Rape charge questioned in Kirsten Kluyts case as evidence refutes it

The issue of whether Kristen Kluyts was raped before her murder came under the spotlight as fresh details from her postmortem report emerged in the Alexandra magistrate's court on Tuesday.

The report revealed that she had suffered "no obvious injuries" to her genital area. 

This as the 21-year-old man accused of murdering her, Bafana Mahungela, had taken to the stand in a bid to secure bail. 

Mahungela had earlier told the court that she was naked beneath the sports clothes he "pulled" from her lifeless body after he found her body that fateful Sunday at the Sandton Sports Club.

He was arrested nearly a month after the murder. Her body was found on a path near the sports club when people searched for her after she failed to finish the run.

Kluyts, 34, a teacher at Delta Park High School, was killed during a MyRun event in Parkmore, Sandton, in October.

Mahungela - a  Varsity College student, is charged with premeditated murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances and rape in connection with the murder.

The state is opposing bail.

Mahungela's third day on the stand in his bail bid was characterised mostly by cross-examination from prosecutor Ayanda Bakana as well as re-examination by his own lawyer, advocate Itumeleng Masako.

During that time, the issue of Kluyts' pregnancy came into focus after being initially raised by Bakana during the first day of his cross-examination.

The state shed further light on the matter, confirming that Kluyts was 14 weeks pregnant at the time of her death, hence she was walking rather than running during the event.

The postmortem report revealed that the foetus weighed 54 grams.

Mahungela had previously said he had no knowledge of this as he apparently did not know Kluyts prior to her death.

When Masako returned to re-examine his client, he too delved into the matter as well the contentious issue of Mahungela's whereabouts on Sunday morning.

Mahungela was asked to read pages 2 and 10 of the postmortem report and, reading the latter, the report showed that Kluyts' "pelvic walls [were] intact and showed no abnormalities". 

Page 2 of the report also revealed that Kluyts died at around 10:30am.

The defence tried to use this to indicate differences in the timeline drawn by the state on when Kluyts died.

The state had tried to place Mahungela in Sandton before 8am, while he claimed that he was in the area between 9am-10am.

They relied on images taken of both of Mahungela and Kluyts at the club as well the phone signals picked up by a cellular base station from his phone to show that the duo were in the same place and at the same time.

Hitting back at this attempt, the state said: "The timeline of 7:35am at no stage did the state submit that that is the time the deceased died. That was the time that allegedly, the witness was at the scene.

"And then 8:05am, that was the time when the deceased's [photo] was taken. If I'm not wrong, I think it will be misleading to this court to say that the argument from the side of the state is that the deceased died at 07:35."

Earlier on, Mahungela made more revelations on the crime scene and the way he disposed of her clothes. He revealed that what he apparently saw on the scene led him to believe she was murdered and was dumped there.

He also revealed that he saw light scratches on her body - in contradiction to what he told Bakana previously that all he saw was a scratch on her cheek and a swollen neck.

Magistrate Syta Prinsloo asked him to explain exactly how he "pulled" her clothes from her.

"The shirt, I just [pulled] it from [the bottom] and pulled it up. I was standing on the ... side," he said, before confirming that she had no underwear on beneath her clothing.

While all eyes were on Mahungela as he wrapped up his testimony, the defence and state took centre stage at various points during the bail application as the duo tussled over several issues, including on some of the documents presented in court, the issue of cross-examination and re-examination as well as gestures and references made about each other when objections were raised in court. 

Prinsloo was forced to intervene several times, making various rulings on issues raised and at some point, telling both that the court would not "entertain any attacks on any parties from either parties towards any other parties".

"We're all adult people and we know what the rules are," she said.

The matter was rolled over to Wednesday for closing arguments. 

TimesLIVE