Van Breda leaves trail of riddles in witness box

Almost 60 days in‚ the triple axe murder trial of Henri van Breda has taken many twists and turns — but none quite as fascinating as the last few in which the accused‚ seemingly against the advice of his legal team‚ stepped into the witness box and out again‚ leaving a trail of unanswered questions in his wake.

However much the public might want to hear from them‚ defendants in any trial are often dissuaded by their legal teams from testifying.

As University of Cape Town senior law lecturer Kelly Phelps puts it: “A skilled cross-examiner can very easily unnerve an accused person‚ and often the emotion of the occasion or personality traits will lead to a negative performance irrespective of guilt or innocence.”

But Van Breda‚ who turned 23 while he was in the witness box in court 2 at the High Court in Cape Town‚ wanted to have his say.

After calling all his witnesses‚ defence counsel Piet Botha told Judge Siraj Desai: “I have no further witnesses to call but my client wishes to testify.”

This was only partly surprising: Botha had said a few weeks earlier that Van Breda would testify. Then it came to light he still wanted to but only after the defence had called its expert witnesses.

This is a break from the norm‚ and his team was about to put in an application requesting permission for this unusual order of proceedings. But when it became clear it would fail‚ the application was abandoned.

Botha said Van Breda was not going to testify but would “reserve his right” to do so later despite the “inferences” the court might draw from his choice to testify after the other witnesses.

On cue‚ he came back to exercise that right‚ but not before Botha asked that the live-streaming cameras be turned off in case his client’s alleged debilitating stutter be exacerbated due to the stress of being filmed.

Desai refused permission‚ so when Van Breda stepped into the box on November 4‚ it was in the wake of a legal chess game.

With a massive jail sentence possibly awaiting him‚ the stakes were now even higher: would the cameras reduce him to a dithering wreck?

Would his testimony be an obvious attempt to bolster what the defence witnesses had said?

Would the yawning gaps between the state’s version of what happened‚ and Van Breda’s own‚ unnerve him in the box?

And‚ most importantly‚ would he incriminate or exonerate himself from the mind-boggling accusation that he savagely attacked four of his own family members‚ leaving three dead and one with retrograde amnesia?

On the question of the alleged stutter‚ the cameras did not exacerbate any such impediment. In fact‚ said prosecutor Susan Galloway‚ “there was no sign of a stutter at all”. Quite the opposite‚ in fact: Van Breda cut a lonely figure in the stand but was unflinching in his ability to articulate himself.

Save for two occasions where he lost his cool for a moment‚ he delivered technical details‚ opinions and elements of a narrative — possibly fabricated in its entirety — without faltering.

Any contradictions between his initial plea statement and his testimony in court were met with stock answers delivered with ease: “My memory fails me on the details” or‚ “When Colonel Deon Beneke took down my statement‚ he did not write it in my own words.”

A multitude of “mistranslations”‚ he claims‚ explain away the discrepancies in his different stories.

But Galloway was having none of it‚ accusing him of having a “selective memory”‚ “tailoring his story” to previous testimonies‚ and editing his timeline to fit a fake narrative.

He said he did not know how he got a bump on his head but that it might have been from a fall that left him unconscious. Galloway said the bump was from sister Marli putting up a fight against him‚ as referenced by defensive wounds on her hand which were consistent with having punched someone.

Galloway said there was no loss of consciousness — let alone for almost three hours (as claimed by him) — and that the bump was now conveniently being touted as evidence of a fall down the stairs‚ even though his other wounds were on his back. And she said he made no mention of losing consciousness to the doctor who examined him on the day of the murders.

Galloway questioned why Sasha‚ the family dog‚ left no bloody paw prints and did not bark when alleged strangers came into the family home and created a bloodbath.

Van Breda calmly testified to Sasha’s character — a dog that “barked at familiar sounds like a phone ringing” but not at unfamiliar noises such as “strangers coming into the house”.

Brother Rudi‚ whom Van Breda said in his plea statement was “just lying there” after the attack‚ in court became a one-stop shop to explain away other contradictions.

It came to light that Van Breda might have dragged his dead brother towards the bathroom. But now‚ instead of “just lying there”‚ Van Breda had him gurgling and flailing around: this meant he could have dragged himself across the floor; it meant he could have been the one who pushed the knife used in Van Breda’s alleged scuffle with his attacker under the bed; and he could be the one who moved a bloody duvet off the bed.

In a voice drenched in sarcasm‚ Galloway pointed out that the duvet hardly looked like it had been desperately pulled by someone in their dying throes. It was‚ instead‚ neatly rolled up on top of the knife.

What of the blood in the shower in the bathroom where Rudi had possibly been dragged by his brother? “That could be blood from me shaving‚” said Van Breda.

Why had he not been angered by the attack on his family and gone to their rescue? “I was too scared to help‚” he said‚ adding that the “anger only came with hindsight”.

How come he only noticed his own “patch of blood” on the stairs after coming to after his alleged loss of consciousness when the entire staircase was full of other blood? Because this blood was at his eye-level‚ he said.

Why did he first claim he watched the brutal attack on his father and brother from a slightly open bathroom door‚ then say he was in the bedroom after the blood spatter expert detailed blood sprayed on his shorts? This was because of the “wrong wording” inscribed by Beneke.

Why had he not helped his family when they were under attack or when they were left for dead by someone who clearly hadn’t held back?

On Monday‚ a psychologist will appear in court to explain that there is no “typical” way of responding to a situation like this.