Fair or dark hair

Fair or dark hair
The defence in the first trial discredited much of the state's evidence, arguing that Taffy was never a strike leader and that he was dark-haired. In reply the state pathologist asserted that Long had darkened his hair with permanganate of potash because he was in fact fair-haired. Furthermore, Taffy had an alibi: he had been walking in Fordsburg with two men, Smyrke and Lensley, at the time of the accusation against Marais, and afterwards he went to Lensley's house for tea, where he stayed until 7 o'clock. Mrs Lensley and her friend verified this. The trial ended with the three judges returning a no verdict judgment. A Special Criminal Court with three other judges, among them the Judge-President of the Transvaal, was constituted for a second trial. In the meantime Taffy had been given a very close haircut, in prison, in an effort to establish his true hair colour. A statement had been received by a man called Mare, who had been in prison with Du Toit and De Witt. Mare stated that Du Toit admitted to shooting Marais. This was backed up by De Witt. But the Judge-President rejected Mare's statement, saying he was unreliable. The judge also rejected the testimony that put Fisher as the murderer. On the same evidence as was produced for the first trial - Taffy's hair had by now grown out and it was dark - the three judges found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The Judge-President summed up the verdict: ". . . Marais' statement describes him as 'small'. True, I would not describe him as a small man. But 'small' and 'tall' are relative terms. As to the question of his hair, there has been an attempt to change its colour . . . It is quite clear that he is a man of courage - his bearing shows it. And it is clear that he was in such a condition of stern excitement as to be capable of doing the deed with which he is charged. The accused has been defended pertinaciously and ably. But we find ourselves compelled to find him guilty." (full statement on right) The public reaction was unequivocal: the government had bombed the suburbs into submission, now they were condemning an innocent man to die.

The defence in the first trial discredited much of the state's evidence, arguing that Taffy was never a strike leader and that he was dark-haired. In reply the state pathologist asserted that Long had darkened his hair with permanganate of potash because he was in fact fair-haired.

Furthermore, Taffy had an alibi: he had been walking in Fordsburg with two men, Smyrke and Lensley, at the time of the accusation against Marais, and afterwards he went to Lensley's house for tea, where he stayed until 7 o'clock. Mrs Lensley and her friend verified this.

The trial ended with the three judges returning a no verdict judgment. A Special Criminal Court with three other judges, among them the Judge-President of the Transvaal, was constituted for a second trial.

In the meantime Taffy had been given a very close haircut, in prison, in an effort to establish his true hair colour.

A statement had been received by a man called Mare, who had been in prison with Du Toit and De Witt. Mare stated that Du Toit admitted to shooting Marais. This was backed up by De Witt.

But the Judge-President rejected Mare's statement, saying he was unreliable. The judge also rejected the testimony that put Fisher as the murderer. On the same evidence as was produced for the first trial - Taffy's hair had by now grown out and it was dark - the three judges found him guilty and sentenced him to death.

The Judge-President summed up the verdict: ". . . Marais' statement describes him as 'small'. True, I would not describe him as a small man. But 'small' and 'tall' are relative terms. As to the question of his hair, there has been an attempt to change its colour . . . It is quite clear that he is a man of courage - his bearing shows it. And it is clear that he was in such a condition of stern excitement as to be capable of doing the deed with which he is charged. The accused has been defended pertinaciously and ably. But we find ourselves compelled to find him guilty." (full statement on right)

The public reaction was unequivocal: the government had bombed the suburbs into submission, now they were condemning an innocent man to die.