Rape trial in South nears end

THE High Court at Keetmanshoop yesterday heard the final arguments before judgement in the trial of two men accused of raping and assaulting a 28-year-old Keetmanshoop resident following a drinking spree at a shebeen.

The woman was allegedly raped and assaulted in a dry riverbed at Keetmanshoop around midday on February 5 2005. That was after she and the two men had been involved in an all-night drinking session at the town’s Firefighting shebeen.Alex Johannes Roos (30) and Immanuel Claassen (32) each face two counts of rape and attempted rape in connection with the incident.During the trial, it was claimed that only Roos had sexual intercourse with the woman, while an attempt by Claassen was averted by security guards who came to the rescue of the woman.Two weeks ago, Judge Kato van Niekerk dismissed an acquittal motion by the two suspects.With defence counsel Winnie Christians having closed the defence’s case after the court had visited the alleged scene on Tuesday, State Advocate Ed Marondedze argued that there was sufficient evidence for a conviction.Both the State and defence lawyers agreed to an inspection of the alleged crime scene after Claassen disagreed with the site of the scene as shown on Police photographs.Roos avoided the witness box by exercising his right to remain silent.Marondedze requested Judge Van Niekerk to convict both men on all charges, arguing they had a common purpose in raping the woman.He said Claassen had fabricated his evidence by pointing out a different place during the visit to the scene to avoid being placed at the alleged rape scene.Marondedze asked Judge Van Niekerk to reject Claassen’s evidence, because of this claimed fabrication.He further contended that Roos’s choice to remain silent has simplified the matter.In turn, defence counsel Christians argued the State had hopelessly failed to prove allegations of attempted rape.Christians argued the woman had lied and was guessing through the trial.He said her credibility was of the utmost importance.He claimed there were no reasonable grounds for his clients to be convicted of rape, claiming the woman’s evidence was not supported by other State witnesses.Christians conceded that Claassen’s version on the locality of the rape scene was questionable, because it was likely that he fabricated evidence to make his version more proper to prove his innocence.Christian asked the Judge not to reject Claassen’s testimony.He argued that the fact Claassen had not stopped Roos does not make him guilty.He also remarked it was defence counsel’s strategy to only call Claassen to the witness box.Evidence against Roos was disputed during cross-examination, he said.Christians claimed Roos had consensual sex with the woman because they had been in a love relationship.Judge Van Niekerk adjourned the case until Monday for judgement.That was after she and the two men had been involved in an all-night drinking session at the town’s Firefighting shebeen.Alex Johannes Roos (30) and Immanuel Claassen (32) each face two counts of rape and attempted rape in connection with the incident.During the trial, it was claimed that only Roos had sexual intercourse with the woman, while an attempt by Claassen was averted by security guards who came to the rescue of the woman.Two weeks ago, Judge Kato van Niekerk dismissed an acquittal motion by the two suspects.With defence counsel Winnie Christians having closed the defence’s case after the court had visited the alleged scene on Tuesday, State Advocate Ed Marondedze argued that there was sufficient evidence for a conviction.Both the State and defence lawyers agreed to an inspection of the alleged crime scene after Claassen disagreed with the site of the scene as shown on Police photographs.Roos avoided the witness box by exercising his right to remain silent.Marondedze requested Judge Van Niekerk to convict both men on all charges, arguing they had a common purpose in raping the woman.He said Claassen had fabricated his evidence by pointing out a different place during the visit to the scene to avoid being placed at the alleged rape scene.Marondedze asked Judge Van Niekerk to reject Claassen’s evidence, because of this claimed fabrication.He further contended that Roos’s choice to remain silent has simplified the matter.In turn, defence counsel Christians argued the State had hopelessly failed to prove allegations of attempted rape.Christians argued the woman had lied and was guessing through the trial.He said her credibility was of the utmost importance.He claimed there were no reasonable grounds for his clients to be convicted of rape, claiming the woman’s evidence was not supported by other State witnesses.Christians conceded that Claassen’s version on the locality of the rape scene was questionable, because it was likely that he fabricated evidence to make his version more proper to prove his innocence.Christian asked the Judge not to reject Claassen’s testimony.He argued that the fact Claassen had not stopped Roos does not make him guilty.He also remarked it was defence counsel’s strategy to only call Claassen to the witness box.Evidence against Roos was disputed during cross-examination, he said.Christians claimed Roos had consensual sex with the woman because they had been in a love relationship.Judge Van Niekerk adjourned the case until Monday for judgement.