Johannesburg - George Barkhuizen, accused of calling a hit on his wife to claim a massive life insurance payout, has had to fight this week against the testimony of his best friend, a handwriting expert and a police investigator.
Odette Barkhuizen was found shot dead near her offices in Moffatview in June 2015 in what police initially believed was a bungled hijacking.
However, after months of investigation, the police ultimately charged her husband George with the killing.
Barkhuizen’s trial finally began earlier this year, with the State alleging that the killing was planned after he had forged a new will and testament for his wife and took out a set of life insurance policies worth R7.5 million from three separate insurance companies.
According to the State’s indictment, the couple had been estranged for some time before the killing, and Odette had recently told her husband she wanted a divorce. The life policies and new will, created just two months before Odette’s death, were also allegedly taken out without her knowledge.
The last will and testament of Odette Barkhuizen, believed to have been forged by her husband, George, after he took out a series of life insurance policies, allegedly without her knowledge.
This week at the high court in Joburg, Barkhuizen’s friend, Ernest Goose, was summoned to the stand to explain how he had signed Odette’s new will as a witness in May 2015. Goose told the court he had gone to school with the accused, been the best man at Barkhuizen’s wedding, and vice versa. He knew the couple had been going through difficult times, but reasoned that every marriage had its ups and downs. But he was quick to tell the court that their friendship had been strained since Odette’s death.
“We’re not as close because of all that’s happened,” he said.
In May 2015, Barkhuizen had asked Goose to lunch at the Bedford Centre Mugg & Bean, presenting him with two wills, one for himself and one for Odette. Goose, who was the godfather of the couple’s child and had signed other documents involving a trust for the son should his parents pass away, said he had witnessed the two wills without much thought. “I wouldn’t have (signed them) if I knew then what I know now,” he said while being led by prosecutor Riegal du Toit.
He also told the court how he was summoned by the Bedfordview police after Odette’s murder to confirm the new versions of her last will and testament.
The prosecution made Goose reiterate that Odette had not been at the lunch meeting, though it was during cross-examination by Barkhuizen’s lawyer, Sita Kolbe, that he revealed his own wife may have been there. Saying it was possible, he was also unable to remember for certain if the police had also questioned him about signing Barkhuizen’s will alongside Odette’s.
The brief cross-examination also revealed that even though Barkhuizen had contacted Goose to inform him he would be contacted by the police as part of their investigation, the accused had never tried to coerce him into lying or keeping quiet.
The State then called an expert examiner and documents specialist, Johannes Hattingh, to the stand to tell the court of his opinion on whether he believed the signatures on the will and life insurance policies were forged.
After telling the court of his decades of specialist training and experience, the soft-spoken expert said he believed the signatures on both documents were not authentic. Comparing the signatures on the policy documents to a series of sample signatures, Hattingh’s report said: “Despite the poor quality of the disputed documents, the disputed signatures on the policy documents differ to such an extent in construction and execution which is so obvious and significant that it is concluded that the signatures are forgeries of the person’s signature who signed the specimen signatures.”
It was during cross-examination, however, that Kolbe revealed to the court how this had been Hattingh’s second report on the signatures, the first being commissioned by forensic consultant Paul O’Sullivan. The initial report had apparently said Hattingh’s analysis was inconclusive over whether the signatures were forged. However, Hatting explained that the second report had been constructed after he was given numerous other sample signatures that allowed him to conduct a proper analysis.
However, he conceded that regardless of his analysis, there was no way to state conclusively that Barkhuizen had been the one to create the fake signatures.
The next witness, Warrant Officer Thembinkosi Mdlalose, was the second investigating officer assigned to the case and was present when Barkhuizen was arrested in September 2015.
The officer told the court that Barkhuizen’s son had told him about Odette’s desire to get a divorce from her estranged husband, and how he had discovered bullets in his mother’s bedroom. While police searched the home the day following the interview, the bullets did not emerge. However, Mdlalose noticed that Barkhuizen was clutching a bag throughout the search. When Mdlalose asked to see what was inside, Barkhuizen complied.
Inside the bag was the last will and testament of both Odette and Barkhuizen himself. It was upon seeing the date on which the documents had been signed - April 2015 - that Mdlalose began to suspect Barkhuizen.
However, Kolbe said her client would dispute this story. Firstly, during his bail application, the previous investigating officer had said the bag was discovered behind a couch, and not in Barkhuizen’s possession. Kolbe said the truth of the matter was that Barkhuizen had been asked by Mdlalose to present Odette’s death certificate and that the folder containing it also held the wills and other related documents.
While Mdlalose denied this, he was unable to explain why Barkhuizen had been interviewed before his arrest by O’Sullivan - without being informed of the impending arrest. Kolbe said her client had been subject to a series of “false propositions”, namely that Barkhuizen had allegedly told police there were never any life insurance policies and that police had video footage of him with a potential mistress.
Mdlalose was also left with no answers when asked why he did not stop the interview and proceed with the arrest, or why the false propositions were put to Barkhuizen.
The trial continues this coming week, with O’Sullivan expected to be called to the stand.