“This is now a battle of life and death at that moment so why would the person inflict superficial wounds when they had the possibility of doing serious damage?”
These were the words of expert witness Dr Marianne Tiemensma in the Henri van Breda triple axe murder trial on Tuesday as she stuck with her finding of “self-inflicted” knife wounds under cross-examination.
She also pointed out that defence counsel Piet Botha’s defence strategy was — literally — textbook.
Van Breda looked crestfallen as Tiemensma‚ a clinical forensic expert‚ described wounds that were probably self-inflicted.
Van Breda murder trial – what we know so farOn the morning of January 27‚ 2015‚ news broke of a gruesome triple axe murder at one of the country’s most opulent security estates near Stellenbosch in the Western Cape.
Last week‚ she explained that Van Breda’s cuts and scratches were superficial‚ parallel‚ uniform and in reachable areas. They were also “symmetrical”‚ and showed there was no “movement” when they happened.
In other words‚ the wounds were simply too perfect to have happened in a life-and-death situation.
On Tuesday‚ under cross-examination for the first time in the trial‚ Tiemensma read out of a textbook that revealed the defence counsel’s strategy to dispute her findings.
Fingerprints on axe scrutinised in Van Breda murder trialA blank space. That is what the axe found at the crime scene of the Van Breda triple murder has offered by way of evidence.
It said that advocates often try paint a scenario that would portray “a static confrontation as if the two were standing still” when the wounds were inflicted.
She said this was inconsistent with what Van Breda described in his plea statement.
Botha asked: “What gave you the impression in the plea statement that there was movement?”
Reading directly from Van Breda’s statement‚ Tiemensma said there was “pushing and pulling” as the two men “stepped back and forth”.
Botha asked Tiemensma the same questions four times‚ asking if the solid line followed by small scabs of blood on one cut didn’t show that his 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.”
Botha insisted on a “yes/no” answer‚ until Judge Siraj Desai said: “No‚ Mr Botha‚ she is allowed to qualify her answer.”
Tiemensma continued to do so‚ and would not agree that the three tiny scabs made it untrue that the wounds were not linear or consistent.
The case continues.
Why Henri van Breda's cuts must have been self-inflicted: Expert stands up top cross-examination
“This is now a battle of life and death at that moment so why would the person inflict superficial wounds when they had the possibility of doing serious damage?”
These were the words of expert witness Dr Marianne Tiemensma in the Henri van Breda triple axe murder trial on Tuesday as she stuck with her finding of “self-inflicted” knife wounds under cross-examination.
She also pointed out that defence counsel Piet Botha’s defence strategy was — literally — textbook.
Van Breda looked crestfallen as Tiemensma‚ a clinical forensic expert‚ described wounds that were probably self-inflicted.
Last week‚ she explained that Van Breda’s cuts and scratches were superficial‚ parallel‚ uniform and in reachable areas. They were also “symmetrical”‚ and showed there was no “movement” when they happened.
In other words‚ the wounds were simply too perfect to have happened in a life-and-death situation.
On Tuesday‚ under cross-examination for the first time in the trial‚ Tiemensma read out of a textbook that revealed the defence counsel’s strategy to dispute her findings.
It said that advocates often try paint a scenario that would portray “a static confrontation as if the two were standing still” when the wounds were inflicted.
She said this was inconsistent with what Van Breda described in his plea statement.
Botha asked: “What gave you the impression in the plea statement that there was movement?”
Reading directly from Van Breda’s statement‚ Tiemensma said there was “pushing and pulling” as the two men “stepped back and forth”.
Botha asked Tiemensma the same questions four times‚ asking if the solid line followed by small scabs of blood on one cut didn’t show that his 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.”
Botha insisted on a “yes/no” answer‚ until Judge Siraj Desai said: “No‚ Mr Botha‚ she is allowed to qualify her answer.”
Tiemensma continued to do so‚ and would not agree that the three tiny scabs made it untrue that the wounds were not linear or consistent.
The case continues.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos