The State's evidence against murder accused soccer star Bryce Moon was inadequate, his lawyer argued in the Randburg Magistrate's Court on Thursday.
“The evidence of the witnesses was of such poor quality that no reasonable person can accept it,” Naren Sangham said.
The former Bafana Bafana soccer player was applying for all charges against him to be dropped.
He faces charges of murder, alternatively attempted murder, drunken driving, and reckless or negligent driving.
Moon allegedly hit and killed Mavis Ncube while driving at high speed in Sandhurst, Joburg, on June 29, 2009, while she and her cousin Thandi Sibanda were walking to work.
Sangham told the court he would show how the witnesses who testified in previous appearances contradicted one another.
The first witness, who was also the first to arrive on the accident scene, contradicted witnesses who later told the court that Moon had smelled of alcohol.
A police officer had told the court he was a step away from Moon and two other men, but did not smell alcohol on them. Other witnesses claimed that when Moon was in hospital after the accident, he smelled of alcohol.
Sangham questioned Sibanda's statement that she was walking with Ncube when she heard the loud noise of a fast approaching vehicle. She said she turned around and saw a silver Mercedes-Benz heading towards them.
Sangham questioned how she could have seen the vehicle if the accident happened in June, when it was usually still dark in the mornings. The accident happened around 6am.
“We know that in winter in this area, the sun only rises between 6.30am and 6.45am. How then did she see the colour of the car in the dark?”
He called her a blatant liar, and said she had misled the court.
Sangham said Sibanda was on the stand when she asked to be excused so she could go to the toilet. She left the court and apparently went to another courtroom, where she was caught talking to her employers.
He said the prosecutor at the time told Sibanda she should not have been talking to them. He said she misled the court by asking to go to the toilet, when instead she had intended speaking to her employers about the court proceedings.
“It is clear that this is a witness who is schooled in fabricating her evidence... Can a witness whose evidence is riddled with such inaccuracies and inadequacies of such a calibre be relied on?” he asked.
The application continues. – Sapa