|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 12, 2014 7:02:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 12, 2014 8:40:56 GMT
So who do you think did it?
I think it was the boyfriend.
It was clearly a crime of passion, and I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't the boyfriend, he would nevertheless have a very good idea of who the murderer must be. He would then certainly have said so.
(I didn't really follow the story - it was very much a Cape murder.)
It occurred to me that one should be able to find pointers to the murderer if one knew who Inge Lotz was. And for a prominent murder victim, there is a strange dearth of information about her on the internet. About all to be found is that she was very pretty and doing an M.Sc. in mathematical statistics, so that obviously I am partial to her. Or to who she might have been, had it been possible to find anything salient about her on Google when you type in "Who was Inge Lotz".
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 12, 2014 17:20:53 GMT
So who do you think did it? I think it was the boyfriend. It was clearly a crime of passion, and I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't the boyfriend, he would nevertheless have a very good idea of who the murderer must be. He would then certainly have said so. (I didn't really follow the story - it was very much a Cape murder.) It occurred to me that one should be able to find pointers to the murderer if one knew who Inge Lotz was. And for a prominent murder victim, there is a strange dearth of information about her on the internet. About all to be found is that she was very pretty and doing an M.Sc. in mathematical statistics, so that obviously I am partial to her. Or to who she might have been, had it been possible to find anything salient about her on Google when you type in "Who was Inge Lotz". A brief survey indicates that about 4 books have already been written about the case. I am not convinced either way. It is a difficult situation to deal with as he has been acquitted and one should respect that - particularly in view of the fingerprint evidence which was tampered with (the policeman involved confessed to that). This negates the recent stories about the prof who can prove that the fingerprint evidence is in fact correct. Unless - a further twist - the policeman falsely testified that his evidence was false. Surely this is pushing it. Inge was not exactly a nun and I am sort of amused by the statement that they were both Christians. Ok, premarital sex is probably Christian these days. What I found intriguing about the evidence is how his defence (an alibi) was presented. He attended a meeting of the actuarial department he worked in at Old Mutual at the time of the murder. It was testified that the electronic surveillance system made it impossible for him to have left that meeting. Now what puzzles me is this: Why use the surveillance system as a defence when there were how many people at that meeting who could have testified to his presence? He worked with these people on a daily basis and they were not strangers. Was there not a single one who could testify on his behalf? He must have sat next to someone and must have spoken to some there. Not a single one? Anyway, I did not attend the trail, nor did I read the detailed record. Perhaps my recollection based on newspaper reports is faulty. |
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 13, 2014 9:02:57 GMT
What I found intriguing about the evidence is how his defence (an alibi) was presented. He attended a meeting of the actuarial department he worked in at Old Mutual at the time of the murder. It was testified that the electronic surveillance system made it impossible for him to have left that meeting. Now what puzzles me is this: Why use the surveillance system as a defence when there were how many people at that meeting who could have testified to his presence? He worked with these people on a daily basis and they were not strangers. Was there not a single one who could testify on his behalf? He must have sat next to someone and must have spoken to some there. Not a single one? Apparently, his supervisor Ms Shahana Toefy was supposed to testify for the defense, but the defense ultimately declined to call her. She could therefore not be examined re her statement by the prosecution, if I understand correctly. ("Ms Shahana Toefy said Fred sat next to her for the whole duration of the presentation (which supposedly went on till about 5 pm). However, she did not testify on this in court. Due to conflicting testimonies there is uncertainty if this presentation indeed took place on the 16th." Footage 2) "Altogether four witnesses were brought in by the defence to speak to Fred’s alibi — De Wet van der Spuy (Fred’s office mate), Janine von Stein, Mkhuseli Mbomvu, and then Shahana Toefy. Van der Spuy could only testify that Fred was in his office after about 17:15. Von Stein could only remember Fred arriving but could not remember his movements for the rest of the day. Mbomvu testified that Fred stayed in the meeting all day — but it seems that he confused 16 March with 15 March. The judge thus considered Mbomvu an unreliable witness. And then there was Shahana Toefy, whose sworn statement states that Fred sat next to her in the meeting all day except during tea and lunch breaks. So with Van der Spuy’s, Van Stein's and Mbomvu’s statements of limited value, it was absolutely essential that Toefy be challenged on her statement. The State never got the opportunity to do so. Toefy was supposed to be the last witness to testify; she arrived visibly nervous at the court on the day but at the last moment the court was informed that Toefy would not be testifying. When the judge later asked De Bruyn why Toefy would not be testifying, he became red-faced and murmured something to the effect that 'they had their reasons'. The judge therefore had no option but to accept that Toefy’s swom statement was accurate and the whole truth - in spite of several questions that beg to be answered: Why did she say that Fred made his presentation on 16 March when it was in fact on 15 March? (Mbomvu had made a similar mistake.) Why was she hostile and uncooperative towards Director Trollip? What exactly transpired between Fred and her during the 23:34 call — as well as during the second call half an hour later when she called him?" - Bloody Lies, Thomas Mollett, Calvin Mollett |
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 13, 2014 17:56:53 GMT
When the judge later asked De Bruyn why Toefy would not be testifying, he became red-faced and murmured something to the effect that 'they had their reasons'. The judge therefore had no option but to accept that Toefy’s swom statement was accurate and the whole truth - in spite of several questions that beg to be answered: Why did she say that Fred made his presentation on 16 March when it was in fact on 15 March? (Mbomvu had made a similar mistake.) Why was she hostile and uncooperative towards Director Trollip? What exactly transpired between Fred and her during the 23:34 call — as well as during the second call half an hour later when she called him?" - Bloody Lies, Thomas Mollett, Calvin Mollett Excellent work Trog!!! Incredible what you dug up. Congratulations to the Mollets as well. There is an error above though. The judge would not have been able to rely on Toefy´s sworn evidence. Evidence generally has to be given in person and be subject to cross-examination. Statements are only allowed under very exceptional circumstances. Consequently, then, Toefy´s evidence was not before the court at all. The judge must have relied entirely on the electronic surveillance system for his decision. I also query this mistake about the date. It should have been an easy matter clearing that up. If you want some conspiracy theory material, consider this: That judge retired prematurely shortly after having given that judgement. There is something else a relative of mine considers very important. Fred said that he became worried about Inge due to her silence. But then (being deeply in love and all that) he does not go and look for her personally - no, he sends a friend. The routes are examined in much detail in material you unearthed. However, it does not make sense unless it was premeditated murder. In view of the little time for the evil deed - and the hurried return, he must have know when he left, that he was going to kill her. Bypassing the surveillance system would also suggest that it was not a spur of the moment thing, but carefully planned. There are many other points. At the initial stages of the investigation some crucial evidence was locked for an extended period in the desk drawer of an investigating officer. I find the idea that it was premeditated somewhat unreal. |
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 14, 2014 5:21:21 GMT
There is an error above though. The judge would not have been able to rely on Toefy´s sworn evidence. Evidence generally has to be given in person and be subject to cross-examination. Statements are only allowed under very exceptional circumstances. Consequently, then, Toefy´s evidence was not before the court at all. The judge must have relied entirely on the electronic surveillance system for his decision. I see that I should've copied the paragraph immediately preceding this as well. Does this make more sense? That the statement (Toefy’s ) in itself was admitted into evidence because the prosecution referred to it? "Perhaps the most significant mistake made by the State was to allow Shahana Toefy’s statement to be admitted into evidence and then later not get the opportunity to cross-examine her. During the cross-examination of Mkhuseli Mbomvu, one of the alibi witnesses, the prosecutor made reference to Toefy’s sworn statement — and this was a crucial mistake because it allowed the defence to request that Toefy’s statement be admitted into evidence immediately. As a result, it was then not necessary to call her as a witness later in the trial." - Bloody Lies, Thomas Mollett, Calvin Mollett |
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 14, 2014 5:33:02 GMT
There is an error above though. The judge would not have been able to rely on Toefy´s sworn evidence. Evidence generally has to be given in person and be subject to cross-examination. Statements are only allowed under very exceptional circumstances. Consequently, then, Toefy´s evidence was not before the court at all. The judge must have relied entirely on the electronic surveillance system for his decision. I see that I should've copied the paragraph immediately preceding this as well. Does this make more sense? That the statement (Toefy’s ) in itself was admitted into evidence because the prosecution referred to it? "Perhaps the most significant mistake made by the State was to allow Shahana Toefy’s statement to be admitted into evidence and then later not get the opportunity to cross-examine her. During the cross-examination of Mkhuseli Mbomvu, one of the alibi witnesses, the prosecutor made reference to Toefy’s sworn statement — and this was a crucial mistake because it allowed the defence to request that Toefy’s statement be admitted into evidence immediately. As a result, it was then not necessary to call her as a witness later in the trial." - Bloody Lies, Thomas Mollett, Calvin Mollett It clarifies the matter but it is still wrong. The evidential value of that statement is very little - unless the state was stupid enough to admit that it was correct. Something else which I remembered is that the first newspaper reports I saw after Fred´s arrest (it must have been Die Burger) claimed that he had confessed. Either the reporter got it wrong or the police botched that as well - numerous formalities are required for such confession to have any evidential value. |
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 14, 2014 5:56:53 GMT
The irony in the DVD (The Stepforth wives) Inge spent her last moments with has been alluded to by the Mollets. Just to spell it out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_WivesInge is on record as having phoned Fred not long before her death, promising to be a good wife to him. |
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 14, 2014 6:15:40 GMT
A pertinent comment to the issue of the alibi follows on this article: ’n Bespreking van die appèlhofuitspraak in Minister van Polisie v Frederik Barend van der Vyver"Met verwysing na Adv Pienaar se analise van die hofsake rondom die moord op Inge Lotz (wat duidelik die aanvangsperspektief het dat Fred van der Vyfer níé die moord gepleeg het nie), wil ek vir Fred van der Vyfer vra: Sou die saak teen hom ooit naby die Hof gekom het as dit waar was dat hy op die middag van die moord by 'n "werksessie t.o.v. sy eerste projek" (soos die pers dit gestel het) was? As ek (onskuldig) beskuldig sou word van 'n moord wat tydens 'n werksessie van 'n projek van my, gepleeg is, sou ek die Polisie voorsien het van 10 of 20 beëdigde verklarings van onberispelik-betroubare kollegas en hoofde wat onder eed sou getuig het dat ek hoogs-sigbaar teenwoordig was dwarsdeur die werksessie. Die polisie sou my as 'n verdagte moes uitskakel gegewe die onbetwisbare beëdigde verklarings. As Fred dít gedoen het, sou die saak teen hom nie naby die Hof gekom het nie, en bowenal sou 3 plase nie gespandeer gewees het om Amerikaanse ekspert-getuienis te koop nie. Maar volgens persberigte het slegs een getuie getuig dat Fred by die werksessie was, en het dié onder kruisverhoor gevou. Kan Fred vir ons sê hoekom hy nie die bogemelde baie-maklike weg gevolg het om die saak vroeg uitgegooi te kry nie, maar eerder duur Amerikaners laat kom het?" |
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 14, 2014 6:21:05 GMT
Something else which I remembered is that the first newspaper reports I saw after Fred´s arrest (it must have been Die Burger) claimed that he had confessed. Either the reporter got it wrong or the police botched that as well - numerous formalities are required for such confession to have any evidential value. There was indeed a confession, but it was by somebody else - a Namaqualand criminal by name of Werner Carolus: Man 'confessed' to Inge murder |
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jun 14, 2014 7:18:24 GMT
The irony in the DVD (The Stepforth wives) Inge spent her last moments with has been alluded to by the Mollets. Just to spell it out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_WivesInge is on record as having phoned Fred not long before her death, promising to be a good wife to him. Here is the letter she wrote and gave to him on the morning of the day she was murdered. I find it unusually submissive and placatory - she also seems to have had issues with insecurity and low self esteem. Considering her looks, her history and the fact that she was doing a Masters in maths it is really astonishing. "Dear Fred This letter is going to be a bit more difficult than email (can't delete and make changes over and over), but I must get these little things off my chest this morning. I am sorry you left here this morning so confused - I was initially unreasonable and consequently the whole thing got out of control. Firstly, about you and your brothers... I pray that God will give you wisdom on how to handle the situation and that you will be able to resolve the issues between you. Remember, I am ALWAYS there if you want to talk and I very much want to be a part of your life and try to understand what you are going through. The little things that are bothering me at this time... I am really sorry about some of the things I said this morning. My biggest mistake over recent times must have been to find my security and solution to my low self-esteem in you instead of in God. I haven't realised it up until now, but God has unbelievable ways to speak to one, and I now realise that I have been the unreasonable one and not you. Further, I am extremely scared of the Easter weekend and that you will see my father when he has had too much to drink. I don’t want to lose you in such a way, and I don’t want you to see that side of my family. It must sound silly but it's really a big concern to me. And lastly, just the usual little things — work, CT 1 [Financial Mathematics], am I going to get a job, what am I going to do with my flat’? etc. etc. It sounds silly when I write it down on paper, but it’s only right that you know what is going on. I don’t want to keep bothering you with the same issues! Sorry that I sometimes forget that you're only human — I look up to you so much and have such great respect for you - your opinions and the way you handle problems. I don’t always realise that you also have bad days and get hurt sometimes. I don’t always know how to support you and if you even need or want support. I don’t understand how you handle hurt - you will have to teach me how to understand you and how to support you. I feel that I disappoint you if I can’t do the things I mentioned above and that you deserve to have a beautiful girlfriend who looks good, who can cook (:-))!!) and who is in all respects just as perfect as you are - I struggle sometimes to get there - perhaps this is what is the most difficult for me . . . I know that you don’t expect it of me, but then you must please show me how I can be the perfect girlfriend for YOU. I love you VERY much and I don’t want to look any further — tomorrow it will be one year since I fell in love with you:-) (the 1st Wednesday afternoon that you alone came over and had coffee with me:-) - and since that day I have not doubted for one moment that it is you I want. You have enriched my life in so many ways and every day with you is the greatest gift that anyone can dream of. You need NEVER have doubt again for one moment that I am absolutely committed and that I want with everything within me to be with you forever. I want to promise today that I will not depend on you for a good self-image and for security, but that I will take it to God, and that I will support you in everything that you do and that I will be absolutely honest with you about all aspects of my life. I can also promise you today that I will, with God's grace, always remain faithful and that I will never cheat on you [crossed out by Inge] I will never do anything behind your back. I love you with all my heart and I have no doubt that I want to spend the rest of my life with you. Strength with everything at work . . . All my love" |
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jun 14, 2014 7:57:05 GMT
...and that I will never cheat on you [crossed out by Inge] I will never do anything behind your back. Now, is it possible to cheat without going behind someone´s back? |
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Oct 29, 2015 9:16:53 GMT
Bloodied towel key to solving Lotz caseThe incompetence of 'the police' is profoundly astonishing. I heard it remarked that the South African police has no history/tradition/expertise of criminal investigation - that the MO of the SAP, from the Apartheid years until now, was always conviction sought primarily through confession (often somewhat forcibly assisted). I think that this remark is spot-on, and that the SAPD has no idea of how, and no desire either, to conduct an evidence based investigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Oct 29, 2015 9:19:49 GMT
Lotz’s father: We’ll go to court over claimOne could almost imagine some paranoia in the above statement. But maybe there is something in it - I can almost agree that there seems to be some deliberate, continuous and active program afoot to obscure the perceptions around the Lotz murder. If, so, who would be behind it, one wonders. And why choose such a clumsy (and probably very expensive) strategy to go about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Oct 29, 2015 12:24:28 GMT
Oh, yes. Here is a forensic photo of the towel with the hammer imprint. It really is quite distinctive, particularly in the smaller inset top-left. ( Daily Maverick):  |
|
