What fascinates me is that the SAPS do the normal
analysis on the data they have related to many types of crimes, and in this
instance farm attacks.
It is very apparent from the documents I have read that the police and authorities knows for many years already that farm attacks are a huge problem.
They did a lot of analysis that can be used in many useful and useless ways, depending on the will power of the authorities.
I am posting a small part of these reports/analysis to demonstrate that the police knows exactly what their short fallings were/are……and I see no evidence that they improve on it.
Conduct of the police
The police were generally sharply criticised for their behaviour towards victims of farm attacks. Only a few victims praised the police for their efforts.
The majority of the victims (72%) interviewed described the police as ‘useless’ or ‘poor’, adding that they had ‘no confidence in them’. In 11% of the incidents the victims said that the police members who had come to the crime scene had been drunk and had smelt of liquor. In another incident the police had asked the victims if they could point out the suspects, and had failed to take a glass and knife used by one of the perpetrators for fingerprints (in spite of the victim mentioning this to the police).
One victim describes how the identity parade traumatised her. At the identity parade she was told to touch the perpetrators she wanted to point out on the shoulder. In another incident the victim says that the police ‘did nothing’, even though an informer had given them crucial information. The informer then came to the victim ten days later and gave him the information he had passed on to the police. As a result of this the victim lost all confidence in the police.
Another victim says that the police ‘got nasty’ with him because they felt that he was making too many enquiries. They told him that he wanted to take over their work.
In 28% of the incidents, however, the victims described the police as ‘professional’ and ‘fantastic’. In these cases the police handled the victims with care and took the investigation of the crime seriously. More importantly, they kept the victims informed of the process.
Case study 11
In this case Mrs H was killed during a farm attack in Mpumalanga during 2001. The Committee interviewed her daughter, Mrs B, on 2001-10-03, as well as the domestic worker.
The victim, Mrs H, was killed on a Saturday night in 2001. She was 60 years of age and lived alone on the family farm, where she had a shop. Her daughter, Mrs B, was interviewed by the Committee. She telephoned her mother on the Sunday morning, but there was no answer. She then phoned the people with whom her mother always used to go to church, but they had not seen her. Her husband then went to investigate, and he found the body of his mother-in-law, bludgeoned to death with a pick handle.
The house had burglar bars, but the security gate was bent open. The attackers ransacked the house. They took television sets, a sewing machine, cell phone and meat, put it into the victim’s car and drove off. Strangely enough, they left six weapons which were in the safe. It is unknown how the attackers got passed the victim’s four dogs.
Mrs B’s impression of the police was not very favourable. She found them uncommunicative and they did not keep her informed of any developments. Moreover, she says that when her mother’s body was removed from the house in her presence, she wanted to remove a ring from her mother’s finger. The police told her not to do so explaining that this item had to be collected at the police station the following day. When the victim’s daughter went to the police station the next day she was told that the ring was missing. It is little wonder that she describes the police as ‘corrupt’. Although two young men of 20 were suspected of the attack, no one has been arrested.
It is very apparent from the documents I have read that the police and authorities knows for many years already that farm attacks are a huge problem.
They did a lot of analysis that can be used in many useful and useless ways, depending on the will power of the authorities.
I am posting a small part of these reports/analysis to demonstrate that the police knows exactly what their short fallings were/are……and I see no evidence that they improve on it.
Conduct of the police
The police were generally sharply criticised for their behaviour towards victims of farm attacks. Only a few victims praised the police for their efforts.
The majority of the victims (72%) interviewed described the police as ‘useless’ or ‘poor’, adding that they had ‘no confidence in them’. In 11% of the incidents the victims said that the police members who had come to the crime scene had been drunk and had smelt of liquor. In another incident the police had asked the victims if they could point out the suspects, and had failed to take a glass and knife used by one of the perpetrators for fingerprints (in spite of the victim mentioning this to the police).
One victim describes how the identity parade traumatised her. At the identity parade she was told to touch the perpetrators she wanted to point out on the shoulder. In another incident the victim says that the police ‘did nothing’, even though an informer had given them crucial information. The informer then came to the victim ten days later and gave him the information he had passed on to the police. As a result of this the victim lost all confidence in the police.
Another victim says that the police ‘got nasty’ with him because they felt that he was making too many enquiries. They told him that he wanted to take over their work.
In 28% of the incidents, however, the victims described the police as ‘professional’ and ‘fantastic’. In these cases the police handled the victims with care and took the investigation of the crime seriously. More importantly, they kept the victims informed of the process.
Case study 11
In this case Mrs H was killed during a farm attack in Mpumalanga during 2001. The Committee interviewed her daughter, Mrs B, on 2001-10-03, as well as the domestic worker.
The victim, Mrs H, was killed on a Saturday night in 2001. She was 60 years of age and lived alone on the family farm, where she had a shop. Her daughter, Mrs B, was interviewed by the Committee. She telephoned her mother on the Sunday morning, but there was no answer. She then phoned the people with whom her mother always used to go to church, but they had not seen her. Her husband then went to investigate, and he found the body of his mother-in-law, bludgeoned to death with a pick handle.
The house had burglar bars, but the security gate was bent open. The attackers ransacked the house. They took television sets, a sewing machine, cell phone and meat, put it into the victim’s car and drove off. Strangely enough, they left six weapons which were in the safe. It is unknown how the attackers got passed the victim’s four dogs.
Mrs B’s impression of the police was not very favourable. She found them uncommunicative and they did not keep her informed of any developments. Moreover, she says that when her mother’s body was removed from the house in her presence, she wanted to remove a ring from her mother’s finger. The police told her not to do so explaining that this item had to be collected at the police station the following day. When the victim’s daughter went to the police station the next day she was told that the ring was missing. It is little wonder that she describes the police as ‘corrupt’. Although two young men of 20 were suspected of the attack, no one has been arrested.
