By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The defence in the Senzo Meyiwa trial concluded its cross-examination of Lieutenant-Colonel Christian Mangena in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, ending a grueling week of questioning on the witness stand.
They have promised to call their ballistic expert who will challenge the version by the state on the gun used to murder the football star.
Mangena spent the week on the witness stand taking tough questions from the defence.
According to Mangena, the gun found at the home of one of the accused, Mthobisi Mncube can be positively linked with the bullet found on the scene of Meyiwa’s murder.
But the defence has disputed this and said Mangena misapplied ballistic concepts.
Warrant Officer Cornelius Roelofse examined Mncube’s firearm, which had been confiscated during his arrest for an unrelated murder case.
Roelofse was the ballistics expert who tested the bullets and cartridges found at the crime scene and matched them to the pistol.
These tests were performed in 2015.
Almost five years later, after Mncube became a suspect in the Meyiwa case, Mangena was tasked with testing whether the same firearm was used in his murder.
However, in the time that lapsed, questions arose whether it was the same gun.
During the proceedings, Advocate Zandile Mshololo questioned Mangena about his decision to conduct additional tests when comparing the exhibit bullet with the firearm tests performed by Roelofse.
Mangena explained in his affidavit that while he identified sufficient class characteristics, there were insufficient individual characteristic markings transferred to the bullets by the firearm components during the firing process.
The ballistics expert attributed this to a possible difference in bullet material.
Consequently, he conducted further tests using bullets made from the same material as the exhibit.
“My understanding of these findings mean there was insufficient individual characteristics to give a positive match,” Mshololo said.
While Mangena agreed, the defence lawyer suggested that the witness’s initial test report was therefore negative.
“I wouldn’t say that the class characteristics were negative. The individual characteristics were there, but insufficient for me to say it’s a match.
“That’s why I wanted to shoot additional tests with the correct type of ammunition so I could do further examination,” Mangena replied.
Mshololo noted that variations in bullet material can affect the examination and markings on bullets, a point that Mangena did not contest.
“Why did you take a decision alone to obtain additional tests of the same material as the exhibit bullet because the report was conclusive here? You examined the exhibit, and you have got the findings,” she asked.
The witness, in his response, clarified that conducting additional tests in such cases was standard practice.
“It’s how we normally work. If you shoot the test or you find that the test you are comparing with your bullets are of a different material, we prefer to shoot the correct test where you can do a comparison on similar objects, not different types of objects.”
When asked why he did not use the same ammunition initially, Mangena explained that Roelofse conducted his tests with PMP full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets, whereas the projectile found at the scene was a copper metal jacket (CMJ) bullet.
“So for me to do a proper investigation, I need the same type of bullet to do a comparison.”
The ballistics expert agreed that the first tests were inconclusive.
Five men, including Mncube, Bongani Ntanzi, Mthokoziseni Maphisa, Fisokuhle Ntuli, and Muzikawukhulelwa Sibiya, are on trial for Meyiwa’s murder.
They face charges of murder, attempted murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, possession of an unlicensed firearm, and possession of ammunition.