I don’t know why, teen tells court

The investigating officer, Colonel Dirk de Waal, looks at one of the crime-scene photographs. Picture: Danie Van der Lith

The investigating officer, Colonel Dirk de Waal, looks at one of the crime-scene photographs. Picture: Danie Van der Lith

Published Nov 20, 2013

Share

Kimberley -

“I don’t know why”… this was the standard response given by the 17-year-old murder accused to several challenging questions posed to him by prosecution during the Steenkamp triple murder trial in the Northern Cape High Court on Tuesday.

The accused evaded questions during cross examination regarding his reaction to the murders of Deon Steenkamp, 44, his wife Christel, 43, and their daughter, Marthella, 14, who were shot and killed on the farm Naauwhoek near Griquatown on Good Friday last year.

• He did not know why… he did not call for help after the shootings.

• He did not know why… he did not notice the blood on the floor and walls of the farm house.

• He did not know why… the farm dogs never chased after the apparent attackers.

• He did not know why… he never checked whether Deon and Christel Steenkamp were still alive after they were shot.

• He did not know why… he did not collect a firearm from the safe to protect himself.

• He did not know why… he never asked Marthella who the attackers were.

• And, he did not know why… he never followed up on the progress of the police investigation into the murders.

On Tuesday, the prosecution maintained that the boy was changing his testimony to avoid being implicated in the murders.

Advocate Hannes Cloete, for the prosecution, advised the accused that claiming ignorance was “not good enough” and that it does not assist in making him a credible witness.

“It pains me to listen to the lies of the accused,” Cloete said. “None of the evidence was disputed by the legal representatives of the accused while the witnesses called by the State were testifying.”

He believed that the accused had never been in the shed, as he claimed, when the shots were fired inside the farmhouse.

“Had the accused looked through the window of the shed, he would have seen Marthella being assaulted under a tree. She must have been lying there for a long time for the stones to be covered in so much blood.

“Photographs were taken of the bloodsoaked stones after the dogs had licked some of it off and yet there was still a lot of blood.”

Cloete pointed out that at least two witnesses testified that they heard or were told that Marthella was screaming during the attack, yet the accused heard and saw nothing.

“The accused wishes to paint a picture of a frightened child who had to hide from dangerous attackers. Yet he did not look through the shed window to see what was going on.”

He added that it was strange for the accused to see a pool of blood on the ground, which was not easy to notice, yet did not see the blood that was splattered on the floor, kitchen counter and walls of the house.

“The blood on the kitchen counter was impossible to miss. The state will argue that the accused’s T-shirt was torn outside after he assaulted Marthella. She was badly injured and bleeding.

“The accused then went into the house to fetch the .22 rifle and shot Deon, Christel and Marthella in their faces. He also used a .357 revolver to shoot them in their bodies. He never saw the blood on the wall because he was facing the shed.

“The accused would not have seen the blood on the walls because it was washed off by the time he returned to the farm the following day. The accused, however, distinctly remembered six shots being fired while he was inside the shed.”

Cloete also pointed out that it was expected of the accused, who was 15 years old at the time of the incident, to check if Deon and Christel were still alive after they were shot.

“Marthella, who was seriously injured, was the only one who could identify the perpetrators, yet the accused never bothered to ask her who it was.”

He indicated that the accused gave the intruders time to flee the scene when he could have alerted the police and called for an ambulance by means of his cellphone.

Cloete said that if the attackers were still in the vicinity of the house, the accused would not have had time to think about Marthella’s blood that had stained his clothes. He removed a bloody T-shirt shortly after the shootings.

“Marthella would not have the strength to tear his T-shirt shortly before she died.”

He added that it was strange that the teenager never collected the farm workers on his way to the police nor had he informed the police of threats of a possible farm attack.

“The accused never suspected any of the farm workers of being responsible for the attack. He also knew that they would not be in any danger if he left them on the farm.”

Cloete stated that the accused had shown little interest in seeing the alleged attackers being arrested.

“At the charge office, the accused wanted to send messages to his friends to inform them of what had happened to the family. This was even before their deaths were confirmed. This creates an impression that he knew that there would be no further developments.

“Instead of asking about leads into the case, the accused asked the investigating officer the following day if he would still inherit money from the family.

“It is as if he knew that the police would not arrest anyone.”

Cloete found it troubling that, from the time that he was considered a suspect, in May 2012, no one was allowed to speak to the accused about the murders.

“Surely he needed to speak to someone after witnessing such a traumatic event?”

He added that the accused had been treated with kid gloves in a sense that he was not immediately arrested and that he was still allowed to continue with his gymkhana competitions after he was granted bail.

Cloete pointed out that the accused had predicted, from the evening of the murders, that he would be regarded as a suspect.

“The accused sent a message to one of his friends that he was worried that the police would only find his fingerprints on the firearms and that no other suspects would be apprehended other than himself.”

The accused stated that none of his reactions should be considered as strange behaviour.

“It is how I reacted and how I remembered the events. The incident took place two years ago.”

New evidence emerged when he told the court that he found Marthella’s body lying on the opposite side of Christel, contrary to what was depicted in the police photographs. “I don’t know how her body got there.”

He explained that he guessed that the .357 revolver was loaded with six bullets and therefore knew that six shots were fired.

The accused explained that he was not looking out for blood inside the house although he was unable to explain why he never saw the blood on the floor

“I saw Deon and Christel lying on their stomachs on the ground. I was not certain if they were still alive. I did not have the phone number of the ambulance to call for help and, because I thought that they were dead, I did not think that it would make much of a difference.” He added that Marthella did not tell him who attacked them, nor did he ask her.

“She told me that she loved me and that she was going to die. I don’t know why I didn’t ask her. I don’t know why I didn’t think of calling for help on my cellphone.”

He stated that he had an aversion for Marthella’s blood and had to change his T-shirt.

He said he thought that he had informed the police of a possible farm attack and also stated that he could not remember if the family’s dogs were at the farmhouse at the time of the attack.

According to him he never asked about the progress of the investigation in order to allow the police to do their work. “Everyone advised me that the police would call me if they had any leads.”

He added that, because he handled the murder weapons, he was worried that his fingerprints would be detected. “I knew that I was a suspect because I saw a docket with my name on it.”

The case continues on Wednesday.

Diamond Fields Advertiser

Related Topics: