Emotional second day in Simon accident hearing

IN the midst of an avalanche of scientific testimony that characterised the second day of boxer Harry Simon’s court case, there was an emotional moment when Dr Bert Coene, one of the survivors of the Langstrand crash, extended a hand of reconciliation to Simon.

While Simon humbly accepted the gesture with some measure of relief, heartbreak was evident on the face of Carol Cornelis, another survivor, whose 22 month-old daughter Ibe died in the accident. Proceedings kicked off early with the testimony of forensic scientist, Jaco Roberts, who was approached to verify the authenticity of a paragraph written in a statement made by an eyewitness, Munien Melanie, who testified in court earlier this year.The paragraph was suspected to have been added after the statement was signed and reads: “Harry’s vehicle however drove in its lane after it overtook the vehicle”.Based on the fact that the spacing as well as the horizontal size of words in the disputed paragraph differ from the rest of the text, Roberts’s professional opinion was that it was “highly probable” that it was added afterwards.Inspector Agas Abner of the Namibian Police, an investigating officer in the case, testified that he couldn’t recall seeing such a phrase and that it was not included in his summary of events.He said that he only learned of the vehicle that was supposedly overtaken by Simon after testimony given in January 2003.Attempts to trace the driver of this car have proved fruitless.An exhaustive interrogation of Wilna Badenhorst, an accident reconstruction expert from South Africa, followed.From the way the two vehicles were damaged, marks on the road and the position and place where the two cars had come to a rest, she had deduced through scientific processes that the Nissan double cab in which the Belgian tourists were travelling was standing still or moving very slowly at the turnoff to Langstrand when Harry Simon’s Mercedes crashed into them in an almost head-on collision.Based on the evidence, Badenhorst was satisfied that the Nissan was not on the wrong side of the road.She also said that the Mercedes hit the Nissan at a slight angle, indicating that Simon’s car was still returning to the left lane at the time of impact and that the rear right end of the Mercedes was still in the wrong lane.She estimated the speed at which the Mercedes travelled as 165 kilometres per hour.Impact occurred close to the centre of the road, she said.Badenhorst stuck to her guns during strenuous cross-examination from defence attorney Slysken Mahando, which took up the larger part of the day.Mahando questioned Badenhorst’s expertise as an accident reconstruction expert and, in an apparent attempt to solicit contradicting testimony, repeatedly peppered the witness with questions that were answered several times.Eventually Judge Gert Retief had to urge Mahando to stop repeating himself.After this the State rested its case.The only other witness who could possibly be called today is the photographer who took pictures of the vehicles after the accident – someone whose identity seems to be unknown to all involved.It is expected that the defence will apply for immediate acquittal of their client under Article 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.Proceedings kicked off early with the testimony of forensic scientist, Jaco Roberts, who was approached to verify the authenticity of a paragraph written in a statement made by an eyewitness, Munien Melanie, who testified in court earlier this year.The paragraph was suspected to have been added after the statement was signed and reads: “Harry’s vehicle however drove in its lane after it overtook the vehicle”.Based on the fact that the spacing as well as the horizontal size of words in the disputed paragraph differ from the rest of the text, Roberts’s professional opinion was that it was “highly probable” that it was added afterwards.Inspector Agas Abner of the Namibian Police, an investigating officer in the case, testified that he couldn’t recall seeing such a phrase and that it was not included in his summary of events.He said that he only learned of the vehicle that was supposedly overtaken by Simon after testimony given in January 2003.Attempts to trace the driver of this car have proved fruitless.An exhaustive interrogation of Wilna Badenhorst, an accident reconstruction expert from South Africa, followed.From the way the two vehicles were damaged, marks on the road and the position and place where the two cars had come to a rest, she had deduced through scientific processes that the Nissan double cab in which the Belgian tourists were travelling was standing still or moving very slowly at the turnoff to Langstrand when Harry Simon’s Mercedes crashed into them in an almost head-on collision.Based on the evidence, Badenhorst was satisfied that the Nissan was not on the wrong side of the road.She also said that the Mercedes hit the Nissan at a slight angle, indicating that Simon’s car was still returning to the left lane at the time of impact and that the rear right end of the Mercedes was still in the wrong lane.She estimated the speed at which the Mercedes travelled as 165 kilometres per hour.Impact occurred close to the centre of the road, she said.Badenhorst stuck to her guns during strenuous cross-examination from defence attorney Slysken Mahando, which took up the larger part of the day.Mahando questioned Badenhorst’s expertise as an accident reconstruction expert and, in an apparent attempt to solicit contradicting testimony, repeatedly peppered the witness with questions that were answered several times.Eventually Judge Gert Retief had to urge Mahando to stop repeating himself.After this the State rested its case.The only other witness who could possibly be called today is the photographer who took pictures of the vehicles after the accident – someone whose identity seems to be unknown to all involved.It is expected that the defence will apply for immediate acquittal of their client under Article 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.