Kirsten Kluyts: Bail hearing postponed to next Friday

State Prosecutor Ayanda Bakana requested the postponement, saying his team needs time to respond to the defense who labelled the state’s case as a weak one.

“The state is of the view that it needs to address the court, and the state of the view that it would be failing in its duties if it is not addressing the court properly with regards with some of the averments, allegations…

“The state is requesting a remand. Unfortunately, the state is not available tomorrow and Friday. I therefore suggest next Friday (29 December).”

Magistrate Syta Prinsloo granted the postponement. 

DEFENCE ZOOMS INTO POLICE AFFIDAVIT, TIMELINES

The 21-year-old student was arrested on 26 November, nearly a month after Kluyts’ lifeless body was discovered at the George Lea Park in Sandton.

She went missing while taking part in an organized run on 29 October.

The accused admitted to removing and discarding some of the deceased’s clothing items and wearing her blue t-shirt.

He however denies harming or killing Kluyts. He also told the court that he had covered her body with the rug he found her in before fleeing the scene.

His lawyer, Advocate Itumeleng Masako, argued that the police failed to explore other possible scenarios that led to the death of the 34-year-old teacher, who was also 14 weeks pregnant at the time of her death.

“They can’t explain how that body landed at George Lea Park. At what time did that body arrive there? Why did they miss it?” asked Masako, as he argued that the state had “funnelled” its investigation after establishing that the accused was captured on CCTV footage in Kluyts’ clothes.

This was after the state read into the record the affidavits of the private security responder and the police officer who were called to the scene.

An affidavit by the Investigating Officer (IO) states that Kluyts was seen entering the park at 08h04, a still image of her was taken at 08h05, her cellphone was later picked up by a fellow runner at 08h15 and handed to the timekeeper.  

Masako attempted to point out supposed inconsistencies in the timelines contained in the cellphone records, still images and the IO’s affidavit.

“M1 refers to 10h03, which is the timeline which does not marry with what the affidavit was saying. Why?”

The matter was postponed for the state to respond and finalisation of the bail hearing. 

ALSO READ: