Van Breda defence case ‘absurd’
THE triple axe murder trial of Henri van Breda dragged on for 63 days in the Cape Town High Court last year‚ but yesterday the state presented a neatly potted summary of why the defence’s case was riddled with absurdities.
Van Breda, sporting a shiny pate – which he said was to save water during the drought – was back in court after a two-month hiatus.
Prosecutor Susan Galloway led the court through Van Breda’s calm and lengthy phone call to emergency services early on January 27 2015‚ after four of his family had been attacked with an axe.
She said his lack of emotion on the phone was not consistent with the nature of the crime and was so alarming that the operator thought it was a prank call.
Galloway also emphasised all the evidence countering the defence’s claim that Van Breda had had a fit and was in a confused state.
When emergency helpers arrived‚ she said, Van Breda was calm enough to direct them up the stairs and was not unfocused and distraught.
He knew exactly what was going on‚ she said.
Also‚ he had made no attempt to help or comfort his family, despite claiming that, at that point‚ both his siblings [Rudi‚ who died‚ and Marli, who survived] were still alive.
She called Van Breda’s descriptions of his brother Rudi “gurgling” on the bed an afterthought to try to prove that Rudi was able to move so that Van Breda could deny dragging his brother across the floor.
Also‚ instead of calling emergency services first‚ he had tried to get hold of “his 16-year-old girlfriend who was living in a hostel at the time”, even though she could be of no assistance in a life-or-death situation.
Galloway then pointed to the fact there was no indication whatsoever of an outsider to the family “having a motive” to wipe them out‚ or of any indication that they had wanted to remove “valuables” from the home.
She questioned the “fortuitous” diagnosis of a form of epilepsy during the dying days of the defence’s evidence in chief‚ and said the seizure Van Breda had allegedly had on the night of the murders was something he could have fabricated, as there was no witness.
So‚ with no sign of an intruder on the estate‚ no motive for an outsider to kill the Van Breda family members‚ and no blood trails beyond the scene of the crime‚ how could it be, Galloway asked, that this was the work of an unknown intruder in a balaclava as painted in the picture by Van Breda himself?
Galloway led the court through the state’s evidence that Van Breda’s wounds were self-inflicted‚ and said he had more than sufficient time to tamper with the crime scene after the bloody murders.
The case continues.