28th October 2006 Advocate Vogel National Prosecuting Authority by monkey6

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 3

28th October 2006 Advocate Vogel National Prosecuting Authority

More Info
									28th October 2006

Advocate Vogel National Prosecuting Authority Cape Town Cc Advocate De Kock Advocate Pikoli (Pretoria) Dear Advocate Vogel Re: Your Reference 9/2/4/7-85/06 Regarding the handwritten letter I dropped off at your offices last Monday 23rd October – I told Ms Singh that I would drop off a typed copy however I did not make a photocopy of that letter so I will repeat the most important points and add a few new ones. I met with Detective Hendricks on 16th October, 21st October and on 23rd October as requested by you to peruse the three (3) dockets, viz. Woodstock CAS140/11/2002, Cape Town CAS 270/02/2002 and Lansdowne CAS 365/09/2004 and to answer questions as directed by you. Please note that Lansdowne CAS 365/09/2004 is now split into two (2) dockets. The Lever Arch File contains the documents Mr X and I put together in our attempt to recreate missing docket 365/09/2004. Please do not ignore the contents of the SAP docket in the brown folder. I added various documents, which were supposed to be in the dockets, and were not. I am angered that the 14-page affidavit authored by Mr X had several pages blanked out (only the header information was left in tact) – this was mentioned to Detective Hendricks as well. I requested that the updated 21-page (fairly old) affidavit authored by Mr Y replaces the 14-page affidavit. As stated previously, I also included 3 new affidavits, viz. 1) My inheritance to date but not from the Estate, 2) Some known facts of my late father’s financial details (this probably requires a more detailed investigation – as per Detective Hendricks, the Postbank statements have been requested), and 3) An affidavit wherein I stated that both Dr O and Dr Q lied under oath regarding the statements made by them regarding my late father’s treatment in Groote Schuur Hospital between 18/03/2002 and 22/03/2002 (I was not present when he died in the early hours of 23/03/2002). The absence of the hospital records from Groote Schuur Hospital or copies thereof have been noted. I in fact read the file at about 5am on the 19/03/2002 so I have a good idea what had been recorded in the file up until that time. I also read the report from the handwriting expert, Superintendent Mark Van Der Hamman and noted that he claimed that one or more signatures were not those of the author. He added that he could not explain the differences in the signatures. He also added that he was not aware of the equipment used by Brigadier Burger. Allow me to

answer that if I may, as I asked him for a report of the equipment he used, and he stated in writing at my request that he used a camera and a magnifying glass. That report was sent to Mr X. Superintendent Van Der Hamman also stated that without some equipment he was unable to test the authenticity of the signatures. I find that surprising to say the least. The Estate Handler at the Master of the High Court’s Offices, Mrs Van Heerden, had told me on numerous occasions that the Will had been lifted and taken to Forensics in Pretoria. I found out months later that the information given to her was incorrect. It had in fact been taken to the Forensics Unit in Faure (now referred to as Delft). Mrs Van Heerden addressed several letters to the SAP requesting the whereabouts of the Will and when its return could be expected. She told me that none of her letters were answered. I am amazed that when it comes to high profile and much publicised cases (eg. Dina Rodrigues and company), Superintendent Van Der Hamman seems to lack no skills, explanations or equipment whatsoever and he reaches his conclusions swiftly. However when it comes to the analysis of the signatures of the late IT Volkwyn, he is at a loss for explanations, equipment and from the looks of things, time as well. Prior to Mr X and I requesting that the analysis be done by Brigadier Burger we did some research of our own to determine the equipment used – please see attachment or using internet explorer go to http://www.qdewill.com/labtour.htm. We were therefore shocked when Brigadier Burger told us all he used was a camera and a magnifying glass. I have also given copies of the emails sent by Mr R of JQ & Co to Mr B regarding the handwritten letters by my late father, which they have, some of which were written practically up until the time of his confinement at Groote Schuur which began on 18/03/2002. Finally, Mr B hired the services of Private Investigators from L&Q & Co, to investigate various things at a great cost to himself. Some of the information (2 typed pages) I handed to Ms Singh along with the handwritten letter on the 23rd October. The information you requested in writing and via subpoena served on me on 26th October 2006 about the woman who responded to the advert placed in the Argus, was given verbally to Detective Hendricks on the same day. Should you require additional information or if there is information outstanding from me, please advise. I would also like to know what your intentions are regarding dockets 140/11/2002 and 270/02/2003 or when I can expect an update from you - these are the dockets I requested to privately prosecute. Yours faithfully Barbara Volkwyn (Ms)


								
To top