Pretoria – A psychological report on the so-called “Modimolle monster” Johan Kotze is subjective, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Monday.

Clinical psychologist Tertia Spangenberg initially said the report was not subjective, as Kotze did not know the criteria for dissociation, and had merely answered her questions.

However, Judge Bert Bam put it to her that the report was based on what Kotze had told her. She agreed.

Kotze is accused of orchestrating the gang-rape of his former wife Ina Bonnette and of murdering his stepson Conrad, 19, in his rented home in Modimolle on January 3, 2012. At the time, Bonnette was still married to Kotze, but lived in her own flat.

Kotze’s co-accused, Andries Sithole, Pieta Mohlane, and Frans Mphaka are accused of kidnapping, assaulting, repeatedly raping, and attempting to murder Bonnette that day.

In her report, Spangenberg found Kotze was not accountable for his actions.

“I am of the opinion that Mr Kotze was not accountable for the alleged actions of which he stands accused,” she said.

“It is my opinion that the combination of Mr Kotze’s narcissistic personality disorder, superimposed on traumatic psychological injuries, combined with an unmanaged, long-standing, major depression and untreated and unresolved acute stress disorder, resulted in a state of psychological dissociation during his alleged criminal acts.”

Bam asked her on Monday when this dissociation started and ended.

She said the dissociation would have started during an argument between Kotze and Bonnette on January 3.

Bonnette presented him with the couple’s vibrator and told him to use it on his next wife.

However, Spangenberg could not say with certainty when it ended. She testified that Kotze appeared to remain dissociated when he was in his car after the attack.

Bam put it to her that Kotze testified he had known he had committed an offence when he left the house.

Spangenberg said Kotze did not tell her this during their evaluation.

She earlier told the court Kotze’s case was the first she had done involving diminished capacity.

The defence for Kotze’s co-accused requested that it cross-examine Spangenberg after the State, as it needed a report on Kotze which another psychologist compiled in 2012. – Sapa