'State has failed to prove van Breda is guilty beyond reasonable doubt'
Advocate Pieter Botha has argued the State has not brought any eyewitnesses or direct evidence to implicate Henri van Breda in the murders.
CAPE TOWN - Murder accused Henri van Breda’s legal team has argued the State has failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defence is presenting its closing arguments on Tuesday after the prosecution wrapped up Monday.
The State has argued the circumstantial evidence against van Breda is enough to prove his version was fabricated and that he’s the one who attacked his family, not an intruder.
Advocate Pieter Botha has argued the State has not brought any eyewitnesses or direct evidence to implicate van Breda.
Botha says the prosecution’s entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence and is of poor quality.
He argues the two factors they’ve based their entire case on is that no one else could’ve possibly committed the crimes and that van Breda’s version where he implicates intruders is not “reasonably” true.
Botha further argues the accused has been a good witness whose version has remained consistent throughout his trial.
He adds in most instances, the State’s circumstantial evidence has supported van Breda’s version, instead of their own.
WATCH: Van Breda trial: State argues premeditated murder