A question of ‘bad taste’ – with a dash of stupidity

Call it a question of taste – bad taste, that is, with a dash of stupidity, or, if you like, the one that got away.

Cousins Annette Andrews, 28, and Aldrin (Ollie) Witbooi, 32, both claimed innocence when they stood in the dock of the Parow Regional Court on Monday, before magistrate Constance Nziweni, charged with robbery with aggravating circumstances.

Their alleged victim, Aarnold de Myunk told the court he was at home in Goodwood, in Cape Town’s northern suburbs, on a night in October 2015, when Andrews called him about 11pm to say that she was hungry.

Because he knew her and her parents, he invited her into his home for food, and she arrived with Witbooi, whom De Myunk knew to be her cousin.

As they opened the security gate to his home, a second, unknown, man suddenly appeared and forced his way past the two cousins, into the de Myunk home.

The unknown man produced a firearm, and said “they” wanted money and liquor.

The gunman tied him to a chair with rope, and then proceeded to ransack the house.

When all three had gone, with de Myunk’s two laptops and his wristwatch, de Myunk managed to free himself and raise the alarm.
De Myunk was cross-examined intensely by defence advocate Andre Parries, who suggested that his relationship with Andrews was sexual, rather than a family affair.

De Myunk insisted it was purely family, but added that Andrews did from time to time “offer her services”.

Parries wanted to know more about her “services” but de Myunk said they were cooking and cleaning.

At one stage, de Myunk accused Parries of “trying to twist my words”, and on another occasion de Myunk said Parries’s questions had nothing to do with the case, and he refused to answer.

Parries said Witbooi’s version of the incident was that Witbooi was in fact with the second man, but did not know that his companion was armed.

When Witbooi’s companion pulled a gun on de Myunk, Witbooi was just as shocked, but did not participate in the robbery.
De Myunk said the gunman demanded liquor, and de Myunk gave him a bottle of wine.

Parries said the gunman did not drink the wine, according to Witbooi.

De Myunk said the gunman had a mouthful of the wine, but did not like it, and asked for custard to get rid of the “awful” taste.

De Myunk added: “The gunman obviously had bad taste, because that wine was classy.”

De Myunk said the gunman swigged from the custard, and in doing so left clear finger prints on the container.

The gunman has meanwhile gone to ground, leaving Andrews and Witbooi to face the music.

What the magistrate makes of it all, we will only know when the case resumes on May 8.

For more news your way, follow The Citizen on Facebook and Twitter.