Rohde goes all out to prove he didn’t kill his wife
SPIER murder accused Jason Thomas Rohde brought his A game to the Stellenbosch Magistrate’s Court yesterday, vehemently denying that he played any role in his wife’s death.
In an unusual move, the Geffen Realty national chief executive laid bare his entire defence to the court.
Rohde has known for the past month that he was a suspect in his wife Susan’s murder, and he hired an investigation team – including two private investigators, a digital investigator and an independent pathologist – and five lawyers to help him prove his claim that he did not kill her.
The court heard that the pathologist concluded that Susan could have committed suicide only because there was no “definitive fracture of the hyoid bone or the thyroid cornua” – an injury that usually occurs with manual strangulation.
The private investigation team also picked up “sloppy and inept” police work because the window of the bathroom where Susan’s body was found had been left open and anybody could gain access to the crime scene.
Rohde provided the court with: A report from a marriage counsellor who expressed fears on
two occasions that his wife was a suicide risk and advised immediate counselling.
Proof of his wife’s life policies that excluded a payout in the event of suicide.
Rohde told the court that he had co-operated with the police.
His wife was found dead in the bathroom of the unit they shared at Spier during a work-related conference at the wine estate on July 24.
He was apprehended at his Bryanston, Sandton, home on Tuesday and brought to Cape Town for his first court appearance. His legal team were yesterday ready to apply for his immediate release on bail.
However, prosecutor Carine Teunissen requested a week-long postponement to determine the State’s position.
She submitted there was a prima facie case against the accused, but said there were outstanding pieces of evidence that would determine whether the alleged murder was premeditated. These were expected to determine how the bail application should be conducted.
But Rohde’s legal team were adamant that the State had enough time to procure evidence and determine its attitude towards his application for bail.
Defence advocate Pete Mihalik said Susan’s death became a murder investigation three weeks ago and that the State had been provided with all his client’s personal information.
They had taken a DNA sample from him as well as his fingerprints, and were given access to his electronic devices as requested.
“They have more than any other prosecutor ever had because it has been given to them,” he submitted.
Mihalik pointed out that the police officers who arrested Rohde did not have a warrant of arrest. Instead, seven officers arrived at his home with only a letter signed by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions, despite an arrangement that he would hand himself over.
This, the court heard, was “an egregious violation” of Rohde’s constitutional rights. He intends to take further action.
The case continues today.