SG: you mentioned at least twice during the course of your evidence in chief that the houses are rather close to one another.
HvB: correct.
SG: given that the houses are rather close to one another what is your comment if you want to comment on the testimony of Mrs Taljaard who testified in the defence case that amongst other things she did not hear anybody running away in the estate during the course of the incident.
HvB: I dont dispute that.
Judge: Sorry I cant hear you
HvB: I dont dispute that.
SG: That is her testimony.
HvB: Okay.
Judge: No the question is not that.. whats your comment on it?
HvB: If I want to comment. Id rather not comment.
SG: Youd rather not comment?
HvB: Ya, I dont think Im informed to comment.
SG: Sorry, you dont think youre what?
HvB: laughs, um
Judge: inaudible.
HvB: I havent actually spoken to her and I have no idea what she did or did not hear but I was in court when she said that she didnt hear anything and I dont dispute that, um Im not sure what else you want me to comment on.
SG: you see its difficult to marry what she says that she didnt hear anybody running away from having to infer from your version that at least two people ought to have run away at some stage.
HvB: Yes, I didnt hear them running away either.
SG: Given that it is your version that somehow somebody got onto, oh sorry not just somebody, more than one person got onto the estate, Im going to put to you that what you are inferring or asking the court to follow or believe is that somehow these people, and it is more than one according to you, they got onto the estate without tripping the wires or alerting security by getting over the fence, or presumably they brought something with them to cover up the fence so as not to trip the fence, they are then in some way successful in getting over or under or through the fence, which would imply that they go to a lot of trouble to get onto the estate. Would you agree?
HvB: That would be a fair assessment probably.
SG: and then they manage to move from the perimeter fence to where your house is located more or less in the middle of the estate, do you agree? On the location of your house?
HvB: the location of my house is yes, in the central area of the estate.
SG: So now, after theyve managed to get onto the estate they also managed to move from the perimeter fence to your house, undetected?
HvB: Presumably, yes.
SG: Then, they manage to pick a house in the estate where the back door is left open, easy access to the house?
HvB: m hmm
SG: and then, everything changes. They dont proceed to remove valuable property which is clearly within eyesight, one person moves upstairs and attacks the family.
HvB: mumbles.
SG: Is that what happened, is that your answer?
HvB: Thats what I saw.
SG: and then, further from that, they then flee the property, your house, nobody hears anything, not even you, they again manage to proceed from the house..
PB: My client never said he didnt hear someone flee, he said he saw the people running to..
HvB: I did
SG: My lord the witness said he also did not hear anybody running away.
Judge: Carry on Ms Galloway
SG: The people then managed to proceed again back from your house to the perimeter fence without being witnessed, and they again managed to get out of or over or under or through the electrical fence without it being triggered.
HvB: If they came over or through the fence then yes.
Judge: How do you say they breached the security of the estate?
HvB: I cant say but from the evidence weve heard we guess we know that it could have been either the gate or the fact that people lend out their um keys, lend out their keys to the security gate.
SG: So are you implying that somebody who was given a key to the estate by somebody residing on the estate might have used that to get onto the estate to commit this crime?
HvB: I think thats a reasonable possibility that someone might have had access to a key card and gained access to the estate in that way, yes.
Judge: You mean somebody had access to a residents key card?
HvB: Hmm, nodding.
SG: and you describe that as a reasonable possibility?
HvB: I would yes.
SG: Do you understand the difference between a possibility and a reasonable possibility?
PB: rolls eyes
HvB: reasonably (smirking)
SG: A possibility is when anything is possible as wide as you can think. A reasonable possibility is within what is available it must be reasonable and fits with what evidence or facts are available.
HvB: Yes, I think it is a reasonable possibility when compared to someone jumping the fence.
PB: drops head to hand. (Lawyers head starts swivelling.)
Judge: No but thats theoretical. If somebody gave a card to the intruder, either the card was stolen or somebody gave it consciously to the person, one of two options,
HvB: Yes
Judge: If the card was stolen then this is a highly unlikely sequence of events that he fortuitously comes across the card, breaks into the security estate and attacks your family. On the other hand if somebody willingly gives the security card to the person, the intruder, that means somebody has malice against your family, especially, the family was killed.
HvB: If if if that, if
Judge: If that is..
HvB: In your scenario the person knows what purpose theyre giving the key card for.
Judge: Weve heard evidence throughout that your family had no real enemies.
HvB: No, thats correct (crestfallen)
Judge: So the story of a card seems like a bit of an unlikely scenario.
HvB: I suppose.
Judge: Sorry?
HvB: I suppose so yes.