Official Accolades
|
Official Accolades
|
Official Accolades
|
 |
 |
|
Wynberg (Criminal) Court In a criminal matter, a youg man was involved in a collision. He lost control of his vehicle in a sharp bend at night and one of his passengers died. He was charged with culpable homicide. In the trial, an expert was hired to assit the state, but his testimony was described as "not being of any assistance to the court." The following is an extract from the final verdict, by Her. Hon. Mrs. De Beer, a Magistrate in the Wynberg Criminal Court, and specifically her impression of the contribution made by the expert testimony of Stan Bezuidenhout: |
South African Police Service As supporters of their objectives and promoters of its goals, IBF Investigations has committed a lot of time and effort to the enhancement and improvement of the South African Police Service (SAPS). In 2005, we provided FREE support in the form of a special project in support of the efforts of Arrive Alive under the banner of "Project A.C.C.I.D.E.N.T.," an acronym for Advanced Critical Crash Investigation through the Designation of- and Education by Non-government Technology partners. Under this project, we provided free at-scene investigation, reconstruction and training to police and traffic officers. Our contribution was very well received, as the following letter from the commander of the Table Bay Police Station will show: |
Goodwood (Civil) Court In another matter we investigated, there were two vehicles involved in a collision when a truck ran into the rear of a light motor vehicle, resulting in damage. The driver of the light motor vehicle lodged a claim against our client, claiming that the truck "ran into the back of his car." On the evidence of IBF Investigations, the court found that the driver of the light motor vehicle was at fault - in spite of his claim against the company. The following is an extract from the final verdict, by His. Hon. Mr. Marais, a Magistrate in the Bellville Court: |
"If one looks at the evidence adduced by the defence, by Mr Bezuidenhout... I get the impression that in any event most policemen are not trained to really look at an accident scene with as critical an eye as Mr Bezuidenhout says that it should be done. I did some research on the internet and I actually saw that, especially in the United States of America, it seems as if policemen are being trained much more extensively with regard to motor vehicle accidents and with regard to the importance of things like yaw marks and those kind of things that we heard about in the testimony of Mr Bezuidenhout... It is difficult and it is going to take a lot of time to really repeat what he has said, and it is also true that to a large extent his evidence ultimately was undisputed. He explained in his evidence about the importance of yaw marks, and this explanation of yaw marks made quite a lot of sense to me and I understand now how important it is, and once again I think it proves what I said previously about the police maybe not being properly trained on assessing accident scenes, because I can truly say that I have, in all the years that I have done this work, have never ever heard about the concept of yaw marks and the importance of yaw marks, and it is clear now that that is incredibly important in assessing or reconstructing an accident scene. He explained to us, by using the maps that were handed in as exhibits, he set out the scene, which really helped a lot, really made it easy to actually understand what it looked like there, without even having to go to the scene. So Mr Bezuidenhout's conclusion was that he felt that because of those circumstances another person might have been in the same position as the accused... It is my finding that, in the light of the fact that the State must prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and because of the fact that the defence's witness, Mr Bezuidenhout, was a very good witness, that because of his arguments regarding the factors that might have led to the accident happening, that I cannot make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was negligent and the accused is ACQUITTED on both counts." |
"On 14 May 2005, a vehicle reversed into the sea at G-berth Table Bay Harbour. Mr. Stan Bezuidenhout and his colleagues arrived on the scene and informed Supt. R van der Toorn and Capt KAA Blake that they were on the scene in order to carry out a Technical Investigation and therefore, a full report would be compiled on their respective findings. During the period that Mr. Bezuidenhout and his team spent on the accident scene, they were most professional, and in no way were the SAPS Members hampered in their duties. On the contrary, there was a great co-operation between the SAPS and the investigation team led by Mr. Bezuidenhout. Within a few days, Mr. Bezuidenhout presented Capt. R Jackson : Commander CID, with a comprehensive report on the findings of the accident. Included in this report were numerous colour photographs and a CD was also enclosed which was highly informative and helpful to all members who assisted at this accident. Captain Jackson and the Management of Table Bay Harbour SAPS were extremely impressed with the detail and fully encompassing report on the accident. This report indicates that Mr. Bezuidenhot and his team are a group of highly competent and Professional Investigators and their services can be recommended to asssit both the Government and the Privae Institutions in any investigation regarding accidents."
These sentiments are also supported by a letter from the Station commissioner of Table View SAPS, which reads: "We would like to make use of this opportunity to thank you for your professional service at accident scenes and the excellence after accident investigation. It is therefore a great honor to work with you in this regard."
|
“Now I have heard many, many, many a hundred, a thousand accidents in this court in the past fifteen years. So, although I would never give myself out as an expert, I have heard how many accidents happened and why or the way that is described, makes absolutely a sense… Now the evidence of Mr. Bezuidenhout, I must admit is probably the best I have heard in many years. I have heard how many experts testifying in this court, some good, some bad. I have heard seven people, so-called experts, come and testify as to the reconstruction of accidents afterwards. This one professor from Stellenbosch who made sort of a good impression on the Court, but not brilliant, but I must admit, this witness who testified today, is taking the cake by far. He clearly is head and shoulders above all other experts I have seen in court. Although he did not testify as an expert today, the evidence that he gave is so clear and precise that the Court cannot find any mistake whatsoever with that. While he gave his evidence, he did not want to venture into any assumptions or conclusions that he had drawn in cross-examination, he was pressed to make them and only after the Court said if that is the case, you can go ahead and make them, he made those conclusions and they, unfortunately make a hundred percent sense. I cannot say any reason why the Court should not accept them. To come and say afterwards, but you cannot say that that is the glass that was lying there was from this accident or that you cannot say there was not other glass. He gave his explanation and his explanation is very clear that there was no other glass and it is very clear that that glass, he explained why it would have been there, why it would not have been in the front car, why it would not have been at another place. As I say, all the evidence regarding the possible point of impact, there is clearly no reason why the Court should not accept that, not even a hint of a suggestion that I cannot accept it.” |
(c) IBF Investigations, 2010. This site was developed by Stan Bezuidenhout in January 2010. All rights reserved.