Senzo Meyiwa: will we ever know what really happened?

The emergence of a second docket has further clouded the answer to who killed the Bafana Bafana captain Senzo Meyiwa. And with the absence of proper forensic evidence, the country may never learn what really happened on that fateful night on 26 October, 2014, in Vosloorus, east of Johannesburg.

We’re still waiting to hear why the second docket was opened. One of the most important documents in a police investigation docket is the A1 statement. It is here the groundwork is laid for the crime committed, initial observations, to frame the scene and to establish the case for further investigation. It is almost unheard of to open a second docket for investigation – especially five years later.

What is in the new A1 statement which is different to the original? And how are memories not tainted with the passage of time? To answer the last question, they are.

Starting with the first police member on the scene. This person would have attended many hundreds of scenes, all wildly different, under very different circumstances at all hours of the day and night and varying locations.

ALSO READ: LISTEN: Senzo Meyiwa trial an embarrassment to criminal justice system – Gerrie Nel

The member’s previous years of experience would also be a factor towards blurring recollections into mere snapshots of memory. So, to reconstruct the scene, five years later, would be nigh impossible.

Did the person who attended the scene write the A1 statement for the new docket? Was it simply copied over, or photostated? Or was a new A1 written by another police official? How? Did they attend the scene? Was it reconstructed from memory or video? Was video taken at the scene? And why was the old docket not filed undetected if the blame was deemed to fall so squarely on Meyiwa’s partner, Kelly Khumalo?

Also, how was blame assigned so squarely to Khumalo and the other suspects in the new docket? Especially if no gunshot residue (GSR) tests were performed? It has been alleged a revolver was used in the shooting.

If this was the case, the GSR results would anyway have been almost meaningless, as gunpowder particle dynamics are greatly affected by the type of weapon used and revolvers – generally speaking – blast residue almost everywhere due to them being a relatively uncontained system compared to pistols.

It doesn’t mean GSR from pistols can be narrowed down to the shooter and victim only. In a small room, GSR would be found on surfaces and people, albeit in lesser quantities over a wider area than a revolver – but will point to the probable shooter.

But if no swabs were taken from people, surfaces, even the vehicle used to transport Meyiwa, his clothes, how was the idea a revolver was used arrived at? The thinking may be a revolver was used due to no casing being found, but it is a simplistic thought – especially since a projectile was found on the second day.

What if the casing was picked up? A lot falls on the shoulders of the first responders. The scene should have been sealed, the occupants of the house isolated under guard, another crew dispatched to the hospital to lock down the transport vehicle and any evidence from the person who took Meyiwa, their clothes taken into evidence, and above all, the chain of evidence secured.

With all the murders being committed in this country, the process of evidence gathering should be seamless and smooth. Right now, it’s a mess and too many killers are going free.