WINDHOEK – The murder trial of former teacher David De Jay has
entered the final stages with submissions on the verdict delivered by
both the State and the defence counsels on Friday in the Windhoek
High Court.
After he heard the arguments for and against a guilty verdict Judge
Alfred Siboleka postponed the matter to February 20 next year for
his decision on De Jay’s fate. Advocate Palmer Khumalo for the State
argued although the State’s case mostly hinges on circumstantial
evidence it was established through the evidence led by the State
that De Jay was guilty “beyond any shroud of a doubt” of killing his
wife of fifteen years, Tina de Jay one day before Valentine’s day in
2009. Khumalo did not mince words and called De Jay a
“compulsive liar” who fabricated concoction after concoction to try
and hide his guilt.
Khumalo was of the opinion that every time one of his fabrications
backfired, De Jay would dream up another tale to spin.
He said that none of the versions De Jay offered made any sense and
the only reasonable inference the court can draw is that De Jay
murdered his wife in cold blood and then tried to mislead the police
with his first fabrication of armed robbery.
According to Khumalo when that story did not hold water De Jay
changed his tune to imply that he and his wife entered into a suicide
pact. De Jay said in a statement to a Keetmanshoop magistrate that
his wife became obsessive with death after being diagnosed with
stomach cancer during 2005. But he later during testimony in his
own defence disputed this and said that he was coached by the
police on what to say.
Khumalo told Judge Siboleka that it is more likely that De Jay’s
story to his pastor could be a probable version. The pastor testified
in court that De Jay told him “the docket indicates that I am guilty,
but I remember nothing.”
According to Khumalo the only reason De Jay told the this to the
pastor was because he knew that he is guilty.
He further said that the scratch marks on De Jay’s back were not
because of gardening as he wants the court to believe, but as a result
of the deceased fighting back.
The evidence of the domestic worker of De Jay who testified that on the day of the incident De Jay did not work in the garden as he claimed, but that a gardener was there, corroborated this.
Boris Isaacks who appeared for De Jay on instructions of
the Legal Aid Directorate said in his submissions that the State failed
to prove its case against his client beyond reasonable doubt.
He said the State’s case is based on circumstantial evidence as there
is no direct evidence linking De Jay to the murder of his wife.
He said that the only direct evidence in respect of any form of assault
was the testimony of Cornelius Jansen who testified that he saw the
accused assaulting the deceased with something shiny in the car.
However, he said Jansen proved not to be a reliable witness and
contradicted himself on various occasions through his statement to
the police and his testimony in court. According to Isaacks it is trite
that the accused and deceased were at the Fish River on that fateful
day with a picnic basket. He further said that it is a proven fact that
the place where the incident occurred is a public place frequented by
the public and that the deceased died of a stab or stab wounds.
Based on the above facts, Isaacks argued, the court cannot in good
faith infer that the accused murdered the deceased or that it could
be the only reasonable inference. He further said that the court
cannot ignore the possibility that the deceased was killed by two
robbers as alleged by De Jay and asked the court to acquit his client
on both charges. De Jay pleaded not guilty to a count of murder and
one of defeating or obstructing the course of justice at the start of
his trial.
By Roland Routh