Hair length at centre of murder case drama
IT was an ironic twist of fate – or perhaps by design – that Henri van Breda arrived at the Cape Town High Court yesterday sporting a much shorter hairdo than last week.
In a dramatic post-lunch session‚ it was revealed that the hairs found in the palms of Marli van Breda’s hands as she lay fighting for her life after a triple family murder could not possibly have been those of her brother, Henri, as they were much longer than the haircut he had on the day of the murders.
According to his defence counsel, Piet Botha – and confirmed by the forensic analyst on the case‚ Colonel Henry Stewart – the hairs found in the exhibit‚ which had been taken from the palms of Marli’s hands‚ were longer than 200mm.
However‚ based on a photograph of Henri taken on the morning of January 27 2015 when police arrived at the luxury De Zalze estate in Stellenbosch‚ his hair was no longer than 50mm to 80mm.
In light of the difference between the hair found in Marli’s hands and the hairstyle that the accused had at the time‚ Botha asked‚ “What are the chances that the hair could have come from my client’s head on the day of the murder?” Stewart replied: “Very slim.” Botha then boomed: “I would say nil!” Stewart admitted that by the time he tested the hair‚ Van Breda’s hair would have grown substantially‚ but that had he seen the photographs of his close- cut hairstyle on the day of the murders‚ he would have been able to exclude him.
This came in the wake of a morning session during which Stewart‚ when questioned by the state‚ claimed that the hair in Marli’s hand was forcibly removed‚ and that if there were signs of hair from a person of another race on the crime scene it would have showed up.
This discredited Henri’s claims that he thought it was a person of colour who had intruded on the family home.
Stewart was then accused of providing false impressions and supplying a misleading affidavit, therefore skewing crucial evidence.
It came to light it was entirely possible there were foreign hairs on the scene of the crime since a match was not found in the lab for all of the 14 hairs under the microscope.
Stewart was asked to read out the instruction letter provided to him by investigating officer Colonel Deon Beneke from March 20 2015, in which Beneke clearly stated that the hair could be that of “suspect” Henri van Breda.
Botha said this showed that Stewart was lying under oath when he claimed that he was looking at numbered samples with no knowledge of the personal identity of whose hair it was.
Stewart defended himself saying that he had proceeded without reading the covering letter in an attempt not to prejudice his scientific analysis‚ but Botha said this was not something he could expect the court to believe – TMG Digital