So much doesn’t add up regards Sergeant
Maurice Grootboom’s version of what happened with the missing laptop:
1.
Grootboom agreed that Burmeister had asked to ‘book out’ the laptop as
he was going to take it to the IT company which implied a purpose and not a
seasoned cop making the dumbest theft attempt. Grootboom admitted that that was
not the behaviour of someone wanting to steal.
2.
He doesn’t remember who else was on shift but remembers that Sergeant
Carmen Coetzee wasn’t (Coetzee’s role seems to be becoming integral to the
Defence’s case).
3.
He would switch from remembering nothing to remembering things that lack
solidity. This led to Bruwer accusing him of making up a story… and being told
to do so.
4.
When there’s a shift change, there’s a handover which includes a check
on all items in the safe and a signing for such. The computer wasn’t reported
missing. Furthermore, the OB (Occurrence Book) made no mention of the alleged
incident.
5.
Why did Grootboom do no follow-up for months on the laptop that had gone
missing in his watch?
6.
Grootboom stated in court that he’s worked the day shift which was
contradicted by his affidavit in which he had stated the night shift that
started at 6pm and ended at 6am. This suggests that his affidavit was wrong and
begs reason why?
7.
Grootboom says that in February he was called in by Colonel Jeffrey
Matiwane, the acting Station Commander, and told that a case was being made
against Burmeister. He was told to make an affidavit which he did whilst sitting
at the Colonel’s desk. He claims that the Matiwane left the office whilst he
did so and that he, Grootboom, left the affidavit there. A typed version of his
affidavit then appears, strangely witnessed by Sergeant Koba who hadn’t been
present. Additionally, Grootboom admitted that he’d altered his original
statement and that he had never signed the newer, typed version.
8.
Grootboom’s statement also includes details such as MrsDippenaar looking
for the laptop at the station which is odd as that happened, for the first
time, two months after Grootboom had been on shift during which Burmeister had
‘taken’ the laptop i.e. detail was added that suggests it was gained from
others.
In between Grootboom’s testimony, there was a recess during which one
observer ironically said to Burmeister, “He was a good witness for you.”
During Grootboom’s testimony, a late arrival into the public gallery was
noticed by several people to be illegally recording the proceedings. The man
was later seen to be seemingly coaching Sergeant Coetzee who was sitting on the
bench outside Courtroom D in which we were in. This mysterious man was
identified as Derek Daniels from the SAPS Intelligence Unit. Immediately
after a lunch recess, Bruwer made an emphatic note to Magistrate Derek Torlage
that this was improper behaviour.
This wasn’t the first strangeness displayed by the police. As reported
previously, Burmeister was oddly arrested, held for several days in a cell at
another police station (run by his ex-station commander, Colonel Michael
Nolans), was not allowed to have his wife see him, and had his house searched
without a warrant. Why would a small case of alleged theft attract so much
attention and bizarre actions when other police, accused of serious crimes, are
treated with seeming respect and delayed court action?
Daniel’s presence further bolsters local rumour that a conspiracy of
police officers aimed to remove Burmeister from the police force. Possible
reasons why will be discussed at a later stage.
