Stone faced killer
JUDGMENT: EVIDENCE LEADS TO ‘ONLY ONE REASONABLE INFERENCE’ – GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES
Henri van Breda was expressionless as he was found guilty of axing three family members to death – and he displayed a peculiar lack of empathy after the killings, Judge Siraj Desai said.
Judge pokes holes in his evidence and cites lack of empathy for injured family.
Astone-faced Henri Van Breda stared straight ahead yesterday as a judge found him guilty of slaughtering his family. At the back of the courtroom, his girlfriend wept.
Judge Siraj Desai, handing down the verdict in the Western Cape High Court, said the “cumulative effect” of all the evidence left “only one reasonable inference” – that Van Breda had murdered his parents, Martin and Teresa, and older brother Rudi.
He was also convicted of the attempted murder of his sister, Marli, who was 16 years old at the time, and who the state had argued survived due to a “miracle” rather than a lesser attack.
The assault on Marli was so severe that she suffered retrograde amnesia and was unable to testify in the trial.
The attacks were in the early hours of January 27, 2015 at the Van Breda home in the centre of a Stellenbosch security estate, De Zalze. The motive for the grisly attacks is still not clear.
Van Breda was also convicted of defeating the ends of justice for tampering with the crime scene and giving false information to the police.
Van Breda had claimed that at least one, possibly two, intruders were behind the murders. He had claimed a laughing, axe-wielding intruder wearing dark clothing, a balaclava and gloves bludgeoned his family members to death.
But Judge Desai dismissed his version, saying it was “nonsensical” that intruders would have entered the house and fled without taking anything.
He said the attacks on the family members were carried out with the intent to kill and the axe and knife used in the murders were from the Van Breda house.
Judge Desai cited a number of discrepancies in Van Breda’s police statement, plea explanation and testimony. Van Breda had claimed the intruder attacked his brother first and his father second and had seemed unconcerned by Henri’s presence in the corner of the room he shared with his brother. This was “peculiar”, Desai said. Furthermore, Desai said Van Breda did nothing to help his father or brother when they were being attacked. The accused had stated in his plea explanation that he had heard angry voices after the attacker fled the room, but Desai found it “strange” that the same scared person, after realising there were more intruders in the house, gave chase. Van Breda had claimed he had gained control of the axe during a scuffle with the attacker and had thrown it at the man as he fled down the stairs. Desai also noted that it was strange that he had not secured the house after the intruders fled, leaving a door open. It was also “odd” that a ruthless killer had run away despite being dis- armed. It would have been easy for two perpetrators to overpower the accused and kill him with knives from the kitchen drawers. “It seems odd that the killer would have killed the entire family and left just one person alive.”
Desai said the 25-minute emergency call, which was made only two hours and 40 minutes after the attacks, was extremely long.
Desai said Van Breda had time to tamper with the scene and portray himself as a victim.
“He did not help or console his family members. He also did not think a neighbour could help as they were not medical professionals,” Desai said. “He displayed a peculiar lack of empathy.” The judge also found no credible evidence that an intruder had entered the estate. There was no evidence of a security breach and no evidence of a typical house robbery. Four out of five family members were attacked, yet the accused was left standing, he said, adding: “The court has no reason to reject the evidence of state witnesses.”
The accused had been an unimpressive witness who had given vague answers and adjusted them subtly, contradicting himself in the process.
The judge also found Van Breda’s injuries were self-inflicted as “his version is inconsistent with objective evidence.”
He did not help or console his family members