WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2008-11-11 Time: 12:00:08 Posted By: Jan
By Botho Molosankwe
Judge Nkola Motata’s lawyer has cast doubt on whether the blood sample, of which the alcohol level was found to be four times over the limit, was actually his.
This is after it transpired in court on Monday that the sample was from Hillbrow police station and had a December 2006 case number, whereas Judge Motata’s accident occurred on January 6 2007 and his blood was drawn the same day.
The Pretoria High Court judge crashed his Jaguar into the wall of a Hurlingham home in the early hours of that morning.
One of the first metro police officers to arrive on the scene, Paulinah Mashilela, testified that Judge Motata was taken to a district surgeon in Hillbrow, where his blood was drawn.
The Hillbrow and Randburg police refused to open a case, saying it was a Parkview police station issue because the crash happened in Hurlingham.
The officers drove Judge Motata to Parkview, where he was charged with drinking and driving and malicious damage to property. He was detained and released a few hours later.
A former chief forensic analyst told the Johannesburg magistrate’s court on Monday that the Forensic Chemistry Laboratory received the blood sample on January 12, and he analysed it on March 9.
Logan Govender, who no longer works at the laboratory, said the alcohol concentration in the blood was 0,2g per 100ml. The legal limit in South Africa is 0,05, which indicates that it was four times over the limit.
However, Judge Motata’s lawyer, Danie Dorfling, took Govender through the laboratory’s logbook, which showed that the case regarding the blood sample he analysed was registered in December 2006 at the Hillbrow police station.
Still on the logbook, he showed Govender that someone with a different handwriting had written “Parkview” next to Hillbrow and added the numbers 76/01 with a black pen, while the case number was written with a blue pen.
When Dorfling asked him whether he agreed that the blood analysed was never from Parkview, Govender agreed.
“It was Hillbrow police station,” he responded.
He said he wrote in his report that he got the blood from Parkview, whereas he knew it was from Hillbrow.
After completing the laboratory sheet, Govender handed it to a typist, who also indicated that the sample was from Parkview, even though the labels showed that it was not.
Govender said that was because there was a letter attached to the sample which indicated that the blood was from Parkview.
He also testified that before analysing the blood, he had received an SAP21 – which gives information about the case – attached to his lab sheet. This was something that had never happened before.
The case continues.