THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

16[52] The court below, having regard to Dr Lourens’ evidence, took the view thatthe time frame during which Sasha Leigh disappeared on that Sunday was lesscrucial than suggested on behalf of the appellant.[53] Ndita J, in the judgment of the court below, rightly took into account that itwas only after several key witnesses had testified that the appellant revealed thatSasha Leigh had followed him into the backyard. As pointed out above this wasonly done during a late stage under cross-examination.[54] It is correct, as noted by the court below, that in a police bag containingthe fragment of the chipped board referred to earlier, there was an additionalpiece which could not be conclusively accounted for. This, however, does notdetract from the fact that the crucial fragment in question was undoubtedlyproved to have been taken off Sasha Leigh’s clothes and linked to the boardfound in the shed at the appellant’s house.[55] The DNA testing and the results referred to in para 48 above were alsotaken into account by the court below.[56] In dealing with the statements allegedly made by the appellant to hismother, the court below had regard to the quality of the testimony of the threemembers of the SAPS referred to above. It also had regard to thecontemporaneous note made by Inspector Cilliers on the instruction of CaptainNaidoo and which, in relation to Sasha Leigh’s entry into the backyard, read asfollows:‘Ek het haar laat kom.’This, according to the State, is what was said before the appellant had told hismother that he had strangled Sasha Leigh.