Cape Town - The Western Cape High Court public gallery roared with applause as the State on Tuesday secured a guilty conviction against David van Boven for the murders of 18-year-old Jess Hess and her grandfather, 85-year-old Chris Lategan, but failed to prove that Tasliem Ambrose was his accomplice.
Hess and Lategan were found dead in their Parow flat on August 30, 2019. Van Boven was found guilty of both murders, two counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances, sexual assault and fraud.
Ambrose was found guilty for the two counts of robbery but only as an accessory after the fact and found not guilty on the rest of the charges.
At the outset of the trial, Ambrose had given a plea explanation claiming that Van Boven was the mastermind of the attack. He told the court he was with Van Boven on the day of the incident and had witnessed the attack but only complied with instructions because he feared for his life.
Judge Judith Cloete confirmed these assertions in handing down judgment and said the State had failed to prove that the crimes were committed in common purpose. She said it was Van Boven who knew Lategan and Hess.
“He knew where they lived and had been inside their flat before, it makes sense that Mr Lategan would open the door for him,” the judge said.
She further said Van Boven “was proven to be a liar, it was he who had an interest in ensuring that both Mr Lategan and Jesse would be unable to identify him after the incident.
“The pure viciousness of the attack on Jess and Mr Lategan is as even with the temperament of accused number one (Van Boven) rather than accused number two (Ambrose).”
She said it made sense given her observations about Van Boven’s temperament that he does not take no for an answer.
“He was unable to control his violent impulses. To my mind accused number two (Ambrose) unwittingly got caught up in the events that rapidly unfolded thereafter and in all probability as he maintained went into a state of shock,” she said.
Judge Cloete’s observations of Van Boven’s behaviour during the trial was he “has something of a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde manner about him, if he is getting his way, he can be charming and is clearly intelligent however when he is not getting his way he transforms into an aggressive and violent person.”
Conversely she said Ambrose never once appeared aggressive or violent and came across as quite timid. She said, “I am persuaded from the time he was collected by Van Boven until they left the Parow flat that accused number two (Ambrose) was essentially telling the truth.”
She said there was noticeable tension between the two while they were in the dock and while Van Boven sat in the dock smirking, pulling faces and making aggressive gestures, Ambrose sat silently with his head bowed.
The State advocate Emily van Wyk had based the case on circumstantial evidence, called 10 witnesses to give testimony and handed in 23 pieces of documentary evidence to prove their case.
Central to this was the testimony of investigating officer Adrian Pretorius who managed to obtain confessions from the pair on different occasions.
Van Boven through his lawyer, advocate Brendale Abrahams, disputed the admissibility, claiming he was under duress when the confession was taken.
The trial-within-a-trial however led to the judge ruling in favour of the State and both confessions and warning statements were read out in court.
The confessions detailed the motivation for the robbery and the details surrounding the murders. While the two essentially blamed each other the judge accepted Ambrose’s version while rejecting Van Boven’s who during his testimony had completely denied even being at the Parow flat.