While we wait, you might like to read these excerpts from the Judgment in The State vs DD (Don Steenkamp) who was 17 at the time. Just chilling.
"37. Twelfth: If the minor reacted as described by his relatives, and also by the investigating officer and further when he testified in court then it would be fair to say of him the deaths of his family left him cold; indifferent. He saw his father sprawled and full of blood. He looks at him and walks past. Next he sees his mother prostrate and bloodied and adopts a similar attitude. His beloved younger sister of 14 years, who was heavily wounded, strains every sinew, evidently to summon help; He has his cell phone with him. He does not call an ambulance or the police or a relative.
38. Thirteenth: Perhaps one of the most porous suggestions by the minor is that the farm-attacker would descent on the farm as a lone-ranger; would come on foot; would come unarmed; would evade the occupants of the house to reach the firearms at the furthest point in the house; kill the three deceased with their own weapons; spare the minor, who was with the intruder in the house, for no distinguishable reason from the others; leave R32 000,00 in cash and three wallets belonging to the three deceased containing wads of cash; walk away on foot when an appealing twin-cab Isuzu were there for the taking This Rambo is now once more unarmed. Perhaps when confronted by the police or the Neighbourhood Watch he would stick up his hands in the air and say: Sorry, I got lost. If this was true, the attacker would be dubbed the dumbest farm-attacker ever in South Africa.
58. Why did the minor escape totally unscathed? Why was the killer so kind-hearted towards the accused minor? Nonchalantly, he replied that he does not know. Mr Coetzee argued that it is for the State to supply the answer to its own questions. The State is not required to prove a negative or what was peculiarly within the contemplation of an accused’s mind at all relevant times.
59. I have deliberately refrained from commenting adversely or attaching any significance to the minors demeanour in the witness stand due to the length of the trial and that at 17 he is but a child who was subjected to searching but fair cross-examination. Except that I must say this: In the witness stand he showed no emotions. He has a strong voice and was assertive and confident. Even when he was painted into a corner he was not flushed. He never stammered or tripped over his words, even when he lied blatantly. He has a strong character. He is certainly not a wilting violet".
www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZANCHC/2014/9.html