Johannesburg - What really happened to University of Johannesburg law professor Carl Mischke might never really be known.
As of last week, the two men responsible for his death have both been put behind bars for a long time. But glaring inconsistencies in both Craig Thomas and Jacques Terreblanche’s versions of the night of the killing mean it may never be known for sure who struck the killing blow, or the exact motive for the attack.
Each claimed it was the other who masterminded the plot to rob and kill Mischke for crystal meth money nearly three years ago.
Thomas insisted that, as an addict, he was happy to go along with the plot to kill his older lover Mischke, but that it was Terreblanche who made the initial suggestion and who was the one who used the dumbbell to bludgeon Mischke to death. Thomas confessed to the crime last year, and was given a 20-year sentence as part of a plea deal with the State to testify against Terreblanche.
He told the court during Terreblanche’s trial he felt equally responsible for the killing just by going along with it, the murderous intent arising because Mischke had threatened to stop paying for his drug rehabilitation programme.
While Mischke had wanted to save the young man from a terrible drug addiction, the professor was upset that Thomas had rekindled his relationship with his wife, who was at the same rehabilitation centre.
In what sounded like a practised tone of remorse, Thomas described during proceedings how, rather than helping the man he had been seeing for months, he covered the professor’s bleeding head with a duvet after the attack and ignored the gurgling noises coming from beneath it as he looted the house.
The two days after the killing were a blur of crystal meth highs, prostitutes and paranoia, with Thomas eventually caught while trying to visit his daughter before a planned escape from Joburg.
Now allegedly clean from the influence of drugs, Thomas persistently tried to insert his own self-proclaimed transformation into his testimony, explaining how he had found religion and a purpose in life one year into his sentence.
In what was described as an “ostentatious” gesture in Judge Geraldine Borchers’s ruling, at the end of his testimony, Thomas asked the court if he could give Terreblanche a Bible. He was permitted to, with a grim-faced Terreblanche gingerly accepting it.
When Terreblanche took the stand, he insisted he had simply wanted to steal Mischke’s valuables, which was why he had chosen to plead guilty to the robbery charge and deny the murder.
He said it was Thomas who was in an argument with Mischke in their shared Norwood home’s bedroom, with the younger man running from the bedroom to get a weapon.
Terreblanche allegedly asked Thomas to desist, but said he was powerless to stop him from inflicting the first blow to the academic’s head.
Advocate Nerisha Naidoo spent hours picking apart Terreblanche’s story piece by piece. He couldn’t explain why he hadn’t tried to stop Thomas from the attack, why he had not informed the police of the assault and why he had not bothered to check Mischke’s injuries even though he knew they could be fatal. His contradictions were obvious as he tailored his evidence, and had apparently lied outright. He was easy prey for the experienced advocate.
Yet even though Thomas’s version was left mostly intact during a brief cross-examination, Judge Borchers found both men to be liars.
It was because of this that she was unwilling to accept either version of events.
However, there was enough common-cause information for Terreblanche to be convicted of the killing too, and even if he had not struck the death blow, his tacit acceptance of the assault and his presence during the attack, without reporting it, meant he was just as guilty of murder as Thomas.
When the trial began, knowing the details of what happened to her brother was at the forefront of Trudi Clements’s mind. As she listened intently to Thomas’s testimony of how callous he had been to her slowly dying sibling, she oscillated between white-knuckled fury and tears.
She seemed somewhat accepting of Thomas’s version, angry at the man she believed her brother had dearly loved, but also willing to accept his numerous public apologies.
Thomas had even written a letter to The Star, apologising to the country for what he had done, but saying his arrest had saved him from a drug overdose or suicide.
“It’s not the end, just a new beginning,” the letter said.
As Terreblanche tried to skew the story in his favour, Clements realised that details were missing in both men’s accounts - details she had already confirmed at the crime scene.
Through the trial, Clements usually arrived at court alone, desperate to see the outcome that would allow her the first steps into a new life.
On one occasion, her daughter Nelinda was there for comfort, but always the proud mother, Clements didn’t want to burden her children.
According to Clements, Mischke was intensely private, someone who had withdrawn from his family in the months leading up to his death. The trial presented an opportunity to acquaint herself with his final moments.
Clements recalled a get-together about a year-and-a-half before the April 2013 killing. She would occasionally pop in after work and have coffee with Mischke and his friends. It was during this particularly jovial occasion that the photo above was taken - a photo she feels reflects the smiling, gentle man she knew, unlike those released by the University of Johannesburg after his death.
For Clements, the pictures published in the media made him look harder than he was, a man who was willing to make sacrifices for his students, his family and ultimately his lover.
On the day of judgment at the high court sitting in Palm Ridge, next to Clements was her son-in-law Garry Honiball ready to squeeze her hand if a not-guilty verdict was presented.
When Judge Borchers proclaimed that Terreblanche had essentially convicted himself, Clements was relieved.
As he was walking from the dock, Terreblanche turned to Clements, and in his usual monotone said: “I’m sorry I got involved in this.”
The message was unclear. Was he apologising for the murder of someone close to her, or simply for becoming involved in the crime?
Clements just shook her head and looked away.
The next day, when Judge Borchers said Terreblanche had showed no remorse, deserved a life sentence and would not be allowed to appeal against the sentencing, she was sure this would be the end.
But the woman determined to find out what happened to her brother at the beginning of trial was herself transformed by its end.
“I still have a lot of questions, but I have to close this book. I’m not going to go and visit Craig in prison (as he requested) because he’ll just tell me what I want to hear, not the truth,” she said.
“If I now make myself miserable about it… there’s just no point.”
Clements still feels a deep sense of loss at times.
“Now it’s up to me to move past this. I have to be a good parent, a good grandmother and find happiness.”
The Star