Durban — In cross-examining the first witness in an alleged road rage murder the defence has suggested that the witness might not have been on the scene and “recently fabricated his evidence”.
The accused’s counsel advocate Gideon Scheltema SC made this insinuation while cross-examining State witness Jean Moolman.
Anthony Edward Ball, 67, is alleged to have shot and killed Dean Charnley in March on Everton Road in Kloof last year.
At the time of the shooting, police had said that they arrived on the scene to find a 49-year-old man with gunshot wounds to the chest.
Ball was granted at R4 000 on March 22 when he first appeared in court. He was arrested on March 19 after handing himself over to the police.
On the day of the alleged shooting Charnley had been travelling with his son, Seth who was 18 years old at the time.
Moolman’s evidence in chief had been that he had seen a white Nissan flashing a Subaru to give him leeway and pass on the fast lane on the M13.
He told the court that the Subaru after being flashed three to four times by the white Nissan blocked the car from overtaking him.
Further, when he off ramped on to Everton Road he found the two cars stationary with the Nissan in front and he parked behind the Subaru.
Moolman told the court how the Nissan driver (Charnley) got out of his car and approached the Subaru shouting with both hands in the air.
He testified that he heard two gunshots go off and it had been the second shot that caused Charnley to fall to the ground.
“I’ll suggest to you that the problem started where Village Road joins the M13. You told the court that the problem started when there were three lanes. Evidence at our disposal is that the Nissan had not even joined the M13 where there were three lanes, it only joined where there were two lanes. I’m suggesting that your evidence is untrue in this regard namely the flashing of lights and blocking,” said Scheltema.
He went on to question the witness who had said in his statement to police he saw the two cars come to a halt on Everton Road and that they were separated by a distance of two and a half cars.
“It was only when you came around the corner of the offramp that you saw these cars stationary. So you did not witness the cars come stand still, they had already stopped. In your statement, you said you saw the cars come to a standstill.”
Scheltema said that an officer had estimated that Charnley’s body fell approximately 4m behind the Nissan, adding that his client would say that he had to reverse before speeding away from the scene.
“If he (Charnley) fell on the driver’s door of the Subaru then the front of Subaru would have been closer to the Nissan. It is clear in the photo that the Nissan and the position of the accused that it is impossible that there was a distance of two and a half motor cars. This is contrived for some reason. I suggest that the Subaru was closer to the Nissan, in fact so close that the Subaru had to reverse to come around the Nissan on to the fast lane. That’s fabricated evidence. If the Subaru had moved forward there’s a chance it would have gone over his (Charnley) right leg. I may argue at the end of trial that you were not at the scene at all.”
WhatsApp your views on this story to 071 485 7995.
Daily News