Wentzel v S (CA&R202/2015)
Wentzel v S (CA&R202/2015) [2017] ZAECGHC 132 (23 November 2017)
The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the medical findings, the presence of a hammer consistent with the injuries, the appellant's conduct before and after the fire, and the lack of any plausible alternative explanation, excluded any reasonable inference other than that the appellant inflicted the blunt force injuries and deliberately started the fire with the intention of killing the deceased. The appellant's explanations were inconsistent and improbable, and the sequence of events, as well as the forensic evidence, supported the conclusion that the appellant was guilty…
Source excerpt
- Murder
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Blunt Force Injury
- Arson
- Post Mortem Evidence