The defence lawyer for accused Renaldo van Rooyen, Peter Burgess, had questions regarding the validity of reports on the cellphone records compiled by expert Hilda Du Plessis.
Burgess asked about the range of the cell towers and from how far away they could pick up signals.
He referred to two specific instances where two towers picked up the same number at the same time.
The make and model of Van Rooyen’s phone was also discussed.
His Samsung, according to specifications submitted by Burgess, was not “internet ready” and he wanted to understand how the phone, with no GPS system, could possibly be traced via the cell towers.
Du Plessis said calls and SMSes could be tracked as long as the phone could make calls and receive messages.
Zarah, 33, went missing early in March last year and her body was found 10 days later, dumped on a farm in Klein Drakenstein.
Both accused, Van Rooyen, 34, and Tawfeeq Ebrahim, 26, say the other one killed her.
Tawfeeq Ebrahim
Van Rooyen claims when he came into the garage at his home, Ebrahim had already killed Zarah.
While Ebrahim claims that Van Rooyen bludgeoned Zarah to death with a hammer, right in front of him.
Wimpie Strauss, representing Ebrahim, asked if Du Plessis, had extensive technical training, to which she replied “no”.
He then asked her to confirm that she had only learnt of these “very technical” issues in theory.
Du Plessis said: “I had theoretical training and basic technical training.”
State prosecutor Maria Marshall handed up two more affidavits from forensic pathologists who had already testified.
The affidavits were confirmation of the pathologists’ personal details and also that they were Western Cape Government Health employees.
The defence said it needed time to go through the “new evidence” brought by the State.
The State has now closed its case and the defence will next call up their witnesses when the matter resumes, possibly next month.