Van Breda murder trial: Blood splatter expert's cross examination

The state has repeatedly argued axe murder accused Henri van Breda’s wounds were self-inflicted which explains why they are so superficial.

It also came to light last week that there is no flow pattern – indicating that he was standing very still -and not in a scuffle with anyone - when those wounds were made.

On Monday in the Cape Town High Court‚ the defence argued that the very superficial nature of those wounds explained why there was no significant flow pattern.

Van Breda’s defence counsel‚ Piet Botha‚ said to SAPS blood spatter expert Captain Marius Joubert under cross examination: “What we see here in the photographs is that it didn’t bleed a lot.”

But‚ he added‚ that of what was visible‚ he could see a “slight zig zag pattern”‚ but Joubert said that was merely caused by the blood “drying and flaking off” rather than by any vigorous movement one would expect in a scuffle.

Botha also said there “appears to be a slight deviation to the left” but Joubert said this was due to “pooling of blood” rather than movement‚ and added that Van Breda’s statement that he “ran after his attacker‚ fell on staircase and fainted” would have caused his torso to move and create much more flow pattern than what could be seen.

Botha also readdressed the issue of when Rudi Van Breda died.

Last week in court‚ Joubert argued that Rudi died on his bed and was possibly dragged to where he was ultimately found – by the door of the en-suite bathroom.

Botha had argued that Rudi lived for two hours and forty minutes after being attacked‚ and could have dragged himself to the bathroom door.

Botha questioned why the flow patterns of blood near Rudi’s hairline flow in two different directions if he didn’t move significantly after the attack‚ but Joubert said this was likely due to movements he made during the actual attack rather than after.

“Those were likely due to movement of his head during multiple blows‚” he said.

Botha also addressed the issue from Joubert’s report of blood smears against the wall caused by Rudi’s head.

Botha argued: “If Rudi was already dead‚ someone would have had to push his head against the wall. In order to do that‚ my client would have had to be standing in that pool of blood in his socks. I want to argue that it would have been impossible to push a dead person’s head like that without stepping into the blood stain – they simply would have been too far away.”

He questioned why there was then no blood found underneath his client’s socks.

But Joubert still argued Van Breda had possibly dragged his dead brother and a duvet to the bathroom door.

He said he could not explain the lack of blood under the socks but that several possibilities would need to be analysed‚ and that “blood stains on Rudi’s lower legs” suggested he could have been “dragged by his feet” after he died.

Last week‚ when Botha asked why his client would have dragged his dead brother across the floor‚ Joubert said he was not a behavioural analyst but believed it was “in anger”.

Botha questioned how he came to this‚ and Joubert replied that he had been to thousands of crime scenes over 24 years and that it was his experience which led him to the opinion that Rudi had been dragged in anger.

Van Breda is accused of axing his parents and brother to death‚ seriously injuring his sister Marli‚ and defeating the ends of justice.

The case continues.