‘State’s case is weak’: Prosecution slammed in Cremer murder trial
|Published
CONSULT: Jeremy Sias with his lawyer Bashier Sibda.
The man accused of murdering showjumper Meghan Cremer could soon be free if the Western Cape High Court rules that the State did not prove his guilt amid glaring inconsistencies in the police investigation.
Judge Elizabeth Baartman poked holes in the prosecution’s case against Jeremy Sias on Tuesday as she accused the State of suppressing evidence which could have proven that he was not guilty of murder.
During an explosive court session, defence advocate Bashier Sibda accused the State of malicious prosecution, saying they snuck information into court documents and had no real proof that Sias murdered Cremer.
According to the indictment, Meghan was allegedly accosted by Sias on August 3, 2019 at the Vaderlandsche Rietvlei Stables where she rented a cottage.
It is alleged that he strangled her to death after stealing various valuables including her laptop, handbag, bank cards and her Toyota Auris.
He later got Charles Daniels and Shiraaj Jaftha to help sell the car but they were caught with the vehicle.
The duo were charged separately as there was no evidence linking them to the murder.
Sias pleaded not guilty to the charges of murder, robbery, theft and defeating the ends of justice.
According to his testimony, Sias stole Meghan’s car and later that night found her body in the boot of the vehicle and dumped it on a veldjie in Philippi.
During the trial, the wife of the farm owner, Linda Mohr, outed Meghan as a drug addict and presented WhatsApp messages as proof of her claims.
She further told the court that three “Malay” men came to the farm to watch Meghan as she took horse-riding lessons, seemingly to intimidate her.
Prosecutor Emily van Wyk called on the court to discard Mohr’s comments but she was slammed by Baartman, who said Linda’s testimony disproved the State’s case against Sias.
“So you are saying she made it up? She testified that she went to Athlone Court to tell the officers of the evidence and she was told that her version would weaken the State’s case,” the judge said.
During the trial, Sibda continually questioned why more CCTV footage was not made available by the investigation team and when Mohr took the stand, she piemped cops by saying there was footage from eight cameras which was never taken by the police.
In his argument, Sibda claimed that if Sias had entered Cremer’s cottage it would have been picked up by the cameras.
“It was not presented to court because it just does not exist,” he stated.
Sibda also highlighted other issues such as a still photograph showing Meghan’s car leaving the property on the night she was murdered. He said it was “impossible” for Sias to have stolen items from her cottage without leaving any fingerprints.
Baartman appeared to agree with Sibda, saying his arguments and the evidence before court showed that Meghan could have been killed by “unsavoury” mense who had stalked her.
The judge added: “Why was the footage of the cottage not placed in front of this court as evidence? Why was evidence suppressed? Mrs Mohr came to testify that there were eight cameras.”
But Van Wyk explained that all the evidence they had was in fact presented.
The case continues.