Battle lines drawn for final showdown in Rohde trial

Battle lines have been drawn with the prosecution set to butt heads with murder accused property mogul Jason Rohde’s counsel as his trial wraps up this week.

The high court in Cape Town will hear closing arguments in the matter on Tuesday. The former CEO of Lew Geffen/Sotheby’s International Realty is accused of killing his wife, Susan.

The millionaire had slain advocate Pete Mihalik, as well as advocate Graham van der Spuy and three other lawyers on his legal team, when his trial commenced in October 2017. Rohde trimmed his defence team in February and only Van der Spuy remains in his arsenal.

The state is convinced he killed his wife at a company conference at the Spier Estate‚ near Stellenbosch in July 2016. She was found dead with the cord of a hair iron around her neck behind a locked bathroom door. Susan had insisted on attending the event as she was suspicious of Rohde after finding out five months earlier he was having an affair with Cape Town estate agent Jolene Alterskye.

The case was adjourned in August to allow the parties to prepare their final arguments and both have filed their heads of argument.

In the papers‚ prosecutor Louis van Niekerk sought to poke holes in the evidence of forensic experts who Rohde hired to bolster his version of events. Van Niekerk said only the state’s expert witnesses and Spier caretaker Desmond Daniels made sense.

Van Niekerk said there were conflicting versions regarding the position of the deceased when the bathroom door was opened in the presence of the accused and Daniels, as well as the findings of the pathologists on the method and cause of death.

Based on its postmortem report‚ the state alleged Rohde had beaten Susan and dealt debilitating blows to her chest‚ causing several rib fractures‚ before smothering her with a pillow and faking her suicide by hanging.

In the 208-page document‚ Van Niekerk pointedly asks: “What caused each injury to the deceased? When did each injury occur? What is the cause of the death of the deceased? Did the deceased commit suicide? Was the deceased suicidal?”

Van der Spuy’s arguments are succinctly summed up in 39 pages. He said Daniels’s evidence‚ whom Van Niekerk referred to as the second crucial witness‚ “failed to measure up to the required standard”.

“This applies to him in terms of the issues of credibility‚ reliability‚ the probabilities‚ inconsistencies within the confines and framework of his own oral testimony‚ major contradictions between his oral testimony and the evidence of other witnesses (in particular‚ state witnesses) serious contradictions between his testimony and other objectively verifiable facts and information‚ and finally‚ huge inconsistencies between his oral testimony and the contents of his various affidavits‚” said Van der Spuy.

Van der Spuy said the state had failed to prove its case again Rohde. –