The chilling murder case of Tiffany Meek took a dramatic turn in the Roodepoort Magistrate’s Court as the accused’s attorney, Naidoo, meticulously cross-examined police witnesses on the fourth day of her bail application. Meek, a 31-year-old from Fleurhof, stands accused of killing her 11-year-old son, Jayden-Lee Meek, prompting an intense examination of the evidence presented by the State.
In addition to the murder charge, Meek faces multiple charges including crimen injuria and attempting to obstruct the administration of justice. The courtroom was tense as Naidoo aimed to undermine the coherence of the State’s claims, particularly regarding conflicting statements concerning Jayden’s attire on the day of his disappearance.
During the proceedings, Naidoo questioned a police sergeant about discrepancies surrounding the clothing Jayden was reportedly wearing. Citing inconsistent testimonies from his teacher, Meek, and a security guard, Naidoo sought to establish a more favourable narrative for his client. “My client will state that she helped him get dressed that morning, and he was wearing grey long pants, a white shirt, a tie, and black takkies on the day,” Naidoo asserted. Yet, the police officer admitted that he could not definitively confirm the details, stating that reports from eyewitnesses were the basis for the information he provided.
Key pieces of evidence were presented to the court, including entries from the complex’s occurrence book (OB) dated May 13 and May 14. These records revealed that Jayden-Lee’s disappearance was noted only after 8pm by the nightshift guard, leading Naidoo to contest the thoroughness of the operational procedures in place. Highlighting a lack of accountability, Naidoo maintained that an earlier entry, purportedly made by the security guard on the day of Jayden’s disappearance, was absent from the records. “The accused will state she went to the security guard (day shift), and an entry was made in the OB. She gave him her phone number,” Naidoo claimed. “This was after 5pm. She said she was going to walk to the shop, and if Jayden comes back, he must contact her telephonically.” However, the investigating officer responded that there was no record of this interaction in the OB.
The interrogation of the police sergeant continued with inquiries about an alleged missing page in the occurrence book, which Naidoo asserted could undermine the investigation’s credibility. Notably, on May 14, the day Jayden-Lee’s lifeless body was discovered, Meek’s family reportedly sought to document the OB but encountered the missing page. The sergeant conceded he had overlooked certifying the evidence due to the demands of his workload, an admission that did not bode well for the prosecution.
Further probing into the background of the security guards raised questions regarding their status as Congolese nationals, to which the sergeant could not provide clarity. “No, I do not. I work for the SAPS,” he answered, creating a sense of unease regarding the thoroughness of the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Jayden-Lee’s tragic death.
The saga continues as the court deliberates the implications of this testimony on the case against Meek, raising the stakes for both the accused and the community yearning for justice in this heart-wrenching ordeal.
