How did blood get on Henri’s shoes? – judge
THE Western Cape High Court yesterday postponed the trial of triple murder accused Henri Van Breda until Monday, but not before Judge Siraj Desai had cross-examined the accused himself. Judge Desai wanted to know how blood spots ended up on Van Breda’s shoes, which he claimed he had left at the bottom of the stairs, as he always did.
“They were next to the carpet that had a pool of blood,” he said after examining a photograph of the shoes.
But he conceded he didn’t know “exactly” how the blood spots got on the shoes.
Van Breda told Judge Desai he hid cigarettes in the shoes and usually left them there for his walks with the family dog, Sasha. He hadn’t hidden his cigarettes from his parents but from Marli, his sister, as his parents didn’t want her to know he smoked, Van Breda testified.
Judge Desai also asked Van Breda why, if he was scared as he testified, he hadn’t locked the back door after the intruder(s) fled the house.
Van Breda responded: “I should have. I think I was already busy on the phone. I wasn’t thinking about it.”
The 23-year-old, who was 20 at the time, has claimed that a laughing, axe-wielding intruder wearing a balaclava and gloves, was behind the January 2015 attacks that left his parents, Teresa and Martin, and his brother Rudi dead. Marli has retrograde amnesia.
On Monday, senior State prosecutor Susan Galloway wrapped up her cross-examination and told the court Van Breda had “selective memory loss more often than not when it comes to incriminating evidence”.
She highlighted the discrepancies in Van Breda’s initial police statement on January 27 and his plea explanation, saying he later added timelines, became “vague” when it suited him and tailored his evidence after having “ample time” to scrutinise the police docket.
Yesterday, defence lawyer Piet Botha, during re-examination, asked his client about his struggle with the attacker.
“When you fought with the attacker and disarmed him, you were asked about that incident as well. You mentioned he was wearing gloves. Are you able to say who had the better grip on the axe?”
Van Breda told the court his grip “ended up being superior” as he was able to remove it from the attacker’s grasp.
Judge Desai said it would have been difficult to handle the axe with gloves on, to which Van Breda said: “I don’t know.”
Botha said Van Breda had also been confronted with evidence from police officers who testified that the crime scene was very “neat”, which they didn’t usually encounter.
Botha also raised the question of where the family dog had been during the attacks. Van Breda said he didn’t know, nor did he know where she was when the intruder(s) left the house.
During cross-examination, it was Galloway’s contention that Van Breda locked the dog in the garage to prevent her from barking. – ANA