Killer hubby’s Facebook mind games
Social media insisted he was innocent, the judge felt otherwise
● For almost four years, convicted wife killer George Barkhuizen proclaimed his innocence during his criminal trial, even using social media to try to sway public opinion.
His Facebook page was often used for blanket denials, stating categorically that he had nothing to do with the killing of his wife, Odette, who was shot outside her Moffat View, Johannesburg, offices in 2015, a month after he had taken out three multimillionrand insurance policies on her life.
Then, in November 2017, a new Facebook group appeared, “11062015 truth before and after”, with Barkhuizen proclaiming a group of “legal students” had started the page, taking up the banner of finding the truth behind Odette’s killing.
The page — named for the date of Odette’s death — was filled with dozens of posts detailing the state and defence cases, providing timelines, chronologies and analyses that all seemed to favour Barkhuizen’s version of events.
But following a data dump by forensic consultant and investigator Paul O’Sullivan, who initially assisted with the police investigation into the murder, it appears the page was run exclusively by Barkhuizen himself.
This was the wife killer who, when sentenced to life imprisonment by the Johannesburg high court on Friday, was described by the presiding judge as a manipulative, arrogant narcissist motivated by greed and a bloated sense of his own capabilities.
While Barkhuizen’s behaviour in court was chastised by judge Ramarumo Monama, throughout the criminal trial he repeatedly told journalists that he was innocent, often taking to his Facebook profile to wax lyrical about how he had been hard done by.
On Odette’s birthday in 2018, he took to his Facebook page to say: “Happy birthday my angel. It won’t be long now. The people who have done this to you and I, the ones who have lied and continue to do so.” Online, he repeatedly acknowledged the “students” for covering the matter on the 11062015 page, though throughout the trial the court gallery was usually only filled with Odette’s relatives.
On February 24 this year, while on bail, Barkhuizen posted to his own Facebook account: “I’ve been told that these students have resumed the reporting of what has happened from the beginning to date in the one cases (sic) I’ve been charged with. It makes for good reading.”
On April 9, a post on the group said the students were unable to attend proceedings because “we were a victim of a hijacking this morning”. Yet as judgment approached, the students once again reappeared, claiming they would provide insight into why they had chosen to follow the case, and that the media had been misreporting the matter.
O’Sullivan told the Sunday Times he had “forensically proven” Barkhuizen was the author of the content on the page. The data dump he provided showed that the Microsoft Word documents posted on the page had seemingly been authored by Barkhuizen.
Lawyer Rudi Krause said that when he consulted with his client about the page — following a letter from O’Sullivan making the claims — Barkhuizen had denied any involvement.
Since Barkhuizen was convicted of fraud and murder last week and his access to Facebook revoked, the “legal students” also stopped making updates.
But Barkhuizen’s behaviour, and even a few suggested neuroses, were at the centre of Monama’s judgment.
The judge seemed perturbed by Barkhuizen’s actions shortly after Odette’s death, namely coming home and hugging their then teenage son and saying their financial woes were over. Wade, now 21, later testified against his father, claiming he was certain he was responsible for the murder.
Monama also referred to an incident that happened in front of him in court, when Barkhuizen made a threatening signal — putting his finger to his throat — at his fatherin-law, Stan Immelman.
The judge said Barkhuizen suffered from the Dunning-Kruger effect — an “arrogant” man who had a bloated sense of self-confidence in his abilities to cover up the crime, when in fact it was plain to see that he had murdered his wife for the millions in insurance money.
In evidence during sentencing proceedings, Odette’s mother, Pam Immelman, said Barkhuizen had never paid a cent in maintenance to Wade or his other son, Wally, 27.
Financially, she told the court, her family had been ruined, and emotionally they were still struggling to cope with Odette’s death.
Odette’s brother, Shane Immelman, told the Sunday Times: “It’s been four years and you know what? We’ve never mourned properly. We had the funeral, but with the court proceedings you never had that closure.
“We’re overjoyed that the truth has come out, but I’ll never see my sister again.”
Barkhuizen has indicated he will appeal against his conviction and sentence.