Rob Evans’s defence lawyer, Paul Roelofse, has criticised what he described as an investigative blunder — the failure to secure Vanessa van Rensburg’s cellphone while her body was still at the crime scene.
This emerged during his cross-examination of investigating officer Warrant Officer Xolile Kato in the Humansdorp Regional Court today, June 4.
Vanessa (36) was found murdered at Rob Evans’ (58) holiday home in Oyster Bay during Easter weekend, on April 20.
Evans is facing charges of murder, attempted murder, kidnapping and obstruction of justice.
“A cellphone has become such an important element of investigation,” Roelofse argued, expressing disbelief that such evidence wasn’t immediately secured by police members.
“Why didn’t you make sure to take Vanessa’s cellphone on the 20th?” Roelofse pressed the investigating officer, highlighting that while Evans’ phone was taken on the day of the murder, Vanessa’s phone was handed over to family members without proper examination.
When questioned about this decision, Kato defended his actions by stating there are “trained people who can intercept phone info” and that equipment exists to “retrieve information that’s deleted.”
Outstanding DNA and Toxicology Reports
During today’s court proceedings, Roelofse’s questioning highlighted forensic evidence that is currently unavailable for the murder investigation.
Roelofse questioned Kato about nail clippings taken from Vanessa by pathologists. State prosecutor, Bianca Burger, in a previous court appearance had argued that scratch marks found on Evans when examined by police were from Vanessa scratching him while fighting for her life.
“You don’t know – you’re waiting for DNA, if they match with Evans,” Roelofse stated, emphasising that investigators still don’t have the DNA results to match against Evans. Kato confirmed, stating that they are still waiting for the nail clipping results.
When Roelofse asked about toxicology reports from the evening of Vanessa’s death, Kato confirmed that no results from forensics were available yet.
Challenging Witness Fear Claims
Roelofse questioned the credibility of state witness and Old Grey Restaurant owner, Ronel van Eyck’s claim that she feared Evans.
Kato had stated Evans was “feared by a lot of people,” but Roelofse challenged this depiction regarding Ronel’s interactions with Evans following an altercation at Crusaders Rugby Club.
As previously reported by the Express, Van Eyck provided a statement detailing previous incidents where Evans allegedly became aggressive and verbally abusive at a Crusaders rugby club event. This led Van Eyck to close the restaurant that operated at Crusaders Rugby Club, which is allegedly financially assisted by Evans.
Kato further stated that one of Evans’ legal representatives contacted her, which instilled more fear in her. In his testimony, Kato claimed this contact with a state witness demonstrated Evans was a threat who could potentially intimidate witnesses.
“Did Evans make any contact to witnesses?” Roelofse asked, to which Kato responded, “No he did not.”
Roelofse argued that Evans had not threatened or approached Ronel, as he is in custody.
Following their Crusaders interaction, he had simply ignored her. “He didn’t greet or speak to her, he didn’t have any interaction with her. So he ignored her,” Roelofse argued, maintaining that Evans ignoring her following the interaction did not warrant fear.
The matter has been remanded for tomorrow, June 5, for further cross-examination.
