Hair analysis ‘not the same as DNA’

DEFENCE lawyer Pieter Botha has pointed out the discrepancies in the testimony of Colonel Henry Stewart, a forensic analyst from police who specialises in hair analysis, on day 11 of the Henri van Breda trial at the Western Cape High Court.

Stewart, who was also trained by the United States’ Federal Bureau of Investigation, gave evidence relating to the hair that was delivered for him to examine from the Van Breda crime scene.

Stewart explained that hair cannot be used to identify connections in a case, the same way as DNA is used. Hair evidence is typically used in conjunction with other evidence, not as primary or sole evidence.

Stewart added that familial hair does not bear the same connection as DNA and that, while there can be resemblances, that is not always the case.

Henri stands accused of the murders of his brother Rudi, father Martin, and mother Teresa. He also stands accused of the attempted murder of his sister, Marli.

During the day it was revealed there was evidence showing Marli van Breda having hair within her grasp. Stewart had said that the hair in her grasp had initially resembled the reference evidence which matched Henri van Breda.

However, during cross-examination Botha questioned this, asking Stewart about the hair length, and noting the delay in which a hair sample was collected from Marli and Henri.

In the photo evidence that Botha submitted, it shows 2 long strands of blonde hair estimated at more than 10cm long, which Botha revealed came from both of Marli’s hands.

Botha then showed a photo of Henri at the time of the incident, saying Henri’s hair was no longer than 3cm at the time. Stewart agreed that the hair in the photograph does not look like Henri’s hair but if microscopically analysed it could show something different.

Botha also highlighted discrepancies in the evidence of the hair that was recorded and that which was delivered to Stewart.

Botha pointed out hair was not part of samples taken by the doctor who treated Marli van Breda, according to his original report, but there was an added hand-written note. Botha said it was unclear by whom the note was added.

The defence questioned Stewart about not knowing whose hair he was analysing, as he stated that he only received the evidence as a number and not with names attached. Stewart had said that he only became aware of whose hair he had analysed when he had been subpoenaed to testify in the trial.

While testifying, Stewart was criticised for not indicating that some hair from the scene did not correspond with family samples provided. The trial will continue today with defence continuing its cross-examination of Stewart.