Suicide or murder? That was the question which dominated the proceedings on Tuesday in the Pretoria High Court where a Polokwane woman is accused of murdering her “beloved fiancé”.
Is it possible that the third and fatal wound suffered by businessman Bokkie Grundlingh was self-inflicted, and what should be made of the fact that his “suicide note”, placed next to pictures of his children and parents at the scene of the killing, did not have a drop of blood on it, while the pictures depicted blood splattering?
These were some of the pertinent questions posed by Pretoria High Court Judge Mahomed Ismail during final arguments in the murder trial of Yvonne Beetge. It is claimed that she murdered her fiancé at their Polokwane home in November 2008.
Beetge maintained that Grundlingh committed suicide and that she tried to prevent him from shooting himself.
She said he placed the pictures of his parents and his children on the ground next to the bedside table and fetched a suicide letter from the safe, which he read to her.
He then got hold of his firearm, but she, in an attempt to take it away from him, placed her hand on his. A shot went off, which hit him in the side. Then, with her hand still on his, he lifted the firearm to the side of his head.
Beetge said she was terrified by then and had closed her eyes. She heard two shots.
But according to the State’s ballistics expert, the third shot, apparently fired from the top of his head, could not have been self-inflicted.
He said it was impossible, while it was possible that the other two shots could have been part of a suicide attempt.
This point resulted in a vigorous argument, which continued to late on Tuesday afternoon, between the defence and the judge. The judge said he would “now” acquit Beetge if he could be convinced that it was possible for Grundlingh to have inflicted the third and fatal wound on himself. This was because it was only her word regarding the events of that night when the man died.
Grundlingh suffered a wound to the top of his head and another to the left side of his neck. It could not be clearly established which was the entry and which the exit wound, and what the path of the projectile was.
The State’s expert was of the opinion that the head wound was the entry and the neck the exit, but the defence argued that this was not proved and that it was possible that the neck wound was the entry wound.
The court was told that if the projectile had not merely damaged the tissue, but shattered a bone, it could have been established which wound was which.
The judge questioned Beetge’s explanation that the gun was on the right side next to Grundlingh’s head (and not on the top) when the last two shots went off, yet there was a wound on the top of his head and another on the left side of his neck.
He compared her version with the murder of JF Kennedy – it was said a bullet hit his knee, but the projectile then moved to his brain.
Judge Ismail said Beetge’s explanation defied the laws of physics, unless “the bullet made a U-turn”. He said: “Bullets do not make U-turns.”
He further questioned why the “suicide note” remained without a spot of blood, while it was found next to the pictures on the ground, which indeed had blood splattering on them.
Another mystery, he said, was the spelling errors on the typed suicide note.
According to Grundlingh’s house doctor, he had an exceptional writing ability and would not make such mistakes.
The judge told the defence: “I will let your client walk if you can give me reasonable doubt.”
Karin Alheit, however, fought tooth and nail for her client, saying that her version could very well be true and the court should accept it was suicide.
Judgment is expected in February next year. - Pretoria News