Early recess in #Rohde trial to aid pathologist

ON TRIAL: Jason Rohde, Picture: COURTNEY AFRICA/ANA

ON TRIAL: Jason Rohde, Picture: COURTNEY AFRICA/ANA

Published Nov 30, 2017

Share

Cape Town - More time has been given to senior forensic pathologist Deidre Abrahams before the defence continues with its cross-examination of property boss Jason Rohde, on trial for murdering his wife.

On Wednesday, Western Cape High Court prosecutor advocate Louis van Niekerk objected to defence advocate Graham van der Spuy's line of questioning.

Van der Spuy previously handed to the witness three bundles of exhibits, which included extracts from Knight’s Forensic Pathology and ABC's of Forensic Science. There was also a bundle of forensic pathologist Akmal Khan’s exhibits and of other authorities.

He wanted to question Abrahams on some of the extracts as advised by defence experts.

Van Niekerk told the court that before answering any questions, Abrahams should be given a fair opportunity to read and understand the extracts before commenting.

Both the defence and prosecution, in consultation with Abrahams, told the court that an early adjournment would allow sufficient time for the witness.

The matter continues on Thursday.

Rohde is on trial for the alleged murder of his wife Susan.

It is alleged she hanged herself on a bathroom door in the Spier Wine Estate Hotel room the couple had been sharing on July 24, 2016.

The suicide was later changed to a murder investigation.

In her evidence-in-chief, Abrahams, who had supervised Khan during the autopsy, raised concerns over the impartiality of defence pathologist Reggie Perumal, who did a second autopsy.

She said that because he was hired and paid by Rohde, Perumal did not independently arrive at his finding of ligature strangulation.

Abrahams said the ideal situation was if the second autopsy was conducted by another State pathologist with the magistrate’s go-ahead.

“In forensic pathology one has to be objective and not paid by the client. A forensic pathologist is required to be appointed independently. There becomes a position of not being partial. It is in my right to question payment of the doctor by his client. It is not neutral and impartial; he is rendering a service to his client,” said Abrahams.

Related Topics: