Retired police colonel and cellphone analyst Lambertus Steyn has been accused of fabricated his evidence to implicate the accused in Senzo Meyiwa’s murder.
These allegations were made in court by defence counsel for accused 3 in the Senzo Meyiwa murder case,56 Advocate Charles Mnisi.
Mnisi said this during his cross-examination before the Pretoria High Court on Wednesday.
Expert forgot the times between suspects’ phone calls
This was after Steyn told the court that he forgot the times of the first phone call between singer and Meyiwa’s then girlfriend Kelly Khumalo and accused number five Fisokuhle Ntuli.
Mnisi clarified that in Steyn’s initial testimony, he said the call between the two was at 17:33:57. It was on October 15, 2014.
“You said the only correction is the time, it should be 19:33:57. Now, is that the only amendment that should be done?” Mnisi asked.
Steyn confirmed.
“I did say that I forgot to add two hours. And I did say I did an extraction from the Section 205,” he replied.
Steyn stated that though he did not see the information as important, the fact remains that a call was made.
“When you gave your evidence, you forgot to add the two hours of grace. You forgot to add such vital information, you are very forgetful.
Accusations of lying
“You did not forget. The information that you gave is information you came here prepared to deliver. Do you have any comment on that?”
Steyn complained that Mnisi has already painted him as a liar in the media.
“The court called me to clarify. I have the downloads and Section 205. The evidence is here.”
Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng interjected.
“Do you have any countervailing evidence that the Colonel is incorrect?” he asked Mnisi.
“You are saying he is incorrect but you are not putting another countervailing evidence that is so.”
Mnisi responded that the onus does not lie on the accused to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
Defence insists expert lied deliberately
“Colonel Steyn, I am putting it to you that this did not happen because you forgot. It happened because you wanted to formulate, conjure, fabricate non-existent evidence. To falsely implicate accused number five. To make it look as if accused 5 did have a conversation with a number ending 4358. I do not know who it belongs to but it’s said that it belongs to Kelly Khumalo.”
“That is not true. The mistake I made is on the tower information by not adding the two hours rule,” Steyn said.
“Which is my point. You made a mistake because of the fabrication. At all cost, you wanted to formulate that accused 5 did have a communication that day. The information you brought here differs materially from what Vythilingam’s s evidence,” Vythilingam is Vodacom’s cellphone analyst who testified previously.
Steyn maintained that he did not make the data up.
“I did not fabricate anything. However, I brought information on who the number had communication with. If I had accused five’s Section 205, then I would tell the court where he was.”
The court adjourned after the judge asked for the Vodacoms analyst to return to court on Thursday. This as the defence argued that Steyn cannot testify on the evidence that is not his.
