GUILTY South Africa - Susan Rohde, 47, murdered, Stellenbosch, 24 July 2016 - #2

New Posts

Tortoise said:
Wow so glad I was wrong. 20 years. Very fitting.

Another great judgement.

The mic is on next to van der Spuy! - he just said there's no surprise there.
Click to expand...

I felt sure it would be a little more than 15. Wasn’t expecting as much as 20, but think 20 is quite reasonable. Imagine if she or Judge Desai had been in charge of OP trial.
 
Tortoise said:
Sad how there are only a few of us here to see this moment. I suppose that's the effect of these drawn out trials, interest wains.
Click to expand...

That's a shame, but I guess others will hear about the sentencing in time.
I hope JR and mother use all their money on Appeals and LOSE.[/QUOTE]
 
Hag said:
I felt sure it would be a little more than 15. Wasn’t expecting as much as 20, but think 20 is quite reasonable. Imagine if she or Judge Desai had been in charge of OP trial.
Click to expand...
Yeah imagine. I have no words for that stupid judge but at least she was stupid enough to make errors in law so that State could appeal and the Supreme Court could weigh in. But not as satisfying as seeing him being told he had deliberately murdered her and not the imaginary intruder would have been. I still to this day recall the HORROR of hearing Masipa's judgement as she read it.
 
Apology for being so quiet, but still here at the end! A fitting sentence, I thought, pleased it exceeded the maximum 15 years. Thank you to those of you who kept the dialogue going and for your great work in relaying proceedings as they happened. Till we meet again......
 
I've transcribed her sentencing judgement from about midway through:

Now I go on to specifically deal with certain aggravating features.

The aggravating features of the murder of your wife are significant and startling. I will set them out briefly as follows:

You murdered Susan with the direct intention to kill her. She looked to you for protection and would have trusted you to care, and protect her. Instead you breached this trust, attacked and murdered her, in your private space.

Your counsel argued on your behalf that the murder was not for financial gain but was a crime of passion which ought to be viewed as mitigatory. Susan he argued pursued your infidelity with proactiveness and with interrogation. The suggestion is that your wife ought to have been more subservient and accepting of your infidelity and ought to have restrained her objections and interrogation. That she did not do this resulted in the perfect storm of your quarrel and it was in the exigencies of these events that the offences happened. She got killed and you ought to therefore get a lesser sentence the argument follows.

I cannot disagree more. This is a patriarchal and antiquated viewpoint that at some point many years ago was part of our justice system. It undermines women and in the context of intimate femicide a wife or a girlfriend’s right to dignity and equality before the law. Intimate femicide clearly cannot be viewed as being conduct which is less morally or legally reprehensible. You were her husband, the father of her children and you were required to protect her rather than to inflict harm upon her.

The injuries which you inflicted on your wife were successive and incremental until it was fatal. During this time and in the progress of killing her you would have had time to reflect and desist from your unlawful conduct. However you carried on regardless. The extent of the force which you used was so excessive that the injuries to her neck shows clear grab and scratch marks and bruises on the surface of the skin in that area with deep haemorrhages in the underlying tissue layers caused by your thumb on the right side of her neck and the remaining fingers on the other side of her neck. Her ribcage had various fractures illustrating how you had applied substantial force on her chest most likely with your knee whilst you manually strangled her, incapacitating her in the process. So severe was this force that she suffered a contusion to her lung which resulted in internal bleeding, coughing blood, swallowing it and ingesting it. The pillow which you used to smother Susan was done with repeated action. This is illustrated by the seepage of blood from the abrasion caused on her left upper eyelid by an earlier fist punch, which had come off onto the pillow twice as you pushed down on her face repeatedly. With your force pressing down on her face you deviated her nose to the right and caused her teeth to cut into the inside of her lower lip.

It is significant and a disturbing fact that throughout this ordeal you did not call for medical assistance. When you ultimately did call for help you limited it to a handyman purely for the purposes of furthering the commission of your offences. At no stage do you question, hesitate or become ambivalent about murdering your wife, you forged ahead unfettered, nor restrained by a conscience or reflection. These aggravating features are so extreme and shocking that in my judgement it far outweighs your personal circumstances and other mitigatory facts, to such extent that it warrants a sentence in excess of the prescribed 15 years. I will deal with that further in my conclusion.

As regard to count 2 which is the conviction for defeating the ends of justice the features are indeed also aggravating and remarkable.

The court has heard that you are a business engineer of note in the property and realty industry. Marketing and selling a property is your strength. Posing and pitching the sale of a concept is the golden thread of the realty world. Showing property for sale as show-houses is a skill which determines the success of the sale. I looked through various websites of property industries of which you were a shining star and I see that many estate agents, and I quote from one particular Rosie Morgan (sp.) who sells properties across Ireland and on their website quotes the following “you’ll get one chance to make an impression and preparation is key”. And so I also looked at the Sothebys […] website of which you were the former CEO. And their sentiments are exactly the same, they say “staging is a key element in selling property”. Leading from the crime scene photos and other evidence Mr Rohde you used your wife’s body as a show-house to sell the concept that she had taken her own life. You methodically and clinically went about in an attempt to create the indelible impression that Susan had done this to herself. Preparation was clearly key and you had one chance to make the impression you wanted, and you went for it.

I carefully searched through the forensic images of the scene, her body naked and exposed on the floor with the indentation mark which you inflicted around her neck to create the impression that she had hanged herself and I could not find in your conduct acknowledgement that she was your wife, the mother of your children, a woman or simply a human being. So keen was the desire to ensure your liberty and to escape the consequences of your murderous conduct that she was in that moment nothing but an object used in the cause to market and sell the concept you wanted others to buy into – that being Susan is to blame, {van der Spuy mutters to his sidekick: Jesus this woman’s got a fertile imagination} she did this to herself. Naked and stripped of her dignity, you dragged her from the bedroom over the sisal rug inflicting therewith more injuries to her body, an undignified thing dragged her through her faeces leaving faecal drag marks on the floor in front of the bathroom.

You posed her for [] to see and to be shocked by her nakedness. In that way it is clear you ensured that the handyman you called would follow your instructions aghast by the scene and the nakedness of this woman and exit the bathroom without further ado or inspection maximizing therefore the prospects that he would buy into the suicide image you had sought to create – this woman killed herself. So did Mr William (sp.) a fellow hotel guest who shortly thereafter arrived and stood at the bathroom door. Once he saw that Susan was naked and exposed he carted his gaze away out of respect and refrained from looking into the scene any further. This was exactly your staging plan for others to be left with an image of a woman who killed herself. Through the act of staging you were marketing and selling the suicide brand you had prepared for and quite frankly grotesquely went beyond the pale.

The death and loss of such a remarkable person, a mother a daughter, a sister and friend is in itself a traumatic and [grievic?] experience. By blaming her for her demise in circumstances where you had murdered her add insult to injury. You sought to tarnish her legacy and by simulating her death as suicide you left her loved ones to further suffer in their grief and speculate with anguish as to what motivated Susan in the taking of her own life. How it could be that she did not consider her love for her children and other loved ones and in turn their love for her when she chose to end her life. And naturally they would have tormented in the quest as to how and if they had failed her. You showcased her Mr Rohde regardless of the obligation you owed to protect her, you owed her body, you owed her dignity and her legacy. And you committed this offence in cruel and selfish pursuit to escape the letter of the law and defeat the ends of justice.

In conclusion I’ve considered various sentencing options. I’ve also considered cumulative effect and concurrent effect of these sentences. For the reasons set out above I’m satisfied that a sentence of long-term imprisonment is called for in these circumstances and that the punishment mete out to you should exceed the minimum prescribed sentence of 15 years which will meet all the objectives of sentencing and will be manifestly fair and just. Accordingly Mr Rohde on count 1 you are sentenced to 18 years direct imprisonment. Turning to count 2 which is also a serious crime you are sentenced to 5 years direct imprisonment. It is ordered that in terms of section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Act that 3 years of the sentence imposed on count 2 shall run concurrently with that imposed on count 1. Mr Rohde you are herewith sentenced effectively to a term of 20 years direct imprisonment. You are further declared to be unfit to possess a firearm.

(bbm)
 
While the Western Cape High Court heard about all the "big loves" in Jason Rohde's life, there was one "big love story" that trumped all others when his wife, Susan, was killed, a judge said during Rohde's sentencing for murder.

"That is the story of malignant self-love. The love for yourself," Judge Gayaat Salie-Hlophe said on Wednesday.

[...]

Rohde's legal team intended appealing both his conviction and sentence.

You used your wife's body as a 'show house' to sell your story – Judge to Jason Rohde
 
Tortoise said:
I've transcribed her sentencing judgement from about midway through:

Now I go on to specifically deal with certain aggravating features.

The aggravating features of the murder of your wife are significant and startling. I will set them out briefly as follows:

You murdered Susan with the direct intention to kill her. She looked to you for protection and would have trusted you to care, and protect her. Instead you breached this trust, attacked and murdered her, in your private space.

Your counsel argued on your behalf that the murder was not for financial gain but was a crime of passion which ought to be viewed as mitigatory. Susan he argued pursued your infidelity with proactiveness and with interrogation. The suggestion is that your wife ought to have been more subservient and accepting of your infidelity and ought to have restrained her objections and interrogation. That she did not do this resulted in the perfect storm of your quarrel and it was in the exigencies of these events that the offences happened. She got killed and you ought to therefore get a lesser sentence the argument follows.

I cannot disagree more. This is a patriarchal and antiquated viewpoint that at some point many years ago was part of our justice system. It undermines women and in the context of intimate femicide a wife or a girlfriend’s right to dignity and equality before the law. Intimate femicide clearly cannot be viewed as being conduct which is less morally or legally reprehensible. You were her husband, the father of her children and you were required to protect her rather than to inflict harm upon her.

The injuries which you inflicted on your wife were successive and incremental until it was fatal. During this time and in the progress of killing her you would have had time to reflect and desist from your unlawful conduct. However you carried on regardless. The extent of the force which you used was so excessive that the injuries to her neck shows clear grab and scratch marks and bruises on the surface of the skin in that area with deep haemorrhages in the underlying tissue layers caused by your thumb on the right side of her neck and the remaining fingers on the other side of her neck. Her ribcage had various fractures illustrating how you had applied substantial force on her chest most likely with your knee whilst you manually strangled her, incapacitating her in the process. So severe was this force that she suffered a contusion to her lung which resulted in internal bleeding, coughing blood, swallowing it and ingesting it. The pillow which you used to smother Susan was done with repeated action. This is illustrated by the seepage of blood from the abrasion caused on her left upper eyelid by an earlier fist punch, which had come off onto the pillow twice as you pushed down on her face repeatedly. With your force pressing down on her face you deviated her nose to the right and caused her teeth to cut into the inside of her lower lip.

It is significant and a disturbing fact that throughout this ordeal you did not call for medical assistance. When you ultimately did call for help you limited it to a handyman purely for the purposes of furthering the commission of your offences. At no stage do you question, hesitate or become ambivalent about murdering your wife, you forged ahead unfettered, nor restrained by a conscience or reflection. These aggravating features are so extreme and shocking that in my judgement it far outweighs your personal circumstances and other mitigatory facts, to such extent that it warrants a sentence in excess of the prescribed 15 years. I will deal with that further in my conclusion.

As regard to count 2 which is the conviction for defeating the ends of justice the features are indeed also aggravating and remarkable.

The court has heard that you are a business engineer of note in the property and realty industry. Marketing and selling a property is your strength. Posing and pitching the sale of a concept is the golden thread of the realty world. Showing property for sale as show-houses is a skill which determines the success of the sale. I looked through various websites of property industries of which you were a shining star and I see that many estate agents, and I quote from one particular Rosie Morgan (sp.) who sells properties across Ireland and on their website quotes the following “you’ll get one chance to make an impression and preparation is key”. And so I also looked at the Sothebys […] website of which you were the former CEO. And their sentiments are exactly the same, they say “staging is a key element in selling property”. Leading from the crime scene photos and other evidence Mr Rohde you used your wife’s body as a show-house to sell the concept that she had taken her own life. You methodically and clinically went about in an attempt to create the indelible impression that Susan had done this to herself. Preparation was clearly key and you had one chance to make the impression you wanted, and you went for it.

I carefully searched through the forensic images of the scene, her body naked and exposed on the floor with the indentation mark which you inflicted around her neck to create the impression that she had hanged herself and I could not find in your conduct acknowledgement that she was your wife, the mother of your children, a woman or simply a human being. So keen was the desire to ensure your liberty and to escape the consequences of your murderous conduct that she was in that moment nothing but an object used in the cause to market and sell the concept you wanted others to buy into – that being Susan is to blame, {van der Spuy mutters to his sidekick: Jesus this woman’s got a fertile imagination} she did this to herself. Naked and stripped of her dignity, you dragged her from the bedroom over the sisal rug inflicting therewith more injuries to her body, an undignified thing dragged her through her faeces leaving faecal drag marks on the floor in front of the bathroom.

You posed her for [] to see and to be shocked by her nakedness. In that way it is clear you ensured that the handyman you called would follow your instructions aghast by the scene and the nakedness of this woman and exit the bathroom without further ado or inspection maximizing therefore the prospects that he would buy into the suicide image you had sought to create – this woman killed herself. So did Mr William (sp.) a fellow hotel guest who shortly thereafter arrived and stood at the bathroom door. Once he saw that Susan was naked and exposed he carted his gaze away out of respect and refrained from looking into the scene any further. This was exactly your staging plan for others to be left with an image of a woman who killed herself. Through the act of staging you were marketing and selling the suicide brand you had prepared for and quite frankly grotesquely went beyond the pale.

The death and loss of such a remarkable person, a mother a daughter, a sister and friend is in itself a traumatic and [grievic?] experience. By blaming her for her demise in circumstances where you had murdered her add insult to injury. You sought to tarnish her legacy and by simulating her death as suicide you left her loved ones to further suffer in their grief and speculate with anguish as to what motivated Susan in the taking of her own life. How it could be that she did not consider her love for her children and other loved ones and in turn their love for her when she chose to end her life. And naturally they would have tormented in the quest as to how and if they had failed her. You showcased her Mr Rohde regardless of the obligation you owed to protect her, you owed her body, you owed her dignity and her legacy. And you committed this offence in cruel and selfish pursuit to escape the letter of the law and defeat the ends of justice.

In conclusion I’ve considered various sentencing options. I’ve also considered cumulative effect and concurrent effect of these sentences. For the reasons set out above I’m satisfied that a sentence of long-term imprisonment is called for in these circumstances and that the punishment mete out to you should exceed the minimum prescribed sentence of 15 years which will meet all the objectives of sentencing and will be manifestly fair and just. Accordingly Mr Rohde on count 1 you are sentenced to 18 years direct imprisonment. Turning to count 2 which is also a serious crime you are sentenced to 5 years direct imprisonment. It is ordered that in terms of section 280 of the Criminal Procedure Act that 3 years of the sentence imposed on count 2 shall run concurrently with that imposed on count 1. Mr Rohde you are herewith sentenced effectively to a term of 20 years direct imprisonment. You are further declared to be unfit to possess a firearm.

(bbm)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the transcript Tortoise, much appreciated.

After a long and time consuming process, Jason got what he deserved; 20 years behind bars. Yes, so strong was his desire to be with his mistress that his wife had to get out of the way. I hope he enjoys his new life behind bars, just like Chris Watts. Both men could not appreciate what they had, a beautiful home, a beautiful family. No, they had to get rid of their spouses (and in the CW case his children too) in the most disrespectful manner. I am glad this Judge referred to Susan by name, pointing out that she was a remarkable person and honoring her legacy, instead of her being the deceased as Judge Masipa referred to Reeva.
 
So an Appeal.
What a surprise.:D:D:D
Not at all expected: big sarcasm here.
As I stated earlier on, hope this Creep loses all his money, and that of his Mum, and LOSES.
That would be terrific.
 
Tortoise said:
Oh I've just had a thought. Maybe the numbers are there for days when they have multiple short hearings, like people being charged, and they are given a case number and told where to sit. That could explain them sometimes being taken out of order and the magistrate or judge has those numbers on their paperwork. Anyway, I'm out of suggestions now.
Click to expand...

Just found this. You were spot on!
 

Attachments

  • 7F92EB90-6D99-4DA7-8F80-ED90A8612F45.jpeg
    7F92EB90-6D99-4DA7-8F80-ED90A8612F45.jpeg
    123.8 KB · Views: 6
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 3,282 (members: 74, guests: 3,208)

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
3,208
Total visitors
3,282
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,112
Messages
17,963,383
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top