Fatal stabbing of wife was murder with direct intent, says High Court

REHOBOTH resident Prollius van Zyl’s deadly stabbing of his wife just over three years ago was murder with a direct intent to kill, the High Court ruled on Friday.Van Zyl (34) heard Judge Kato van Niekerk’s verdict a year and eight months after he initially offered a guilty plea on the murder charge on which he had been arraigned in the High Court in Windhoek.

Van Zyl was accused of murdering his wife, Melinda van Zyl, at Rehoboth on November 23 2002. Melinda Van Zyl (37) died of multiple stab wounds.At the start of his trial on April 8 last year, Van Zyl admitted that he stabbed his wife with a knife.However, after he had started to testify in mitigation of sentence, Judge Van Niekerk entered a plea of not guilty on Van Zyl’s behalf, since it appeared that he was not unequivocally admitting that he actually intended stabbing his wife.A trial followed, and Friday’s verdict marks the start of the last stage of this legal process.Van Zyl is scheduled to return to the High Court today for sentencing procedures to start with the hearing of testimony and arguments from his defence lawyer, Bradley Basson, and the State’s representative, Deputy Prosecutor General Antonia Verhoef.Judge Van Niekerk found that the evidence placed before the court during Van Zyl’s trial showed that he indeed had a direct intention to kill his wife.Five stab wounds were found on Melinda van Zyl’s body during a post-mortem examination.Three of these were deep stab wounds in her neck, of which one had cut through a major vein.In her view, Judge Van Niekerk said, someone who stabbed somebody else repeatedly in an area such as the neck intended to kill the other person.During his initial attempt to plead guilty, and again during the trial, Van Zyl told the court that on the day before the killing, which took place during the early morning hours, he had been drinking heavily and was also involved in a car accident before he made his way home, where he found his wife.He claimed that she gave him a hostile reception, accused him of lying to her when he told her that he had been in an accident, and that she berated him over his drinking and also assaulted him in their house.He claimed that his wife ran from the house in her nightdress, towards the Police barracks adjacent to their home, and that he followed her, trying to restrain her and get her to return home.He further claimed that while remonstrating with her outside, she grabbed the knife that he was carrying in a pouch on his belt, and that he took it away from her and was trying to close the knife when she hit him with her elbow and kneed him the face as he bent over.He claimed that he must have stabbed her in a reflexive, defensive motion.Judge Van Niekerk rejected the latter part of the explanation.In her view, she said, something serious must have happened inside the Van Zyls’ house for Melinda van Zyl to have fled at that time of the night, which was around 03h00.It was highly probable in her view, she added, that Van Zyl had already taken out his knife, and that this caused Melinda van Zyl to flee outside.Judge Van Niekerk said by Van Zyl’s own account he was trying to save his troubled marriage at that stage.He must have realised that he was in a precarious situation, in danger of losing his wife, and this might have been why he went on a drinking binge after having abstained from alcohol for some four months.Once Van Zyl had returned home, he related during an application to be released on bail shortly after his arrest, his wife repeatedly accused him of terrorising and harassing her, Judge Van Niekerk also noted.The Judge added that to her mind the State had proven that Van Zyl was not under the influence of liquor to such a degree that he could not form an intention to stab his wife, or that he did not know what was going on.Although he might have been affected by alcohol, he was still “in his sound and sober senses”, she said.She also found that the stabbing could not have been an involuntary reflex action.In all, eight knife wounds were detected on Melinda van Zyl’s body, the Judge noted in this regard.Van Zyl has been in custody since November 23 2002.Melinda Van Zyl (37) died of multiple stab wounds.At the start of his trial on April 8 last year, Van Zyl admitted that he stabbed his wife with a knife.However, after he had started to testify in mitigation of sentence, Judge Van Niekerk entered a plea of not guilty on Van Zyl’s behalf, since it appeared that he was not unequivocally admitting that he actually intended stabbing his wife.A trial followed, and Friday’s verdict marks the start of the last stage of this legal process.Van Zyl is scheduled to return to the High Court today for sentencing procedures to start with the hearing of testimony and arguments from his defence lawyer, Bradley Basson, and the State’s representative, Deputy Prosecutor General Antonia Verhoef.Judge Van Niekerk found that the evidence placed before the court during Van Zyl’s trial showed that he indeed had a direct intention to kill his wife.Five stab wounds were found on Melinda van Zyl’s body during a post-mortem examination.Three of these were deep stab wounds in her neck, of which one had cut through a major vein.In her view, Judge Van Niekerk said, someone who stabbed somebody else repeatedly in an area such as the neck intended to kill the other person.During his initial attempt to plead guilty, and again during the trial, Van Zyl told the court that on the day before the killing, which took place during the early morning hours, he had been drinking heavily and was also involved in a car accident before he made his way home, where he found his wife.He claimed that she gave him a hostile reception, accused him of lying to her when he told her that he had been in an accident, and that she berated him over his drinking and also assaulted him in their house.He claimed that his wife ran from the house in her nightdress, towards the Police barracks adjacent to their home, and that he followed her, trying to restrain her and get her to return home.He further claimed that while remonstrating with her outside, she grabbed the knife that he was carrying in a pouch on his belt, and that he took it away from her and was trying to close the knife when she hit him with her elbow and kneed him the face as he bent over.He claimed that he must have stabbed her in a reflexive, defensive motion.Judge Van Niekerk rejected the latter part of the explanation.In her view, she said, something serious must have happened inside the Van Zyls’ house for Melinda van Zyl to have fled at that time of the night, which was around 03h00.It was highly probable in her view, she added, that Van Zyl had already taken out his knife, and that this caused Melinda van Zyl to flee outside.Judge Van Niekerk said by Van Zyl’s own account he was trying to save his troubled marriage at that stage.He must have realised that he was in a precarious situation, in danger of losing his wife, and this might have been why he went on a drinking binge after having abstained from alcohol for some four months.Once Van Zyl had returned home, he related during an application to be released on bail shortly after his arrest, his wife repeatedly accused him of terrorising and harassing her, Judge Van Niekerk also noted.The Judge added that to her mind the State had proven that Van Zyl was not under the influence of liquor to such a degree that he could not form an intention to stab his wife, or that he did not know what was going on.Although he might have been affected by alcohol, he was still “in his sound and sober senses”, she said.She also found that the stabbing could not have been an involuntary reflex action.In all, eight knife wounds were detected on Melinda van Zyl’s body, the Judge noted in this regard.Van Zyl has been in custody since November 23 2002.