The so-called “Modimolle Monster”, Johan Kotze, was dissociated when he allegedly attacked his former wife Ina Bonnette and her son, the High Court in Pretoria has heard.
He should therefore be acquitted, Piet Greyling, for Kotze, told the court yesterday.
Conrad Bonnette (19) died after being shot in the face, chest and knee at Kotze’s house in Modimolle on January 3 last year.
Ina Bonnette underwent reconstructive surgery after a prolonged torture session during which her nipples were sliced off and Kotze’s three co-accused – Andries Sithole, Pieta Mohlake and Sello Mphaka – allegedly raped her.
She was forced to listen to her son beg for his life before Kotze allegedly shot him dead.
Greyling conceded Kotze may have used the three to injure Bonnette.
“It is possible that the three were there by chance and that he had used them as instruments after he, to put it plainly, lost his head.”
He accused Bonnette of repeatedly lying to the court, and said it could not trust her evidence.
She had, for example, lied about phoning her mother while she was being tortured, as her cellphone records showed nothing of the kind.
Her evidence that Kotze threatened to shoot her son on top of her, after forcing him to rape her, and that he would also shoot her daughter, was also suspect, as it was not contained in her statement to the police.
Greyling said the State psychologist who found Kotze could be held accountable for his actions had not done his job properly.
The court should rather accept the evidence of the defence psychologist, who said Kotze had a narcissistic personality disorder and suffered from acute stress and depression, which resulted in a state of dissociation during the crimes.
Jan van Rooyen, for Sithole, argued that the summary of facts in the case was a “wish list” which the State wanted to, but could not prove.
He dismissed the State’s argument that Kotze and the other three were guilty of attempting to murder Bonnette because Sithole was infected with HIV.
“He was only tested for HIV after the incident and then found out he had tested positive. On that argument, it means that if a person unknowingly drives under the influence of alcohol and causes someone’s death he is guilty of attempted murder.
“The intent must have been present at the time of committing the crime and cannot be applied retrospectively,” he said.
Van Rooyen argued the absence of any DNA evidence supported claims by Sithole and the other two men that they had not raped Bonnette.
The trial continues.
Powered by WPeMatico