Henri van Breda back in court
Chief forensic analyst testifies on samples found at crime scene
THE KNIFE used in the Van Breda family murders, contained no DNA evidence belonging to Henri, the Western Cape High Court heard. The DNA evidence that was found on the knife, was revealed to be that of his brother, Rudi.
As the Van Breda murder trial resumed, following the court’s recess period, the chief forensic analyst at the police’s forensic laboratory, Lieutenant-Colonel Sharlene Otto, took to the stand to testify about the DNA evidence that was found on the crime scene.
Otto confirmed that 216 DNA samples were submitted from the Van Breda trial, which is far more than usual, but which was understandable given the nature of the case.
As State prosecutor Susan Galloway questioned Otto, it was revealed that the knife used in the family murders, contained DNA belonging to Rudi van Breda. Previously, the court had heard that Henri’s wounds were probably inflicted by the knife, and that his fingerprint was found on the tip of the blade.
Otto did not mention anything about Henri’s DNA being found on the blade, but his DNA was found on the handle of the axe. Otto also stated that there was additional DNA found, but it was not enough to identify anyone else other than Henri.
Otto stated that four reports were compiled over a four- to six-month period, all of which formed evidence in the case. In one of the reports, Otto states that DNA evidence belonging to Rudi and Teresa was found under the nail scrapings from Henri’s left hand.
Three DNA profiles were also found in the corner of the shower floor of the Van Breda house from Rudi, Henri and their mother Teresa. There was also DNA evidence of Rudi that was found under a fingernail scraping belonging to his father Martin.
DNA evidence from Rudi, Martin, Teresa and Henri was found on the shorts which had been submitted into evidence.
Galloway questioned Otto about the swab of blood taken from the laundry door, to which Otto confirmed that no DNA was found.
This could be the result of a false positive reaction – as it could be tomato sauce – or that it was meat blood,” she said.
However, she wasn’t certain as she did not know how close the kitchen was to the laundry room.
Earlier Galloway had tried to ascertain if someone could enter the house, and not leave evidence, to which defence advocate Pieter Botha objected, stating that it was inviting the witness to speculate.
Galloway then allowed Otto to explain the “Locard principle” which states that “every touch leaves a trace”.
Otto answered that an easy way to explain this was that protective clothing could prevent DNA evidence from being left on a scene.
After the state concluded questioning, Botha declined to start cross-examination immediately, preferring to start his cross-examination today. Judge Siraj Desai thereafter adjourned the case for the day.