Phone expert under fire in gem trial
THE PROJECT Darling Illicit Diamond Buying (IDB) case continued in the Northern Cape High Court yesterday, with the attention turning to the cellphone records of the 13 high-profile accused.
The defence team kicked off yesterday’s proceedings with the cross-examination of Lieutenant Colonel John Walters Serfontein, who was this week called as a State witness.
Serfontein is a (data) analyst for the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) and was appointed as analyst for Project Darling, responsible for analysing cellphone data received from service providers like Cell C, Vodacom and MTN to find links between targets (accused), undercover agents and police officials.
Serfontein became involved with Project Darling during 2011 after a presentation by the case’s Investigating Officer, Warrant Officer Louis Potgieter, that implicated several suspects in the illegal diamond trade.
Serfontein conducted analysis on telephone numbers assigned to accused, cross-referenced with the cellphone numbers of other accused, as well as the undercover agent (who was involved in selling diamonds to the accused during the alleged undercover transactions), Linton Jephta and Section 204 witness, Colin Erasmus.
A comprehensive data sheet containing the analysis that was done on the cellphone records (calls and messages made and received) on the dates that the alleged transactions took place, as well as the preceeding day, was handed in as evidence by Serfontein.
The data sheets also contain the locations of cellphone towers that “picked up” the calls and indicated the “directions” of the calls (from who to who).
During yesterday’s cross-examination it transpired that some of the numbers “attributed” to certain accused (and utilised in the analysis) belonged to persons other than them, according to The Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act (Rica).
Serfontein also conceded that not one of the six to eight numbers attributed to Jephta was registered to his name. These facts were not contained in any statements by Serfontein previously handed in to the court and this information was only revealed after Serfontein handed in hand-written notes (pertaining to the owners of numbers) he had made.
This despite the fact that he received full Rica information from service providers, following subpoenas served on them by Serfontein.
After being asked why this information was not mentioned, Serfontein said that he had “mentioned it several times” to Potgieter, as well as Potgieter’s commander, Lieutenant Colonel De Witt Botha, who both maintained that the numbers were being utilised by the indicated person.
Advocate Laurence Hodes put it to Serfontein that this was “inexplicable” and added that Serfontein “failed to meet up to the requirements of an expert (analyst) witness”.
“When taking into account the flaws in the system you used, you can’t make a definitive finding,” Hodes stated. “That is correct,” Serfontein said.
The “flaws” Hodes referred to were the facts that calls would only be logged at the tower where the call originated, that different providers used different towers and that Serfontein could not know the details of the content of the calls.
Hodes also referred Serfontein to the fact that no supporting documents were present with regard to any of the numerous Section 205 applications, in which Serfontein was the applicant. He added that “inadequate information” was contained on the Section 205 requests.
Hodes further said that not one of the numbers utilised by Jephta were registered to his name, saying that it was “inexplicable” that an undercover agent in a project of this magnitude was allowed to “run around” with eight numbers.
Serfontein is expected to continue under cross-examination when the trial continues today.