Cape Town - Johannes Christiaan de Jager raped, abused, and strangled a prostitute, the State told the Western Cape High Court on Wednesday.
In closing argument, prosecutor Romay van Rooyen said the evidence and circumstances surrounding 18-year-old Hiltina
Alexander's death could only lead to that conclusion.
“The only inference the court can draw is that the accused was alone with the deceased in that period and had sexual intercourse without her consent.
“He had beaten her and he was the one who strangled her with a ligature as well as manually.”
De Jager, 49, has pleaded not guilty to killing Alexander in Cape Town in May 2008.
Van Rooyen said a pathologist had testified that a post mortem revealed evidence of forceful vaginal and anal penetration.
Alexander's body had scratch marks and it seemed as though she had twisted her body from side to side to get away.
The pathologist also found blunt trauma to the eyes and believed something had been tied around her neck and then pulled tight.
De Jager, dressed in a tracksuit top and jeans, stared at the floor without emotion as the State put its case to the court.
Van Rooyen said the testimonies of each State witness fitted together like the pieces of a puzzle.
She said the brothers Colin and McNeil Jacobs corroborated each other in recalling the last night they saw their friend Alexander get into a bakkie with De Jager in Parow.
Both had seen Alexander gesturing with her hand that she would return to them.
The various police officers had testified in unison that De Jager offered a man called Johan as an alibi but he had never materialised.
The State had also presented evidence that De Jager's DNA was found on swabs from under Alexander's fingernails.
Van Rooyen said De Jager had failed to logically explain why an earring said to belong to the prostitute was found under the mat of his bakkie.
De Jager had claimed he was at a Voortrekker camp in Franschhoek the weekend of May 16 to May 18 and that the earring belonged to a child who attended.
“He did not find out from the children the entire weekend as to who the earring belonged to,” Van Rooyen said.
The court should draw an adverse inference from the fact that De Jager had not made any reference in his warning statement to being with Alexander during that period.
This was despite him later admitting that he had picked Alexander up in his bakkie and taken her to “Johan's” flat.
De Jager had also not been helpful during cross-examination.
“He was a very combative witness, he evades questions, and it took the State a long time to get answers from the accused.”
Sapa