'Zimondi admitted he murdered his girlfriend,' say policeman

A police detail has claimed that Pritchard Zimondi confessed to murdering his girlfriend Monalisa Chinomona.

It is further claimed that Pritchard revealed that he took Monalisa's panties and bra as a reminder of her. Constable Shingira Shoniwa however, conceded that confessions are inadmissible in court unless they were endorsed by a magistrate.

In his defence outline, Zimondi denies the claim saying he was in possession of the exhibits as samples of a present he intended to buy the late Monalisa. Asked how he links the accused (Zimondi) to the offence, Constable Shoniwa said the panties are the only evidence against him.

Zimondi through his defence counsel Norman Mugiya argued that had he taken the panties and bra on the day in question, they ought to have had blood stains on the gate, meaning the murderer's hands had blood.

"When he was interviewed he said he took the items from the deceased's house and he intended to keep them as a reminder of her. He said he locked the deceased in the house after murdering her," Shoniwa said.

The confessions were however, not contained in his (Shoniwa) statement to the investigating officer. He went on to disown the statement before the court saying his was hand written. He also disowned the signature on the statement.

"The only evidence I can link him to the offence are the exhibits. I have no other evidence because he was only brought to me," he said.

Another cop who testified before him, Sergeant Francis Muripa also confirmed that the panties and bra were the only form of evidence against Zimondi.

Zimondi's defence lawyer argued that there was no nexus between his client and the offence. He put it to Muripa that had Pritchard taken the panties, bra and keys from Monalisa's house they ought to have had blood amid revelations that the gate had blood stains.

He said the absence of blood stains from the exhibits 'disconnects' his client from the offence, which Muripa conceded as there was no blood from the exhibits.

"He is linked to the commission of the offence because he had the deceased's property. How he got in possession of the property links him to the offence," Muripa said.

Muripa further conceded that had there been finger prints taken from the scene of the offence it could have helped the case.