By Karen Breytenbach
Former Claremont acting station commander Marius van der Westhuizen has been found guilty on three counts of murder with direct intent, for shooting his three children in their beds at home in Brackenfell in 2006.
While his distraught wife, Charlotte, broke down in tears, the tall former policeman had a look of quiet intensity and began writing fervently in his notebook as Western Cape High Court Judge Willem Louw announced the guilty verdict on Thursday afternoon.
Mrs Van der Westhuizen became very upset and nearly collapsed when she passed her husband in the passage on her way out, but he retreated and she left the building assisted by her cousin Elmarie Greeff and counsellor Lourensa Loubser.
The State raised an objection to the extension of Van der Westhuizen's bail until the next court date when sentencing procedures will be dealt with, because Mrs Van der Westhuizen was afraid her husband would come after her for giving testimony that led to his conviction.
His bail was, however, extended on strict conditions that barred him from visiting Brackenfell where she lives, Kuils River where she works, or Malmesbury where her parents live.
Judge Louw found that Van der Westhuizen was most likely motivated by rage and a desire to punish his wife for not listening or submitting to him.
Taking his wife's cellphone so she could not call for help, telling her that she had to pay for not choosing him over her job and that he did not stop after shooting the first child, but carried on, repeating his chilling message, showed "crystal clear clarity of mind".
The couple had a troubled marriage, and psychiatrists for the State found that he was a controlling, jealous and possessive husband with conservative values and an inflexible personality. His low self-esteem translated into self-importance and a need to be adored by others. He was frustrated with his wife often working overtime and allegedly neglecting him and the children.
"He exhibited a consciousness and insight into his actions and its consequences. I am of the opinion that this showed his extreme anger about a long-time dispute between him and his wife. He wanted her to pay."
Telling his wife "see, your children are dead now" and "you'll probably call (your boss Denise) Brand now to come and save you" showed a lack of remorse for his actions.
"Probably the worst thing one can do to a woman is to kill her children in front of her."
Evidence was led that Van der Westhuizen was angry because his wife came home just over an hour late from work and lied about why she was late. He shot the children about three hours later.
Judge Louw said the trigger was not sudden and unexpected, but it could not be established that this was a premeditated murder in the legal sense of the word.
Van der Westhuizen pleaded not guilty on the basis of mental illness, because of severe depression, post traumatic stress and anxiety, claiming this caused him to lack the necessary criminal capacity by which he could be held legally responsible for his actions.
Judge Louw found that Van der Westhuizen's personality type, depression, stress factors in his marital and professional life and the fact that he had a few drinks on that night would have limited his ability to control himself, but could not have caused a total loss of control.
This finding was, however, only relevant for sentencing, and did not allow the court, under South African law as opposed, for instance, to Scottish law, to downgrade the convictions to culpable homicide.
Judge Louw found that Van der Westhuizen's current amnesia about shooting the children was probably due to the self-inflicted gunshot to his head, since several witnesses testified that he had confessed to killing his children in phone conversations he had with them in the three hours after the shooting.
He agreed with the State that Van der Westhuizen's "cat and mouse game" with the police in those three hours, when he gave them false information about his whereabouts before he eventually shot himself in the back garden, showed that he understood the consequences of his deeds. He therefore disagreed with the defence that this behaviour could have been brought on by psychosis and hallucinations.
Louw agreed with Valkenberg forensic psychiatrist Larissa Panieri-Peter that Van der Westhuizen showed presence of mind as he proceeded to shoot each child.
"It is the unanimous opinion of the court (Louw and assessor M Powell) that the accused did possess criminal capacity" and is therefore found guilty on three counts of murder with direct intent," Louw said.
The case was postponed to August 3 and an order was made that a correctional services report on appropriate sentencing be ready by then.