Crucial questions remain in child-murder trial

THE trial of self-confessed child rapist and murderer Willem Louw is set to start moving into its final phase in the High Court in Windhoek tomorrow.

The last testimony before judgement will be delivered in Louw’s trial was heard by Judge Sylvester Mainga on Friday. Tomorrow, Deputy Prosecutor-General Antonia Verhoef and Louw’s defence counsel, Louis Karsten, are scheduled to submit their final arguments to Judge Mainga.Louw (32) pleaded guilty to charges of murder, rape and kidnapping when the trial started the week before last.He however denied allegations that he had abducted his victim, the six-year-old Rachel Hamatundu, with the aim of having sexual intercourse with her at Swakopmund on the evening of January 31 last year.That was the evening that Hamatundu was raped and murdered at the Swakopmund sewage works, about half a kilometre from the Tamariskia Municipal Flats where both she and her father and Louw and his parents were living at the time.Louw also denied a charge that he had raped a three-year-old girl at the same flats on the morning of February 1 last year.On that charge, it is alleged that he had manually assaulted the child sexually – an act that is regarded as rape under the Combating of Rape Act of 2000.Louw was arrested on February 2 last year.Two days later, he made a confession before a Magistrate.He also accompanied a Police officer to the scene of the rape and murder to point out the scene and again make admissions about his responsibility for Hamatundu’s violent death.On February 14 last year he once more admitted his guilt when he first pleaded to the charges in the Swakopmund Magistrate’s Court.In spite of his repeated acknowledgements of guilt, however, one crucial question remained unanswered when Louw left the witness box on Friday afternoon after three days of testifying.That is the question how someone who appears to have led a law-abiding life until the evening of January 31 last year, could then suddenly have committed such monstrous deeds, and what dark force could have driven him to commit such shocking crimes.The only explanation that Louw could offer last week, was that as he and Hamatundu was walking along a road past the sewage works that evening – he claimed he was on his way to a shop to buy something to eat – “dirty thoughts” came into his mind, and this prompted him to rape her.He was nervous that day when he stood in the Swakopmund Magistrate’s Court and described in graphic detail how he had raped her, and how he then killed her by taking her by her legs and smashing her head against a concrete pillar a number of times, because that was the first time in his life that he had stood in a court, Louw said on Friday.Having killed Hamatundu in that manner, he dragged her body a few metres away and left her there.He went to a nightclub, where he drank – after a day that he had whiled away drinking as well, he told the court last week.Then he again returned to the scene, to see if she was really dead, smoked a cigarette there – the cigarette butt was found at the scene the next day – and went home to sleep.He had also taken sand and thrown this over the child’s body – and into her viciously injured private parts, the court heard in the course of the trial.”Can you possibly give an explanation?” Verhoef asked Louw about this last act on Friday.”I cannot say why I did it.But I did it.I don’t know why,” Louw replied.Louw also said he could not really say why the “dirty thoughts” had come into his mind at the stage and at the place that he said they did.He however denied that he had had these thoughts at the flat already, and that this was the reason why he had lured Hamatundu to walk with him.According to Louw, he became “wild” when he raped Hamatundu for a second time at the sewage works.When Judge Mainga asked him on Friday what he meant by that word, he was similarly at a loss for an explanation.”My Lord, I cannot describe it when I talk about ‘wild’.I just wasn’t myself.I even mentioned it to the doctor when I was taken for (psychiatric) observation, that I was only following these things in my head.”Judge Mainga remarked that from his actions it seemed as if he had been very angry with the child.He was not, Louw answered: “I cannot say I was angry at the child.She did not do anything against me.”Louw has remained in Police custody since his arrest.Tomorrow, Deputy Prosecutor-General Antonia Verhoef and Louw’s defence counsel, Louis Karsten, are scheduled to submit their final arguments to Judge Mainga.Louw (32) pleaded guilty to charges of murder, rape and kidnapping when the trial started the week before last.He however denied allegations that he had abducted his victim, the six-year-old Rachel Hamatundu, with the aim of having sexual intercourse with her at Swakopmund on the evening of January 31 last year.That was the evening that Hamatundu was raped and murdered at the Swakopmund sewage works, about half a kilometre from the Tamariskia Municipal Flats where both she and her father and Louw and his parents were living at the time.Louw also denied a charge that he had raped a three-year-old girl at the same flats on the morning of February 1 last year.On that charge, it is alleged that he had manually assaulted the child sexually – an act that is regarded as rape under the Combating of Rape Act of 2000.Louw was arrested on February 2 last year.Two days later, he made a confession before a Magistrate.He also accompanied a Police officer to the scene of the rape and murder to point out the scene and again make admissions about his responsibility for Hamatundu’s violent death.On February 14 last year he once more admitted his guilt when he first pleaded to the charges in the Swakopmund Magistrate’s Court.In spite of his repeated acknowledgements of guilt, however, one crucial question remained unanswered when Louw left the witness box on Friday afternoon after three days of testifying.That is the question how someone who appears to have led a law-abiding life until the evening of January 31 last year, could then suddenly have committed such monstrous deeds, and what dark force could have driven him to commit such shocking crimes.The only explanation that Louw could offer last week, was that as he and Hamatundu was walking along a road past the sewage works that evening – he claimed he was on his way to a shop to buy something to eat – “dirty thoughts” came into his mind, and this prompted him to rape her.He was nervous that day when he stood in the Swakopmund Magistrate’s Court and described in graphic detail how he had raped her, and how he then killed her by taking her by her legs and smashing her head against a concrete pillar a number of times, because that was the first time in his life that he had stood in a court, Louw said on Friday.Having killed Hamatundu in that manner, he dragged her body a few metres away and left her there.He went to a nightclub, where he drank – after a day that he had whiled away drinking as well, he told the court last week.Then he again returned to the scene, to see if she was really dead, smoked a cigarette there – the cigarette butt was found at the scene the next day – and went home to sleep.He had also taken sand and thrown this over the child’s body – and into her viciously injured private parts, the court heard in the course of the trial.”Can you possibly give an explanation?” Verhoef asked Louw about this last act on Friday.”I cannot say why I did it.But I did it.I don’t know why,” Louw replied.Louw also said he could not really say why the “dirty thoughts” had come into his mind at the stage and at the place that he said they did.He however denied that he had had these thoughts at the flat already, and that this was the reason why he had lured Hamatundu to walk with him.According to Louw, he became “wild” when he raped Hamatundu for a second time at the sewage works.When Judge Mainga asked him on Friday what he meant by that word, he was similarly at a loss for an explanation.”My Lord, I cannot describe it when I talk about ‘wild’.I just wasn’t myself.I even mentioned it to the doctor when I was taken for (psychiatric) observation, that I was only following these things in my head.”Judge Mainga remarked that from his actions it seemed as if he had been very angry with the child.He was not, Louw answered: “I cannot say I was angry at the child.She did not do anything against me.”Louw has remained in Police custody since his arrest.