Rohde questions police inquiry
Legal team in Spier murder case outlines defence tactics
SPIER murder accused Jason Thomas Rohde brought his A game to the Stellenbosch Magistrate’s Court yesterday, denying he played any role in the death of his wife, Susan. In an unusual move, the Geffen Realty national chief executive laid bare his defence to the court. Rohde has known for the last month he was a suspect in Susan’s murder and hired an investigation team, including two private investigators, a digital investigator and an independent pathologist, and a team of five lawyers to help him prove his claim he did not kill her.
The court heard the pathologist concluded Susan committed suicide because there was no “definitive fracture of the
hyoid bone or the thyroid cornua”, an injury that usually occurred with manual strangulation.
The private investigation team pointed to “sloppy and inept” police work because the bathroom window where Susan’s body was found had been left open and anybody could have accessed the crime scene.
In addition, Rohde provided the State and the court with a report from a marriage counsellor expressing fears Susan was a suicide risk, and proof her life policies excluded a payout in the event of suicide.
He told the court he had co-operated with police, making himself available to investigators in Cape Town on three occasions, providing them with her cellphone and password, and handing over the Rohde family laptop and password.
Rohde’s wife was found dead in the bathroom of the unit they shared at Spier during a work-related conference on July 24.
He was apprehended at his Bryanston home on Tuesday and brought to Cape Town by car for his first court appearance.
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 outstanding pieces of evidence would determine if the alleged murder was premeditated.
Rohde’s legal team said the State had enough time to procure evidence and determine its attitude towards his bail application.
Defence advocate Pete Mihalik pointed out police arrested Rohde at home with only a letter signed by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions, despite an arrangement 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 when the investigating officer is expected to be called to shed light on the State’s attitude.