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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Botha said earlier:

"My client from day one made mention that there was more than one person in that house? he said so in his plea explanation"

PE
"The attacker fled out of the room.
I also recall hearing what sounded like angry voices of more than one person somewhere else in the house. Although I could not distinguish specific words, it sounded like the persons were speaking Afrikaans.
At that stage, I did not know how many persons had been in the house but there must have been at least two".

He heard angry voices, so they obviously weren't whispering. "It sounded like the persons were speaking Afrikaans". Henri tried to make out that he had difficulties with the language at his plea hearing yet the domestic worker said the family all spoke Afrikaans in the home.

So Botha's correct. However he forgot to mention one small thing. Henri had 18 months time to dream that up with his lawyers.

In his initial statement given the day of the murders, when everything was fresh in his mind, he said:

"I then went back inside the house because I was afraid to follow him because I did not know what he had on him.
It will be difficult for me to identify the person if I see the persons whole face but will recognise his eyes and voice".

First, would he attempt to chase multiple attackers after one of them had murdered 3 of his family and nearly a fourth?

Second, how precisely would he recognise the eyes of someone he was engaged in a life or death struggle with?

Third, how would he recognise his voice? The attacker never said a word, not one word. All he did was laugh ... and Henri would recognise his voice.

Botha fought tooth and nail at the voire dire (trial within a trial) to prevent the initial statement being admitted into evidence on the basis that the police had already seen his client as a suspect. The real reason IMO was that the two versions were totally different.
 
[video=youtube;df4KNdI6BuY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df4KNdI6BuY[/video]
 
https://twitter.com/ajnarsee

We're back, should be an interesting further cross examination

B: says the saying "absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence" is attributed to a poet,

B: now back on the absence of Marli's blood in Axe. Neuro report says she had 5 lacerations on her head,1 on wrist and 1 on neck

B: takes witness through photos of Marli's wounds

B: your evidence is that the absence of splatter could be explained by the separation of injuries

B: but her injuries are close together

J: spatter would go away from attacker, not towards, also depends on position of victim and attacker

J: Marli's touch DNA was on the wooden handle, blood was On the blade and handle

B: you didn't look at the bottom of my clients socks?

J: I photographed it, it would be consistent that there would be blood because there was blood on the floor

J: there was dark stains on ducks but this was not tested (socks?)

J Desai: was the accused wearing sandals? Could explain why there is nothing underneath?
 
https://twitter.com/Traceyams

B: u stated that full v partial penetration indicates spatter or non spatter. Spatter in flight, u get full penetration

B: 32 impact stains on the shorts from Rudi - J: correct B: 5 of these emanated from the father Martin

B: Marli there were no stains and then with regards to Teresa, we know that it may have only been a blood stain of henri and rudi

B: I understand u to say those mixtures, the blood was probably already mixed when deposited on my clients shorts

B: it makes it difficult to say how a mixture of blood could have landed on his shorts in light of R&M attacked in room and Teresa was attacked outside of the room.

B: most logical for mixture stain on shorts- it emanated from blood already mixed on the axe

B: we know my client bled at some stage, how do u explain the presence of impact spatter of which he is the donor of on his shorts

J: he could have had his own blood on his hand and flicked his hand which would result in impact spatter on his shorts

B: so impact spatter may be projection, and then that impact spatter could also be how his brother and his fathers blood was projected on his shorts perhaps in the same manner you said Henri could have flicked blood with his hand
 
At last, I see where Botha is going now. These drip stains for whom there was no DNA are obviously going to belong to intruders if B is going to get his way.

I do wonder why these drip stains were not analysed or were they and no result given?
 
https://twitter.com/Traceyams

B: there are 19 unknown DNA results? J: it is not unknown there was no result

Galloway objects its not an unknown person -her evidence was that there was no unknown DNA in the sample he didnt put this to Otto

Otto is the DNA analyst not Joubert

B; there are 19 stains from my clients shorts tested for DNA and we dont know whose blood that was? Desai thats fair

B: the shape and size of these stains suggested impact and could have been projection as mechanism not necessarily impact

B: the second grouping of blood stains on Henri's shorts- non-spatter stains, u said suggest contact

B: one contributor was Rudi (7.9,18) and the other contributor was Henri (3,84,90)

B: are u saying my clients sleeping shorts made contact with an object on which the blood of his brother was deposited J: yes

B: under non-spatter stains there are 7 stains that we do not know who the depositor is of those stains

J: agrees.
 
Capt Joubert says spatter from attack on Marli #VanBreda would go away, not toward attacker. Position and other variables influence this.

Pics of Marli Van Breda in hospital show that injuries were quite close together, Adv Botha says. Some measure of spatter then expected?

19 stains unknown, couldn't determine whose blood it is, Botha says. Adv Galloway objects, says no unknown DNA found at Van Breda scene.

No blood of Henri Van Breda found on any of victims, bodies or their clothes. Also not on either of the duvets, Capt Joubert says.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-van-breda-axe-murder-trial-day-38-20170913
 
https://twitter.com/Traceyams

B: the next category is the drip mechanism- Henri's own blood was 2 of those stains (63/85) and it was easy to see shape of drip

B: in this instance a futher 6 drip stains we dont know from whom the stains emanate? J correct

B: pertaining to shorts, u could not find any blood stains on his shorts deposited by means of drip from any family members

J: thats correct

But there were 6 drip stains we dont know whose blood that was J correct.B Henris blood was not found on any of the family members

J: thats correct, Henri's blood was also not found on any of the blood stained duvets

B: we know at some stage when he handled the axe he was already bleeding as his blood was on the bottom handle of the axe

B: the blood on the axe was still in liquid form when he created the cessation cast off in the wall blood ran down due to gravity

J: thats correct.

B: I couldnt help but notice during your evidence in chief u stated my client was in close proximity

B: when pressed for an exact distance you steered away from it? Are u in a position to provide a distance of "close proximity" having regard to his position when the stains on his frontal part of his shorts was shed

J: I cant give an exact distance but it wasnt in the position indicated by Henri in his statement

B: refers to article regarding flight paths, a frop of 0.75mm would travel 1.5m and 1mm diameter may travel 3m?

J agrees- Styl agrees, B says the smaller the blood spot the less likely it is to travel far J agrees

B; lets move to your consideration of Henri's socks
 
https://twitter.com/Traceyams

B: you found 17 blood stains on top of the socks- J thats correct. One is in fact on the rear part of the one sock

B: again in summary Rudi was the biggest contributor to these stains altogether 9 of the stains belong to him

B: u identified them as spatter and impact stains, one from Teresa on the toe part of the socks

B: two from my client himself and again 4 blood stains which are unidentified. J: correct

B: you identified two on the socks Henri's own blood its possible that could have dropped from his hand onto his socks

B:The literature is rife that u must be careful with blood stains on clothing simply because stains react differently to material


https://twitter.com/AJGMolyneaux

Judge makes it clear these'unidentified' blood stains don't necessarily belong to unknown person,they just couldn't be identified.
 
https://twitter.com/Traceyams

My client wears size 12 so the material is stretched and maybe it indicated full penetration because of material stretched out

J: he considers the surrounding evidence too, if it was transfer there would have been evidence of that

Styl accepts that your category of spatter is correct but I am testing your category of impact

J: Impact could be a drop on his sock too- B that could explain the one spot of Teresa's blood? J correct

B: the sock u have placed on the model here- to test, which he wore on his left foot has the stain number 10 next to word "active"

B: if u look at 7, you arent looking at a left sock that was worn on the left foot u looking at a sock that was worn on right

J: correct,

B: so if you look at this picture the socks should be swapped around? J: yes

B: when did you receive the two Duvets at the forensic science laboratory?
 
Interested Bystander said:
At last, I see where Botha is going now. These drip stains for whom there was no DNA are obviously going to belong to intruders if B is going to get his way.

I do wonder why these drip stains were not analysed or were they and no result given?
Click to expand...

weren't they too diluted or something? mixed? So Botha is saying intruder was bleeding? HvB did say he struck him on the shoulder.
 
Botha presses on the 'close proximity' statement. Can you say exactly how far, he asks. Galloway objects.

Adv Botha asks Joubert if he can give distance Henri #VanBreda would be to have caused spatter. Joubert can't, but def not claimed position.

Henri #VanBreda's socks: 17 stains found on top, side and rear. 9 belong to Rudi. Spatter and impact. 1 Teresa, 2 Henri. 4 unidentified.

Judge Desai clarifies that the 'unidentified' blood stains don't necessarily belong to unknown person, they just couldn't be identified.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/live-van-breda-axe-murder-trial-day-38-20170913
 
https://twitter.com/Traceyams

B: when kleynhans testified I asked him and referred him to little path in front of the stairs leading to 1st floor

B: he said he couldnt remember the mat being there nor could he remember the shoes being there? then I asked about blood drops

B: he said he can't say, that seems to be different from what he told you? J thats correct

B: you obviously cant tell the court which is correct as you were not there? J: no

B: this is the stain u found on the bedroom door which you identified as an impact created by impact or projection

B: in 37.8 u then reclassify that as cessation cast off?

J: I made a decision looking at that stain not as individual stain putting it in context of there stains around it

B: so then u say it was created at the same time as other stains? J: Correct

B: so then u say it was created at the same time as other stains? J: Correct

B: position of door? If the door was open facing Rudi's bed would u not expect it to emanate from passage way into R's room

B: if door open, cessation cast off by axe in passage way, reaches the door, would u not expect the stain to show the direction?

J: it would have been a more eliptical shape B: so you are not excluding that it came from Rudi's bed J: its possible
 
Oh thank God. Botha will finish his cross-examination of Joubert tomorrow.
 
https://twitter.com/Traceyams

B: is moving onto another point Galloway asks if we can adjourn 4 the day Desai allows it and Botha says he should finish tomorrow

Matter postponed till tomorrow at 10am for further cross examination of Joubert
 
PrimeSuspect said:
weren't they too diluted or something? mixed? So Botha is saying intruder was bleeding? HvB did say he struck him on the shoulder.
Click to expand...

It is not clear what B is going to claim but he may well claim the intruder was bleeding. I missed the point about the stains being too diluted for DNA testing, sorry about that. Botha is grasping at straws and I don't think Desai will take any notice at the end of the day though he did seem a little surprised that nobody seems to know whose blood the stains were. When one thinks DNA can be retrieved from blood washed away in a shower it does make one wonder why blood on unwashed shorts was not able to be identified.
 
What are your theories on the evidence of "no blood of Marli was found on the axe"? I'm having a hard time in getting my head around that. How could that be possible? Someone on twitter suggested he cleaned the axe afterwards to get his prints off, after which he then smeared some blood onto it again for authenticity. But still no blood from Marli. This suggestion sounds far fetched. What do you guys think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 173 more.
Total: 1,803 (members: 174, guests: 1,629)

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
1,629
Total visitors
1,803
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,747
Messages
18,099,129
Members
230,919
Latest member
jackojohnnie
Back
Top