A mechanic accused of slitting his wife’s throat claimed in the Pretoria High Court on Monday police had ”tortured” a confession out of him.
Pieter Viljoen denied that he had anything to do with his wife Amelia’s gruesome murder in 2001 and attacked the admissibility of his statements to two police officers and a magistrate about the murder.
Investigating officer Captain Andre Fabricius started testifying last week in a trial-within-a-trial to determine the admissibility of Viljoen’s statements.
On Monday, Johan Engelbrecht, for the defence, hammered him with questions about an alleged torture session in Fabricius’s office, followed by a pointing-out and magistrate’s court proceedings during which Viljoen pleaded guilty to the murder.
Amelia was found in a pool of blood in the bathroom of their home in April 2001. Her throat had been slit. She was five months pregnant with her first child.
Engelbrecht put it to Fabricius that there were four, and not two, police officers present when he was questioned at Fabricius’s office about four months after the murder.
He said Viljoen was slapped if he ”did not give the right answers” about his wife’s murder.
Viljoen claimed he was also at various stages put in a ”straightjacket” when he was forced to wear a jacket the wrong way around, handcuffed, kicked and slapped if he did not give the right answers.
He claimed a blue rubber glove was on three occasions pulled over his head, suffocating him.
He struggled and screamed so hard that the glove burst on the first two occasions. The last time, the fingertips were cut off the glove, but he passed out. When he came to, he realised his hair was wet.
Engelbrecht put it to Fabricius that photos were taken in his office between the torture sessions and that some of the photos clearly showed that Viljoen’s hair was wet.
Fabricius vehemently denied that Viljoen was ever tortured in any way in his presence.
”One simply does not do things like that,” he said. He said he was not present when photos were taken of Viljoen.
Viljoen is on trial for a second time in the high court after initially being discharged because of a lack of evidence after the court threw out his confessions.
The Supreme Court of Appeal thereafter ruled that he could be tried again.
The trial continues. — Sapa