State rattles Van Breda seizure defence

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, even though he provided significant detail on the witness stand before the epilepsy diagnosis came along?

These were the questions posed by the state on Tuesday in the 62-day-old triple axe murder trial.

Prosecutor Susan Galloway tested the theory that Van Breda was feigning an illness 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 and there is nothing on record before November 8. When he testified he was asked if he had any similar episodes before and he said no."

Neurologist Dr James Butler, who has been testifying in Van Breda's defence 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, had testified in court 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 gives different information on what he remembers, then we cannot trust that source."

Butler conceded "it is possible he is malingering", but one could be swayed by other evidence.

He also 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 gave detailed reasons for his manner on the phone, citing his Australian accent, which was often misunderstood, the fact that he stuttered when he was stressed, and that he had a "tendency to mumble".

She added that Van Breda 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.