WINDHOEK – “I am satisfied that the State has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is the person who murdered the deceased persons in this case. In the light of the evidence as to how the murders were committed, I find that the murders were committed with direct intent.” With these words Judge Naomi Shivute convicted 24-year old Romeo Schieffer of the murder of both his parents, Frans and Fransiena Schieffer who were both 50-years-old at the time of their demise at their home in Khomasdal on January 18, 2008.
On the third count of robbery with aggravating circumstances, Shivute found that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Schieffer had any intention to rob his mother of her ATM card. She said she accepts his version that he stole the ATM card and as such found him guilty of theft on that count. The judge also said Schieffer did not tell the truth when he testified that he was not at the scene at the time of the murders. According to Shivute the shoeprint that was found at the crime scene was of the same size and pattern as the left shoe worn by Scheiffer on the night of the murders. She said the suggestion by the that defence that the shoeprint could have been planted there by another person cannot be correct.
She further said that Schieffer’s father’s DNA was found in blood on a pillow and the same female DNA profile was found on one of the socks that he was wearing on the date of the murders plus other DNA evidence that was found on the pair of shorts he was seen wearing. She said that apart from the DNA evidence, there is a confession that was ruled to be admissible in court. She said according to the confession, Schieffer indicated that he shot his father through a pillow which he held in front of the pistol. This pillow was found to match his father’s DNA profile, she said. According to Shivute she agrees with State Advocate Belinda Wantenaar that the confession may only be excluded from the evidence if evidence emerges later which justifies the reversal of the initial ruling. “It is therefore my considered opinion that in this matter no evidence has emerged after the confession was ruled to be admissible that warrants a reconsideration of the ruling earlier given,” the judge said.
She concluded that having considered the evidence in its totality, she is satisfied that the circumstantial evidence in this case has satisfied the legal requirements needed to secure a conviction and added “the circumstantial evidence is supported by the evidence of the confession as well as by forensic evidence. Schieffer is expected to be sentenced today. State Advocate Belinda Wantenaar prosecuted, while Schieffer was defended by Winnie Christiaans on the ticket of the Department of Legal Aid.
By Roland Routh