Judge van Zyl took the bait. ‘I, um, we intend to do just that. Didn’t you say that there is authority to the effect that we should be careful in our scrutiny of the defence evidence in a case like this?’
I caught myself tugging at my robes again. ‘This case is about why the defendant behaved in the way he did and whether he can be held criminally responsible for what happened that evening. The defence contends that he cannot be held responsible. We intend to lead detailed evidence about the defendant’s background, in particular, his work circumstances during the eighteen months before 10 December 1987.’
The Judge looked at the clock and indicated that it was time for the tea adjournment. ‘You can tell us about the defendant’s background when we return.’ Then he rose and left the court through the door immediately behind his chair. The Assessors followed him.
Labuschagne was taken down the stairs to the cells. Members of the public stayed in the courtroom to preserve their seats. Reporters spilled out of the jury box into the corridor, looking for an opportunity to smoke a cigarette while phoning their editors. I left for the robing room with Wierda. I needed some air.
We left our robes in the robing room off the corridor directly behind the courtroom. There were other advocates there and we left quickly. Wierda suggested that we go for a walk on Church Square. ‘We can talk there,’ he added.
We met Roshnee on the steps and rushed across the street to the Square. We sat down on the steps of the monument in the centre of the park-like grounds. Vagrants had occupied all the park benches. We were in the shade cast by the statue of the last President of the Transvaal Republic, Paul Kruger, affectionately known as Oom Paul. We bought some soft drinks from a street vendor. Wierda and I discussed the remainder of our opening statement, refining it here and there and adding bits that arose from the questions the Judge had asked and the attitude he had exhibited thus far. I scribbled a note to myself in the margin next to the relevant paragraphs of the draft.
‘An impressive building, even if it is a bit run down,’ I said, twenty minutes later, as we were making our way back to the Palace of Justice for the second session of the day.
‘My great-grandfather designed it,’ Wierda said with a glow of pride. ‘In 1894.’
Crossing the street, we made our way up the steps in front of the building together. Wierda showed me the plaque at the entrance, on the left.
GEBOUDED IN DE JAREN 1896-1899
S WIERDA J MUNRO H V WERKEN AANNEMER
It was an odd combination, a Hollander and a Scot.
I did not stop to notice the elaborate foyers at the entrance as I was already lost in the details of the opening statement.
I took my time when I sketched Labuschagne’s history and background; it would eventually become an important component of our attempt to explain the events at the reservoir. I spoke slowly and emphasised the salient features without repeating them and without presenting facts as argument.
I next had to deal with the witnesses to be called to give evidence on behalf of the defence. There was three-quarters of an hour left before the lunch adjournment. On the spur of the moment I decided to depart from the prepared opening statement and to give the Judge and Assessors only the most basic outline of the proposed evidence. I closed my trial notebook and spoke off the cuff.
‘The defendant will be called first,’ I said. ‘The second witness will be his wife, Magda Labuschagne. We intend calling the headmaster of the defendant’s high school. Then we intend to call two expert witnesses. First, Dr Marianne Schlebusch, a practising clinical psychologist and lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand. Dr Schlebusch will say that, in her opinion, when he shot the seven deceased at the reservoir, the defendant’s mental processes had broken down to such an extent that he was neither aware of his actions nor in control of them.’
Wierda passed me a note, but I knew what it said and pocketed it unread. I continued without a pause.
‘Our last witness will be Professor Leonard Shapiro who teaches Psychiatry at the University of Southern California Medical School and is a forensic expert on the panel of psychiatrists of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The burden of Professor Shapiro’s evidence will be that, after studying the case materials and the several interviews he has conducted with the defendant, he agrees with Miss Schlebusch’s opinion.’
The courtroom had become eerily quiet. We had finally disclosed our hand; in the language of bridge we had made our bid. There were a few minutes left before one o’clock. The moment had finally arrived for Leon Labuschagne to talk, to tell his story and to face the consequences.
‘M’Lord,’ I said, ‘we are ready to call the defendant, but we would ask for an indulgence, namely to adjourn for lunch at this stage.’
Judge van Zyl nodded but did not announce the adjournment.
‘There is a matter that is of some concern to me,’ he said gravely. ‘You mentioned that the defendant worked in Maximum Security Prison and that evidence will be given of his work conditions and of events which took place there, am I right?’
I confirmed that that was our intention.
He thought for a while. ‘In that case,’ he said eventually, ‘I do not want any names to be used, not of the officials or the inmates, no one at all unless it cannot be avoided.’
‘We shall oblige,’ I agreed immediately. It would give the defence greater freedom to make use of the information we had gathered.
Judge van Zyl pointed his spectacles at me. ‘And I expect you to ask me for permission before you use anyone’s name.’
I agreed again, though it was a promise that would not be easy to keep.
‘The Court adjourns until two-fifteen,’ said the Judge and we trooped out to the Square for the second time. Before I left I arranged with the cell sergeant to let us into the cells below the courtroom at half-past one to give our client his final briefing.
As we were walking to the robing room, I took Wierda’s note from my pocket. Why are you abandoning our prepared opening statement?
‘A change of tactics,’ I said. ‘I thought it would be better to leave the explanations for the closing argument.’
Wierda was not convinced. He shook his head in displeasure at my changing course without consulting him. We had spent many hours in his chambers crafting together what we thought was a perfect opening statement, one with a solid mix of logic and emotion, balancing law and fact, evidence and inference, a teasing statement that left the details for later. It was the detail that worried me. Would our witnesses produce the goods?
Roshnee showed no interest in the discussion and, as was her habit, stuck to more practical things. ‘Let’s get something to eat quickly, we don’t have much time.’
We departed promptly and ate our sandwiches in the shade provided by a tree a few yards away from Oom Paul’s statue. I took the opportunity to brief Wierda and Roshnee on the second case I had summarised.
V3421 Joseph George Scheepers
12
The indictment charged four young men with robbery with aggravating circumstances, rape and murder. They were Schalk Burger, Joseph Scheepers, Johannes Matthysen and Daniel du Randt. Burger was twenty years old, Scheepers twenty-one, and the other two nineteen. They had robbed Mr Jacob Wessie of his car and other possessions and had raped and murdered his female companion, Miss Ginny Goitseone.
On Friday 1 February 1985 du Randt bought a toy revolver as a present for his younger brother. He still had it with him late that evening when he and Matthysen met Burger and Scheepers outside the Tivoli Hotel in Klerksdorp for a night of drinking and playing darts. When the bar closed at eleven they had no choice but to leave.
Outside Scheepers stopped a passing motorist, Mr Johannes Mophuting, and demanded that Mophuting take him home. Burger, Matthysen and du Randt followed in Burger’s car. Mophuting stopped in front of the police station. Scheepers jumped out and got into Burger’s car. He had seen some music cassette tapes i
n Mophuting’s car and at Burger’s suggestion they followed Mophuting on his journey home to rob him.
But Mophuting saw them and when he arrived home he locked the doors of his car and sounded his hooter. Scheepers broke the left front window of Mophuting’s car with a rock and pointed the toy revolver at him. Mophuting ran away, but his neighbours swarmed to his aid and the four white men fled empty-handed.
As they left Jouberton they came across a BMW car parked next to the road. Mr Jacob Wessie was in the driver’s seat and Miss Ginny Goitseone was sitting in the passenger seat. Burger stopped next to the BMW and Scheepers went to Wessie’s window, pointed the toy revolver at him and shouted that he was a policeman. He ordered Wessie to open the window and when Wessie opened the driver’s window he grabbed the ignition keys. Scheepers said the BMW had been stolen and that he was going to take Wessie to the police station. He ordered Wessie into the back seat and told du Randt to get in behind Miss Goitseone. Scheepers then drove off in Wessie’s BMW and Burger and Matthysen followed in Burger’s car.
During the journey du Randt had held the toy revolver against Wessie’s neck while fondling Miss Goitseone’s breasts with his other hand. Scheepers asked du Randt, ‘Nou wie gaan met die meisie begin?’ Scheepers stopped in a deserted cul-de-sac among some smallholdings about fifteen kilometres away. There Scheepers and Burger subjected Wessie to a prolonged assault, robbed him of his money and removed his car radio-cassette player while du Randt and Matthysen took turns to rape Miss Goitseone. ‘Die meisie is lekker,’ du Randt said when he returned to the BMW. Scheepers and du Randt tried to force Wessie into the boot of the BMW. Wessie noticed the first three registration letters – DLL – of Burger’s car. He pretended to get into the boot but instead suddenly ran off into the dark. He was pursued in vain by Burger, Matthysen and du Randt. They returned to the cars without their captive. They now had a problem. Wessie could identify them and Scheepers’ fingerprints were all over the BMW.
Wessie hid behind some bushes and saw the two cars being driven away a short while later. Scheepers, in the presence of Matthysen, had forced Miss Goitseone into the boot of the BMW before driving off. She was still alive.
Some eleven kilometres away they stopped. Burger raised the bonnet of his car and Scheepers sucked some petrol from the fuel supply to the carburettor into his mouth and spat it out on the upholstery of the BMW. He made several trips. At one stage Miss Goitseone was heard to call, ‘My baas, my baas!’ She was screaming and pleading, but to no avail. Burger started up his car and Scheepers set the BMW alight. The four men drove off in Burger’s car and stopped on a bridge. Burger and Scheepers looked back towards the BMW to see whether it had caught alight but they could not see anything from where they were.
Matthysen remonstrated with them, saying that what they had done was murder and that he wanted to have nothing to do with it. Scheepers’ response was that Matthysen had also hit Wessie. He added, ‘Ek voel fokkol vir die lewe.’ After dropping Matthysen at a tearoom near his parents’ home and with du Randt sleeping on the back seat, Burger and Scheepers returned to the BMW. They saw that the vehicle had been completely gutted by the fire. They took du Randt home and went their separate ways.
Wessie eventually found his way to the police station. The police found the BMW with Miss Goitseone’s charred body in the boot the next day, Saturday 2 February 1985. They had no leads until Matthysen arrived at the police station late the next evening. He handed himself over and told the police what had happened. The others were arrested the next day. Scheepers and Burger had already fled 750 kilometres to Durban and had to be brought all the way back for their trial.
Wessie had suffered numerous injuries and his clothes were covered in blood. Miss Goitseone had died of smoke inhalation or carbon poisoning before her body had been rendered unrecognisable as that of a human being.
On 17 September 1985 the four accused were convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances. All four were also convicted of rape, with Matthysen and du Randt declared guilty as principal offenders and Burger and Scheepers as accomplices. On the murder charge Burger and Scheepers were convicted while Matthysen and du Randt were found not guilty.
The next day the Court heard evidence and submissions on the question of extenuating circumstances with regard to the murder conviction. A psychiatrist in private practice gave evidence and explained his findings and conclusions. His written reports on Burger and Scheepers were placed before the Court. A State psychiatrist concurred with the findings and conclusions in every respect. The opinion of the psychiatrists was that Burger had not suffered from any mental illness at the time of the examination, nor had he at the time the crimes were committed. Scheepers, on the other hand, was found to suffer from an antisocial personality defect, but no mental defect as contemplated by the law was detected. He was a psychopath.
The Court found no extenuating circumstances and Scheepers and Burger were sentenced to death on the murder charge. On 20 September 1985 the Court reconvened to pass sentence on the remaining charges. For the aggravated robbery on Wessie each of the men was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment. For the rape Burger and Scheepers were sentenced to death a second time and Matthysen and du Randt each to sixteen years imprisonment.
Scheepers and Burger appealed. Their death sentences on the rape charge were set aside, but their death sentences on the murder charge were confirmed.
On 20 November 1987 Burger and Scheepers were called from their cells at Maximum Security Prison and the Deputy Sheriff advised them that the State President had extended mercy to Burger but not to Scheepers. Burger was to serve life imprisonment instead and Scheepers was to be hanged on the twenty-sixth.
The night before the execution Scheepers’ family launched an application for a stay of execution. The application papers included affidavits by Scheepers and his father. However, the application was hopeless, devoid of merit, and the Judge dismissed it out of hand. The team of lawyers acting for Scheepers turned their pleas for mercy to the State President, but to no avail.
Scheepers was hanged the next day. He was twenty-three years old.
Palace of Justice
13
After the lunch break we rushed back to give Labuschagne a final briefing. We had half an hour before the Court was due to re-assemble. The cell below Court C was damp and uncomfortable. The sergeant in charge of the cells locked us in the cell with Labuschagne and went off to have his lunch.
‘Will you please take him through his statement?’ I asked Wierda.
I tried to make myself comfortable on one of the wooden benches. For a while I listened as Wierda took Labuschagne through the timeline we had prepared for his evidence. The walls were covered in graffiti. I craned my neck to read some. I quickly dropped any pretence at indifference. A crude gibbet was drawn on the wall above my head, the noose around the letters ANC. A snake-like appendage hanging from the third letter dripped blood onto the floor. Above the noose was a name.
WITKOMMANDO
Adjacent to it a defiant member of Umkhonto we Sizwe had scribbled a manifesto on the wall in imperfect English:
M.K. MANUFESTO
THERE COMES A TIME IN THE LIFE OF EVERY
NATION, WHERE THERE REMAINS ONLY TWO CHOICES,
SUBMIT OR FIGHT, AND THAT TIME HAS COME TO S.A.
WE SHALL NOT SUBMIT, AND WE HAVE NO CHOICE, BUT TO
HIT BACK WITH ALL MEANS WE HAVE IN OUR POWER, IN DEFFENCE OF OUR PEOPLE, OUR FREEDOM AND OUR FUTURE.
AMANDLA! O’ POVU
I walked around to another wall. The names of the accused in a 1977 case were listed under the heading:
NC TERRORIST TRIAL 17/7/77
MOSIMA SEXWALE
NALEDI TSIKI
JACOB MOTAUNG
SIMON MOHLANYANE
There were other names I had never heard. Some names had been partly obliterated by the moss feeding in the damp; others had been defaced by other occupants of the cell. I walked from wall to wall, reading mes
sages from the past. It was plain that a political battle was also being fought here in the cell, mostly by anonymous participants.
More subtle in its power and universal in its application was a passage from the Bible, St James edition. The damp had destroyed the text at the edges.
PSALM 94
SHALL THE THRONE OF INIQUITY HAVE …
WHICH FRAMETH MISCHIEF BY A LAW
THEY GATHER THEMSELVES TOGETHER …
THE RIGHTEOUS AND CONDEMN THE INNOCENT …
It was a wall of political protest and defiance, mostly by black prisoners raging against the white regime, with the odd riposte by a white prisoner. Some light relief was provided by the career criminals, for whom a stay in the cells was merely part of the job, an occupational risk, so to speak, and thus to be endured with fortitude, a bit of cheek and some good humour.
One inmate had taken a sly dig at his lawyer:
GULZMAR
EBRAHIM
WAS HIER VIR ROOF
EN KAR DIEFSTAL EN
HET AGTER SY ADWORKAT
GEGAAN EN SKELDEG GEPLYT
SY VONNIS WAS 9-15 JAAR
TRONKSTRAF SHALOET
Wierda and Labuschagne were working at the table, poring over the papers and concentrating on the job at hand. I studied our client for a moment. A rather serious young man, but given the circumstances, that could be forgiven. The question was, would he let us down when he got into the witness box? Clients always do; that is just one of the hazards of the job. Somehow cases always seemed to go well until the client steps into the witness box; then all the careful stitches in the cloth holding the case together are unravelled one by one.
Shepherds and Butchers Page 12
