MBOMBELA – Mr Wollie Wolmarans, the ballistic expert who testified in the Oscar Pistorius trial, has submitted a report pertaining to a local case of malicious damage to property.
Ms Desiree Marsh is accusing her estranged husband, Mr Brad Marsh, of punching holes in a bathroom door at their previous home. According to the charge sheet, the alleged incident took place during March 2013, but Wolmarans’ expertise was only enlisted in 2014.
According to his report, Brad and Desiree’s versions of how the door ended up having holes in it, differed. Desiree said Brad hammered on the door after she had locked herself in the bathroom and Brad’s version held the exact opposite.
Wolmarans pointed out that these marks had been made by the fists of a person bigger than Desiree and that the door was probably closed at the time they were made. He did not, however, indicate whom he suspected had made these marks.
Brad’s legal representative, Mr Pieter van Zyl, confirmed that his client had been charged, but indicated that the latter denied the charges against him.
“Other than that, we don’t want to comment on a sub-judice matter. Getting involved in a publicised mud-slinging contest is far from ideal. The case will be decided in court, not in the newspapers. However, if the complainant’s version is true, I find it baffling that she did not obtain a protection order, alternatively opened a case of malicious damage to property against our client two years ago. It is strange that this charge only surfaced when she did not get her way in their divorce case.”
Desiree’s legal representative, Ms Susann van Rooyen of Venn and Muller Attorneys in Tshwane, responded that she was not Desiree’s attorney at the time. She said she didn’t know why the complainant was not advised by her previous attorneys to apply for a protection order against Brad.
Van Rooyen also said they had difficulty getting the case on the court roll as the state had initially refused to do so. They had to amend her founding affidavit before the case was finally placed on the roll.
A representative of Desiree’s family, expressed his concern that Bradley was a licensed gun owner. “If he could do that to a door, what would he do to a person?” he asked. Brad’s competency to own a gun had previously been considered during a gun-competency hearing.
During this, Desiree had testified that Brad’s gun had been lying around the house at times. According to Van Rooyen, it was not locked away in a safe as required by the Firearms Control Act and the safe did not meet the requirements. “He regularly left it under the bed or his car. My client expressed her concern as they have a toddler and while they were living together, she could have gotten hold of the gun at any time,” she said. Van Rooyen did not represent Desiree during the gun-competency hearing either.
The accused denied these allegations. “Following a proper hearing, after the allegations by the complainant, it was found that my client was competent to own a gun,” van Zyl said.
The couple is in the process of getting divorced and Desiree relocated to the Western Cape in January. The case will continue on December 8.
