If the fit fits... Van Breda prosecutor slams defence's last gasp

If Henri van Breda had an epileptic fit and passed out on the stairs for nearly three hours‚ why did he not mention this to any doctor he saw after the attack in which three family members were axed to death?

And why is his version of events fragmented to suggest memory loss when it suits the diagnosis‚ even though he provided significant detail when he was in the witness stand before the diagnosis came along?

These are the questions posed by the state on Tuesday in the 62-day-old triple axe murder trial at the High Court in Cape Town.

Prosecutor Susan Galloway was testing the theory that Van Breda was malingering — feigning an illness or medical incident with ulterior motives — and questioned why he had not mentioned any symptoms of epilepsy before.

“Not only is his first seizure his biggest one ever‚ but he doesn’t tell anybody‚” she said. “The only medical history is provided by the accused himself‚ and there is nothing on record before 8 November this year. When he testified‚ he was asked if he had had any similar episodes before and he said no.”

Dr James Butler‚ a neurologist from Constantiaberg MediClinic who has been testifying on Van Breda’s behalf since Monday‚ responded: “If he was malingering‚ he would draw attention to it and say that the same types of fits had happened before.”

But Judge Siraj Desai said: “The loss of consciousness was particularly prolonged with this alleged seizure.”

And Galloway told Butler: “The same source who gave you fragmented information that suggested memory loss in the court testified in a way that suggested a lot less evidence of memory loss.

“None of us can be certain about what was and what wasn't memory loss — we can only go on what he has told us. If the source of information [Van Breda] gives different information on what he remembers‚ then we cannot trust that source as being reliable.”

Butler conceded that “it is possible he [Van Breda] is malingering”‚ but that one could be swayed by other evidence.

Galloway said that was exactly why the reliability of the source was crucial.

Butler said someone in a post-seizure state would not be thinking properly and would be “dulled” — which is why his manner on the phone to emergency services seemed so uncharacteristic of someone in a desperate situation.

But Galloway pointed out that Van Breda had given detailed reasons for his manner on the phone‚ citing his Australian accent which was often misunderstood‚ the fact that he stutters when he is stressed‚ and that he has a “tendency to mumble”.

She added that he gave full details of sitting at the counter in the kitchen smoking three cigarettes to calm himself down.

“He was at great pains to explain why he spoke so slowly and clearly‚” said Galloway. “This is quite a different picture from someone who is on the phone but is not functioning properly because he is recovering from a seizure.”

Butler responded that people who behave inappropriately after a seizure later “justify” why they behaved like that.

But Desai said: “These justifications were being made a full 18 months after the incident.”

The case continues.