The Van Breda triple-murder case has vibrated with emotion, but over the past 30 days in court the brilliant analytical minds of three women have moved it from the sensation of bloody murder to the cold hard facts of science.
This week it was ballistics expert Captain Candice Brown sharing her understanding of the night at De Zalze estate in Stellenbosch when Henri van Breda is alleged to have killed his parents and brother.
Brown described in detail the process of crime-scene examination, reconstruction and photography.
She recorded 10 pieces of evidence and then began the intricate process of matching impact marks on walls to debris found on the floor or to the edge of the axe that was allegedly used in the murders.At one point Matthys Combrink, for the defence, asked if "the two dainty feet" in one evidence photograph belonged to Brown.
Judge Siraj Desai asked: "Why do you mention that her feet are dainty?"
Combrink said: "Well, simply because when we see men's feet in the same protective covers, they look like elephant feet."
Brown, undeterred by this or by Combrink 's accusations that she was engaged in "thumb-suck", kept her feet firmly in the realm of science.
She calmly took him through Newton's laws of motion and the data she had recorded, and reminded him of her 14 years in the ballistics field.
Before Brown, Dr Daphne Anthony, the forensic pathologist who performed autopsies on the bodies of Martin, Teresa and Rudivan Breda, had taken the stand.
Her detailed report froze grim moments in time — from brother Rudi "raising his hand in an attempt to fend off" his attacker and mother Teresa "falling on her face" as she tried to escape, to father Martin "being unaware of his attacker, who came up from behind".
The evidence she provided from the autopsies left little for the defence to dispute.
By far the most gruelling two days in the witness stand were experienced by Dr Marianne Tiemensma, a forensic pathologist who had been asked to analyse whether Henri van Breda's wounds were self-inflicted.
She mapped out Van Breda's cuts and scratches and concluded they were "most likely self-inflicted".She described in detail the nature of the wounds, which were "superficial, parallel, uniform, and in reachable areas".
They were also "symmetrical" and showed there had been "no movement" when they were made.
Under intense cross-examination by defence counsel Piet Botha, Tiemensma stood her ground, repeatedly saying: "No, I do not agree with that."
She was particularly critical of Botha's description of what the defence claims was a scuffle between an attacker and Van Breda, which she said had them "standing dead still".
She read out of a textbook that said advocates often inadvertently portrayed "a static confrontation, as if the two were standing still".
"What gave you the impression there was movement?" asked Botha.
Reading directly from Van Breda's statement, she said it described "pushing and pulling" as the two men "stepped back and forth".
Botha also asked Tiemensma four times if scabs near Van Breda's cuts in fact showed that the wounds were not "uniform".
She responded each time: "That simply shows how superficial they are. In places the knife did not even break the skin."
The trial is set to resume on August 7...