Marcel’s lawyer speaks: “For a fourteen-year-old child, the sight of her mother stabbing someone repeatedly can never be said to not have left some kind of trauma”
Marcel Steyn's legal representative addressed the court, attempting to further convince the court that Marcel did not have much choice in the matter, as she was very young when it all started.
As the #KrugersdorpMurders trial nears its end, after Zak Valentine’s and Cecilia Steyn’s advocates had delivered their closing arguments on behalf of their clients, Advocate Johnson addressed the court on behalf of Marcel Steyn.
Johnson spoke, firstly, of Marcel’s reason for getting involved in the crimes, i.e. “… that it was God’s will.” Johnson added that she did actually have other specific reasons for participating in the crimes.
Also read:
https://www.citizen.co.za/krugersdorp-news/380438/zaks-advocate-speaks-zak-thought-he-was-doing-good-and-wanted-to-help-the-children/
She said that the group was under the false impression that Cecilia’s life was in danger because of the children at the orphanage. Marcel did not want Cecilia to get hurt and that is why she believed in and helped Cecilia. “It is clear from the evidence that she was influenced by Cecilia. Even her mother told her she had to believe what Cecilia said,” said Johnson.
The Advocate went on to state that, as Marcel grew up, she was threatened, and told that she would end up like Mikeila, and that made her scared enough to not want to run. She tried to distance herself from the actual murders because she knew what the group was doing was wrong, but had no option other than to join them, because she was scared that they would kill her.
“I submit that for a fourteen-year-old child, the sight of her mother stabbing someone repeatedly can never be said to not have left some kind of trauma,” said Johnson.
Johnson said that it had been hinted that Marcel’s testimony had been a tactical move, and that her version of events could not be corroborated because she had testified last. Johnson’s response to this was: “I would not have objected if any of the other representatives had brought an application to recall any witness to corroborate the story.”
Also read:
https://www.citizen.co.za/krugersdorp-news/380374/krugersdorpmurders-state-continues-with-its-final-arguments/
Johnson claimed that Marcel had said that it was never an option to come clean or ask for help, because her life was in danger. She was afraid she’d be killed. She also explained that if Marcel had not participated in the planning of the crimes and the murders, she would have been seen to be withdrawing, as was the case with Mikeila Valentine.
“I submit that the State has failed to prove that a reasonable person in Marcel’s position would have acted any differently,” said Johnson, adding that Marcel had been forbidden to go to church, she was forbidden to go to her father and she was not allowed to have friends. She could only go to school and go home. The only people she had in her life were those in the group.
Johnson raised the the following question: “Marcel was still young, and at the age of fourteen, if she had decided to run away, how would she have supported herself? She was influenced to believed her father did not want her”.
The State is set to speak next, but a verdict will only be given on 3 June.
