Stanfield trial: Defence exposes alleged cracks in witness’s video and firearms account

The defence has challenged a key witness’s credibility in the Stanfield trial, using video footage to question his account of events at the Palm Springs Complex.

The defence in the Stanfield trial challenged Witness 3’s credibility in the Western Cape High Court on Wednesday, pointing to alleged differences between his statement, testimony and video evidence about an incident at the Palm Springs Complex.

The questioning focused on the witness’s account of seeing firearms with the accused, what the footage showed and whether an occurrence-book entry supported his version.

Defence lawyer Johannes “Bal” Abrahams argued that the testimony differed from the witness’s initial statement.

The testimony forms part of the Western Cape High Court trial of alleged underworld figure Ralph Stanfield, his wife, Nicole Johnson, and 12 co-accused. The State’s case includes charges of murder, attempted murder, robbery and firearms offences, and alleges links to a criminal gang known as The Firm.

In his earlier statement, Witness 3 said he saw one of the accused carrying a firearm, making it difficult to prevent the accused from entering the Palm Springs Complex through its boom gate.

The witness maintained that he saw the firearms when the accused bent down to pass underneath the boom gate.

However, the defence presented video evidence that it argued contradicted the witness’s account of what happened.

The proceedings followed testimony given by the witness on Tuesday, October 27, with the defence continuing to question whether his evidence was consistent with his earlier version.

Witness 3 told the court that the occurrence book was used to record incidents at Palm Springs.

However, Witness 1, the complex’s security manager, had previously testified that there was no entry in the occurrence book relating to the incident on November 24, 2022.

Witness 3 disputed this, arguing that Witness 1 had not reviewed the occurrence book.

He maintained that obtaining the book would help clarify the issue, saying that if it could be produced, “everything would be explained”.

The defence also revisited an alleged “untouchable” comment, questioning why it had not been included in Witness 3’s initial statement.

The witness stood by his account, saying he had heard the remark from police during his first interaction with them after the incident.

Video evidence was played in court in relation to the account, but it contained no audio.

Abrahams’s defence lawyer also challenged the witness’s claim that Abrahams had called a tow truck, disputing the account of an interaction between the two and maintaining that Abrahams had never spoken to the witness.

After comparing the footage with the witness’s initial statement, the defence argued that there were inconsistencies in his versions of events and questioned his credibility, suggesting that he was being “untruthful”. These remain challenges raised by the defence during the trial.