A question of evidence in the Meyiwa trial
Defence raises doubts about the accuracy of police’s crime scene photographs.
Asecond state witness in the trial of the five men accused of murdering football star Senzo Meyiwa has corroborated evidence suggesting that the crime scene at which he was killed eight years ago may have been tampered with.
It first emerged during forensic investigator Thabo Mosia’s testimony in June that the scene had been cleaned and altered before the police’s arrival.
It also became evident that no blood tests had been done on anyone who was inside the house at the time of the murder, nor any assessment of their alcohol levels. Gunshot residue swabs were not done either.
These details emerged during the resumption of cross-examination of a second witness, Tumelo Madlala, in the high court in Pretoria this week. Madlala was a school friend of Meyiwa.
Though his testimony as the first witness who was at the scene was expected to shed some light on the details surrounding Meyiwa’s death, it raised more questions than answers.
Details of the fateful day and who pulled the trigger remain unknown. Gunshot residue swabs would have played a key role in determining whether the shots had been fired by any of the people who were in the house at the time of the incident.
Meyiwa was allegedly shot in the chest during a robbery in Vosloorus, where he was with his girlfriend, Kelly Khumalo, her sister Zandile, Zandile’s boyfriend Longwe Twala and two of Meyiwa’s friends, Mthokozisi Thwala and Madlala.
The group were at the house of Khumalo’s mother, Ntombi Khumalo, who was present, as well as Khumalo’s two children, one of whom was Meyiwa’s child.
The accused are Fisokuhle Ntuli, Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya, Bongani Sandiso Ntanzi, Mthobisi Prince Mncube and Mthokoziseni Maphis. The men are facing charges of murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, possession of firearms without a licence and possession of ammunition. They have pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Previously, Madlala testified that Meyiwa was shot after they had enjoyed a meal together while watching a football match. He recalled how they saw two men, one with a gun, suddenly enter Ntombi’s home and demand their cellphones.
He said the Khumalo family fought one man off and another fought with Meyiwa, after which a shot was fired.
This week, advocates Zandile Mshololo, who represents Ntuli, and Tshepo Thobane, who represents the other four accused, poked several holes in Madlala’s testimony. They disputed his version of events, suggesting no intruders were present on the fateful night.
Netflix documentary money
Mshololo suggested that Madlala had betrayed Meyiwa after his death by not sharing money he made from a Netflix documentary with Meyiwa’s family.
She probed the rationale behind not sharing the money with Meyiwa’s wife, Mandisa, who had a toddler at the time.
Madlala responded: “I don’t think I was supposed to share the money with anyone because it was mine.”
Mshololo described this as “shocking” from somebody who considered himself the footballer’s best friend.
Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela also asked if Madlala did not treat Meyiwa’s child as his own, as is done in African culture.
Crime scene
Mshololo probed how many shots had been fired on the day of the murder, to which Madlala replied: “I would be lying if I said I know how many shots were fired…” Mshololo also wanted to know why he didn’t call the police after he
had run and hidden in one of the bedrooms. “I didn’t think of calling the police, it didn’t occur to me. All I was thinking was that maybe I am dying,” said Madlala.
Throughout his testimony Madlala was adamant that he had seen accused 2, Ntanzi, carrying a gun on the fateful day. This is despite Thobane maintaining that his client was at his home in KwaZulu-Natal the entire week. To prove this, Ntanzi supplied the police with statements of bank transactions he had done in that week.
But Madlala maintained he was at the crime scene. “I don’t doubt that one. I can point to him even after 20 to 30 years.”
Mshololo argued that Madlala could not possibly identify any of the intruders as he had been under the influence of alcohol. Images taken from the crime scene by police and presented in court as evidence show that only two cans of alcohol were found in the house, suggesting the crime scene could have been tampered with.
“All of you inside had not consumed the two cans as depicted in the picture, is that correct? asked Mshololo. “You had consumed more than that. The cans that are depicted there are not a true reflection of the cans you had consumed in the house?”
Madlala responded that this was correct.
Elusive backup
Madlala testified that at the time of the alleged robbery, Twala pushed one of the armed intruders away and ran out of the house. Mshololo questioned how this happened and how the Khumalos fought off one of the intruders, saying it was impossible for an unarmed person to attack a gunman.
Twala never returned to the scene and when Madlala quizzed him on this, he said he had gone to get backup.
Mshololo questioned if there was ever backup present, to which Madlala answered “no”. Thobane disputed this version and argued that it was in fact Twala who pulled the trigger and fled the scene.
‘Rot in jail’
Twala is the son of music mogul Chicco Twala, who recently visited Meyiwa’s mother. Speaking to Newzroom Afrika about his visit and his son’s involvement in the case, Chicco said he should “rot in jail” if found guilty. “My son’s enemies cannot be my enemy and if my son wrongs people, he must suffer the consequences,” Chicco said.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, 16 November, members of the media were evicted from the courtroom for the second time, after Madlala’s face (he is a protected witness) was “accidentally” shown during a live streaming of the court proceedings. This angered Maumela, who told all media to vacate the courtroom.
Following the error, screenshots of Madlala’s face were widely circulated on social media platforms. The error was attributed to the SABC as it supplies all the broadcasters with a pool feed.
Maumela previously ruled that Madlala’s face must not be shown as he fears for his safety.
It later emerged that the image being circulated could have been manipulated.
“A possibility has been mentioned that perhaps it is some manipulation or photoshopping,” said advocate George Baloyi, the state prosecutor.
The media was allowed back into the courtroom the following day.
In September, SABC, eNCA and Newzroom Afrika were kicked out after chasing Madlala, a move that Maumela described as reprehensible. He forced the reporters to apologise for their behaviour. It was also condemned by the South African National Editors’ Forum.
All of you had not consumed the two cans as depicted in the picture, is that correct? You had consumed more than that. The cans depicted are not a true reflection
of the cans you had consumed in the house