Blood spatter expert gives damning report
Evidence inconsistent with Van Breda’s version of events on night family murdered
NINE pieces of damning evidence were detailed by a blood spatter expert in the Henri van Breda triple-axe murder trial yesterday. Captain Marius Joubert‚ testifying for the state‚ detailed how his analysis and findings were inconsistent with Van Breda’s plea statement, in which he pleaded not guilty to the murder of his parents and brother and the attempted murder of his sister in Stellenbosch in 2015.
Van Breda’s plea statement said he was on the loo‚ heard sounds‚ and then opened the bathroom door slightly and saw someone in the dark hitting his brother, Rudi.
However‚ Joubert said‚ exposure to blood on Van Breda would have been minimal in that case. So that did not explain the blood found on his clothing.
Van Breda claimed he had moved from the bathroom to the bedroom where his father, Martin, had turned the light on.
He said that, from the doorway, he saw his father and a balaclava-wearing attacker engaged in a tackle while the bloody events were unfolding.
But Joubert said the bloodstains observed and documented on Van Breda’s grey shorts and white socks placed him in close proximity to both Rudi and Martin when force was applied and blood came out.
A grey duvet found at the bathroom door had‚ according to Joubert‚ still been on the bed during the attacks in the bedroom.
He said Van Breda’s statement made no attempt to explain how the duvet had ended up there.
Van Breda’s statement detailed how Rudi was “just lying on the bed”, incapacitated by the attack.
How‚ then‚ did he end up by the bathroom door? Joubert said there was no explanation for this in the plea statement.
The bloodstain evidence suggests an object might have been washed
Joubert said it was clear from the blood patterns that Martin had entered his sons’ room from the left and was taken by surprise by an attack from the right – an attack so sudden he had no time to respond as he was violently injured from behind.
This was inconsistent with Van Breda’s plea statement in which he detailed watching his father tackling the alleged attacker, who then struck back with the axe.
The evidence suggested someone had tried to wash blood off objects in the shower‚ but the plea statement did not place anybody in the shower at any time – neither Van Breda nor the alleged attacker, who was described as fleeing the scene of the attack.
“The bloodstain evidence documented in the bathroom shower‚ invisible microscopic blood‚ suggests an object or objects covered with blood of Rudi‚ Henri and Teresa [Van Breda’s mother] might have been washed or cleaned inside the shower,” Joubert read from his report.
Bloodstain patterns from the axe did not support Van Breda’s version of the axe being thrown‚ Joubert said.
Rather, the pattern was consistent with that made by an object under the control of the handler.
The flow pattern of the blood on the accused’s chest did not support his version of events of the scuffle between him and the alleged attacker. Joubert said it was clear from how the blood had dried that his upper body was not moving (as it would in a scuffle) when the cuts were sustained.
Blood was found on the bathroom floor but there is no explanation in the plea statement of how it got there.
“At no stage did Henri van Breda return to the bathroom after the incident‚ according to his statement,” Joubert said in his report.