‘Injuries could have been selfinflicted’
Van Breda’s attorney wants his expert medical witness present
A FORENSIC specialist has testified that the wounds that Henri van Breda sustained during the attack in which his parents and his older brother were killed, could have been self-inflicted.
Dr Marianne Tiemensma testified that in her expert opinion, apart from the face, back and right leg, Van Breda’s injuries could have been self-inflicted.
Tiemensma, the head of the forensic unit at the Victoria Hospital in Wynberg, was called as a state witness to testify in the triple murder trial, in which Van Breda is accused of murdering his mother, Teresa, his father, Martin and his brother, Rudi. Henri also stands accused of the attempted murder of his sister, Marli.
She testified: “The stab wounds could have been self-inflicted; they were superficial and not fatal. They were also uniform.
“It is unlikely the victim was attacked because there are no defence wounds,” she said.
“Wounds to the head, swelling and a bruise on the eye, could be caused by a blow to the face or from a fall. They are unlikely to be self-inflicted.
“His injuries are in great contrast to the serious injuries suffered by the rest of his family.”
She testified that the injuries on Marli’s wrist were “typical defence” injuries.
State prosecutor Susan Galloway continued asking about Henri “not being able to remember in clear detail, while some details were described in great detail”.
“Some things he is not sure if it happened or not. It is interesting how selective his memory is,” she testified.
At this point during Tiemensma’s testimony, the defence objected, stating that they had not heard the last 15 minutes of her report before that very moment.
“This is not the first time. We are being ambushed and put at a great disadvantage,” Van Breda’s defence attorney, Pieter Botha, stated.
Botha said he wanted his expert medical witness present when the state’s expert was giving testimony and that he had requested that from the prosecution.
Galloway said the reason for her having to go ahead with testimony was because she had to accommodate the schedules of her remaining witnesses.
Ultimately an agreement was reached and Tiemensma’s testimony was cut short and postponed until Tuesday.
Police fingerprint specialist Jonathan Oliphant testified that there was no evidence of activity outside the Van Breda home. He said they had gone over the scene four times.
“We checked the outside of the property and found no prints. If someone climbed over the wall, we would pick it up. Once the ninhydrin is sprayed, if brown or purple colour appears, even if the print is not clear, it still shows someone touched the wall,” he testified.
Botha asked whether fingerprints could still be picked up if gloves were worn.
Oliphant said sweat could come through a glove and that would be picked up.
Botha then asked whether, if there was not much sweat, you would still pick it up. Oliphant replied: “No.” Botha pointed to prints found around the house and on the car that could not be identified. “It could be anybody’s prints. It could belong to anybody, even other family members or friends,” Oliphant testified.
The axe had been sent to the lab and no fingerprints had been found.