Pelser defence strategy becoming clearer

Mutterings of disappointment and disapproval could be heard in the Roodepoort Magistrates’ Court today (10 October), when the judgement on Marthinus Pelser‘s bail application was postponed until 17 October.

Before the proceedings got under way, Magistrate Baloyi ruled that the offence Pelser will be charged
with, is the Schedule 6 offence of premeditated murder. This comes after Advocate Van Rensburg, heading Pelser’s legal team, had argued at the previous hearing that the charge was for a Schedule 5 offence. Baloyi said he made his decision after he was supplied with all the state’s evidence and based on the fact that he could not understand why a father would not help his injured child or assist the mother in doing so, but rather chose to flee.

When the defence’s heads of argument were read, some light was shed on the direction that will be taken in defending Pelser, who stands accused of having murdered his six-month-old son on 11 June. Van Rensburg was adamant that he wanted to cross-examine the deceased’s mother, Bianca Rothman because her affidavit that was read was “dangerous” and consisted of untested “accusations, allegations and speculations”.

But he was told that in a bail application it was the state’s privilege to decide whether they wanted to call the witness or just read the affidavit. When Van Rensburg told Baloyi that there were two versions of what had taken place, Baloyi wanted to know what the defendant’s version was, to which Van Rensburg replied “that he did not do it”. Van Rensburg kept on hammering on the fact that in the postmortem report the doctor concluded that the injuries were in line with child abuse over a period of time.

He said he wanted to question Rothman about this, which left the impression that he was implying that over and above the injuries that were inflicted on the day, there had been abuse prior to the day. He said he also wanted to know from Rothman what had happened between noon and 8pm that day when the police took the photographs. He wanted to know why she did not phone the police immediately. There seemed to be some confusion in Pelser’s legal camp since Rothman did not discover the deceased at noon, but allegedly only at about 6pm.

He again argued that Pelser should be released on bail in the custody of his family in Swartruggens because he was a “young man with a family who will look after him”, he had a right to freedom and liberty, he was not a flight risk and said “even Oscar Pistorius got bail”. He argued that Pelser did not resist arrest but went with the police without protesting.

When the state read its heads of argument, it countered Van Rensburg’s statement that Pelser did not resist arrest, saying the police had to ask the public’s help to find him and that he was arrested only after a member of the public had alerted the police of his whereabouts.

The state went on to say that they oppose bail because the murder was premeditated and planned, pointing out that there is a difference in meaning since planning means that it was schemed, designed and calculated to have the optimal outcome – in this case to successfully murder the baby.

The state also said that Pelser was with the baby the better part of the day, and that according to Rothman’s affidavit there was nothing wrong with the baby when she left him in Pelser’s care on the day. It also questioned, as Baloyi did, why he, when the baby was discovered, did not assist the mother but fled.

In its conclusion the state said the defence failed to prove that exceptional circumstances exist for the applicant to be released on bail.

Also Read:

• Update: Father of deceased baby still missing

• Update: ‘Never push a man to violence’ – father’s Facebook post 

• Update: Father allegedly attempted suicide