Court told about wife’s ‘forged’ will
Accused has to fight against handwriting expert’s words
were not authentic. Comparing the signatures on the policy documents to a series of sample signatures, Hattingh’s report said: “Despite the poor quality of the disputed documents, the disputed signatures on the policy documents differ to such an extent in construction and execution which is so obvious and significant that it is concluded that the signatures are forgeries of the person’s signature who signed the specimen signatures.”
It was during cross-examination, however, that Kolbe revealed to the court how this had been Hattingh’s second report on the signatures, the first being commissioned by forensic consultant Paul O’Sullivan. The initial report had apparently said Hattingh’s analysis was inconclusive over whether the signatures were forged. However, Hatting explained that the second report had been constructed after he was given numerous other sample signatures that allowed him to conduct a proper analysis.
However, he conceded that regardless of his analysis, there was no way to state conclusively that Barkhuizen had been the one to create the fake signatures.
The next witness, Warrant Officer Thembinkosi Mdlalose, was the second investigating officer assigned to the case and was present when Barkhuizen was arrested in September 2015.
The officer told the court that Barkhuizen’s son had told him about Odette’s desire to get a divorce from her estranged husband, and how he had discovered bullets in his mother’s bedroom. While police searched the home the day following the interview, the bullets did not emerge. However, Mdlalose noticed that Barkhuizen was clutching a bag throughout the search. When Mdlalose asked to see what was inside, Barkhuizen complied.
Inside the bag was the last will and testament of both Odette and Barkhuizen himself. It was upon seeing the date on which the documents had been signed – April 2015 – that Mdlalose began to suspect Barkhuizen.
However, Kolbe said her client would dispute this story. Firstly, during his bail application, the previous investigating officer had said the bag was discovered behind a couch, and not in Barkhuizen’s possession. Kolbe said the truth of the matter was that Barkhuizen had been asked by Mdlalose to present Odette’s death certificate and that the folder containing it also held the wills and other related documents.
While Mdlalose denied this, he was unable to explain why Barkhuizen had been interviewed before his arrest by O’Sullivan – without being infor med of the impending arrest. Kolbe said her client had been subject to a series of “false propositions”, namely that Barkhuizen had allegedly told police there were never any life insurance policies and that police had video footage of him with a potential mistress.
Mdlalose was also left with no answers when asked why he did not stop the interview and proceed with the arrest, or why the false propositions were put to Barkhuizen.
The trial continues this coming week, with O’Sullivan expected to be called to the stand.