when in her mind did the relationship come to an end? Accused Number 1 states it was during the time of the bail application. Her reason given was because she had seen the photos of how *Railen looked, and she saw the medical report. She said it did not correspond with what Accused Number 2’s version was and that it was an accident. She strongly states that *Railen was not burnt on that evening. Drawing on the evidence presented by the pathologist, *Railen was burnt during the course of that evening.

The defence reminded Accused Number 1 that – “Yesterday you told the court that Accused Number 2 had made a confession to you saying, “I killed *Railen”. Accused Number 1 said to her it sounded like it was sarcastic but, in her heart, she knew he was saying he killed *Railen.

The Defence questions Accused Number 1 and said that you had told the court you had sent this conversation to your legal team. She confirms it was a WhatsApp message sent to her attorney – Mario. Accused Number 1 is still claiming that Accused Number 2 made contact first. There was a second message sent, the message that was read has a lot of swearing and eludes to the fact that she is an alcoholic and a bad mother!

Accused Number 1’s message to Accused Number 2 stated “Just give me the truth about my son’s death. Please tell me, please be honest I need to know.” Accused Number 2 gave no answer, he just replied to the message and said: “That’s all you did, but I killed *Railen, how did you understand that”?

After further cell phone number clarifications, the Defence asked Accused Number 1 if she wanted to say anything.

Accused Number 1:
“All I want to say is that if I had known that there was something wrong with *Railen that evening I would not have just left him like that. Every day I have to live with the knowledge that my son is dead and he will never come back. I did not wish for him to die. If I had a choice he would be with me today”. The Prosecutor adds – There was a part that was left out “I did not intend to kill him” she then she corrected herself.
In Afrikaans “Ek wou hom nie doodgemaak het nie… uh.. ek wou nie hê hy moes dood wees nie”. This was translated as “I didn’t want him dead” which is not 100% correct.

In the normal course of a trial, there is EIC (Evidence in Chief). Cross-examination and re-examination. Accused Number 1’s defence then countered the emergence of the new evidence saying the state had had their opportunity to question the issue of the messages which was brought into evidence through the testimony of the accused yesterday.

The prosecutor maintained there is now new evidence that in the interest of Accused Number 2 if he wishes to ask further questions he will be allowed.
The prosecutor then began by saying that yesterday Accused Number 1 said she could not access her emails and did not know where they were. Also, she said yesterday that she sent the messages as screen grabs. The evidence presented to the court was in a text format. Thirdly there is also allegations of Accused Number 1 being termed as a bad mother.
All these new issues must be addressed.

Accused Number 1’s Attorney – Mario, stands up and says, “The state has closed its case so they cannot use this evidence”. He furthermore says that the allegation by the state that it was testified that it was a screengrab, Mario says it came as an email or that it is a true indication or confirmation of what she testified yesterday.

From the Defence representing Accused Number 2 (Mpho):
He has asked to make submissions prior to the Judge’s decision. He says there are other issues in as far as this message is concerned. Yesterday it was said that a screenshot was sent. It is an issue of credibility which can be addressed later. Accused Number 2 still has a chance to present his case. The WhatsApp chat that was presented is titled “WhatsApp chat with E 002”. There must be a first chat? He further says they cannot go on a “gist”.

Judge:
If Accused Number 1 says she is presenting something whether it alleges against Accused Number 2, she is trying to say I am not guilty of what the state is alleging which is for me to decide. If they are throwing stones at each other it is another matter. It is up to Accused Number 1 to present Chat 001 and to dispute what she has said. Her evidence is to say state exonerate me rather than Accused Number 2 exonerate me.

The Defence:
There is another side to that in that at the end of the day it will be said by the state that Accused Number 1 said a, b, c, or d and you never put it to the accused.

Judge:
The State also included the Defence to say can he be given a chance to dispute the evidence.

Prosecutor:
The state can (according to case law) after which his Lordship must take into account the evidence in full. It cannot be ignored because the state failed to go through it. Sec 167 of the Criminal procedures act – the court can examine any person other than the accused and may recall and re-examine even the accused if the evidence presented to the court appears essential.

The State wishes to explore the new evidence and will be allowed to re-examine the witness (Accused Number 1) to substantiate the claim that she neglected the boy and that she is a bad mother.

Judge:
“The court is not just a referee but must participate in order to come to a conclusion that serves the best interests”.

THE STATE WILL RE-EXAMINE THE WITNESS (ACCUSED NUMBER 1)

Prosecutor:
You have read the message of the time 20:51 please read the response to that message for us.

Accused Number 1:
The response back to me was “Oh M please stop harassing me. Do I have to block you as a solution stop being that way please you don’t have to speak to me just leave me alone okay please” 21:01. There are two other messages that I responded back to. 21:39 – I sent the messages “Was is an accident just give me something to calm my thoughts instead of jumping to this or that you know I am a good mother those messages you sent were ugly” last message 21:41 “Just leave it I will never know the truth about what happened to him”.

Prosecutor:
If I understood your evidence yesterday you said you took a screengrab of the messages is that correct?

Accused Number 1:
What is a screengrab? I didn’t say I took a screen grab, I said I emailed to my attorney.

Prosecutor:
You were asked – did you type the messages over or did you take a screengrab? You answered I took a screengrab.

Accused Number 1:
In other words, you take a picture of the chats that is there. Yes.

Prosecutor:
You took a picture of the chats that are there from the phone?

Accused Number 1:
No, I took a picture of the email that I sent to my attorney, not of the chat that was on the phone.

Prosecutor:
How I understood, you said I took a picture of the messages and emailed it to my attorney not that you took a picture of the email.

Defence:
When you forwarded the message via email was it a screen grab or you typed the message from your email and then sent it to your legal rep?

(EVIDENCE FROM YESTERDAY – WHERE SHE CONFIRMS SHE TOOK A SCREENGRAB
Accused Number 1:
It was a screengrab I did not type any message. It was a message coming from him through WhatsApp and I sent it through email and it was him who sent that message.)

Accused Number 1:
I had a WhatsApp chat. If you have a WhatsApp chat you have a choice to share it or email it, I shared an email to my attorney.

Prosecutor:
Yesterday you didn’t know which phone or phone number you used at the time and you did not have a password to your email that is why you could not produce it?

Accused Number 1:
I was correct about the phone. About the email address, I said I was not sure which email address I used? My old email address I could not remember the password. Yesterday evening I had to go and look for the email to remember the email.

Prosecutor:
It is common cause that when you left yesterday you discussed this specific topic with your legal rep?

Accused Number 1:
Yes, when I reached home I looked for my old cell phone and checked my email and the email address was there which was the same as the one I used to check with my attorney.

Prosecutor:
The question was you consulted with Mr Mario Coetzee on this topic yesterday?

Accused Number 1:
Yes, after I looked for my phone and I found the email yes I contacted my attorney.

Prosecutor:
If I understand “Exhibit L” correctly this email was originally sent on 27 July 2017.

Accused Number 1:
Yes.

Prosecutor:
You re-sent it yesterday.

Accused Number 1:
Yes

Prosecutor:
To your knowledge do you know if Mr Mario Coetzee received your email on the 27th of July?

Accused Number 1:
Yes, I believe so.

Prosecutor:
This morning under re-examination you said you were under the wrong impression about the discussion of this WhatsApp chat in the meeting between the state and your attorney is that correct?

Accused Number 1:
Yes, I had my own impression and I was incorrect.

Prosecutor:
Yesterday you were fairly adamant that you were right – do you recall that?

Accused Number 1:
Yes, I spoke to my attorney and I was under the impression that it was discussed but after speaking to my attorney I was surprised. He corrected me and said that was not what was discussed. I was under the wrong impression.

Prosecutor:
When was this?

Accused Number 1:
Yesterday.

Prosecutor:
If we look at the messages on the second page of “Exhibit L”- do you agree with me that what you told us yesterday was in the message is not one full message that appears on “Exhibit L”?

Accused Number 1:
It was not one message.

Prosecutor:
Do you agree with what you said yesterday was paraphrasing?

Accused Number 1:
Yes, I just said in short what was said to me.

Prosecutor:
If one looks at these messages and if Accused Number 2 should testify, Accused Number 2 accuses you of having an alcohol problem is that correct?

Accused Number 2:
It is what he alleges, yes.

Prosecutor:
What do you say to that allegation?

Accused Number 1:
It is not true. What I can say is that he is lying. I am a good mother. He is just angry. I drank sometimes when I was with Accused Number 2. He was upset with me because I turned against him. It was seldom that I would drink when I was with Accused Number 2.

Prosecutor:
Do you agree that Accused Number 2 at the time of these messages were sent – neither of you thought they would be presented in court? Is that correct?

Accused Number 1:
I think that question is not relevant. I am not going to answer it.

Prosecutor:
If you do not want to answer you can say you do not want to answer for fear it might implicate you or you can say no comment.

Accused Number 1:
I have nothing to hide so no I did not think the messages will come before the court.

Prosecutor:
Do you agree with me that Accused Number 2 would have no benefit from sending these messages other than to upset you?

Accused Number 1:
Yes, because he knows my weakness is my children. I love my children very much. If he wanted to upset me he would say I was a bad mother and he knows it is not true.

Prosecutor:
If Accused Number 2 should give evidence, he would substantiate the messages including “like you made your little girl and little boy fall”
when you drink?

Accused Number 1:
He is lying about that. His mother is here in court and she was there in the kitchen when I turned my back for 5 minutes. I felt bad when it happened.

Prosecutor:
Do you agree you say you are a good mother and he says you are a bad mother according to this message?

Accused Number 1:
Yes, I am

Prosecutor:
If I heard, you correctly there is a 3rd party who can tell us what happened?

Accused Number 1:
I went to make something for him (a bottle).

Prosecutor:
You agree with me the same, your boyfriend’s mother is witness Number 8 on the inditement.

Prosecutor:
On the message at 4:20 you have given evidence today why Dr H’s evidence is incorrect about the timeframe – do you remember that?

Mario (Defence for Accused Number 1):
The state cannot ask that?

Prosecutor:
If the court will grant us that leeway the question will highlight what was said by Accused Number 2 with regards to a sequence of events.

Prosecutor:
If you look at the message at 4:20,” you were the last to check on him maybe you were drunk again and made him fall”. I will later argue the evidence presented by yourself that corroborates the state’s version of events in the sense of you knew *Railen was injured, and you didn’t take any steps to help him?

Accused Number 1:
I will answer truthfully. As I stand here, and someone accuses me that I left my child to die is unfair and I live with that every day. If there is someone who knew what happened to the child, it is Accused Number 2. He knew he injured *Railen on the day and he decided to keep quiet. He made me believe there was nothing wrong and then he woke up at night and burnt him in all the places where he was burnt. That is when I heard for the first time about the accident because he could have come up with a story about what happened. I am not that type of a mother, I care for my children and I have done that for years. I have no reason or motive to hurt *Railen.

Prosecutor:
This aspect, should Accused Number 2 testify, he will be asked about his about his allegations of your alcoholism – do you want to give a comment?

Accused Number 1:
In other words, you are saying I was drunk and just left my child like that? When will I get time to get drunk because I came home after 7p.m. and Accused Number 2 fought with me. How would I get time to get so drunk into a paralysed state?

Prosecutor:
The incident where your daughter and son fell, was it once that they both fell or two separate incidents where they fell?

Accused Number 1:
No Answer.

Prosecutor:
There is also an allegation of the drowning of your eldest son, do you wish to comment?

Accused number 1:
It is not relevant to this case. I am not charged with negligence of my eldest son. I am charged with issues around *Railen. I will not respond.

Prosecutor:
I will argue your character of being a good mother which you brought in, that in terms of the evidence that is before the court, the undisputed facts firstly, and the content of these WhatsApp messages which Accused Number 2 will be asked about should he give evidence, cumulatively what we have *Daniel sustained which in your care directly or indirectly, a fractured elbow, a fracture to his femur, he had approximately 15 applications of force to his body at the time of his death and 60% of his body had partial and full thickness burns. The falling of your younger daughter and son and what is described as the almost drowning of your eldest son. I want to highlight the last 3 questions you refused to give an answer for. What I will argue – all of these things point to the opposite of being a good mother.
Any comment?

Accused Number 1 (Long Pause):
I know what is said in the messages is not true and I know that I have nothing to hide.

Prosecutor:
In response to that, that is the explanation and why we only heard the evidence so late. You knew once the evidence was brought in, we would see all the other issues?

Accused Number 1:
You have no evidence.

Questions from the Judge:

The day ended with the judge asking two questions which were to clarify the version of events on the night of the 24th of June 2016 and the morning of the 25th of June 2016.

He also clarified points made in the statement by the pathologist at the bail application.

You were referred to the bail application and you made it available to court as an exhibit and we refer to your affidavit. I wish to point to the comparison you draw between Dr Nel or Dr H, during the cross-examination of Dr Nel at the bail application. There was a question that was posed regarding the time frame. Dr Nel said it took about 3 to 4 hours and according to Dr H, it was 12 to 24 hours between injury and time of death.

What is your comment with regards to that?

The judge elaborated that the purpose of his line of questioning is that according to the evidence of both pathologist’s someone who has been burnt can survive hours after they have sustained the burns.

Judge:
The muscle under a burn is affected and massive loss of water/weight? They’ve seen people with 3rd-degree burns who have survived for 12 hours, by Dr Nel.
What is your comment?

Accused Number 1:
He had head injuries as well, so that contributed to the time he might have been alive.

Judge:
The common denominator between the 2 doctors: He could have been burnt for 12 hours or survived for 12 hours.

Accused Number 1:
But he would have been crying, neighbours would have heard, Aunty too. I would not leave *
*Railen to cry.

Judge:
If he was burnt during the day, he would have cried. Take your version he was burnt during the night, you say you stayed outside and it does not have a bathroom. Do you agree he was burned and dipped into the water?

Accused Number 1:
No, I do not agree with that. The pictures show that it does not correspond with the child being submerged.

Judge:
If he was poured with water, it means water was boiled at the backroom where you were staying.

Accused Number 1:
No, it would have come from inside the house.

Judge:
Do you both have a key?

Accused Number 1:
No only one key. I just know it was warm water.

Judge:
Hot.

Accused Number 1:
It looked like he was lifted and burnt

Judge:
The doctor says he was held down. Regardless if the water was poured on him he would have cried. If water was poured on him he would have screamed.

Accused Number 1:
No – he would not as he was unconscious. I believe my boyfriend hit *Railen during the day. I believe he was hit and knocked unconscious during the day. I believe he was burnt to cover up the hit. He was sleepy when I spoke to him.

Judge:
Dr H said he was already at a stage of losing consciousness.

Accused Number 1:
But he sat up and he looked at me.

Judge:
But he was in the process of losing consciousness.

Accused Number 1:
Something happened during the day.

ISSUE OF THE TOILET.

Accused Number 1:
*Railen was followed to go to the toilet outside at night. My elder son would have been the one who opened for him. He was calling my elder son and I heard him and told him to go pee and that was the last time.

Judge:
There is other evidence in your testimony that contradicts this?

Accused Number 1:
Not sure of what happened in the afternoon, but she believes he was unconscious when he was burnt. I am not sure how he became unconscious

Judge:
At what stage did you feel Accused Number 2 had left the bed in which you were sleeping in?

Accused Number 1:
I only noticed that the door was open.

Judge:
Is it not because he woke you?

Accused Number 1:
The door usually makes noise. Maybe the attacker left the door open so that I would not wake up.

Judge:
But you said you were fast asleep?

Judge:
The injuries, the broken arm, when it took place were you inside the house or around the house when it happened?

Accused Number 1:
I was inside the house.

Judge:
What about the leg injury?

Accused Number 1:
I was sleeping when that happened, and she was told by Accused Number 2 that *Railen had fallen out of the tree.

Judge:
The Dr from Raima Moosa Hospital said *Railen had injuries on the chest. A version was put that he hit the sliding door. He had multiple injuries on the chest? The possibility of injuring yourself anywhere on your body when running into a door would be on the door and not on his stomach or chest?

Judge:
When you spoke to *Railen on the 24th, did you check on him or lift off the blankets?

Accused Number 1:
He was wearing a multi-colour shirt and blue track pants, as per the pictures.

Judge:
When you spoke to him, where were you standing when you looked at him?

Accused Number 1:
I stood over him.

Judge:
Lastly, your youngest son, was born after *Railen’s death?

Accused Number 1:
Yes, he was born on the 30th of November 2016. He was taken away when Accused Number 2 and I were arrested.

Accused Number 1:
Told the court that she has tried to see her children to no avail. It is not clear what she means by “because the state closed their case she cannot submit a change in bail conditions to allow her to see her children” … She was told at the time of her bail application that she could not see her children because they are possible witnesses in this case.

Accused Number 1’s Defence is complete.

Court will resume tomorrow morning.

Ends

*By Court order we may not identify the accused or the little one who died so cruelly.

BABY *Railen CASE RESUMES IN THE HIGH COURT TODAY WHERE THE MOTHER AND BOYFRIEND… 36896679 2082552321985787 7744917557676605440 o
BABY *Railen CASE RESUMES IN THE HIGH COURT TODAY WHERE THE MOTHER AND BOYFRIEND… 36893576 2082552411985778 1473850665078882304 n


Source

Posted by | View Post | View Group

Comments


Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
error: Content is protected !!