South Africa - Martin, 55, Theresa, 54, Rudi Van Breda, 22, Murdered, 26 Jan 2015 #5

[Interested Bystander]

Here are a couple of other links to tweets and a report at the time of the blood evidence being discussed. I cannot work up enough interest to listen to the trial again but the following two links provide reasonable cover of the evidence.

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

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/...patter-stains-tell-a-different-story-20170912

 

[tmar]

The 'rolled up duvet/doona'.
Could it be that the duvet had already been 'rolled up' for the night, before the attacks?
Perhaps placed at foot of bed.
The duvet wouldn't be required to be over bed, as it was a hot night.

 

[Tortoise]

The blood spatter expert said the duvet was on the bed during the attack on Rudi because of the void left in the blood spatter pattern on the mattress sheet.

 

[tmar]

The blood spatter expert said the duvet was on the bed during the attack on Rudi because of the void left in the blood spatter pattern on the mattress sheet.

Thankyou Tortoise, in replying to my suggestion.
So your questioning about it being rolled up is so significant.

So the 'Intruders tidied up' would be Henri's/Botha's explanation, as ANOTHER probability, adding to all their many other likelihoods!!! Hah, Hah.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Thank you so much everyone for your kind words. Everything seems to have gone according to plan and I have no leg pain, can walk normally again and the limp has also gone. I can only sit for 15 minutes or so at a time at the moment so it will probably take me a little while to catch up.

My blood pressure was normal in hospital but I bet it starts to rise almost immediately once I start reading the tweets on Botha's closing. Could someone please let me know if it's worth watching.

 

[JudgeJudi]

https://twitter.com/Traceyams

Adv B: when determining the innocent or guilt of my client one can start to speculate, say the accused sat smoking whilst waiting for his sister to die, draw inferences not because only ones but because they suit your own narrative

Adv B: but if one has regard to all of the facts, this is a criminal matter, the onus is on the state not the accused, and one can draw inferences only if they are the only inferences to be drawn, then you cannot find him guilty

Sheesh. I'm here 5 minutes and I'm already annoyed.

First BIB. Who does Botha think he's kidding. The State's narrative is the correct one IMO. The Defence would have us believe that he sat in the kitchen and smoked 3 cigarettes. Why? To calm his nerves so he wouldn't stutter when he rang emergency services. Yet strangely, and noted by absolutely everyone who listened/watched the trial, what happened to that dreadful stutter when he was in court. Even witnesses are nervous when they're called to testify in court ... and they're not trying to avoid a life sentence. HvB also said he thought the ES wouldn't understand his "Australian" accent and that's why he spoke so calmly. He sounds as much like an Aussie as I do a South African.

Second BIB - This is simply incorrect.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly proves a fact or supports a theory. Indirect or circumstantial evidence implies that the defendant was involved in the crime, and is typically sufficient to convict a defendant if the evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence can be used to establish that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard of evidence used in criminal trials to overcome the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Evidence need not prove that the defendant is absolutely guilty or guilty beyond any question, but rather that there are no other logical explanations resulting from the case facts that anyone other than the defendant could have committed the crime. Guilt can be proven using a process of logical deduction.

The State must satisfy the Court, not that each separate fact is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but that the evidence as a whole is beyond reasonable doubt inconsistent with such innocence.'

Generally, no particular fact or circumstance relied upon in a circumstantial case needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Legally, all forensic evidence including DNA analysis, fingerprints etc. fall under the category of circumstantial evidence and only serve as partial proof of a criminal act.

The evidence doesn’t need to prove that HvB is absolutely guilty or guilty beyond question, but rather that there are no other logical explanations from the facts that anyone other that he could have committed the crime.

As Gerrie Nel would say, it's the mosaic that counts, not the individual pieces of the puzzle.

 

[tmar]

Thank you so much everyone for your kind words. Everything seems to have gone according to plan and I have no leg pain, can walk normally again and the limp has also gone. I can only sit for 15 minutes or so at a time at the moment so it will probably take me a little while to catch up.

My blood pressure was normal in hospital but I bet it starts to rise almost immediately once I start reading the tweets on Botha's closing. Could someone please let me know if it's worth watching.

So pleased JJ that your Op appears to be most successful.
Remember to keep up all your Physio work, so you become strong.

I think Botha's summary is important to watch.
Sit down with a glass of wine, if Doc allows and 'pick Botha to pieces, like I have.
I had problems with the sound.

It is worth watching to see Botha being 'all over the place', stating so many of his suggestions were not only possibilities but probabilities.
You will also witness Botha's rudeness to Judge Desai, showing little respect, shouting continually.
Also having Judge Desai continually questioning Botha was good, whereas with Galloway, he was often in agreement.
I think Tracey's reporting was very inaccurate, as I hope you will agree.
We need your wisdom/experience in this.

 

[JudgeJudi]

https://twitter.com/Traceyams

Adv B: where state proves accused guilt on result of scientific analysis, the testing process must be done with such care that at anytime later on it can again be tested again by another expert

Exactly, and Galloway asked Olckers why she didn’t do her own analysis by retesting the samples. Olckers responded that van Breda’s counsel did not ask her to do so. Botha can only blame himself for this. Hopefully Desai will ignore Olckers' evidence completely.

 

[JudgeJudi]

RSBM

https://twitter.com/ajnarsee

Botha: I need to show your lordship and the assets that it was quite easy to break in or get into the estate

Whether it was easy or not, there was NO evidence that the estate had been broken into that night. The home was located in the middle of the estate and no person was sighted climbing over or digging under the perimeter fence. If we are to believe the Defence, at least 2 people entered the estate and were not seen by guards, neighbours or captured on camera. These intruders walked to the centre of the estate to locate the van Breda house and were never seen exiting the house or estate even though at least one of them must have had a huge amount of blood on his clothing.

 

[JudgeJudi]

https://twitter.com/Traceyams

Adv B: I will present actual evidence that there was an intrusion into the estate that night

Huh? Both State and Defence have closed their case. How can he present evidence now without reopening his case?

The only intrusion that I’m aware of was a buck that was captured on infrared camera footage that was shown first on one side of the fence and then on the other.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Great to see you back, JJ. Take care.

 

[JudgeJudi]

https://twitter.com/Traceyams

Adv B: now wrt the most important aspect- defence called 2 experts, Mr Rabie and his evidence on the working of the fence and his evidence was not cross examined, only Rossouw testified on workings and conceded she was not an expert

B: Rabie's evidence stands untested and state failed to call these witnesses so we can only adduce that the evidence that would have brought would not assist the state

https://twitter.com/ajnarsee

Botha: bare in mind that Mr Wyngaard testified that he passed the #VanBreda residence between 10 and 2pm (sic - should be 2am) without any suspicion. This is in contrast to the neighbour who heard disturbances.

First BIB:
Botha is wrong again. "Galloway cross-examining. Points out he didn't install lit or maintain it. Rabie doesn't know the name of the system".

Charl Rabie worked at De Zalze about 12 years prior to the murders. IIRC the security was upgraded after his departure. His evidence in chief related solely to the old system. Galloway couldn't cross-examine him on an out-of-date system of which she knows nothing and isn't relevant to the current security system.

Second BIB: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. My response to this is: The Defence said they were going to call
Pathologist, Reggie Perumal.
Ballistics expert and former police officer Cobus Steyl who primarily analyses firearms and tool marks.
An unnamed neurosurgeon. It appears the neurosurgeon was dropped and replaced by Neurologist, Dr Butler.
Clinical Psychologist, Dr Elspeth Burke

Apparently Butler's evidence would impact on that of the Psychologist who neither testified nor provided a report.

It's interesting to note that both Perumal and Steyl were present in court but didn't testify to rebut the evidence of the State's witnesses.

These were all very important expert witnesses. Perhaps they value their reputations and credibility and wouldn't play ball with the defence.

Third BIB: Op't Hof heard an argument between 10:00-12:00. She never said she heard anything after midnight.

Wyngaard testified that patrols had passed the home 6-7 times that night and there were no signs of an intrusion. I don't recall if he said anything about what may have been heard.

 

[Tortoise]

With regard to the evidence that the security did not hear anything Galloway replied that it was never put to the neighbour who heard the argument between 10 and 12 that she never heard anything or couldn't have heard anything. If HvB says it was the film soundtrack he can't have it both ways, that it was also silent.

Welcome back JJ and my best wishes for a complete and successful recovery.

 

[Tortoise]

There was only one question for the state at the end put by the assessor, which Desai read to Galloway. That was (paraphrasing) how Henri could have known that day in the police station that the evidence would show he wouldn't have Teresa's or Marli's blood on him (barring the spot of Teresa's on his sock).

Botha got upset when Galloway said wtte 'I'm sure if it had come back that there was blood on him he would have changed his story to account for it', he meaning Henri, but Botha took it to mean that Botha would have changed his story. That's when Desai said something about come on it's the last breath of the trial and you've managed not to have any personal attacks on each other, and Galloway said she meant the accused not Botha.

But anyway, Galloway started a really good reply but she then lost her train of thought and cancelled it - she said that Henri had changed his original story that he was in the bathroom peeping through the door to being at the end of the bed in the bedroom. She should have carried this on to say that he therefore wasn't expecting them to find any blood on him including the men's blood but he changed his version to being in the bedroom when the results came back that the men's blood was on him.

Galloway finished by saying there are anomalies like no blood on the bottom of his socks when there should have been even if he was a victim, and his fingerprints not being on the axe when there should have been because he was holding it. Desai agreed that there are anomalies in every case.

I think they only need to consider the contradiction of blood on his shorts but not his body for starters. That is impossible. Henri reckons it dried and flaked off him (Only the men's blood flaked off you understand, his own blood didn't because it is superior quality no doubt).

I still think about the mops and sock and t-shirt on the washing line. Lol, something isn't right about those items. I mean it wasn't a bra or normal assorted laundry, so I think it is likely connected to Henri's clean up.

Also thinking back to the early days when News24 reported from an anonymous police source that there was a search on a phone in the house for the Porco axe murder. Perhaps the state didn't include it because they couldn't say who had done the search. I hope it comes out after the verdict.

 

[Interested Bystander]

The dried blood issue is a bit of a non starter. Blood doesn't usually flake off in pieces AFAIK. If it did it would have been very, very thick and would have left a stain on the skin. No blood means to me that he showered/washed his chest/body. He had blood spatter on his shorts but I don’t recall him having blood spatter on his legs and the photo in the ambulance rather proves that.

I too find it odd that all the cloths and the mop on the line seem not to have been included in the DNA tests. Or maybe they were but were of no use. However, if bleach had been used in cleaning them it would have destroyed the evidence, I think.

HvB spent a very long time working up his alibi and confusing the issue would have been a high priority. He must have washed the axe for Marli’s or Mum’s blood not to have been on it and then bloodied the axe head with his father’s and brother’s blood. Let’s face it, if your future depended on it, it would not have been difficult to do in order to try to prove there were two axes and two intruders. One axe to kill father and son and the other to kill mother and daughter.

I think one of the biggest problems he has is why did he not help his family when they were dying. No way did he have a 2-3 hour seizure where he was incapacitated. His finger twitch lasted a second or two and may have registered on the encephalogram but it obviously did not cause HvB to become unconscious in the neurologists consulting rooms. The seizure is a total red herring but very convenient for Botha.

The circumstantial evidence against him is overwhelming IMO. No footprints, no dog prints when we know the dog slept upstairs in the boys’ room, nothing stolen, neighbour hearing an argument, cleaning the axe handle, not calling for help until all but one of his family was dead. Marli’s throat was cut (one assumes with the knife that he stuck into himself). None of Marli’s blood on that either! Lastl, but not least, changing his alibi to try to make it fit the ‘picture’.

I hope Desai can see through the muddle HvB has created.

 

[JudgeJudi]

https://twitter.com/ajnarsee
Botha: #VanBreda neighbour testified that she heard argument. It was put to her that it was the soundtrack of Star Trek 2. The accused says it was an action packed movie

J Desai: whether Star Trek or Star Wars, it's different to that of noises coming from a fight

J Desai: assuming that the neighbour is not mistaken, then the rest of the evidence falls into place.....for the neighbour to come here, either she is mistaken or lying

Botha: Opt'hof says she heard noises from 10-12, unabated arguing....longer than a rugby match. That cannot be

J Desai: that's stretching it

Without looking for the video, I don't know whether Opt'hof used the word "unabated" but I didn't see it in any of the tweets. I thought she was an exceptionally credible witness. Just a reminder of what she said …

From 10:00 until after 12:00 she heard loud men’s voices which sounded like an argument. She couldn't hear what they were saying to each other or what language they used. When XX by Combrink she explained how she would differentiate between TV and two real people. She said didn't go out because it's not in her nature to put her nose in other people's business. It was loud and aggressive. It had an aggressive undertone.

In her statement to police she indicated that the people from the house on the right hadn't been home that year and those on the left were older people. “The day I told the police - Col Benecke - I could see he wasn't sure if he believed me. I told him I have nothing to gain from this, and don't want to be involved. They sent audio specialists and tested it. Proved that it was coming from where I said it was”. When asked why she didn’t call security or the police she said she” got a fright but didn’t think they were going to kill each other. I didn’t want to interfere”.

The evidence of Op’t Hof is an example of direct evidence, i.e. proves or disproves a fact directly. Perhaps the most commonly-known type of direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, where a witness describes exactly what she saw, heard, or experienced.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I still haven't caught up and will probably need another day or two. It's one thing to ensure your client gets a fair trial, but Botha has gone far beyond that IMO. You can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear but he's really trying. While I haven't read all the tweets yet, my overriding impression is that Desai is putting questions to Botha to ensure all bases are covered to stave off points Botha is bound to make in the event of an application for leave to appeal. I'll be totally shocked if we get a not guilty verdict, totally shocked and devastated.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Just before I go, thank you so much Prime for a magnificent job in keeping us all up-to-date with the tweets. What would we do without you. :tyou: :blowkiss:

 

[JudgeJudi]

So PB is claiming tests were not done because Henri was pro bono at that time. What rubbish. The only reason money was likely to have run out is because PB extended the trial unnecessarily with his argument OR did he extend the trial intentionally to give him the argument that money had run out and therefore tests could not be carried out? Wouldn't surprise me.

"Adv B: for us to have test my client would have been on pro bono legal representation long ago"

I interpreted this as meaning that if Botha wanted Olckers to have the DNA samples retested, he (Botha) would have had to work pro bono to cover the costs involved. Further funds were provided from HvB's trust fund quite a while ago.

 

[Interested Bystander]

"Adv B: for us to have test my client would have been on pro bono legal representation long ago"

I interpreted this as meaning that if Botha wanted Olckers to have the DNA samples retested, he (Botha) would have had to work pro bono to cover the costs involved. Further funds were provided from HvB's trust fund quite a while ago.

I think I drew my information from a tweet which was probably not absolutely accurate but have you come across where Judge Desai asks Botha if he is using his pro bono excuse as a form of defence, PB having used the excuse three times as the reason for not calling expert witnesses who he said he was going to call?