.jpg)
WALVIS BAY – Trevor Brockerhof, the defence lawyer for Nimt double murder accused Ernst Lichtenstrasser, said there is no way that police could have found tyre tracks and footprints that link his client to the murders of Ekhardt Mueller and Heimo Helwig, a month after the merciless killings took place.
State witness, Detective Inspector Reinhardt Maletzky on Monday testified in the ongoing bail hearing that police found tyre tracks and footprints as well as a murder weapon in the desert.
The murder weapon, shoe prints and tyre tracks were discovered after a witness said he had seen a vehicle similar to that of Lichtenstrasser driving into the desert.
However, Brockerhof refuted the testimony of Maletzky, saying yesterday that this was a figment of Maletzky’s imagination and that police only have circumstantial evidence against his client.
“There is just no way that these could have been fresh after a month and a few days. This is a figment of your imagination. There is no way that shoe prints and tracks will be visible after so long,” Brockerhof told the court.
He also argued that only forensics are still outstanding and that there is no way that the accused will interfere with the investigation or with witnesses.
Brockerhof further told the court that there is no need for Lichtenstrasser to be denied bail as the State’s case is currently based on circumstantial evidence.
“ Lichtenstrasser does not have valid travel documents and has been a Namibian citizen for the past 38 years, married and has financial obligations to fulfil. He has only one living relative in Austria whom he does not have contact with,” Brockerhof said.
He said that it will not be in the interest of the accused to be locked up for the duration of the case that might only go to trial in a year or two.
He also argued that Lichtenstrasser was forced and frustrated to confess and that his client certainly would not benefit from the murders.
However, the prosecutor Antonia Verhoef said that it is a misconception of the law to regard circumstantial evidence as weak or not contributing to the case.
In fact, Verhoef said, the accused disputes his confessing to the murders and that part of the confession was only known to him.
“The accused talks about the murder weapon, however there is no way police would have known on the 15th April about the murder weapon as revealed in the confession. It’s not a made-up story, he said it in his confession,” Verhoef said.
She added that Lichtenstrasser’s confession is not the backbone of the case but a bonus and that the State’s case is strong.
Magistrate Conchita Olivier postponed the hearing to July 24 to pronounce her judgement on the bail application.
Eveline de Klerk
2019-07-10 08:51:18 | 8 months ago
