Part 6: Karlien van Rooyen’s chilling account of #VanRooyenFarmAttack
“We felt safe among our people,” says Karlien when asked why their security was unarmed.
The following morning saw Karlien van Rooyen sworn in to take the witness stand again following the previous day’s gripping account, through the eyes of one of the victims, of the events that took place on the night of the attack.
The enduring trauma of the attack is evident in Karlien’s eyes as the belt from her deceased father’s rifle is placed before her as evidence. She touches the leather, studying the unique pattern etched onto the belt and clutches the stark and harrowing reminder of what was so violently taken from her that night, as she testifies that she recognises it as her father’s rifle belt.
“My knowledge of guns is not so good,” she states, when questioned by the Senior State Prosecutor about the gun that was pointed at her by Accused Number 4 on the night in question, “but it was a big gun, not a hand pistol or something small…” She describes the barrel of the gun as having holes around it. “That is why I described it as a machine gun before…”
ALSO READ: Part 5: Karlien van Rooyen’s chilling account of #VanRooyenFarmAttack
Adv Ludick asks about her late husband’s knowledge of firearms and she responds, “Billy’s knowledge on guns was very good. He was a professional hunter, so he knew guns.”
Referring back to the Van Rooyen home, the crime scene where the double murder took place in 2016, Adv Ludick asks how often the windows were cleaned prior to the attack.
“We had five ladies employed as domestic workers then,” she responds. “The windows were cleaned on a weekly basis.”
ALSO READ: Part 4: Karlien van Rooyen’s chilling account of #VanRooyenFarmAttack
Ms Maharaj, Defense Attorney for Accused Number 1, opens her line of questioning with reference to the amount of workers previously mentioned by Karlien. Karlien reminds her that she did state that it was an approximate amount and describes the layout of the Van Rooyen homes and businesses to provide perspective on the amount of people employed.
Aside from the homes of the family, including Billy and Karlien van Rooyen and their children, Karlien’s parents and Billy’s parents and the houses for the workers, the premises also contained a General Dealer, a petrol station, a tavern and tea room, a bakery and butchery. The farm itself held cattle, sheep, pigs, an orchard, an area specifically for seedlings and a feedmill.
ALSO READ: Part 3: van Rooyen’s chilling account of #VanRooyenFarmAttack
Ms Maharaj questions the witness on the security measures at the Van Rooyen farm and Karlien responds, “We had security on the farm… but we employed locals and they were unarmed, to my knowledge.”
“We felt safe among our people,” says Karlien when asked why their security was unarmed. A profound statement, given the circumstances, one might consider.
Karlien explains that security measures on the property included two guards watching the fences, one guard at the tavern and one at the shops.
ALSO READ: Part 2: Karlien van Rooyen’s chilling account of #VanRooyenFarmAttack
She speaks affectionately of “Baba Mtshali” also known to her as Piet Mtshali, who was employed by the Van Rooyen family.
“I’m not sure of his real first name,” she adds. “But I called him ‘Baba’ out of respect…”
According to Karlien’s statement, he was responsible for keeping an eye on the shop, as well as the petrol pumps at night, and general cleaning in front of the stores.
Ms Maharaj asks Karlien if she was aware that the suspects had restrained and questioned one of the security guards before the attack. Karlien states that she only found out later.
ALSO READ: PART 1: Karlien van Rooyen’s chilling account of #VanRooyenFarmAttack
After the incident, workers and members of the community came to the farm to express their sympathy. Ms Maharaj asks if Karlien recalls seeing the security guard among them.
“I don’t know,” says Karlien.
Maharaj points out that, in the security guard’s statement, he claims that he exited the property with the suspects following the attack and that the suspects referred to the Van Rooyen family by name in their interrogation.
Judge Barnard questions Ms Maharaj on the relevance of the questions about the workers and she explains that it relates to the testimony of Sibiya, the previous witness.
“You must understand,” offers Karlien, “I was focused on my children and surviving. I was very traumatised. I’m still very traumatised, and I wasn’t listening to what was going on around me after the attack…”
