Najwa in court for fraud

Reporter: Vania van der Heever (Die Burger)

Cape Town – Twelve heavily-armed prison guards and police officials filled the court gallery on Wednesday when Najwa Petersen appeared in the Wynberg Magistrate’s Court. Petersen, who is serving a 28-year jail sentence at the Worcester prison for the murder of her husband, artist Taliep Petersen, is now facing charges of fraud. Her eldest son, Achmat Gamaldien, was in court to support her on Wednesday. Her court appearance was related to an insurance claim of R67000 that she made after Taliep’s death with the insurance company South African Eagle (also known as Zurich SA).

Insurance payout

She allegedly claimed for cellphones, digital cameras, jewellery, watches and money that were stolen during the murder. According to the charge sheet, petersen received R35000 from the insurance company. Magistrate Heather Paulse asked the State prosecutor why there were so many heavily armed officials in her court. “Lieutenant colonel Joe Dryden heard rumours,” answere Charlean Oliver for the State. She did not elaborate. Olivier said the fraud case had been referred to the national prosecuting authority (NPA), which had decided to prosecute Petersen. Reaz Khan, who was appearing for Petersen, said the defence was waiting for more information but was ready for a trial date. The case was postponed to August 25.

Najwa accuses her trial judge of bias

Cape Argus

Reporter:  Fatima Schroeder


NAJWA PETERSEN, who is serving 28 years behind bars for orchestrating the murder of her music icon husband, Taliep Petersen, says she did not receive a fair trial. She claims Cape High Court Judge Siraj Desai was biased and pressured witnesses into saying what he wanted them to say. She also alleges he was impatient and followed “irregular” procudure. “The conduct of the honourable judge created the perception that he was biased in his approach to the evidence during the trial and his assessment of the evidence in his judgment,” she claimed. She made the allegations in an affidavit her lawyers filed yesterday at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein in a bid for leave to appeal against her convictions for murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances. Her petition to the Appeal Court was also served on the local offices of the National Prosecuting Authority today. While Petersen is serving her 28-year sentence i a woman’s prison in Breede River, the hitman, Waheed Hassen, is serving an effective 25 years in jail. Fahiem Hendricks, who had arranged the murder on Petersen’s behalf, turned State witness and was granted immunity from prosecution. Abdoer Raasiet Emjedi – the man who recommended Hassen as a hitman – was sentenced to a 24 years in prison. Petersen’s petition follows Judge Desai’s refusal earlier this month to grant her leave to appeal against her conviction for the December 2006 murder. Judge Desai ruled that there was no prospect of another court coming to a different conclusion. But Petersen, determined to have her conviction overturned, did not stop there. She has sworn to a 163-page affidavit detailing why she believes that Judge Desai’s findings were not correct. Twenty-three pages of her affidavit comprised extracts form the record of the trail, including:

– Judge Desai questioning the first State witness, Riefaat Soeker, who lived in a flat on the Petersens’ premises. He asked the witness: “So your inference that they had a loving relationship is based on a few moments that you saw them on a good footing in that period of nine months?”

– Judge Desai questioning Petersen’s decision to call Taliep’s sister, Ma’atoema Groenmeyer, before the police. “Why did you not call the police? Because if I remember your evidence, there was a robbery in progress,” he said.

– Judge Desai questioning State witness Munaaz Lawrence, who was on duty at the Athlone police station when Groenmeyer arrived there to report the incident. Lawrence testified taht Groenmeyer told her she had heard the gunshot while she was on the phone with Najwa. “Could you be mistaken as to what she said?” Judge Desai asked Lawrence. Lawrence responded that it was possible that she had made a mistake because Groenemeyer spoke fast and she was emotional.

– Judge Desai questioning why Petersen regularly claimed her husband was present when she made calls to Hendricks. Judge Desai asked: “Why do you specifically remember that on five occasions, the deceased was present when you made the calls? I think that is what the prosecutor is trying to get from you. Is there any reason?”

– Judge Desaid questioning her about her supposed “loans” to Hendricks – “a relative stranger”. “Why did you want to help him to such a large extent that you gave him R10000 and then R250000 in diamonds? You displayed a high degree of generosity towards him. What explanation is there for this?”

– He also doubted Petersen’s testimony that she was asleep on the night of the incident and that one of the intruders woke her to demand money. “Instead of waking you up, why did the robbers not ask the deceased where the money was and run away with the money? He would have een perfectly capable of pointing out where the money was and giving the money to them.” Petersen testified that the intruders must have killed her husband because he saw their faces. To this Judge Desai responded: “So you’re speculating on that.”

– Hassen telling the court that Petersen had pulled the trigger herself and that he had folded a pillow around the gun to muffle the sound of the gunshot. Judge Desai referring to photographs of the crime scene and putting it to Petersen “Now tell me, on at least two photographs you see the cover of a cushion. There must have been a cushion (inside the slip) but the police on the scene didn’t find the cushion.” She responded that she did not know what had happened to the cushion or if anyone had interfered with the scene of the murder. Petersen’s previous counsel, Klaus von Lieres und Wilkau SC, cross-examined investigating officer Joash Dryden and put it to Dryden that someone would have seen a cushion at the crime scene if it had been there. Before Dryden answered, Judge Desai added: “Unless it was hidden away somewhere.” In her affidavit, Petersen submitted that she had reasonable prospects of success on appeal and asked for permission to appeal against the decision.

Fury over Najwa’s latest bid to get out of jail


Reporter: Fatima Schroeder

NAJWA Petersen, who is expected to launch another appeal against her conviction for the murder of her husband, should “give up and serve her sentence”, according to Taliep Petersen’s family. Taliep’s brother, Igsaan Petersen, said yesterday that Najwa had “messed up” their lives. “Why doesn’t she just give up and serve her sentence… She has hurt us too much, especially my brother’s children, to ever see the outside world again… She has to rot in prison,” he said. Commenting on her expected petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against her conviction, Petersen said he knew Najwa had a right to appeal, but hoped she did not succeed. “I feel and I know deep down that she won’t get it… If you do the crime, you must do the time,” he added. Petersen also spoke of how difficult things had been for him and his family since his brother’s murder. He said Najwa’s attempts to have her conviction overturned had hampered the family’s attempts to get closure. “When she was sentenced, we got a bit of closure. We just started to get on with our lives when we heard that she wanted to appeal,” he said. He said Taliep’s children were still struggling to accept that their father had been killed. It would take a long time for allof their lives to get back to normal, Petersen said. “It’s now in Allah’s hands,” he said. Taliep Petersen was murdered on December 16, 2006. His wife and three others were sentenced for their parts in the murder earlier this year.

‘Najwa should suffer same fate’


Reporter: Karen Breytenbach

While some close relatives of slain music icon Taliep Petersen were satisfied with the 28-year jail term meted out to his widow Najwa for his contract killing, Petersen’s daughter, Jawaahier, said his children would only be satisfied if their stepmother was made to suffer the same cruel fate as their father. “The Qur’an says an eye for an eye, so unless she was tied down, made to beg for her life and still shot like an animal, I’d never be satisfied,” she said. The young television presenter said no amount of jail time would bring her father back, so her stemmother “could’ve been given a holiday in Jamaica for all I’m concerned”. Petersen’s sister, Maatoema Groenmeyer, said she felt the sentencing was failr. “We are thankful to God that He has spared our father (Mogamat Ladien petersen) long enough to see that justice was done,” Groenmeyer said. “We went through two years of searing pain. It was an emotional rollercoaster. We’re relieved it’s over.” Groenmeyer said the court still needed to decide in whose care to lace her niece, the Petersens’ nine-year-old daughter Zainub, but if the child was to stay with her, she would give her a stable and loving home. Mogamat Ladien petersen, who was swamped by well-wishers, said he was glad the case was over and was “quite satisfied” with the outcome. The Petersen family reacted to Judge Siraj Desai’s sentencing as hundreds of supporters and dozens of photographers and journalists descended on them outside the Cape High Court yesterday. Najwa Petersen’s children did not wish to make any public statements. A large crowd remained standing in the street for another two hours, waiting for the vans in which Petersen and her three co-accused were being transported to leave the police compound at the court. As the large wooden gates opened and two vans with sirens blaring sped out, the crowd screamed wildly and hammered on the windows with their fists. Addressing the packed and restless public gallery, Desai sentenced Najwa Petersen to concurrent sentences of 28 years for murder and 10 for robbery with aggravating circumstances, and co-accused Abdoer Raasiet Emjedi to concurrent sentences of 24 years for murder and 10 for robbery. Waheed Hassen was handed 24 years for murder, 10 for robbery and three for the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. Two of the three years are to run concurrently with the 24 and 10 years, bring his term to 25 years.  Jefferson Snyders, who was convicted only of robbery, was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, three of them suspended for five years. Although Petersen’s status was not held as an aggravating factor in sentencing, Desai noted that his murder was the abrupt end of the life of “one of Cape Town and the music world’s favourite sons”. Petersen was “at the height of his career” and “a devoted son and a much-loved father”. It was shocking that Petersen had been killed in such a “callous” manner, tied up and humiliated, by a wife he prayed for each night, Desai said. He took into account that Najwa Petersen was 46, a first offender and the mother of a minor child. He also considered the submission by forensic criminologist Irma Labuschagne that Petersen may have become emotionally blunted from years on prescription psychiatric medication. Desai, however, pointed out that there was no clear evidence about Petersen’s mental health and that information on this question presented at Petersen’s bail hearings was “contradictory”. He agreed with the prosecution that she had flasely painted herself as emotionally unstable and vulnerable. She had “pestered” Fahiem Hendricks, the organiser of the hit who turned state witness and “played an active role on the scene”. Emjedi, 42, was a first offender, and had been in custody for 20 months. Although he was not at the crime scene, he had “played a vital role” in the planning. Not showing remorse counted against him, said Desai. Hassen, 36, was also in custody for 20 months and had been convicted before, more than 10 years ago. Desai said Hassen had “displayed some moral integrity” by “readily conceding” his guilt and “profusely apologising” to his victim’s family. This would not allow him to escape a harsh sentence, however. Snyders, 33, had only a previous conviction of drunk driving, and was a family man who came from a good family. But, Desai said, Hassen and Snyders could have avoided becoming involved. Each of the four is to be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of their sentence. In a statement, the Director of Public Prosecutions congratulated Captains Joe Dryden and Jonathan Morris and Superintendent Godfrey Wagter of the Police’s Organised Crime Unit and prosecutors Shireen Riley and Susan Galloway for their “excellent work” and “dedication”.

Najwa: Staat se laaste kans


Verslaggewer: Estelle Ellis


KAAPSTAD – Die woord van drie teen twee word van môre af opgeweeg in die laaste hoofstuk van die uitgerekte Taliep Petersen-moordverhoor. Die getuienis van Waheed Hassen, Jefferson Snyders en Fahiem Hendricks gaan in die slotbetoë van die staat aangevoer word as die mees oortuigende bewyse dat Najwa Petersen die baasbrein agter die koelbloedige moord op haar man, die teaterlegende Taliep Petersen, was. Najwa en haar ander medebeskuldigde, Abdoer Raasiet Emjedi, se regspanne gaan egter in hul slotbetoë probeer aanvoer hulle was die onskuldige slagoffers van ‘n duistere komplot oor diamante en swartmarkdollars wat sleg skeefgeloop het. Die verhoor, wat in party kringe as “Bo-Kaap Isidingo” beskryf is, hervat weer môre in hof 1 van die Kaapse hooggeregshof. Shireen Riley, leier van die staat se regspan, sal met haar slotbetoog begin. Regter Siraj Desai en sy twee assessore sal moet oorweeg wie reg is: die drie mans wat haar uitgewys het as die baasbrein of haar getuienis en die van Emjedi wat meestal deur twee frases gekenmerk is: “Ek weet nie” en “Ek kan nie onthou nie.” Die staat sal vra dat Najwa skuldig bevind word op aanklagte van moord met voorbedagte rade – ‘n misdaad waarvoor sy lewenslank tronk toe kan gaan. Najwa se prokureur, mnr. Reaz Khan, het bevestig dat slotbetoë môre sal begin. Gewone mense het reeds Vrydag by die hof kom navraag doen oor wannneer die verhoor voortgaan. Toue mense het in die loop van die saak voor die hof saamgedrom in die hoop om ‘n plek op die openbare galery te kry. Hassen en Snyders het hul onderskeie aandele in die aanval op die Petersen-woning op 16 Desember 2006 erken in dramatiese getuienis. Hassen het erken dat hy die vuurwapen waarmee Taliep geskiet is in die huis ingebring het. Hy het dit egter duidelik aan die hof gemaak dat hy van plan verander het en nie meer vir Taliep wou skiet nie. Hy beweer hy was besig om vir Najwa te wys hoe om self die sneller te trek toe die doodskoot afgegaan het. Snyders het getuig hy het net saam met Hassen gery. Daar is vir hom gesê mense het gevra dat hulle beroof word sodat hul versekeringsmaatskappy hulle kan uitbetaal. Hul getuienis is grotendeels bevestig deur die staat se hoofgetuie, mnr. Faheem Hendricks, vir wie Najwa na bewering gevra het om vir haar iemand op te spoor wat gewillig is om haar man vir geld te vermoor. Hendricks wou, volgens sy eie getuienis, eers niks met die saak te doen hê nie, maar het getuig Najwa het so aangehou dat hy later vir Emjedi gevra het om iets te doen, net om van haar ontslae te raak. Dit was Hendricks wat, nadat maande se ondersoek nie veel opgelewer het nie, aan die polisie gaan vertel het wat gebeur het. Emjedi het ontken dat hy enigiets van die voorval weet. Hy beweer Hendricks het hom valslik betrek. Najwa se advokaat, adv. Johan Engelbrecht SC, sal egter ook moet kom verduidelik: * Hoekom die ontleding van die beskuldigdes se selfone Hendricks se getuienis staaf oor hul bewegings die paar dae voor die moord en die oproepe van Najwa. * Of die hoeveelheid en soort medikasie wat Najwa die aand van die moord gedrink het dalk die rede vir haar ontwykende getuienis en vergeetagtigheid kan wees. * Of Najwa rêrig beter af sou gewees het as Taliep van haar geskei het eerder as dat hy dood is.

Getuie betrek Najwa glo valslik

Die Burger

Verslaggewer: Carryn-Ann Nel

Hassen pas sy weergawe aan, hou haar advokaat vol

Kaapstad – Die selferkende fluitjieblaser in die Taliep Petersen-moordsaak “probeer sy bes om mev. Najwa Petersen valslik te inkrimineer”. Die opmerking van Petersen se regsverteenwoordiger aan mnr. Waheed Hassen (35) het gister ‘n beroering onder hofgangers veroorsaak. Dit was Hassen se tweede dag in die getuiebank. Regter Siraj Desai se geduld is telkemale beproef deur die talle hofgangers wat Hassen se opmerkings oor Petersen hardop beaam het. Desai is later genoop om hulle te waarsku dat hy die hof sal leegmaak. Hassen, wat beweer Taliep is deur Petersen self geskiet, het ten sterkste ontken dat hy Petersen op ‘n valse manier betrek. “Waarom sal ek ‘n persoon inkrimineer wat ek nie ken nie?” Adv. Johan Engelbrecht SC, wat Hassen heeldag onder kruisverhoor geneem het, het Hassen herhaaldelik gevra oor weergawes in sy verklarings wat verskil van sy getuienis nou in die hof. Die staat voer aan Petersen het mnr. Fahiem Hendricks gevra om die moord vir R100000 te beplan. Hendricks het vir mnr. Abdoer Emjedi gewerf, wat op sy beurt vir Hassen en mnr. Jefferson Snyders gekry het. “U is besig om u weergawe aan te pas,” het Engelbrecht by meer as een geleentheid gesê. Die betrokke bewerings gaan oor onder meer presies waar Snyders in die huis was toe Hassen ‘n kussing gaan haal het, die datum van sy eerste oproep aan Hendricks en hoeveel drade om Taliep se hande gedraai is. Hassen het gesê dit was vir hom “onwerklik” dat ‘n vrou by die dood van haar eie man betrokke was. Hierop het Engelbrecht geantwoord: “Presies, want ek wil dit aan u stel: Sy was nie”. Hassen het hierop geantwoord: “Sy was 100% betrokke.” Hy het ook getuig Taliep het “definitief” vir Petersen die aand van die roof met sy kop gestamp. ‘n Ontstelde Hassen het met sy wysvinger uitgestrek na Petersen in die beskuldigdebank gesê: “En beskuldigde een weet dit.” Die hof het ook getuienis gehoor dat daar moontlik na die tyd met die misdaadtoneel gepeuter is. Vrae het gister gedraai om ‘n kussing wat glo in die skietery gebruik is, asook ‘n lap wat in Taliep se mond gedruk is. Hassen het gesê hy “wil ook weet” wat van die veelbesproke kussing geword het, sowel as die lap. “Daar was geen lap in sy mond (toe ons daar weg is nie).” Hy het Petersen daarvan verdink dat sy self die lap in Taliep se mond gedruk het, maar toegegee dat dit slegs bespiegeling is.

Omkoopbewerings. ‘R250000 om Najwa los te praat’

Die Burger

Verslaggewer: Carryn-Ann Nel

Hassen wys hof hoe Petersen musieklegende glo geskiet het

Kaapstad – Mev. Najwa Petersen het onlangs nog by ‘n medebeskuldigde in die moord op haar man, Taliep Petersen, gepleit om haar “uit die saak te kry”. Sy sal na hom omsien, is belowe. Die beskuldigde, mnr. Waheed Hassen (35), het gister met die onthulling tydens sy getuienis skokgolwe deur hof 1 van die Kaapse hooggeregshof gestuur. Hassen het getuig hy is by drie geleenthede deur Petersen en haar familielede gevra om haar “uit die saak te praat”. Volgens hom het Petersen sedert hul eerste verskynings in die landdroshof “met (haar) taktiek begin”. ‘n Gevangene by die Wynberghof het na hom gekom en gesê hy moet “die vrou laat gaan; sy sal jou uitsort”. By ‘n ander geleentheid is mnr. Sedick Kriel (die man by wie Hassen na bewering die moordwapen geleen het) deur mnre. Whaleed Dirk en Waleed Ajou, (haar broer en ‘n familievertroueling) gevra of daar nie ‘n manier is om haar uit die saak te praat nie. ‘n Bedrag van R250000 is glo aangebied. Op 24 Maart vanjaar het Petersen in die hofselle by die hooggeregshof hom glo weer probeer oorreed. “Sy het gesê sy sal kyk agter my. Ek het vir haar gesê sy is ‘n grootmens. Dis net Allah wat kyk agter ons mense.” Volgens hom het hy dit by die polisie aangemeld. Hy, Petersen en mnre. Abdoer Emjedi en Jefferson Snyders ontken skuld. Die staat voer aan Petersen het mnr. Fahiem Hendricks (nou ‘n staatsgetuie) gevra om die moord vir R100000 te beplan. Volgens Hassen het Hendricks aan hom gesê ‘n “ou vriendin” het probleme met haar man, wat haar verneuk en haar slaan. Op die dag van die moord was die hek en die voordeur op ‘n skrefie oopgelos. Hassen en Snyders het by die woning ingegaan, waat Taliep televisie gekyk het. Petersen het later by hom ingehaak en gesê: “Kom, julle moet klaarmaak; julle moet hom skiet.” In nog opspraakwekkende getuienis was hofgangers vasgenael deur Hassen se demonstrasie van hoe die skietery plaasgevind het. Met ‘n kussing, ‘n leë vuurwapen en die hofbode (wat Petersen vertolk het), het Hassen gewys hoe Petersen die sneller getrek het. Hassen het egter volgehou dit was nooit sy plan om iemand die aand te vermoor nie, slegs om die huis te beroof en die oorledene ‘n “goeie pak slae te gee”. Kruisondervraging sal vandag begin.

Taliep shot at point blank range


Cape Town – Forensic and ballistic analysis indicated that the shot fired at entertainer Taliep Petersen was from point blank range, the Cape High Court heard on Tuesday. Free State private forensic pathologist Leon Wagner testified for the defence at the trial of Petersen’s widow Najwa, and the three co-accused charged with Taliep’s murder. Wagner testified on Petersen’s behalf. After Wagner had completed his testimony presiding Judge Siraj Desai said it was unfair for Petersen’s co-accused not to also have the benefit of a privately appointed forensic pathologist, simply because they did not have the financial resources available to Petersen. For this reason, the Judge ordered the legal aid authorities to appoint a private forensic pathologist to represent the three co-accused – at Legal Aid Board expense. Petersen’s one co-accused, Waheed Hassan told the court earlier that he was to have fired the fatal shot at Taliep but that he had at the last minute changed his mind and instead gave the firearm to Petersen herself. Hassan said the gun was wrapped in a cushion to muffle the sounds when Petersen fired the shot at her husband. Wagner told the court that both the ballistic and forensic analysis confirmed that no cushion was used in the shooting at all. He said soot marks were found on the neck wound, which would not have been there had the firearm been muffled by a cushion. He added: “It is my expert opinion that no cushion was used in the shooting.” He used a large magnifying glass to examine forensic photographs of the murder scene as well as photographs of the gunshot wound in the deceased’s neck. At one stage of the hearing, when the Judge borrowed Wagners magnifying glass, Wagner said: “It’s an old Sherlock Holmes method – it worked then and it works just as well today.” The case continues.

Najwa: Diamond story not a lie


Cape Town – Najwa Petersen on trial in the Cape High Court for the murder of her show business husband, Taliep on Monday denied that her story about giving a close friend polished diamonds to sell for her on the black market was a fabrication. Petersen has told the court how she assisted her friend Fahiem Hendriks with loans for as much as R10 000 or more and once by giving him valuable polished diamonds to sell for her on the black market. Prosecutor Shareen Riley reminded her of Hendriks’ evidence earlier that the diamond story was a fabrication. Attorney fee She replied: “That’s what he says.” Riley questioned her about R20 000 she had given to Hendriks (not a loan). Petersen said Hendriks had wanted to consult an attorney and wanted the attorney to accompany him during police questioning concerning the murder. She told the court: “The lawyer wanted R20 000 for him to be present during questioning.” She said it was because of her he was being questioned. She said the money was given by her father. Asked by presiding Judge Siraj Desai why she (or her father) had paid for Hendriks to consult a lawyer, she said it was because Hendriks did not have any money himself. The Judge persisted: “But why did you pay the money?” Locked in room with phone She said she thought R20 000 was a fair sum for what the lawyer was expected to do. Petersen said Hendriks had covered for her about the diamond story, because both he and she were under the mistaken impression that the diamond transaction had been illegal. Petersen said she “did not think of it that way” when asked if she had not considered it strange for the two intruders in her home to lock her into a bedroom that had a landline telephone. Petersen said she had received R30 000 insurance money for her husband’s wrist watch and ring that were stolen during the robbery on the night he was shot dead. She said the watch and ring had not been covered by insurance, but she had nevertheless included them on the insurance list of items stolen from the house. The case continues on Tuesday.

Najwa trap klei oor geld

Die Burger

Verslaggewer: Carryn-Ann Nel

David Kramer betaal haar R300000 kort voor moord

Kaapstad – Die weduwee van die vermoorde Taliep Petersen kan nie verduidelik wat van byna R300000 geword het wat die sanger David Kramer kort voor die moord aan haar betaal het nie. Hofgangers in hof 1 in die Kaapse hooggeregshof het gister herhaaldelik in ongeloof gesug terwyl die staat getuienis gelei het oor die spoor van Taliep se geld. Mev. Najwa Petersen, Taliep se weduwee, het vroeër vandeesweek getuig dat hy “niks” ten tyde van sy dood besit het nie. Mev. Petersen en drie mede-beskuldigdes staan tereg op aanklag van die moord op Taliep Petersen in Desember 2006. Gister het die staat, wat mev. Petersen ‘n tweede dag kruisondervra het, aan haar gevra wat van Taliep se geld geword het. Die staat voer aan Taliep se geldbelange dra by tot die motief vir die moord. Mev. Petersen het getuig dat sy nie seker is wat van Taliep se geld geword het nie, maar dat die meeste van sy geld in haar familie-onderneming, Dirk Fruit, gestort is. Taliep het van die geld gebruik om Amerikaanse dollars te koop, wat hy dan later weer op die swartmark sou verkoop, het sy getuig. Met sy ander geld het hy onder meer betrokke geraak by sake-transaksies waarvan die meeste skeefgeloop het. Die egpaar se sjegs het van die transaksies geweet, het Mev. Petersen getuig. Op die vraag van adv. Shareen Riley, vir die staat, wat geword het van R280000 wat Kramer in Oktober 2006 in mev. Petersen se Namibiese bankrekening inbetaal het, het sy geantwoord: “Ek is nie seker aan wie ek die tjeks uitgeskryf het nie.” Kramer het vroeër getuig dat mev. Petersen geld vir musiek-produksies aan hom en Taliep sou voorskiet, en dat dit dan later as lenings terugbetaal sou word. Riley het aan mev. Petersen gesê daar was in Junie 2007 ‘n saldo van R43 in die rekening. “Wat het van die geld geword?” wou Riley weet. Mev. Petersen het geantwoord dat haar broers meer sou weet. Op ‘n vraag van die staat wat sou gebeur het indien die Petersens sou skei, het sy gesê Taliep sou geregtig wees op 50% van haar inkomste. “Taliep sou nooit die drie huise (van my familie) gevat het nie. Hy het geweet dit was in my naam. Hoewel hy daarop geregtig sou wees, weet ek hy sou dit nooit gevat het nie.” Riley het gevra of ‘n egskeiding nie ‘n verwoestende effek op haar familie-onderneming sou gehad het nie – indine Taliep op sy 50% aanspraak sou maak. Mev. Petersen het dit ontken. Sy het getuig sy “weet nie” waarom sy vroeër die indruk aan die hof wou skep dat Taliep by diamanttransaksies en die verkoop van Amerikaanse dollars betrokke was nie. Riley het gesê die indruk is in die tweede borgtogaansoek geskep dat Taliep by diamant- en slinkse transaksies betrokke was en dat hy mnr. Fahiem Hendricks geken het. Die staat voer aan Hendricks het die moord beplan. Mev. Petersen het vroeër getuig dat sy hom betaal het vir diamante wat hy namens haar moes verkoop. Petersen het gesê sy het na haar inhegtenisneming begin vermoed dat Hendricks agter haar man se moord is. Volgens haar wou hy $300000 (meer as R2 miljoen) steel wat in ‘n kluis van die huis was. Vroeër gisteroggend het mev. Petersen getuig oor die verklaring wat sy op 18 Desember 2006 aan die ondersoekbeampte, kapt. Joe Dryden, gemaak het. Volgens die aanvanklike verklaring het sy die doodskoot gehoor nadat sy met Taliep se suster oor die foon gepraat het. Sy het gister gesê dit was nie die geval nie en dat die skoot tydens die oproep afgegaan het. Die verhoor is tot Maandag uitgestel.