South Africa - Susan Rohde, 47, murdered, Stellenbosch, 24 July 2016

[tmar]

I'm actually feeling pretty disappointed about this case - I'm getting the Shrien Dewani feel about it, that he's going to be acquitted. I don't think van Niekerk got enough concessions out of Perumal, he was pretty adamant despite saying he never is, that the ligature was applied during life. The State don't have that in their scenario. I know the State had two pathologists, one of them being their chief with a lot of experience, but where you have competing opinions what do you do? Did they do enough to discredit Perumal? He certainly lied to the court about retrieving the bullet in Pistorius' toilet (the court record will bear that out) but that just shows he tried to big himself up. They showed he has been found to be wrong before and that he put stuff on his CV that was misleading. Is he a hired gun? I think there is something slightly off about him, he seems to be trying to please the court by showing his reasonableness but that doesn't quite succeed because they want a seasoned expert opinion, and the court must bear in mind who is paying him. He seems to be trying to please both sides because he has an eye on future business and to avoid a court finding against him. But he was sure about the parchment like appearance of the ligature mark on the left side of Susan's neck. I don't think he convinced court about the cut through the hyoid horn.

I don't think van Niekerk did enough about the blood in the stomach. I hope I'm wrong. According to Jason's story they went to bed around 3:30am and Susan was alive at 7:00am. Why would she still be swallowing cup fulls of blood over three hours later - he didn't put that time to Perumal on their estimated time of death, even though Perumal said he wouldn't be pressed on the time she ingested the blood before her death, it's obvious it wasn't over three hours in her stomach. He said it's possible it was half an hour or an hour. Well that means on their time of death she had a serious nose injury at around 6am.

The cut above her eye he didn't agree was likely made by falling on a wall and without other injuries to her knees and other prominences, and the blood spatter was as a result of a second impact on the cut. There are signs of a serious fight including whatever caused her to swallow so much blood twice, either a nose injury according to Perumal or lung injury according to the State, and grip marks on her neck, that are not explained as Jason describes it. Moving her aside by her neck (as if!) and throwing his arm back and catching her nose. He says he didn't see any blood from her nose after he did that. But even if the judge says there was a fight and he has lied about that, is that going to be enough to say it then progressed to him murdering her?

Things like calling Daniels to witness him finding the body instead of turning the lock himself, phoning Susan to create an impression of innocence, and whether the noose was tight or loose or she was naked or not are all majorly iffy, and he showed himself to be arrogant and argumentative in court, but are they enough for the court? I'm certain he's guilty but courts have to exercise more caution.

The placement of the stool is another one that shows he probably dragged her but can the defence say it was transferred outside the bathroom if no witness ever came forward and said they walked poo out of the bathroom and had to clean their shoe?

Great Summary, Tortoise.
If there were no other witnesses, with 'proving' Perumal is not as he makes out, I believe, then there is a strong case for the guilty verdict.
Perumal's cross helped the State.
Did anyone notice, Perumal presented so differently, now that his dishonesty was being affirmed: still bringing in theories everywhere, that were not necessary, to answer questions.
State would just wait, pause, and return to the question. Loved it.
The Defence guys, just had their heads down, not jumping up like rabbits, realizing what a crap, so called expert witness they chose.

However, I am afraid, the following witnesses, with their expertise, for Defence, may change matters, concentrating on factors that are 'iffy', giving more emphasis to suicide. Yuk. Not wishing to see this.
May be suddenly too busy, reading something else and just peeping in. Not looking forward to 'next step' here.
BUT perhaps State's cross may help.

 

[Tortoise]

From 43:00

My transcription:

LVN: I want to deal with the faeces that we see on the scene photographs, photo 4 photo 3 front of the bathroom, why do we see that...

RP: ?

LVN: No no the photographs at the scene, let me take you to photo no. 4 and 5, we can go to Captain Joubert's as well, let's just deal with photo 4 marked B1, you've got that? It's exhibit B, I don't know whether I should give you a copy of that...Now photo 3 and 4, you've got that?

RP: Yes

LVN: And it's B1, would you agree that's a faeces mark on photo 4?

RP: I'd say it's consistent but I can't say that it is faeces.

LVN: Now we know from the evidence before court that no faeces were found on her bathrobe.

RP: Yes.

LVN: Correct? But there was faeces as indicated in the paragraph 5L scene report of Dr Khan.

RP: Yes, I recall that.

LVN: I quote this, "faecal soiling noted between the buttocks with faeces noted under the buttocks, however no faecal staining noted to the back of the bathroom door or to the gown." Now what do we have to make out of this?

RP: My lady...one of the changes that take place in an asphyxial death is sphincter incontinence. If the bladder is full it can release some urine and if there's a stool in the rectum the stool or the faeces can be released. It's involuntary. So the presence of stool between the buttocks for me is a further indication of an asphyxial death. Why there's no er stool or faeces on the gown or on the back of the door, it's unlikely to be on the back...the rear of the door if she had a gown on, the gown should be stained depending on the amount of faeces or stool there is. My Lady, the only possible explanation for the stool as seen in photos no. 3 and 4, to me, is contamination. That somebody in the bathroom has stepped on stool and then walked out with it. I can't find any other explanation for the stool in this external area B1.

LVN: I want you to look at Cpt Joubert's photographs annexure A as depicted photo 2, photo 6 the B1 photo 7, photo 8 B2, photo 10. Can you really say Dr Perumal that it was transferred by way of somebody after the death walking into the bathroom coming out, can we have an indication from what we see on the photos whether there were step marks or footprints?

RP: If one looks at photo 10 one can see the swipe marks on photo 10

LVN: This is now in Cpt. Joubert's..

RP: Yes. To me My Lady this is probably transfer, and you can see the wipe mark on it. Again I'm not emphatic about it but I think it's probably.

LVN: Now could that also not be possible that it's transfer because the body of Susan Rohde were carried [at 49:14 mark Jason seen rapidly blinking in background] and in that fashion it was transferred, she was carried from the bedroom to the bathroom, is that a possibility from the photos here?

RP: My Lady I'm not sure I saw photos of the stool soiling between the bedroom and the bathroom, I think all these are outside, I think.

LVN: Before you get to the bathroom.

RP: If there was soiling present on Mrs Rohde and she was carried and dragged over this area then that could be transfer in that fashion.

LVN: Good.

Judge S-H: Can you look at photo B3 for me, that is outside the bathroom door, is that what you would be referring to?

RP: Yes. that's what I'm saying My Lady, if the deceased had stool between her buttock and was dragged and the buttock was swiped along that area that could be transference.

J S-H: Do I understand this correctly that photo 10 is an enlargement of photo 3 and in particular B3?

RP: Yes but now the ruler is there.

LVN: And for that to happen she was naked. Correct?

RP: The buttock area would have to touch the ground. I don't know about the rest of the body.

LVN: Well it is in dispute whether she had a gown on or not at certain stages, you don't have to speculate on that, I think you've made your comment on the gown and the lack of any faeces on the gown whether inside or the outside. Or do you want to say something more about that?

RP: No.

 

[Tortoise]

It doesn't take Columbo to work out that if someone stepped on faeces in the bathroom there would be squashed faeces in the bathroom and a trail of footprints around Susan and leading away from her to the door, unless they were teleported to the area outside the bathroom before putting their foot down again.

 

[patCee]

Thanks for the video Tortoise, I was particularly taken with LVN's body language and facial expressions when looking straight at Perumal from 43. I imagined him thinking 'it's tedious talking to you and knowing you will try to evade the question again, and again and again'.

 

[tmar]

It doesn't take Columbo to work out that if someone stepped on faeces in the bathroom there would be squashed faeces in the bathroom and a trail of footprints around Susan and leading away from her to the door, unless they were teleported to the area outside the bathroom before putting their foot down again.

Hee, Hee. We certainly need humour.
I am not looking forward to the next Defence Experts.
But perhaps may be delightfully surprised, and they may be similar to Perumal.

 

[tmar]

Thanks for the video Tortoise, I was particularly taken with LVN's body language and facial expressions when looking straight at Perumal from 43. I imagined him thinking 'it's tedious talking to you and knowing you will try to evade the question again, and again and again'.

Yes patCee. Perumal's verbal diarrhoea is his method of answering continually.
LVN lets him go on, gives him time, waits, and repeats the question.
I enjoy this, as Perumal is squirming continually, not as with Defence, where he portrayed himself as Mr 'No All', Mr 'Confidence'.
Perumal now waits for the next blow.

 

[patCee]

Hee, Hee. We certainly need humour.
I am not looking forward to the next Defence Experts.
But perhaps may be delightfully surprised, and they may be similar to Perumal.

They'll have their work cut out in being different from Perumal. Don't forget they'll need to convince the court how the time of death is more likely to be in CK's 5% range; why the broken ribs and bleeding are in the 'less likely' range; finger and thumb marks on Susan's neck, along with scratches, and marks on her nose and tooth indentation. Not an easy task if CK is right, and one that puts them mainly in the 'not likely' range. I hope so anyway.

 

[drama_farmer]

Susan's body obviously appears naked BUT is she wearing her gown and it is up around her shoulders. Nick's pic was very tiny so I've enlarged it twice. <modsnipped photo>

I can't tell if this is an actual photo or an "artist's rendering" of the scene. If it's a photo, is it possible that the darker areas you've circled could be underarm hair? I'm having trouble picturing where the robe/dressing gown is in that pic.

 

[Tortoise]

I can't tell if this is an actual photo or an "artist's rendering" of the scene. If it's a photo, is it possible that the darker areas you've circled could be underarm hair? I'm having trouble picturing where the robe/dressing gown is in that pic.

I don't think so, it's slightly clearer in the rotated photo posted by patCee a bit further down the page. I still can't see what I would say is a gown but there seems to be something over one of her arms making it appear a bit bulkier than a bare arm.

 

[Tortoise]

Mihalik found it strange that he had failed to notice the jewellery Susan was wearing, the definition of the line around her neck, and that her arms were tucked into a night gown. This was despite checking for her pulse.

Memories, opinions of Rohde’s colleague 'cannot be relied upon' - defence

 

[Tortoise]

Although trying to do his best to help her, Thompson said he felt discomfort as she was still naked and asked himself why nobody covered her body.

State witness, Mark Thompson testifies in Jason Rohde trial - Weekly Xposé

 

[Tortoise]

Daniels also testified that there are no electrical sockets in the bathroom.

'How I untied electrical cord from Susan Rohde's neck'

 

[Tortoise]

Thompson got excited when blood came out of her nose because he thought her heart was pumping again.

He recalled telling her husband, "Jase, Jase, I think we got her back". He apparently did not respond.

Rohde's colleague unsettled by what he saw as he gave Susan CPR

 

[Tortoise]

Thompson cannot explain why Susan is lying on a white robe in a picture taken at the crime scene.

[URL="https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/south-africa-susan-rohde-47-murdered-stellenbosch-24-july-2016.352493/#post-13690741"]South Africa - Susan Rohde, 47, murdered, Stellenbosch, 24 July, 2016[/URL]

 

[patCee]

Mihalik found it strange that he had failed to notice the jewellery Susan was wearing, the definition of the line around her neck, and that her arms were tucked into a night gown. This was despite checking for her pulse.

Memories, opinions of Rohde’s colleague 'cannot be relied upon' - defence

He (Mihalik) would say that, wouldn't he.

 

[patCee]

Daniels also testified that there are no electrical sockets in the bathroom.

'How I untied electrical cord from Susan Rohde's neck'

Well! If true that's yet another anomaly as why was the electrical hair equipment in the bathroom.

 

[Tortoise]

He (Mihalik) would say that, wouldn't he.

It's a strange expression isn't it, tucked into. It almost sounds as if it was an attempt to dress her without moving her.

 

[Tortoise]

Actually I'm feeling renewed optimism about the case having gone back over a few aspects.

The rib fractures and lung injuries.

Jason's version tried to explain this by Susan's fall onto the low wall/garden, even though he has Susan only complaining about her toes and sending texts three hours later, and walking to the bathroom:


She also allegedly fell onto her side - a possible explanation‚ according to the defence‚ for the wounds she might have sustained to her chest and lungs.

[...]

Susan Rohde would have been semi-conscious‚ writhing with pain and coughing up blood in the time leading up to her eventual death by manual strangulation.

<modsnipped due to copyright>

Susan Rohde sustained too many injuries to hang herself: pathologist


Then they claim it was from CPR:

Trial resumes after lunch with gruesome pic of autopsy up on screen. Jason Rohde stares straight ahead in his chair to the side. Defence pointing out haemorrhaging in ribs.

The gruesome pic is for defence to prove that a contusion on Susan's lung could have been caused by CPR. The pathologist says have already gone over this a few times. Says there was contusion of the lung and Susan swallowed the blood before she died.

Jenni Evans (@itchybyte) | Twitter


Dr Perumal agrees with the State:

LVN: It happened, the swallowing, while she was still alive, correct?
RP: Yes! It has to be an active process. This is not gonna happen passively in an unconscious or deceased person.

Check out the faces on the defence advocates starting at the 29:48 minute mark

 

[Tortoise]

Dr Perumal agrees with the State about the eye injury.

LVN: I just want clarity what you're saying as in your opinion it must have been a different incident, blunt force, causing that injury and blood above the eye?

RP: AND probably a broader contact surface.

1:27:03 mark:

 

[patCee]

I really don't know how Jason can sit calmly and listen to the medical details, particularly the contusion to the lungs and Susan choking on the blood. What must he be thinking, 'I did that to her' 'she suffered horribly' 'why didn't I get help for her' or just simply 'I hope I can get away with it'. Certainly the latter was the main thing on his mind re his relationship with Jolene regardless of the distress Susan was experiencing.