• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Henri van Breda - family murders / Did he do it?

Hey - we are just about the same post-count-wise. I don't think it is abysmal. It just means you aren't one of the FMF modette cheerleaders or a Knox thread repeater. When you have something to say, it's worth listening to!
Haha, was regular in fmf for a while in the early days. I think I have a couple of yellow cards for calling people modettes.
 
Day 11

Cast
Siraj Desai: Judge.
Botha: Advocate for the defence.
Susan Galloway: Prosecutor.
Henry James Stewart: Forensic Analyst - Expert witness on hair samples

Summary
Welcome back! Court started late today. On the stand is Henry Stewart (Incorrectly referred to as Stuart in the Highlights below) to discuss the hair sample forensics.
Stewart testifies that he did not know whom any of the samples belonged to, they were simply numbered. There is some back and forth around how hair can be transferred. The defence goes to lengths to point out that hair can fall, be blown about or transferred easily. Stewart agrees. Defense points out the hair can only be used to exclude a person, not to identify them. Stewart agrees, saying that hair samples are associative evidence.
Fourteen (14) hair samples were taken compared to a reference sample (I cannot accurately discern from the transcript whether the reference sample is Henri's or a hair found in Marli's hand. I assume Marli's is the reference sample, but that's just my guess. If anyone knows better, please let me know). Not all 14 corresponded to the reference sample. Defense clarifies that some samples are "foreign". Botha for the defence points out that in the letter Stewart received, the samples were clearly identified and that Stewart in fact did know who the samples belonged to when he tested them. Stewart agrees, but insists he didn't need to know.


Highlights
Stewart on the stand (hereafter incorrectly identified as Stuart) Says samples haven't been tampered with when he received them. Samples are not referred to by name, only by number, in report.
How will hair be found anywhere else other than on body?
Stuart: People have tendency to lose hair; found on clothes and crime scene itself. Shedding hair. Always possibility that hair will be on your own clothes as well as on other person.

Galloway: any hair that appeared totally foreign, in that it didn't fit the profile of the reference hair?
Stuart: I couldn't find anything other than what was presented to me. If there was a foreign hair, would need sample to include or exclude.
All hair collected was straight hair. All was red, blonde and black in colour

Botha - for hair to be transferred, must there be contact between two objects? What if someone walks on the landing and by gravity the hair landed there?
Stuart - there are instances where this can happen. We shed hair on a daily basis.
Botha - wind too? Stuart - yes.
Botha - when you were given these hair samples, all you knew was it had a number, no name attached?
Stuart - at that point no. The moment I did my examination, they were just numbers.
Stuart - Hair analysis is also seen as associative evidence in court, only seen in association with other evidence. We are only stating what we found.
Botha - you are saying the hair only showed a resemblance?
Stuart - yes.
Botha - it is used to exclude, not identify somebody?
Stuart - I agree 100%
Botha - Five samples from same family. Is that something you take into consideration?
Stuart - I have to. Don't have other samples to compare it to.
Stuart - The goal is to exclude something. Known donor of a hair to one found on crime scene.
Botha - Hair in 3.1 didn't show any resemblance to four others?
Stuart - That is correct.
Botha - how many of the hairs in 3.6 (14 hairs) did you compare with reference sample 3.1?
Stuart - all of them.
Botha - All 14 hairs showed a resemblance to the sample hair?
Stuart - I can't say all 14 correspond.
Botha - that can only be correct because you didn't examine all 14. Is that a fair statement?
Stuart - I did all 14 and compared it to the reference sample. There were some that didn't correspond.
Botha - Samples are of five family members. 3.1 is that of Marli. You didn't know at the time. Despite analysing it, there were hairs in exhibit K that you couldn't link to the family. Unknown hairs.
Stuart - yes. There were unknown hairs on some exhibits.
Botha - Can you show the court where did you say in your statement there were unknown hairs?
Stuart - I didn't say that. I wasn't required to say that. It is implied
Judge Desai - why didn't you report the fact that some of the hair did not match? Was it not a duty on your part as an expert?
Stuart - it wasn't expected to state which were foreign.

Botha says Stuart knew who supplied the reference sample and knew who the suspect was.
Letter to Stuart form Col Benecke of Stellenbosch SAPS on 20 March 2015:
Confirms they were investigating murder charge, long blonde hair was found in Marli's hand, and samples of Henri, Martin and Teresa were sent.
Hair samples were taken from Henri.
Col Benekce writes and says long blonde hair found in Marli's palm.
Sample taken from suspect, indicated in the letter.
Stuart now conceding that he knew who the suspect was. Says he didn't know whose hair was presented.


Article
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the unknown or unidentified hairs at a crime scene are probably not unusual if that scene is a family home. Surely visitors and workers at the property could have contributed hair quite easily.

I guess I'm not seeing the relevance of the evidence other than to say someone other than the direct family shed hair in the house at some point. If no hair was found, that isn't evidence that no one else was in the house that night either...
 
I'm sure the unknown or unidentified hairs at a crime scene are probably not unusual if that scene is a family home. Surely visitors and workers at the property could have contributed hair quite easily.

I guess I'm not seeing the relevance of the evidence other than to say someone other than the direct family shed hair in the house at some point. If no hair was found, that isn't evidence that no one else was in the house that night either...

I agree, except if long blonde hair was found in Marli's hand, one would think that would be A) recent and B) part of a struggle.

It would be nice to know if it was one hair or multiple hairs. Unfortunately, hair can be singular or plural.
 
I agree, except if long blonde hair was found in Marli's hand, one would think that would be A) recent and B) part of a struggle.

It would be nice to know if it was one hair or multiple hairs. Unfortunately, hair can be singular or plural.

Holy cow, how did I miss that bit? I read it a billion times while prepping the post, but it didn't ever click that the hair in Marli's hand is from the struggle. That's an obvious implication. :jaw-dropp :blush::blush:

Thanks for posting that!

If it is from a struggle with an attacker, it would be interesting to see how the defense explains it. Perhaps that's why they were at pains to point out the many various ways hair can be transferred.
 
Day 11 - After lunch

Cast
Siraj Desai: Judge.
Botha: Advocate for the defence.
Susan Galloway: Prosecutor.
Henry James Stewart: Forensic Analyst - Expert witness on hair samples

Summary
After lunch testimony confirms the focus on the hair in Marli's hand. The defence succeeds in getting the expert to admit the hair in her hand cannot be Henri's. There was also a fair amount of questioning about procedural irregularities. I've not included them and indeed all of these posts are my own culling of what I think is important from a lay perspective. Please consult the linked articles for the full live-reports if you feel you aren't getting the full picture :)

Highlights (Henry Stewart still incorrectly referred to as Stuart)
Stuart says the case file was received in a sealed bag.
Adv Botha asks if they were sealed when he recevied it, and Stuart says it was already opened.
Botha says blood soaked t-shirt, panty and towel used to cover her was collected by police while Marli was in hospital. Botha asked if she had been grasping the towel, could she have gotten hairs in her hand from the towel? Stuart says it is a possibility.
Botha: A pillow was also taken from the room in which the two men were found. The pillow was put under head to help her breathe. Could hairs have been transferred to her hand if she grasped it? Yes, Stuart responds.

Refers to photo of Marli's right hand clutching a long blonde hair.
Longer than 10cms, Botha asks?
Stuart agrees
Hair starts between middle and ring finger, curls around her forefinger, eventually going across her palm.
In his report, Stuart says the length of the hairs in exhibit I are 200mm and longer.
Exhibit HH3 - photo of Henri the morning of the incident. His hair was 30mm at most, Botha says.
Seven weeks later, his hair was between 50 and 80mm
What are the chances of those hairs coming from the head of my client on that day? Botha asks Stuart.
Chances are slim, Stuart says.
The chances, with respect are nil, Adv Botha responds.
Yes, Stuart says.

Article
 
I'm really enjoying today's testimony. It has a bit of everything in it. They're on lunch now. Will post the usual summary after they've wrapped up for the day.
 
With the balaclava no kinked black hair would be there.

How could the link be regarded as useful reporting without quantifying the length of that curiously located hair twisted around the girl's finger? Was it her own hair?

It wasn't quantified perhaps because the courtroom reports indicate in the back and forth between Botha and Stewart, that Stewart's report of the length changed from 200mm to between 50mm and 80mm. I'm not certain (from what's available to me anyway) that we know the exact length of the hair(s) found in her hand.

ETA: 200mm would more accurately fit the description of it curled around her finger and lying across her palm I would have thought.
 
Last edited:
Day 12 - Hair, Neighbours and 112

Cast
Siraj Desai: Judge.
Pieter Botha: Advocate for the defence.
Matthys Combrink: Advocate for the defence.
Susan Galloway: Prosecutor.

Henry James Stewart: Forensic Analyst - Expert witness on hair samples.
Stephanie Op'T Hof: Neighbour to the van Breda family.
Janine Philander: 112 Emergency Services Call Operator.

Summary
Stewart is still on the stand, Botha still grilling him. Stewart only used 11 of 24 categories to do his comparisons. He admits that unknown hair was found on Marli's t-shirt. Hair found on Marli's underwear sent for DNA analysis. No results were ever received.

Op'T Hof takes the stand and testifies she heard a loud argument that night. The defence claims it was Star Trek 2: Into Darkness. Op'T Hof insists it wasn't because she would have heard a soundtrack or music. The defence counters that nobody else heard this fight.

Janine Philander (112 Call Operator) then took the stand and testified that she initially believed the call to be a prank. They struggled to find his address on the system and his calmness was weird to her. The audio recording is played, but there is a technical issue and it is hard to hear. Court is adjourned for the day.

Highlights
Hair comparison checklist being examined. Hair colour is subjective. Botha asks if any reference samples had any blood on it. Stewart says none of it had blood on it. Botha said Henri's hair (D21) is light hair, and hair on Marli's pants and t-shirt also characterised as light.

In hair comparisons it is not prescribed how many points of similarities are needed, Stewart explains.
Judge Desai asks how objectively confirm the accuracy of the hair findings. Stewart says his findings are peer reviewed. Botha says there are 24 categories, and Stewart worked with 11.

With regard to Henri's sample, Stewart found it showed a resemblance to the hair found on Marli's T-shirt. Botha said if he had seen Henri's hair he would have immediately been able to cancel Henri out, due to the length. Stewart also found medium hair on Marli's t-shirt. Henri's hair is classified as fine.

Botha - who did this belong to?
Stewart says he can't say, concedes it's "unknown hair".

Returning to Marli's underwear, hair found with "presumable root". Botha asks if sent for DNA analysis. Stewart says as far as he knew, all relevant samples were sent for DNA analysis.

Botha - if DNA analysis outcome had excluded his client, it would place a very big question mark next to the contents of Stewart's statement. Stewart says he agrees, but reiterates he did what he was required to do.

Stephanie Op'T Hof takes the stand, with Galloway for the state.

That night I put the children to bed at 20:00 and had work to do. [She is an interior decorator.] I had my laptop open in my living room. I worked the entire night. Number 12 right across from me. At about 10:00 I heard a lot of loud voices, mens voices talking very loudly. Sounded like an argument. From 10:00 until after 12:00. Went to sleep at 12:10. Never heard something like that at De Zalze before I went to sleep at 12:10. I have a monitor which alerts me if he [her child] cries. It wakes me up. I heard the tick just before 4:00. I got up, no lights on, walked to his room. Tried to calm him down. He was more awake than usual. He wasn't going to sleep again, so took him to my bed. She didn't hear any strange sounds or noise. After the murders, she never heard a similar argument.

Combrink on the cross asks how she knows it wasn't just a TV and not a real argument. Op't Hof replies the TV voices wouldn't continue, and there would be other snippets and advertisements.
Combrink - we know the distance and that the window was closed.
Op'T Hof responds that her house was quiet. When she heard it she stopped what she was doing, surprised. It was loud and aggressive. It had an aggressive undertone.
Combrink asked how she could say with certainty that it came from Van Breda house?
She says when she looked up and walked to the door, she could hear it was coming from in front of her. It came from the direction of the Van Breda house. Her brain registered that it came from there.

The day I told the police - Col Benecke - I could see he wasn't sure if he believed me. I told him I have nothing to gain form this, and don't want to be involved. They sent audio specialists and tested it. Proved that it was coming from where I said it was.

Op't Hof seems exceptionally sure. Not letting Combrink refute her story.

Combrink says Henri, Rudi and his Dad watched Star Trek 2 - lots of action and people screaming at each other. They watched it because they got a new sound system and they got the film for free. Op't Hof doesn't agree, says she knows Star Trek's theme. She says she heard no music.

Comrbrink - Martin Locke in his statement said he heard nothing. Their domestic worker Dolores Van Wyk said she sometimes told them to quieten down when Mr Locke wanted to sleep due to loud music.
Op'T Hof - doesn't know why they didn't hear it. She can only say what she had heard.

Op'T Hof couldn't identify language spoken or how many voices. At least two.

Henri now speaking to Combrink. The Judge says calls for lunch break. Henri has a list of questions for the witness.

Combrink - Between 10 and 11 there were security patrols by Mr Wyngaard and Africa. They said they didn't notice anything suspicious. The Lockes had open windows and doors, they didn't hear anything.

Galloway: between the argument and police arriving the next morning, did anyone come to your door for help?
Op't Hof: No. It's strange that Henri didn't come to my door and come and ask me for help.

Janine Philander now takes the stand.
On 27 January 2015, she was on morning duty.

I received a call form a caller identifying himself as Henri. He phoned in for an ambulance. When he phoned in he was hesitant. I heard a slight- what sounded to me as - a giggle. At first my initial thought was it sounded like a prank. We struggled with that [finding the address on the system], and also to check if he was pranking the line, asked for landmarks and surrounding streets to check he was calling where he was calling from.

How did you think it was a prank? The way he sounded, Philander says. A normal reaction to home invasion or assault, person usually frantic, shouting, screaming, can't recall contact numbers, confused.

I called the police, and he stayed on the line. He was helpful in giving alternative street names - he didn't get angry, wasn't pressuring, or getting agitated with me. He was just cool and calm, that was the weirdest ever for me

Audio recording playback experiences technical glitch. Court is adjourned.

Photos of witnessess
Op'T Hof
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_8XooFVoAA0Yl4.jpg

Janine Philander
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_82enjVoAEnKfb.jpg

Article
 
Last edited:
It wasn't quantified perhaps because the courtroom reports indicate in the back and forth between Botha and Stewart, that Stewart's report of the length changed from 200mm to between 50mm and 80mm. I'm not certain (from what's available to me anyway) that we know the exact length of the hair(s) found in her hand.

ETA: 200mm would more accurately fit the description of it curled around her finger and lying across her palm I would have thought.

I suppose the hair is a red herring (or a blonde hairing, lol). The choices for the axe-wielder are either Henri or a black guy with a balaclava. Neither of those choices would explain a long blonde hair. Henri would have been better off claiming it was more than one person and he only saw one of them.

Either that or he could have taken a page out of Jeffrey MacDonald's playbook and claimed it was a female hippie with a blonde wig and a floppy hat.
 
I suppose the hair is a red herring (or a blonde hairing, lol). The choices for the axe-wielder are either Henri or a black guy with a balaclava. Neither of those choices would explain a long blonde hair. Henri would have been better off claiming it was more than one person and he only saw one of them.

Either that or he could have taken a page out of Jeffrey MacDonald's playbook and claimed it was a female hippie with a blonde wig and a floppy hat.
He does claim he heard other intruders in the house, dealing with his father and Rudi while he clashed with another. Still, a crim with long golden locks, hanging out with the balaclava gang? Not likely.
 
Day 13 - 112 Calls & Henri's injuries

Cast
Siraj Desai: Judge.
Botha: Advocate for the defence.
Susan Galloway: Prosecutor.

Janine Philander: 112 Emergency Services Call Operator.
Lizette Albertse: Medical Doctor who examined Henri that morning.

Summary
Emergency calls are played with Philander still on the stand. Philander maintains Henri acted strangely. The defence grills her on this and the Judge says the ER operator is experienced, but her testimony is opinion. Henri's stutter is discussed and the operator grilled some more for her interpretation of Henri's demeanour. Albertse is next on the stand to testify to Henri's injuries. She filled out the J88 and noted his injuries. She was asked by investigators whether the injuries could be self inflicted and deferred to answer, asking that such questions be put to a specialist. Henri's injuries are listed and Botha does well to show Henri was sober and drug-free when examined that morning and that his injuries could have been inflicted during the struggle.

Botha further asks if Henri could have concussed himself falling down the stairs, resulting in him passing out and wetting himself. Albertse agrees it is possible.

Recordings of all of the calls are available at this link.


Highlights
Clip being played.
"I need an ambulance"
Gives address. Provides telephone number.
Trouble as address is picked up in Milnerton. Henri sounds flustered.
Henri: A man attacked my whole family. My sister is moving. I don't think the rest are alive.
They have head injuries. I don't think they're conscious.
They ran away, family was attacked with an axe. I think I blacked out, I have just woken up.

Henri is now crying as he listens to the call.

Philander says when someone calls, they don't want to hear that you can't find me. They tell you you are going to find me where ever I am. I am not going to wait [anywhere else].
When people phone in, they ask things like ''what must I do?"

Henri is very emotional. Running fingers through his hair. Looks agitated.

Judge Desai says the ER testimony is opinion. He agrees she is experienced, but the court will decide if that is evidence or not.

Botha now on the cross: Botha - I can put it to you, my client as a child stuttered. He had to receive speech therapy. One can quite clearly hear him stutter.
Philander says she didn't pick it up.
Botha says he was taught technique is to concentrate on speaking slowly and clearly or else his stutter becomes more severe.
Philander says that sounds reasonable.
Botha - at the beginning of first clip, you heard my client giggle, making you suspicious of a prank call.
Judge Desai says he didn't hear a giggle, he just heard noise.
Botha - could it have been something other than a giggle?
Philander - it still sounds like a slight giggle.
Desai - you have categorised it as a giggle.
Philander - that is what it sounded like that day.

If Henri started shouting at her, it would have taken longer for him to communicate with her. Botha asks if she considered this.
She says if he had started shouting and screaming at her, it wouldn't have taken longer [to respond].
Botha asks "how on earth" this could that be the case if he was trying to remain calm and she didn't have to spend time to calm him down.
Philander says the way he answered set the tone of the whole call. She remained suspicious throughout.
Botha: Was it his fault call took so long?
Philander says yes. Normally caller in this type of emergency, sets the tone.

Lots more cross from Botha about the call, her response, his calmness. Boring testimony, but Botha works hard to show that Philander's interpretation of Henri is unfair.

Albertse takes the stand. She examined Henri at 11:30 that morning. She completed a J88 while he was present.
She noted his length, 1.84m, with normal build. She would describe him as a tall and big man.
Albertse noted injuries including scratches, a superficial knife wound, scratch above nipple, right leg had an old scratch, but she noted swelling and bruising. Swelling above left eye. She didn't see the injuries as serious. If she feels need for medical attention, she would tell police to do so. She didn't in this case.

When I filled in my form, relooked and thought the scratches I had seen would be better described as a cut.
A scratch tears skin. Cut would involve sharp object.

Injuries to head possible, but not knee
The knob on his head is blunt trauma. It wasn't sharp - blunt force.
Injuries to his back is an abrasion. Similar to grass burn

She was contacted by police to answer certain questions.
One was whether injuries could be self inflicted. Asked that it be referred to a specialist.

You noted him as very quiet, couldn't find clinical proof of drugs or alcohol. She agrees.

Once Dr Dempers did his tests on depth of wounds, came to 50mm. On the knife it looked clear that the edge of the knife still had blood on it, Botha says.
She noted 10mm.

Botha demonstrates how Henri would have struggled with an intruder and asks if his forearm injuries are possible in such a struggle. Albertse says she cannot say it did not happen that way.

Swelling above Henri's eye - small chicken egg size, Botha says.
Henri also went to see a private doctor that night, he also had two blue eyes, Botha says.

Botha says he fell while chasing down the stairs, and again when he was ascending and saw family members on landing.
Botha asks if it's possible that he was concussed after he passed out, resulting in him wetting himself.
Albertse says it's possible.

Article
 
Day 14 - fingerprints, self-inflicted wounds.

Cast
Siraj Desai: Judge.
Botha: Advocate for the defence.
Susan Galloway: Prosecutor.

Jonathan Oliphant: Fingerprint evidence for the state.
Dr Marianne Tiemensma: Medical specialist in pathology for the state.

Summary
Oliphant on the stand this morning to discuss the fingerprints found. Fifty-three (53) prints were taken from the house. Henri's thumbprint was found on the blade of the knife. All prints were compared to a list of 15 people previously suspected of crimes at the estate. No matches were found. No prints were found on the boundary wall or on the handle of the axe.
Botha on the cross raises several unidentified prints and the fact that Henri's prints aren't on the axe, only the blade of the knife.

Dr Tiemensma takes the stand and testifies that injuries to the front of Henri's body are superficial and, in her opinion, self-inflicted. Injuries to his head and back likely not self-inflicted. Mild concussion possible. Marli's injuries are more typical of defensive wounds.

The defence requests a postponement to have their expert present during testimony. Court adjourned to the 23rd.

Highlights
Oliphant on the stand. From 27 - 31 January 2015, he was at 12 Goske Street to find fingerprints. He found 53 prints.
On knife, right thumb print of Henri on the blade.
If knife point points down, the thumb print pointed up.
The family, 2 domestic workers, gardener and Reade-Jahn's (Marli's ex-boyfriend) prints were found in house.
He checked boundary wall for prints, with naked eye and special light. Then sprayed chemical which would give a brown/purple colour if there is a fingerprint. No prints or proof of activity found on the wall.
No fingerprints were found on the handle of axe.

Botha to cross examine Oliphant. Botha says the wall wasn't a smooth texture, like an inside wall. If someone wore gloves, you wouldn't pick it up? If person didn't sweat enough, no proof will be picked up. Botha says it doesn't exclude that gloved person could have climbed over wall. Olifant agrees.
Other prints also found which were not identified, including two on kitchen table. In the kitchen, a palm print was found. Couldn't be confirmed whose this was. Johnny Walker bottle also had a fingerprint not identified.
Botha says State claims that he touched that axe and attacked people with it.
If he handled it, wouldn't you expect to find a print? His print is on the knife?
Olifant says the axe was sent to fingerprint lab. He can't testify on their behalf.
If someone wore gloves, we wouldn't find it, Botha asks.
No, Olifant says.
Botha holds axe and knife - axe facing toward him; knife held at blade, also pointing at him.
Does it fit in with the print?
Olifant does not want to speculate. Olifant says 3 prints found on knife, 2 unidentifiable.

Dr. Tiemensma takes the stand. She is medical specialist. She is employed at the Clinical Forensic Unit at Victoria Hospital . Her expertise include pathology. Dr Tiemensma was asked by SAPS and Dr Albertse to examine Henri's injuries. Knife was also shown to her. She compiled two reports on her findings of Henri's injuries, one in Feb, one in March 2015.

Dr Tiemensma: The cut marks were superficial.
Incisions have even depth, parallel and avoid sensitive areas like nipples.
The forearm wounds in keeping with self inflicted injuries, non lethal, even depth.
Injuries in reachable areas.
Head injuries blunt force, skin in tact. All superficial, non-fatal.
Judging shape and size of knife, it was virtually impossible for the knife to have been stuck in any of the stab wounds.
On the stab wounds: I am of the opinion that they are self inflicted, superficial and non fatal.
In stark contrast to the rest of the injuries sustained
Wounds to the head, swelling and bruise on eye, could be caused by a blow to face or fall. Unlikely self inflicted.
Wounds to back - blunt force and unlikely to be self inflicted.
Given Henri's plea explanation and photo of staircase - blood seen - would be area where he fell. Injuries consistent?
No. Superficial abrasions don't cause blood spots like that.
Knife wound penetrated skin. He is sturdy. Knife wound not very deep.
Injuries consistent with second fall on stairs? Could be, Dr Tiemensma says.
He could have fallen, abrasions and lacerations.
I don't think he lost a lot of blood, tiny amount not enough to go into shock. I don't think he would have fainted due to blood loss. Don't expect him to be out for hours.
Bruising and injury may have caused a mild concussion.
Marli's hand injuries to her looks like sharp force injury to the wrist - typical defence injury, holding hands over whichever area is attacked.
Bruising on back of hands, and on knuckle. Also small abrasion. Injuries could be seen in someone fighting back.

The defence requests a postponement to have their expert present during testimony.

Article
 
OK lurkers (there must be a few?*) lets have a round of speculation? We've seen some of the evidence now.

Things we know
Henri was not drunk or high.
His prints are on the blade of the knife, not the axe handle (although there may be more on this later in the trial)
His injuries could have been self-inflicted for the most part, however the head trauma and back abrasions are likely not.
He had a stutter as a child (listening to the call again with this in mind was interesting. I swear I could hear him struggle to speak).
There are "unidentified" hairs on Marli and "unidentified" fingerprints in the house.
Descriptions of the family axe are seemingly at variance with the actual murder weapon (black vs green head)

ETA: * Just checked the view count. No 3-page thread has 15k views without there being a few lurkers.
 
Last edited:
Yep,lurker. Thanks for the updates on a very interesting case. So far it seems to me that Henri being guilty is the most likely possibility however the prosecution so far are not even close to "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. The information presented about the security company, ease of access to the property, hair samples and axe are all potentially big holes for the prosecution to fill. The evidence presented about the emergency call and Henri's injuries seems thin as pointers to Henri's guilt. At the moment if I were on the jury I would have to vote not guilty. Can't wait to see what else the prosecution has!

Thank you BTW for keeping the thread updated, it's appreciated.
 
Yep,lurker. Thanks for the updates on a very interesting case. So far it seems to me that Henri being guilty is the most likely possibility however the prosecution so far are not even close to "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. The information presented about the security company, ease of access to the property, hair samples and axe are all potentially big holes for the prosecution to fill. The evidence presented about the emergency call and Henri's injuries seems thin as pointers to Henri's guilt. At the moment if I were on the jury I would have to vote not guilty. Can't wait to see what else the prosecution has!

Thank you BTW for keeping the thread updated, it's appreciated.

Your post count is worse than mine and you've been around longer. The true mark of a dedicated lurker. I approve.

As to your comments, I agree the defence has done a wonderful job of raising reasonable doubt. I'm actually swinging back towards Henri being innocent. Inheritance is certainly a motive, but without the drug-fuelled explanation for his actions, I struggle to believe a young man like would be capable of axing his whole family to death while sober. And if he really did do it, why leave Marli alive? On the 112 call, he mentions that she is still breathing, so he knew she was still alive. If he was the perp and had already killed his mom, dad and brother, why wouldn't he finish the job with Marli?

The whole story stinks IMHO.

ETA: If this was premeditated by Henri, why did he "pass out" on the stairs? To give the family time to bleed out?
If Henri did do it, it had to be a crime of passion right? How does the inheritance motive fit that?
 
Last edited:
Your post count is worse than mine and you've been around longer. The true mark of a dedicated lurker. I approve.

As to your comments, I agree the defence has done a wonderful job of raising reasonable doubt. I'm actually swinging back towards Henri being innocent. Inheritance is certainly a motive, but without the drug-fuelled explanation for his actions, I struggle to believe a young man like would be capable of axing his whole family to death while sober. And if he really did do it, why leave Marli alive? On the 112 call, he mentions that she is still breathing, so he knew she was still alive. If he was the perp and had already killed his mom, dad and brother, why wouldn't he finish the job with Marli?

The whole story stinks IMHO.

ETA: If this was premeditated by Henri, why did he "pass out" on the stairs? To give the family time to bleed out?
If Henri did do it, it had to be a crime of passion right? How does the inheritance motive fit that?
It does get interesting.
Jeremy Bamber and David Bain are two parallel cases if he is innocent.
There is no doubt at all JB and DB are innocent, and JB is still in jail after 30 years.

Intriguing indeed.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom