Kotze ‘not accountable for actions’
Psychologist stands by report
CLINICAL psychologist who examined the so-called “Modimolle Monster” Johan Kotze and found him not accountable for his actions says nothing that has emerged at trial has caused her to doubt her report.
“There was nothing in this court case that made me doubt (my report),” Tertia Spangenberg told the Pretoria High Court yesterday.
Prosecutor Retha Meintjes put it to her that Kotze rationally planned the attack on his ex-wife Ina Bonnette.
Kotze is accused of orchestrating the gang-rape of Bonnette and of murdering his stepson, Conrad, 19, in his rented home in Modimolle on January 3, 2012.
At the time, Bonnette was still married to Kotze, but lived in her own flat.
Kotze’s co-accused – Andries Sithole, Pieta Mohlane and Frans Mphaka – are accused of kidnapping, assaulting, repeatedly raping and attempting to murder Bonnette that day.
In her report, Spangenberg found Kotze was not accountable for his actions.
“I am of the opinion that Mr Kotze was not accountable for the alleged actions of which he stands accused,” she said.
“It is my opinion that the combination of Mr Kotze’s narcissistic personality disorder, superimposed on traumatic psychological injuries, combined with an unmanaged, long-standing, major depression and untreated and unresolved acute stress disorder, resulted in a state of psychological dissociation during his alleged criminal acts.”
Spangenberg said yesterday people’s actions in a dissociative state could appear to be rational.
Meintjes said Kotze phoned his landlord prior to the attack and told him not to come home. He also phoned his daughter after the attack and told her a friend, not he, would pick her up.
“It is totally irrational to leave all the evidence (at the crime scene) and a living witness. He also left Conrad’s friend there,” Spangenberg said.
“If you look at this incident, it is totally isolated from what he would normally do.”
Meintjes asked whether his alleged actions during the attack – giving orders to his co-accused and fetching different tools to hurt Bonnette – would change her report.
Spangenberg said it would not. His behaviour was bewildered and irrational.
“I did a very thorough evaluation over a long period of time on Mr Kotze. These findings are based on my professional opinion.”
Earlier she admitted the report was subjective.
Spangenberg initially said the report was not subjective, as Kotze did not know the criteria for dissociation, and had merely answered her questions.
However, Judge Bert Bam put it to her the report was based on what Kotze had told her. She agreed.
Judge Bam asked her when this dissociation started and ended. She said the dissociation would have started during an argument between Kotze and Bonnette on January 3.
Bonnette presented him with the couple’s vibrator and told him to use it on his next wife.
However, Spangenberg could not say with certainty when the dissociation ended.
She testified Kotze appeared to remain dissociated when he was in his car after the attack.
Judge Bam put it to her that Kotze testified he had known he had committed an offence when he left the house.
Spangenberg said Kotze did not tell her this during their evaluation.
Kotze’s case was the first she had done involving diminished capacity.
The trial was postponed to this morning at 9am. – Sapa