South Africa - Martin, 55, Theresa, 54, Rudi van Breda, 22, murdered, 26 Jan 2015 #3

[PrimeSuspect]

https://twitter.com/Traceyams

B: when we looked at this duvet we saw similar markings on this one as we did to the duvet's spread out

B: Subject to confirmation I undertake to provide the meta data of the photograph those are my questions for Captain Joubert

Galloway starts her re-examination of Joubert

Galloway: u were examined extensively on the blood stains on the socks exhibit 120

G hands up a photograph taken of socks at 2h35pm and there is evidence that phone call was made at 04h24 in the morning

G can u say what the stains would have looked like at 04h24 in the morning?

J: it depends at what time it was deposited and the pool of blood was still busy drying

G:u testified that a body fluid dog was on the scene what was its reaction if any? J there was no reaction

G: at 10h34 and 10h35 photos of the droplets outside on the adjacent wall

G u classify the mechanism impact or alternatively drip and u say it was probably created when force applied to Rudi

G: why did u choose that possibility as more probable than the other

J: I wouldnt say choose it was a question of more likely and I had to explain the impact

J difficult to say the amount of blood on the floor, possibility of shoe prints wouldnt have been seen as blood had to spread

J if he was carrying a weapon there would have been drips

 

[PrimeSuspect]

https://twitter.com/Traceyams

G: Re Marli what signs did u note on the scene of a person fleeing with a bloodied object after attacking marli at top of stairs

J: I found no signs of blood supporting that

G: if this person fled with axe like object out of the house having attacked marli whose DNA would u expect to find on that wall?

J u would expect to find Marli's DNA but it was Rudi's DNA found on the adjacent wall

G: photos of blood on Rudi and Steyl's experiment of blood on the forearm

G what similarities are there?

On Rudi's forearm there is more blood spread over the white part

J:when those are done u must use crime scene conditions it was done on a table, on a flat sheet. Duvet is thicker so compression would be thicker so I dont think the test could substantiate the crime scene conditions so its both the amount of blood & surface

G: re position of accused u asked for info about where the accused possibly found himself when throwing the axe

I asked if eye witness could showexactly where he was standing I was informed by Henri's representative he didnt want 2 cooperate

Desai- regarding Marli possibilities, no dna of Marli on socks or shorts or axe -

Desai: re attack on Marli look at these crime scene photographs

Desai: she is lying with her legs partially in the doorway of first bedroom so the attacker probably came from inside the room?

Desai is there anything in the blood pattern which contributes to this scenario J: No my lord

Desai u said the stains on socks and shorts were tested for blood not for other bodily fluids

U testified that the appearance behaviour and context supported that it was blood

Is it possible that spots were missed that were not swabbed containing Marli's blood? J its possible

Desai- the samples were taken sporadically

Desai if 2nd axe and attacker took the axe with him when he left the house would u expect a drip trail

J if there was enough blood on the axe I would have expected that

Desai: u noted blue star was on the wash basin and positive reaction for blood

Desai is it possible that u could do tests and one tests positive for blood other doesnt what is the reason?

J it could be that it reacted with a chemical that tested positive

Desai: his one ankle was twisted to the back. If a right handed golf player swings his left touch touches the ground

Desai:and he could twist in such a way that the left ankle could twist to face the front

Desai how long does it take for blood to clot?

J: looking at plus minus 15 minutes but movement, temperature etc all play a role

 

[PrimeSuspect]

https://twitter.com/Traceyams

Desai: how long was he lying on the bed and on the floor to create those pools? J not possible to say

Desai- the blood on the fitted sheet how did it get there? J most probably uncovered by the duvet on that section of the bed

B: U are aware that Marli was still able to move, by the first responders

B are u saying that because of the photo taken by Kleyhans that the attacker must have come from inside the room?

J: there is so little evidence of Marli that it is difficult to know where she was attacked

J we know she was facing her attacker but cannot exclude the possibility that Marlis attacker came from outside the room

B the swabs of the axe I understood u to say that u took swabs representing the entire axe? J thats correct, B after Htook 4 swabs

B surely u would agree that its a coincidence that the person my client wasnt near when she was attacked is the person who has

no blood on the axe nor was there any blood near him? J agree

B: ur evidence was that there were no blood drops on the stairs

B but it depends on the amount of blood on the axe, the manner it was carried etc simply too many variables

J: that is correct

B: The amount of blood on the wall could that have come from somebodys hand who attacked Rudi? J yes

Desai: if u put left foot on your toe and as u swing u may twist foot the other way

Botha: golfer swinging from right downwards first to upwards

B: when u make that swing ur body would be turning away not towards the direction you are swinging the axe

 

[PrimeSuspect]

https://twitter.com/Traceyams

J: I understand but this is a scene with alot of dynamics that could have happened at any time or position

1 possibility blood belonging to rudi dripping from the axe onto my client, other possibility projection other possibility

when impact occurred he was facing away from the impact

B is finished

Desai excuses this witness

Desai before u close your case I have one or two points to clarify

Desai: the doctors report pertaining to Marli was handed in by you, I want to know Mr botha do u admit the contents of this report

B: purpose of this doc is to recover her physical injuries, these are not in issue we admit that also to place on record that she has no memory. I admit the contents

Desai:when olifant testified on finger prints u said u admit his findings

Desai: nowhere did u mention that he is an expert. Botha I am not going to stand up and attack Olifants expertise

Botha I accept that Olifant is an expert

Galloway: Issue remaining about neurological elements of her evidence, should the defence present evidence on this issue

G we might want to re-open our case to lead evidence on this regarding Marli, she has no memory so she cannot testify

G: Marli has requested that she not be made available to the defence

B: in response I was aware that Dr Tiemensma emmigrated but whether state would be entitled to re-open her case I reserve rights to object but whether she can call one witness to deal with it later thats a different story

B:regarding states suggestion that state can prevent defence from talking to a witness after the close of the states case

B no authority that they are entitled to do that. Judge Desai agrees

 

[PrimeSuspect]

https://twitter.com/Traceyams

B: we are going to ask for leave to call the DNA expert and 2 other experts before the accused

B: we need to book these people and work around their availability

 

[Interested Bystander]

What game is Botha playing now?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Looks as though Desai has reservations about Botha's suggestions.

 

[bleuboy]

My exact thought. Can you believe he wants to hold off until October after moaning that his client was running out of funds. What a joke.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

ALL the tweets are gone!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Botha wants time to coach HvB!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Botha is playing Barry Roux's game (as in the Pistorius case).

 

[PrimeSuspect]

https://twitter.com/Traceyams

Desai I am aware that the defence can request to do so I do want to see authorities on that

Galloway: we are concerned as they are called to corroborate the accused's events

Galloway this also leaves it open to accused to change his version based on concessions of his experts or to not testify at all

G: we are yet to receive any report from any experts from the defence

Desai- I will allow any adjournment to allow the state to properly consider the reports before cross examination

B: this is not a case where he pleaded not guilty and elected not to give a version if he gives another version it can only count against him.

Desai- there are a number of complexities in this matter lets clarify it before 9 October

Botha with respect its for 3 witnesses: evidence of Steyl, Perumal and evidence of a neurosurgeon

B: again he is not going to testify on my clients version, my client will testify in that respect

Desai: I accept what you are saying but I want authority on the legal position which authority? B I will have to look at it

B: could we exchange heads between ourselves and then argue? We will need to do it on Thursday

Desai: let me have the heads of argument before Thursday and I will decide on the issue, court adjourns till 10am on Thursday

 

[Interested Bystander]

Many thanks again Prime for your input. Always greatly appreciated.

Is JJ OK? No show today.

I shall be interested to read what Traceyams makes of today (and watch her walkthrough video if it is posted).

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here is Tracey Stewart’s (@Traceyams) Report on Today’s Court Proceedings.

http://www.capetownetc.com/news/marli-henri-van-breda-will-testify/

“Today, the State closed their case against Henri Van Breda, and Advocate Botha made special requests to support how he intends running his defence. Both the State and the Defense addressed the possible future testimony from the two surviving siblings of the axe murders.
Marli does not want to be made available for the Defence’s case.

Advocate Galloway advised the court, prior to closing her case today, that the State makes available (to the Defense) all of the witnesses that the State did not call, excluding Henri’s sister, Marli. This is because Marli has no memory and cannot contribute to the events that night and more importantly because Marli has requested that she not be made available to the court.

Advocate Botha advised that he would reserve his views, to deal with the matter if the need arose, on his rights to consult with Marli after the State has closed their case but he did say that the Defence will probably not call Marli.

Following the State’s case closing, Advocate Botha told the court this afternoon that he wanted to postpone the Defense’s case to Monday 9 October 2017 and that he wanted to first call 3 of his expert witnesses before Henri would testify……cont/d……………….”

 

[Interested Bystander]

I don't think this has been posted before. Today was the first time I had seen it. Nothing spectacular. Mainly a run through of the likely next moves in the case. I left the photo of HvB out by choice.

https://www.iol.co.za/weekend-argus/vanbreda-trial-henri-to-take-the-stand-11238542

VanBreda trial: Henri to take the stand
by
MIKE BEHR

Cape Town - Henri van Breda will testify in his own defence, probably when the Western Cape High Court resumes for the third term on October 9.

Defence advocate Pieter Botha hinted at this several times during his cross-examination, but Van Breda’s appearance in the witness box was confirmed this week by a source in his defence team.......Cont/d......

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Many thanks again Prime for your input. Always greatly appreciated.

Is JJ OK? No show today.

I shall be interested to read what Traceyams makes of today (and watch her walkthrough video if it is posted).

I hope JJ is ok.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I hope JJ is ok.

Thank you for your thoughts, and apologies for being AWOL last night. My elderly father-in-law who's in his mid-90s had a really bad fall late in the day and is now in hospital. I logged on very late but just wasn't in the right frame of mind to continue.

Thanks Prime for all your updates. I've now read them all and ... ugh. I so detest Botha.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Botha told the court yesterday that he wants to postpone the Defence’s case to 9 October and that he wants to call 3 expert witnesses before Henri testifies.

His reasons for the experts to testify first are:

1. To secure their availability in court and he needs to book them now for those dates;

Ho hum … this is absurd. Henri’s testimony is expected to take approx.. 5 days, but then there’s cross-examination which no doubt will be lengthy and its duration unknown, but it too could last 5 days. For this reason he can only give them approximate dates. They’ve already been subpoenaed and know they must attend. It’s not as if these 3 witnesses are travelling from overseas. Put them in business class and fly all 3 in if necessary. Flights are sooo cheap in SA. IMO the perfect solution would be to kick off the defence on 9 October with Henri and the witnesses advised that they should make themselves available from, say, the week commencing the 23rd. Botha will be calling a Pathologist, DNA expert and a Neurosurgeon. I’ll be amazed if Desai lets them testify first, but it is SA and we always have to be prepared for the worst.

Strangely … not … it was Botha who objected to an earlier adjournment on the basis that he had other trials.

2. The evidence they will deal with will not deal with factual aspects of Henri’s version.

This is nonsense and Galloway is absolutely right to have serious concerns. They’ll be giving evidence in an attempt to destroy that of the State’s experts and to corroborate Henri’s versions. How will this not deal with factual aspects. Expert witnesses, as opposed to other witnesses, are allowed to express opinions. They’re going to dispute the State’s evidence which goes to the heart of refuting Henri’s versions.

3. Henri did not come to court, plead not guilty and remain silent, he entered a plea explanation and placed his version before court. If he were to change his version when testifying that would only count against him.

Botha read out the plea explanation and Henri pleaded not guilty to 5 charges. I guess it’s fair to say that uttering 10 words is not remaining silent.
He’s already changed his version umpteen times between his Initial Statement and the Plea Explanation, and yes, it will count against him. Pulleez.

If an accused sits in court and hears the testimony of other witnesses on a subject matter as to which he later testifies, his evidence is open to the suggestion that he deliberately tailored his evidence to fit in with theirs. This is plain common sense. It is a factor to be considered by the judge and so relates to the weight of the evidence.

Even though Botha has said Henri will testify, what he hasn’t mentioned is the fact that Henri can change his mind at any time as to whether he does or doesn’t.

Botha said there’s authority to support his request. Desai wants to see this authority and hear argument on the matter and he will then decide.

 

[JudgeJudi]

O/T BREAKING - Appeal against OP's 6 year sentence

The SCA is due to hear arguments in the State’s appeal on 3 November.

I wonder if Andrea Johnson will be presenting the State’s argument.

No doubt this will be livestreamed as before. I can't wait.

 

[tmar]

Botha told the court yesterday that he wants to postpone the Defence’s case to 9 October and that he wants to call 3 expert witnesses before Henri testifies.

His reasons for the experts to testify first are:

1. To secure their availability in court and he needs to book them now for those dates;

Ho hum … this is absurd. Henri’s testimony is expected to take approx.. 5 days, but then there’s cross-examination which no doubt will be lengthy and its duration unknown, but it too could last 5 days. For this reason he can only give them approximate dates. They’ve already been subpoenaed and know they must attend. It’s not as if these 3 witnesses are travelling from overseas. Put them in business class and fly all 3 in if necessary. Flights are sooo cheap in SA. IMO the perfect solution would be to kick off the defence on 9 October with Henri and the witnesses advised that they should make themselves available from, say, the week commencing the 23rd. Botha will be calling a Pathologist, DNA expert and a Neurosurgeon. I’ll be amazed if Desai lets them testify first, but it is SA and we always have to be prepared for the worst.

Strangely … not … it was Botha who objected to an earlier adjournment on the basis that he had other trials.

2. The evidence they will deal with will not deal with factual aspects of Henri’s version.

This is nonsense and Galloway is absolutely right to have serious concerns. They’ll be giving evidence in an attempt to destroy that of the State’s experts and to corroborate Henri’s versions. How will this not deal with factual aspects. Expert witnesses, as opposed to other witnesses, are allowed to express opinions. They’re going to dispute the State’s evidence which goes to the heart of refuting Henri’s versions.

3. Henri did not come to court, plead not guilty and remain silent, he entered a plea explanation and placed his version before court. If he were to change his version when testifying that would only count against him.

Botha read out the plea explanation and Henri pleaded not guilty to 5 charges. I guess it’s fair to say that uttering 10 words is not remaining silent.
He’s already changed his version umpteen times between his Initial Statement and the Plea Explanation, and yes, it will count against him. Pulleez.

If an accused sits in court and hears the testimony of other witnesses on a subject matter as to which he later testifies, his evidence is open to the suggestion that he deliberately tailored his evidence to fit in with theirs. This is plain common sense. It is a factor to be considered by the judge and so relates to the weight of the evidence.

Even though Botha has said Henri will testify, what he hasn’t mentioned is the fact that Henri can change his mind at any time as to whether he does or doesn’t.

Botha said there’s authority to support his request. Desai wants to see this authority and hear argument on the matter and he will then decide.

JJ. Sorry to hear you were involved in Australia's worst train disaster.
Do you attend the Memorials, or is it too upsetting?
Good luck with your elderly relative.
They are so frail, at that age, and these falls can be very debilitating to recover from.

I am very worried, that Botha has introduced so much ambiguity into evidence, blood works etc.
Now if their experts are allowed earlier, of course, HvB will phrase his responses to be in agreement with these Defense experts and their suggestions.

They definitely can arrive later, what a feeble reason, to begin before HvB.
HELP. :gaah: