Verdict expected in peeping Tom case tomorrow

THE application to discharge peeping Tom suspect Heinz Laube on five counts of crimen injuria at the close of the prosecution’s case was denied in the Swakopmund Magistrate’s Court yesterday.

The trial continued and the Magistrate is scheduled to hand down her verdict tomorrow. Magistrate Vicky Nicolaidis agreed with State Prosecutor Heidi Jacobs that there was enough evidence to proceed with the trial, dismissing the defence’s claim that no prima facie case was proven.Though the prosecution closed its case on Monday and a verdict was expected yesterday, a last-minute inspection of the gymnasium in question prompted Jacobs to reopen the State’s case.Magistrate Nicolaidis agreed to visit the Genesis Health and Fitness Centre, as it was formerly known, along with the legal representatives and witnesses to get a better view of the layout of the premises than the photo maps before court could provide.Laube is accused of secretly videotaping female clients in the women’s dressing rooms in 2004, when he still owned the gymnasium.After the inspection, Rosi Pauli Kurz, one of the complainants and relative of some of the underage victims, took the stand to explain how the exercise equipment had been arranged at the time of the alleged crime.Mark Feldhagen, formerly Laube’s partner in the business, testified for the defence on the same topic.Feldhagen said because of the position of the exercise machines that the victims claimed to have been using, they could not have seen Laube when he entered the corridor leading to the changing rooms.According to earlier testimony, Laube supposedly disappeared into the corridor whenever the complainants headed towards the changing rooms, presumably climbing into the ceiling in a maintenance room adjacent to the dressing rooms to film them through a removed light fixture.The camera and a videotape were discovered by Michael Oxorub, a regular client at the gym, and Lonan Nangombe, who was employed there at the time.Mervin Dennis, also a former member, became involved when Oxorub and Nangombe showed him the film.In her closing argument, State Prosecutor Jacobs stated that the video camera discovered in the ceiling was clearly operated by someone and that the silhouette visible on the video was undoubtedly that of Laube.She said contradictions in the testimony of State witnesses could be ascribed to the long time that had passed between the discovery of the video equipment and the start of the trial.Jacobs questioned why Laube did not go to the Police when he was supposedly blackmailed by the men who had found the camera and kept the videotape in their possession for some seven months.It was proven beyond doubt that the camera belonged to Laube, that Laube’s family was shown on a part of the video and that he negotiated payment for the equipment to be returned rather than go to the Police, she said.”Don’t be blinded by the dust kicked up by the accused to distract the court,” Jacobs said.”He [Laube] chose not to testify.He was desperate enough to hire a private investigator to get the camera and videotape back.”Defence counsel Sacky Amoomo closed his argument by saying that none of the witnesses had actually seen Laube in the act of filming and no proof of a crime was found by the Police.It could also not be proven that filming occurred without the complainants’ consent.It also remained unproven that Laube entered the utility room when witnesses claimed he did.It was possible that someone else had made the video, Amoomo claimed.From their contradicting testimony, it could be assumed that one or more of the men who self-admittedly blackmailed Laube was behind the camera, he contended.Amoomo said the burden of proving guilt rests on the prosecution.”There must be a clear conviction of guilt; not a suspicion, however strong,” he said.Magistrate Vicky Nicolaidis agreed with State Prosecutor Heidi Jacobs that there was enough evidence to proceed with the trial, dismissing the defence’s claim that no prima facie case was proven.Though the prosecution closed its case on Monday and a verdict was expected yesterday, a last-minute inspection of the gymnasium in question prompted Jacobs to reopen the State’s case.Magistrate Nicolaidis agreed to visit the Genesis Health and Fitness Centre, as it was formerly known, along with the legal representatives and witnesses to get a better view of the layout of the premises than the photo maps before court could provide.Laube is accused of secretly videotaping female clients in the women’s dressing rooms in 2004, when he still owned the gymnasium.After the inspection, Rosi Pauli Kurz, one of the complainants and relative of some of the underage victims, took the stand to explain how the exercise equipment had been arranged at the time of the alleged crime.Mark Feldhagen, formerly Laube’s partner in the business, testified for the defence on the same topic.Feldhagen said because of the position of the exercise machines that the victims claimed to have been using, they could not have seen Laube when he entered the corridor leading to the changing rooms.According to earlier testimony, Laube supposedly disappeared into the corridor whenever the complainants headed towards the changing rooms, presumably climbing into the ceiling in a maintenance room adjacent to the dressing rooms to film them through a removed light fixture.The camera and a videotape were discovered by Michael Oxorub, a regular client at the gym, and Lonan Nangombe, who was employed there at the time.Mervin Dennis, also a former member, became involved when Oxorub and Nangombe showed him the film.In her closing argument, State Prosecutor Jacobs stated that the video camera discovered in the ceiling was clearly operated by someone and that the silhouette visible on the video was undoubtedly that of Laube.She said contradictions in the testimony of State witnesses could be ascribed to the long time that had passed between the discovery of the video equipment and the start of the trial.Jacobs questioned why Laube did not go to the Police when he was supposedly blackmailed by the men who had found the camera and kept the videotape in their possession for some seven months.It was proven beyond doubt that the camera belonged to Laube, that Laube’s family was shown on a part of the video and that he negotiated payment for the equipment to be returned rather than go to the Police, she said.”Don’t be blinded by the dust kicked up by the accused to distract the court,” Jacobs said.”He [Laube] chose not to testify.He was desperate enough to hire a private investigator to get the camera and videotape back.”Defence counsel Sacky Amoomo closed his argument by saying that none of the witnesses had actually seen Laube in the act of filming and no proof of a crime was found by the Police.It could also not be proven that filming occurred without the complainants’ consent.It also remained unproven that Laube entered the utility room when witnesses claimed he did.It was possible that someone else had made the video, Amoomo claimed.From their contradicting testimony, it could be assumed that one or more of the men who self-admittedly blackmailed Laube was behind the camera, he contended.Amoomo said the burden of proving guilt rests on the prosecution.”There must be a clear conviction of guilt; not a suspicion, however strong,” he said.