Ahmed Timol: The questionable case against Joao Rodrigues

[1] Telephone calls on March 22 to the attorneys of record on the “heads,” Mkhonto & Ngwenya, Pretoria, were not answered; and attempts to find someone aware of the matter and willing to discuss it, at the LSSA, also on March 22, were similarly unsuccessful.

Even on the face of it, the autopsy report does not support Professor Naidoo’s interpretation. First, it would not be possible for all surface injuries on the body, excluding the head, to be pre-a-35-meter-fall injuries. Second, the autopsy report itself provides a schedule of the histological sections taken from the body. None of the sections taken from inside the body, including from the brain and hyoid bone, showed any healing reaction. There were seventeen skin sections taken (labelled from A to Q). The report notes that in several cases the bruises are “fresh”. So, in other words, there was no healing reaction detected.

The histological evidence, read properly, also contradicts the narrative account that the team presented to the second inquest, which was accepted by Judge Mothle, and which now forms the basis of Rodrigues’ prosecution. If for instance Timol’s ankle had been dislocated on the Monday it would have soon become massively swollen. The pathologists at the autopsy would have seen that it was an old injury, and this would have been confirmed by the histological analysis. It was clearly regarded as fresh injury however, and so not even discussed at the first inquest.
This injury was also regarded as consistent with the fall, at the time. As the RDM report on Schepers’ testimony stated: “The left groin was bruised and the left ankle was strained, probably by hitting the right leg. Large bruises on the front of the right lower leg were probably also caused when the left foot hit against the right leg during the fall.” (Timol’s right shoe was knocked off by the impact.)