In his most gruelling day yet on the witness stand‚ Henri van Breda faced some extremely tough questions from state prosecutor Susan Galloway on Monday.

Appearing not quite as unshakable as he did last week‚ van Breda – who stands accused of killing his parents‚ Martin and Teresa‚ and his brother‚ Rudi‚ and the attempted murder of his sister‚ Marli – has tried to explain away five discrepancies in his story.

1. Was Rudi just “lying there” or moving around violently? There are two different versions:

In his plea statement‚ van Breda's only reference to Rudi had him “just lying there” with‚ no further reference to him or his movements.

But‚ Galloway pointed out‚ then in court he said Rudi was “gurgling” and “moving around violently”.

This‚ she put to him‚ is “an afterthought‚ since it was Captain Joubert's opinion that Rudi might have been handled on the scene” [moved off the bed towards the door between the bathroom and the bedroom].

As she did last week‚ Galloway accused van Breda of retrofitting his version of events to fit the evidence already presented in court. If Rudi was incapacitated or deceased‚ he would have not have been able to move himself off the bed‚ and there is no space in the timeline given in the plea statement that would have allowed the alleged attacker to do it before fleeing.

This would mean van Breda himself had done it.

2. The emotionless call to emergency services:

Van Breda testified in court that he had ignored the medical emergency numbers listed on the fridge‚ as he felt they would “not have been of assistance” after the attack‚ when he was in a rush to get help.

Instead‚ he called regular emergency services.

But‚ asked Galloway‚ why would someone needing help in such a rush not get frustrated when the regular emergency services call was so drawn out?

“During this whole conversation you remained calm and tried to assist her in actually pinpointing your location. You didn't use the numbers on the fridge because of the delay‚ but how come you [didn’t] get frustrated when they [took so] long to react?” she asked.

Van Breda responded that he did get frustrated‚ but “suppressed those feelings of frustration”‚ since the delay was caused by a technical issue and not “incompetence”.

“Mr van Breda‚ you verbalise certain emotions [now] but… [at the time]‚ remained so calm that the operator flagged her supervisor to listen in on a call. She thought was a prank‚” Galloway challenged him.

3. The calls to Bianca:

Van Breda also attempted several calls to his girlfriend from his cellphone while he was on the phone to emergency services.

Galloway asserted: “On the one side‚ you tell the court you didn't think the numbers on the fridge would be of assistance for quick help – or even ask the neighbours for help. Yet you [called] Bianca. What could she do to help? A minor schoolgirl residing in a hostel?”

He responded: “She was pretty much my only friend at the time.”

4. Why didn't he mention Rudi‚ if he now claims he was still alive during the call?

“You said you saw Marli move‚ and that Rudi was making gurgling sounds‚” Galloway pointed out‚ “but why did you not tell Philander that two family members were still alive?”

Van Breda said he assumed they would come to try and save the lives of “all family members”.

But Galloway was not swayed. “You took the trouble of telling them your sister was still alive‚ but [made] no mention of brother Rudi‚ whom you now claim was gurgling and moving around violently from his injuries?”

Earlier in the day‚ van Breda had said that he sat in the kitchen smoking three cigarettes between dialling the emergency services and their arrival.

Judge Siraj Desai then asked why he had not rather tried to help his family members while waiting.

5. Noticing only one patch of blood on the stairs

Galloway asked van Breda if he could confirm that “when he came to”‚ after the alleged loss of consciousness‚ he noticed a “dry patch of blood on the stairs”.

He confirmed this.

Galloway then pointed out that it was strange he should notice that specific spot of blood‚ but not all the other blood on the floor in the wake of the brutal attacks.

“You are able to observe one blood spot‚ and match it to where your alleged stab wound must have [taken place]. Then how come you didn't notice other blood spots on the steps?” she asked‚ adding that this “remembrance of the blood spot” was an “afterthought to prove loss of consciousness”‚ which she does not believe happened.