If I was Rob Packham, I wouldn’t be too stoked with the comments by Western Cape High Court Judge Elizabeth Steyn.

During closing arguments yesterday, Steyn said that “this gentleman [Packham] has shown that he could be a good actor,” referring to how the murder accused managed to live a double life.

She will deliver her judgment on May 16, but my gut tells me she’s leaning in one direction.

Below via IOL:

During the defence’s closing arguments, Judge Steyn questioned Packham’s character and conduct.

“This man has shown to be a good actor, he led a double life and deceived his wife and daughter by continuing to see Mrs X (his mistress who cannot be named because of a court order) and seeing divorce lawyers while in marriage counselling.

“If he is able to deceive people on that aspect, what should I take on this?” she asked.

She also explored the defence’s argument that Packham, despite being allegedly observed leaving the crime scene by a witness, would return a few minutes later and risk being identified.

Judge Steyn said Packham’s reaction of not going close to the burnt car and being annoyed when receiving trauma counselling was strange.

“If my husband was potentially burning in a car, I most certainly would have gone to see what was going on.”

As we’ve seen from that four-minute video earlier this week, the State reckons it has a pretty watertight case in terms of proving Packham guilty for his wife’s murder.

The defence, led by advocate Craig Webster, attempted to discredit much of the evidence. As TimesLIVE reports, Judge Steyn was quick to clap back:

Webster said Packham’s testimony in his own defence had been “favourable”, with concessions about his involvement with another woman and details about how he spent the day of Gill’s disappearance, February 22 2018…

Webster [below left] called for pieces of evidence to be judged individually for their reliability.

“The state’s approach has been to put everything into the mix and argue the probabilities,” he said.

“You do not use separate incidents,” Steyn replied. “This is a holistic assessment.”

But Webster said: “Suspicion does not suffice. At every turn, there’s a finger pointing at the accused. He hasn’t been coy about what he was doing.”

Again, a look at the State’s evidence.

We will have to wait until May 16 to see exactly what Steyn decides, which should make for a restless three weeks for Packham.

[sources:iol&timeslive]