Kimberley - A drained Gideon Thiart and teary Mercia van Deventer were found guilty of murder by the Northern Cape High Court on Friday.
Judge Johan Olivier delivered his judgement in the trial which kicked off in De Aar and then moved to the high court in Kimberley this year.
The two were accused of killing Mercia’s husband, Gert van Deventer, with the help of Willem du Toit.
Gert’s body was found inside his truck in Hanover on September 5 2013. Du Toit is currently serving a 22-year prison sentence after he confessed to stabbing Gert with a knife on the orders of Mercia and the father of her children, Thiart.
The court heard testimony from witnesses who said that Mercia and Thiart wanted to rekindle their relationship after a 15-year separation but Gert, however, did not want to grant his wife a divorce.
Mercia, during her cross-examination, denied that there was a loving and sexual relationship between herself and Thiart. She said they only had sexual intercourse once after the death of her husband.
Olivier, after meticulously going through the evidence, said there was enough evidence to prove otherwise.
“The daughter of both the accused, Liza, said that accused one (Thiart) used to sleep with accused two (Mercia) when the deceased was away. There was also the testimony from Liza’s boyfriend, Christo Visser, who said he once walked in on both accused and they were naked. There were also the photos on the cellphone of accused one, where they are wearing the same clothing and holding each other. That is an indication that there was a loving relationship between them.
“Accused two denied such a relationship but the testimonies of both Liza and Visser were never disputed during their cross-examination.
“The extent of the communication between the accused – by means of cellphone calls and messages, including WhatsApp and MXit – by far exceed the number of calls and messages between accused two and her own husband. It was clearly not the type of contact that one would expect two people in a platonic relationship to have. Accused two did at first say that the calls and messages were for the children but later had to tell the truth and said they were for her,” Olivier said.
Olivier said that it was also clear that the two had planned to kill Gert.
“Accused two admitted that the deceased had an affair with a female colleague and that was the reason she did not attend his memorial service, which was organised by the employers of the deceased.
“When accused one came to stay with the family of the deceased, accused two said that the deceased was not angry about accused one staying there, but that the deceased was also not pleased with the idea. Du Toit told the court that there was a verbal fight between the deceased and accused one. According to Du Toit, accused one told the deceased that he would do anything to get his wife and children back. The deceased then said that he would shoot accused one, Mercia and himself. That is an indication that the deceased was not willing to divorce accused two. Both the accused, however, carried on after the murder as if the deceased never existed.
“Accused one simply occupied the space of the deceased . . . accused two accompanied accused one on trips, like she did with her deceased husband.
“Accused one had access to the house of the deceased and also to his car and was now ‘one family’ with his wife and children. This is an indication that they benefitted from the death of the deceased.”
Olivier said that Thiart and Mercia used Du Toit to commit the crime.
According to the testimony of Du Toit, he was promised a place to stay, food and the accused’s daughter, Liza, should he kill Gert.
“Du Toit did not make a bad impression as a witness. He admitted from the start that he was a liar as well as a drug and alcohol abuser. The sequence of how he said the events unfolded were supported by the evidence of other witnesses.
“It was undisputed that accused one met Du Toit on August 26 2013 when he was hitchhiking in Port Elizabeth. It is common knowledge that Du Toit told him about his parents being dead, which was untrue. The truth was later revealed that his parents did not want to be associated with him. Accused one then, after meeting Du Toit, took him along on trips for work, although it was against the rules of the company. Accused one at a stage introduced Du Toit to accused two and the rest of the household, including the deceased.
“Du Toit said during a trip to George that accused one asked him if he had ever killed someone. According to Du Toit, accused one told him that he wanted to kill the deceased and asked if Du Toit would help him. He further said that later that night he saw Liza and found her attractive. He was introduced to her the next day. During the next trip, accused one again asked him if he would help him kill the deceased and he agreed.
“There were several occasions when Du Toit was supposed to do the deed. There was the time where he was supposed to kill the deceased with the spade. He, however, could not do it. The evidence of the spade was supported by the testimonies of Liza and accused two. Accused two told the court that she had to go fetch Du Toit in Caledon and accused one told her to show Du Toit where the spade was kept. Liza also said that her mother told her while on the way that they were going to fetch Du Toit so he could kill her stepfather by chopping off his head with a spade.
“There was also an incident where Du Toit said that accused one told him about how to kill someone using fishing line. That evidence was also supported by Liza, who said that her father once told her how to strangle someone using fishing line. Even testimony by accused two whereby she said she saw accused one in the bedroom of the deceased with fishing line also supports that evidence.
“There was also the time that Du Toit said he was supposed to kill the deceased at the depot in Kroonstad. He said that he was unable to do it and made up a story for accused one about the security. Du Toit said accused one became very angry and said that he would do it himself, but that they were unable to find the deceased at the depot. This testimony was again supported by the testimony of accused two, who said that accused one called her, wanting directions to the depot where the deceased was.”
Olivier said that the actions of the accused showed that they had planned the murder.
“Both accused were weak witnesses. Their testimonies were littered with long silences and they did not hesitate to adjust their testimonies.
“Accused one had originally denied there was a loving relationship between the two of them but he later confessed to it. After the incident he also tried to distance himself from Du Toit. Accused one first said the number of calls and messages to accused two was in order for them to discuss the children but later admitted that the children were not the only basis of their conversations. He said he could not think why Liza and Visser would come up with a story about the fishing line. Accused one also never told the police when he accompanied accused two to the post-mortem that he knew Du Toit.
“Accused two did everything in order to get Du Toit to the deceased. She was the one who transported Du Toit to the deceased and even made up lies in order to get him on the truck of the deceased the day of the incident. She also provided Du Toit with a knife from her home to kill the deceased.
“She even knew that Du Toit needed alcohol in order to commit the crime and she provided him with that. Accused two also never told the police that it was Du Toit who was in the truck with the deceased . . . she even told the employers of the deceased that she had no idea who the person was who was in the truck with the deceased,” Olivier said.
The case has been postponed for sentencing.
Diamond Fields Advertiser