Cape Town - The Western Cape High Court on Thursday heard arguments on conviction from the State and defence in the trial of Tashwell van der Rhede and Ashley October, on trial for the murder of Charlene October.
The State argued they were collectively “guilty” on four counts of murder, housebreaking, robbery with aggravating circumstances and attempting to defeat or destruct the administration of justice, and that October should be convicted on two counts of incitement to murder or alternatively conspiracy to rob and murder.
Advocate Leon Snyman hammered the point that October did not testify in his defence to disprove the State’s case, while October’s lawyer, advocate Dorian van Zyl, stood his ground under questioning from Judge Rosheni Allie who challenged his arguments, as he tried to prove the improbabilities of the State’s evidence.
He said October had exercised his constitutional right to remain silent and indicated that October was being persecuted in the prosecution of this matter, claiming that the investigation by the State had loopholes.
He said the detective working the case had been biased from the outset because he allegedly negated evidence that could have led to other suspects.
“He has been bias since the investigation started, it affects the evidence in such a way that he admitted on record that his lack of investigation at the time, could have led to other suspects,” Van Zyl said.
Judge Allie responded to say, “It is not the role of the court to indulge conspiracy theories. You have to make out a case based on proven facts. It’s an abuse of the court’s process to come with conspiracy theories not based on proven facts. Could’ve found people, who could’ve been other suspects, who could’ve been involved, what is this? A court or a party for speculation?”
Van Zyl further argued that given the legal definition of a conspiracy, there had been no agreement by October and witnesses who testified they were approached by October to have Charlene killed.
He said the sentenced prisoner who testified that he was hired in 2012 was “lying” on the stand, that his version of being behind Charlene’s couch undetected from “dusk till dawn” was highly improbable and asked the court to make a credibility finding on his evidence.
Advocate Omar Arend for Van Der Rhede said the alleged methods of October clearly showed that he had a pattern of exploiting his employees based on similar fact evidence. He further asked the court to accept that Van Der Rhede was framed for the murder.
“If one looks at the great scheme, it will be apparent that accused two (October) most likely staged the suicide without informing accused one (Van Der Rhede) of what he was doing. This can only be because accused two was framing accused one,” he said.
He further argued that the State incorrectly charged Van De Rhede with housebreaking when in fact it was trespassing because in his mind October was the owner. He further said that Van Der Rhede could not be implicated in the murder.
“The mere fact that Van Der Rhede was fearful that the deceased would see him is a clear sign that he believed the deceased would be alive the next day. He just heard get out of my house and left with the items,” Advocate Arend said.
The pair will be back in court on October 10, for further arguments.