“TIMELINES THAT DON’T LINE UP — AND THE DETAILS STILL MISSING”
Authorities reviewing DJ Warras’ case say CCTV footage and witness statements sometimes tell slightly different stories. Seconds matter — and these small inconsistencies could hold the key to understanding what really happened.

Family members continue to honor his legacy while the investigation quietly digs deeper.
👇 Why these timeline gaps matter is in the comments.

“Timelines That Don’t Line Up — And The Details Still Missing”: Persistent Questions in the DJ Warras Murder Investigation

On January 5, 2026 — just one day before the scheduled court resumption — the murder case of Warrick “DJ Warras” Stock remains shrouded in unresolved details. Nearly three weeks after the 40-year-old was fatally shot in broad daylight on Von Wielligh Street in Johannesburg’s CBD, authorities acknowledge that CCTV footage and witness statements occasionally diverge, creating small but significant inconsistencies. In a high-profile hit where seconds could reveal motive, planning, or accomplices, these gaps continue to fuel speculation and concern among family, fans, and investigators.

x.com

facebook.com

The incident occurred around midday on December 16, 2025. Warras parked near Zambesi House, a building tied to his security firm’s efforts to reclaim hijacked properties. CCTV shows him exiting, then being approached by three suspects who had been “colluding” nearby. A short man with dreadlocks, reportedly wearing a navy-blue security uniform, fired multiple shots. Warras drew his licensed firearm in defense but collapsed while attempting to flee. Nothing was taken, confirming a targeted assassination.

citizen.co.za

citizen.co.za

youtube.com

While the core sequence is clear, discrepancies emerge in the margins. Witnesses vary on the suspects’ exact escape route—some recall them fleeing on foot into crowds, others suggest a nearby getaway vehicle. Grainy sections of CCTV leave questions about precise timing: How long did the suspects wait? How did they pinpoint Warras’ arrival so accurately? Early reports mentioned a woman as a person of interest, but no updates have clarified her role.

The most debated inconsistency centers on the arrested suspect. Victor Mthethwa Majola, 44, appeared in Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on December 24, charged with premeditated murder. He alleged police assault (no visible injuries noted) and remains in custody ahead of tomorrow’s bail proceedings on January 6. Yet public scrutiny intensified when photos and videos surfaced: Majola does not have dreadlocks, nor does he match the shooter’s description from CCTV. Many online commentators question if he’s the gunman or perhaps a facilitator, with the dreadlocked shooter and third accomplice still at large.

facebook.com

tiktok.com

These timeline gaps matter profoundly. Warras’ work reclaiming hijacked buildings—securing five protection orders in prior months—points to retaliation from syndicates. Small divergences could indicate insider knowledge, a tip-off, or even mistaken identity (early theories suggested assailants targeted him believing he owned the building). Until reconciled, they hinder identifying the full chain: planner, shooter, accomplices.

The Stock family, honoring Warras’ legacy as a devoted father of three and outspoken activist, continues grieving privately while supporting the probe. Memorials and funerals in late December drew emotional tributes, celebrating his vibrant impact on radio, TV, and anti-crime efforts.

youtube.com

youtube.com

As the case resumes tomorrow, police urge tips via Crime Stoppers (08600 10111). Investigators quietly dig deeper, tracing firearms and property disputes. In Johannesburg’s battle against urban decay and violence, these missing details aren’t mere footnotes—they could unlock justice for a man who fought boldly for change.

Warras’ story reminds us: In a city where brazen hits occur too often, clarity in the timeline isn’t just procedural. It’s the path to accountability, closure, and preventing the next tragedy.