No fingerprints found on axe handle
Henri van Breda said in plea explanation he grasped weapon
HENRI van Breda revealed in his plea explanation that he had grasped the axe which had been used to kill his family. However, according to Sergeant Jonathan Oliphant – who collected fingerprints from the scene – there was none found on the handle.
This was revealed in the Western Cape High Court on day 14 of his murder trial.
Oliphant, who works for the SAPS Criminal Record Centre, revealed that 53 prints had been found at the house, but not all were usable – these are prints from which it is possible to make an identification.
He said the prints of the Van Breda family, their two domestic workers, a gardener and Marli van Breda’s ex-boyfriend, James Reade-Jahn, had been identified.
He also gave evidence that Henri’s right thumbprint had been found 15cm from the tip of the blade.
During cross-examination by the defence, it was revealed there were unidentified prints on the patio door of Henri’s room and on a bathroom door frame.
Oliphant said they didn’t necessarily belong to an intruder but could be those of a visitor. He said that besides Henri’s print on the blade, there were two others, which were unidentifiable.
Earlier, Oliphant said he had checked the boundary wall of the house four times for prints, with the naked eye, under a special light and using chemicals, but had found no prints or proof of activity.
Defence lawyer Pieter Botha asked him if it was possible that someone wearing gloves would not leave marks or prints. Oliphant replied it was possible.
Judge Siraj Desai queried the lack of fingerprints on the axe handle. Oliphant said it could be because it had been wiped down or because gloves had been worn.
Dr Marianne Tiemensma, a forensic pathologist at Victoria Hospital in Wynberg, was called to comment on the method and manner of Henri’s injuries.
State lawyer Susan Galloway asked Tiemensma to read her report. It was revealed his wounds on his legs, forearms and chest were “superficial, minor, non-fatal and in keeping with what is consistent of self-inflicted wounds”.
Tiemensma said the wounds on Henri’s face and back were unlikely to have been self-inflicted, but could have been.
A heated discussion ensued as Galloway was about to ask about the scene, when Botha objected and stated he had told the state lawyer he had wanted his pathologist present during Tiemensma’s testimony.
Galloway said it revealed that Tiemensma had a busy schedule and that Botha had said his pathologist would only be available next Tuesday. Judge Desai listened to their arguments and gave the lawyers a 20-minute break to find a solution.
It was decided Tiemensma would stand down and return on Tuesday.
Court was adjourned until Monday.