The trial of John du Plooy and Shaun Oosthuizen who stand accused of the murder of Barbara Esme Fenton on September 1 started on November 5 in the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court sitting in Palm Ridge Magistrate’s Court.
Both accused stand accused by the state on two counts, one for murder and the other for robbery with aggravating circumstances.
Both du Plooy and Oosthuizen pleaded not guilty to both the murder and the robbery with aggravating circumstances but did plead guilty to robbery without aggravating circumstances.
In their respective pleas, the accused admitted to going to the residence of Fenton.
Looking for donations
According to them they are poor and were looking for donations. In the plea they claim du Plooy asked Fenton to borrow her charger to charge his phone.
Du Plooy said she took him to the bedroom to allow him to charge his phone and Oosthuizen followed shortly afterwards.
According to Oosthuizen in his plea, and corroborated by du Plooy’s plea, he noticed jewellery in the room and on the spur of the moment decided to grab the deceased and cover her mouth to take the jewellery.
They further add that they tied her legs with a blue cloth and covered her mouth with cloth.
They admit to taking the jewellery and then state that they left the premises.
In their plea, they denied having physically harmed the deceased.
State calls witnesses
The state did not accept the plea of the accused and stated that they would prove that the aggravating circumstances and murder could be supported with evidence.
The presiding judge informed the accused that even if the state was unable to prove the aggravating circumstances the accused can still be sentenced based on their guilty plea of robbery.
The state called three witnesses to deliver their evidence in chief.
The first was a resident of the retirement village in which the deceased resided. According to the witness, she received a call from the intercom system at around 4pm from an Afrikaans male asking to see “Tannie Marie”.
She opened the gate as she believed that he was referring to her. She later went to go see what is going on as the person did not come to her.
She noticed a vehicle parked in the street outside unit number three, the unit the deceased was living in, and took a photo.
This photo was presented to the court as it matched the description of the vehicle the accused admitted to using.
Account of second witness
The second witness was a resident in a different complex in Alberton.
This witness stated that the two accused came to her house earlier on the day of the murder.
In her evidence in chief, she indicated that Oosthuizen knocked on her window and said he and his fellow accused were from Bela Bela and were looking for Tannie Marie whose husband had died.
She went to the front door, but did not open for them.
According to her, they later returned and Oosthuizen asked to use the bathroom. She opened for him and he came in and used the bathroom.
After that he came and stood next to her and plugged in his phone in a charger and according to the witness she pulled it out and told him his phone was charged.
He then checked outside the blinds, which the witness believed might be because he heard voices outside.
Cross-examination
The third witness called by the state was Barbara Fenton’s daughter who testified earlier on the day of the murder the deceased was having lunch with the witness, her daughter and her granddaughter.
The state had several photos taken into evidence depicting Fenton earlier on the day of the incident.
In cross-examination, the defence asked several questions regarding other people who could possibly have access to the house.
The witness denied that anyone would have access to the house.
The defence established from the witness that there were three possible entrances to the premises.
When asked about the line of questioning by the presiding officer, the defence indicated that it is their position that another person might have entered the premises after the accused left and possibly committed the deeds.
The case was postponed at the end of the day until November 8.
The postponement is to provide the accused with time to visit the prison hospital and for the state to determine when the fourth witness, the pathologist, would be available to testify.
