Prison beckons for child killer

CHILD rapist and killer Willem Louw will be sentenced in the High Court in Windhoek on Friday.

Judge Sylvester Mainga postponed sentencing after Deputy Prosecutor General Antonia Verhoef and defence counsel Louis Karsten had addressed him on Thursday. That Louw (32) will be sent to prison, and that this will be for many years, appeared to be common cause between Karsten and Verhoef.The only remaining question, it seems, is for how many years.Louw admitted at the start of his trial in early July that he had raped and murdered a six-year-old girl, Rachel Hamatundu, at Swako­p­mund on the evening of January 31 last year.During his trial the only explanation he could offer for the rape was that “dirty thoughts” had entered his mind while Hamatundu followed him on a stroll to a shop where he wanted to buy something to eat.Having violently raped her, he decided to kill her, he confessed to the court.He ended her life in an exceptionally brutal way: by taking her by her legs and smashing her head several times against a concrete pillar at the Swakopmund sewage works, which was where he had raped her.Judge Mainga also convicted Louw on a charge that he had abducted Hamatundu from the Tamariskia Municipal Flats, where she lived with her father and Louw was living with his parents.On another charge, in which Louw was accused of sexually fondling a three-year-old girl at the same flats on the morning after Hamatundu’s murder, Judge Mainga convicted him of indecent assault.Louw last week continued to protest his innocence on that charge.The evidence showed that the rape and murder had been committed “in a very brutal, to say the least, monstrous manner”, Karsten remarked in his address before Judge Mainga on Thursday.Those crimes were committed in a cold-blooded way, but were not premeditated, he said.Karsten readily conceded that there were no “substantial and compelling circumstances” – a prerequisite under the Combating of Rape Act – present which would entitle the court to impose a sentence lower than the prescribed minimum jail term of 15 years on the rape charge.He pointed out that Louw had co-operated with the Police after his arrest on February 2 last year, that he had made a confession two days after his arrest, that he pleaded guilty at his trial, and that he had apologised for his crimes.While there was no doubt that Louw should be imprisoned, the court should also show a measure of mercy to Louw and should give him a chance to eventually return into society after serving his sentence and using the chance to rehabilitate, Karsten argued.Verhoef told the court that what stood out in Louw’s case was “the sheer enormity” of the crimes and “the brutality and barbarity of it”.Having raped Hamatundu and smashed her head to a pulp, Louw dragged her body to the spot where she was found the next morning, and then poured handfuls of sand over her private parts and disfigured face, Verhoef reminded the Judge.”And what is the accused’s reaction after murdering the deceased?” Verhoef continued.”He goes to a nightclub, Club New Edition, to go and enjoy himself.”Later, after a couple of beers, Louw returned to the crime scene to make sure that Hamatundu was really dead, tiptoed around in his socks, and coolly extinguished a cigarette that he was smoking, Verhoef continued.To add to this, Louw only washed Hamatundu’s blood off his shoes two days later – after he had gone to the flat of Hamatundu’s father to pretend to mourn with him, Verhoef said.What was striking about his conduct, she commented, was the absence of basic human traits like remorse, empathy, mercy or compassion – the very characteristics that distinguished a civilised society from barbarity.On the rape charge, a sentence far more than the prescribed term of 15 years’ imprisonment should be imposed, she argued.For the murder, he should likewise receive a severe sentence.Louw had to be removed from society for a very long time, Verhoef said.That Louw (32) will be sent to prison, and that this will be for many years, appeared to be common cause between Karsten and Verhoef.The only remaining question, it seems, is for how many years.Louw admitted at the start of his trial in early July that he had raped and murdered a six-year-old girl, Rachel Hamatundu, at Swako­p­mund on the evening of January 31 last year.During his trial the only explanation he could offer for the rape was that “dirty thoughts” had entered his mind while Hamatundu followed him on a stroll to a shop where he wanted to buy something to eat.Having violently raped her, he decided to kill her, he confessed to the court.He ended her life in an exceptionally brutal way: by taking her by her legs and smashing her head several times against a concrete pillar at the Swakopmund sewage works, which was where he had raped her.Judge Mainga also convicted Louw on a charge that he had abducted Hamatundu from the Tamariskia Municipal Flats, where she lived with her father and Louw was living with his parents.On another charge, in which Louw was accused of sexually fondling a three-year-old girl at the same flats on the morning after Hamatundu’s murder, Judge Mainga convicted him of indecent assault.Louw last week continued to protest his innocence on that charge.The evidence showed that the rape and murder had been committed “in a very brutal, to say the least, monstrous manner”, Karsten remarked in his address before Judge Mainga on Thursday.Those crimes were committed in a cold-blooded way, but were not premeditated, he said.Karsten readily conceded that there were no “substantial and compelling circumstances” – a prerequisite under the Combating of Rape Act – present which would entitle the court to impose a sentence lower than the prescribed minimum jail term of 15 years on the rape charge.He pointed out that Louw had co-operated with the Police after his arrest on February 2 last year, that he had made a confession two days after his arrest, that he pleaded guilty at his trial, and that he had apologised for his crimes.While there was no doubt that Louw should be imprisoned, the court should also show a measure of mercy to Louw and should give him a chance to eventually return into society after serving his sentence and using the chance to rehabilitate, Karsten argued.Verhoef told the court that what stood out in Louw’s case was “the sheer enormity” of the crimes and “the brutality and barbarity of it”.Having raped Hamatundu and smashed her head to a pulp, Louw dragged her body to the spot where she was found the next morning, and then poured handfuls of sand over her private parts and disfigured face, Verhoef reminded the Judge.”And what is the accused’s reaction after murdering the deceased?” Verhoef continued.”He goes to a nightclub, Club New Edition, to go and enjoy himself.”Later, after a couple of beers, Louw returned to the crime scene to make sure that Hamatundu was really dead, tiptoed around in his socks, and coolly extinguished a cigarette that he was smoking, Verhoef continued.To add to this, Louw only washed Hamatundu’s blood off his shoes two days later – after he had gone to the flat of Hamatundu’s father to pretend to mourn with him, Verhoef said.What was striking about his conduct, she commented, was the absence of basic human traits like remorse, empathy, mercy or compassion – the very characteristics that distinguished a civilised society from barbarity.On the rape charge, a sentence far more than the prescribed term of 15 years’ imprisonment should be imposed, she argued.For the murder, he should likewise receive a severe sentence.Louw had to be removed from society for a very long time, Verhoef said.