Inge Lotz Murder: The Beginnings
Many people have emailed me and left comments asking me to write more about the Inge Lotz murder and what people are saying about the trial. So, I am going to do a series of articles looking at all the events, trial proceedings and thoughts related to this terrible tragedy. I am not going to take sides, just say it how I see it. I would like to hear your feedback on each post.
March 16, 2005
It was a pleasant Wednesday in Stellenbosch. Inge Lotz, a bright 22 year old Maties student arrived back to her Shiraz security complex in Klein Welgevonden, located near the University campus.
The flat was fitted with burglar bars and security gates, and the balcony could not be reached from the outside. The complex wass fully fenced and provided with electric fencing, and can only be reached through a remote-controlled security gate.
Although she had been studying hard, she popped out to do a little shopping and to rent a DVD so that she could relax. Some time in the morning, she sent her father a message, telling him how much she loved him. Some maintenance workers in the complex saw the beautiful student arriving home at a little after 1pm. That is the last time anyone ever saw her alive again.
Inge’s mother, Juanita, often spoke to her daughter by phone, swapping stories about their day. This Wednesday she had tried unsuccessfully a number of times to call Inge, but with no success. Another friend had also tried to contact her at various times, but had also been unable to. In frustration and a little worried, the friend decided to go over and check on Inge.
When the friend arrived at the flat, they were met with a horrific sight. Inge lay dead on the couch with numerous stab wounds to her neck and chest. There also appeared to be blows to her head. In her hand, she was still clutching the RV remote control. A beautiful life snuffed out.
When the police arrived, they discovered that the front door had been closed, but not locked. Her laptop, cellphone and purse were left untouched. She was fully clothed and it did not appear that she had been raped. As they investigated the crime scene more thoroughly, they discovered a clear blood-stained fingerprint in the wash basin, where apparently the killer had washed up before leaving.
Some time later the police also discovered semen spots on the couch, as well as a letter from a male friend, begging her for forgiveness after “cursing her and Fred”.
May 02, 2005
However, by May 2, 2005 a new investigative coordinator, Attie Trollip, had been appointed because of “the initial poor handling of the investigation”. No reasons or further comments were given as to what the “poor handling” entailed. This was also the day that the police that after initially having three suspects, they announced that they had narrowed it down to one particular suspect who they refused to name. He was later identified by his lawyer as Fred van der Vyver, the boyfriend of Inge.
Van der Vyver’s lawyer made a statement that his client was a suspect, but police had yet to tell him why he was under suspicion. Van der Vyvfer had been questioned on April 15, 2005, by the Serious and Violent Crimes Unit. According to his lawyer, William Booth “Legal action against the police was considered after Van der Vyfer had been “interrogated for hours, violating his constitutional rights”. He also mentioned that van der Vyver’s flatmate, Marius Botha, also a longtime former boyfriend of Lotz’s, had given him an alibi.
He further stated that the police had not given him the search warrants needed for the search of van der Vyver’s house and car. Van der Vyvfer had also provided the police with hair and blood samples at this time for DNA analysis.
At this stage, the results of the forensic test on a bloody hand print found near the basin - which might prove to be vital in the investigation - were not yet available. Also he cellphone of Lotz’s father, on which was recorded an endearing message Lotz sent him on the day she was murdered, was stolen from the the family’s home in Welgemoed shortly after the funeral. It had not been recovered, nor had a suspect been identified.
June 13, 2005
On June 13, 2005, police issued a warrant of arrest for Fred van der Vyver. OOn June 16, 2005, he arrived at the police station in Cloeteville with his father, two friends and his lawyer to turn himself in. At the time it was reported that indeed the fingerprint taken at the flat belonged to van der Vyver - but that it had been lifted off a DVD that Inge has hired on the morning of her murder. No mention was made of the bloody finger-print.
The following day he was granted bail of R10 000 by the Stellenbosch magistrate’s court.
In the packed courtroom, the defence presented the court with an affidavit by Van der Vyfer, stating that he had presented the police with an alibi and was “not guilty of the crime”.
He stated that he had given the police his full co-operation during the investigation, even hiring private investigators to present the police with additional proof of his whereabouts on the day of the murder.
The affidavit also read that he co-operated with the head of the investigation, Director Attie Trollip, in providing the police with blood and hair samples, as well as undergoing a polygraph test, indicating that he “was not involved in the death of Inge Lotz”.
———————————————————————————–
Some Questions at this point:
1) What happened to the bloody fingerprint? After all it was very clear! It seems to have mysteriously disappeared!
2) Whose semen stains were on the couch? How old were they? OK they could have come from Fred, but hey, he was her boyfriend!
3) Did anyone question the maintenance workers more closely? If anything it proves that there were a whole host of people wandering around the complex.
4) Why did no one notice Fred if he was there?
5) A person who has just stabbed and bludgeoned someone to death would have blood all over their clothes. This would surely be noticeable. Yet no-one saw anything?
6) Who stole the Jan Lotz cell phone? It could have been Fred disposing of evidence, but it was hardly much evidence and he didn’t dispose of any other more incriminating evidence, such as the ‘hammer’ and ‘paring knife’.
7) Did the police check Fred’s shoes for blood?
Why aren’t we told more about the “poor handling of the investigation”? Why was the team replaced? I think we deserve to know a little more. I hope it comes up in the trial!
9) Fred had an alibi and seems to have co-operated with police all the way. That doesn’t sound like a guilty man. But then again you never know.
10) The lie detector test cleared him of killing Inge. Isn’t it funny that if it came back saying that he DID kill Inge, then the police would make a huge deal of it. If it says you are guilty, they will use it. If it says you are innocent, they ignore it.
Coming Up Soon: The Van Der Vyver Alibi
Please note:
All ‘facts’ that I mention have been obtained through the media. As we know, the media often exaggerates, stretches the truth and is pretty often totally off-track. For most of us South Africans, the only source of information regarding this case comes from the media, and most of our talking points comes from this reporting. I do not claim to be an expert on this matter, nor an expert in forensics or any have any legal background. I am merely reporting my feelings and the feelings of those who I talk to in my daily life, based on the evidence supplied by the usual news channels.
Related Posts:
Loading ...
May 15th, 2007 at 9:12 am
While your efforts are appreciated and you ask many many valid questions you also present numerous factual mistakes as fact - this is dangerous. If you would like me to assist you with facts you are welcome to contact me at fingerprint_truth@yahoo.com and perhaps request me to run over your post before publishing it. I am not imposing - simply offering asstance. If you are serious about your blog I would recommend this approach, otherwize you may be setting yourself up for more serious consequences.
This is meant as good advice and in the interest of all parties involved ans specially in the interest of truth.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Hi jS Let’s check some of the facts again? Critical in this case is the time of death. It appears as if there is no scientific evidence from the State about the time of death. The smallest window period during which the crime had to be committed would have to be between +-16:00 (not 1pm) when she was last seen by workers in the complex and +-22:30 when her body was discovered. The DVD was rented at 15:07 and this was confirmed by the testimony of the Video Shop assistant. So Inge’s return to the complex at +-16:00 seems plausible.
Fred’s version is that he was inside Old Mutual between 11:00 and 18:00, and after that at his flat in Anfield Village (opposite the Golf course from Old Mutual) together with Marius Botha, who has confirmed this. Is the State’s case therefore that the murder was committed some time between 16:00 and 18:00?
On the probabilities then it seems almost impossible for Fred to have done it. He made a phone call at 15:29, and received a SMS at 16:20, both placing him at the Old Mutual cell tower. His computer records show a log-on at 17:15 and e-mail sent shortly after that.
It takes +-80 minutes to drive to Stellenbosch from Mutual Park in Pinelands and back. He would have had to circumvent Old Mutual’s security, granted it is not 100% perfect, not once, but twice on the same day!
Seems like the police planted a fingerprint before researching his alibi.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I am a Law Student and I am also following the Lotz-case. It would be a pity if this case will be left unresolved, because at the moment it seems to be the case. My question is just this: if the murderer was not Fred van der Vyver, who was it? I am sure that South Africans all over the country are following this case and many other crime related cases, and I think everybody would agree with me that we are so tired of innocent people being killed. Both of the parties to this particular case will have to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt, this seems almost impossible for either side. I just put my trust in Justice Deon van Zyl’s more than capable hands and in God to solve this horrific murder. How many more innocent people still have to be killed? Somebody has to be found responsible for this murder, whoever it might be and that person will have to answer to God.
May 20th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I am a Law Graduate and I am also following the Lotz case. As it happens in justice systems all over the world, many cases are unfortunately left unresolved. I may just point out to my learning friend, Jenny, that it is not the accused’s responsibility to prove his/her case. The Law in most adversiarial systems, like we have in SA, has always been that the prosecution has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime. Where the accused is raising an alibi (his version of events) as a defence, he simply has to put his version before the Court. If the accused’s version of events is only reasonably possibly true, he is entitled to his acquital. The question before the Court in this case seems to simply be if Fred van der Vyver was inside Old Mutual between 16:00 and 18:00 on 16 March 2005. If that is reasonably possible, and it seems to be (given the objective indicators of this version of events such as the cellphone records, computer records etc.) then Fred is entitled to his acquittal.
I agree with Jenny on the point that the whoever is responsible for this murder will have to answer to God, because only God knows who committed this murder!
In the meantime, good luck with your studies and exams Jenny!
May 20th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
In support of Cindy above I would like to quote one of the oldest bits of authority on this namely the comments of Greenberg in the matter of R v Difford in 1937: “No onus rests on the accused to convince the Court of the truth of any explanation which he gives. If he gives an explanation, even if that explanation is improbable, the Court is not entitled to convict unless it is satisfied, not only that the explanation is improbable, but that beyond any reasonable doubt it is false. If there is any reasonable possibility of his explanation being true, then he is entitled to his acquittal.”
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I have been following this murder trial from the start through the media and have been asking myself how did Fred get to Stellenbosch to Inge’s flat and back without being seen and recognised by anyone along the way or near the flat? Either he must have an enormous amount of luck or he didn’t do it or of course the police did their job with extreme incompetence. Surely there must have been a security camera along the way that could have picked up his car driving past a fuel station for example. It really seems as if they were so convinced that he did it that they didn’t bother to investigate properly.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:07 am
HELLO, FROM SCOTLAND THIS CASE IS ANOTHER, MISCARRAIGE IN MY MIND. THERE IS A NEED FOR THE JUDICIAL TO OPEN THERE DOORS TO CRIMES LIKE THIS. I HOPE YOU GET JUSTICE AND JUSTICE FOR THE LADY . FREETHE KILLIE2
June 12th, 2007 at 12:14 am
I also follow your comments closely.
With regard to your comment:
“5) A person who has just stabbed and bludgeoned someone to death would have blood all over their clothes. This would surely be noticeable. Yet no-one saw anything?”
I agree. But what if you had a spare set of clothes there in the flat - like Fred had? And if there was one person who would have had a spare set of clothes there - then it would have been Fred. And there would have been a LOT of blood. Else it would have been someone living in the complex.
BTW - where did you get the info on the Jan Lotz cellphone? It seems that you are privy to a lot of info that is not that available?
Now - If you attended a workshop - and the following day you were aware of the fact that you were a suspect - how come you are not able to have fellow employees verify your presence at the workshop for the full day? Why was it not possible for other employees to verify that you were at work? Fred was at the workshop - there were other people. The onus does not rest on Fred to prove his innocence - but it is sad that he is not able to provide more evidence with regard to statements from fellow employees while he was at a workshop.
I also used to work at Old Mutual. I have also attended workshops. I also circumvented security when I left my access card at home. You always sit next to someone else - and if I was a suspect the following day - I would have been able to provide more concrete proof.
Fred will probably not be found guilty - but he will always remain a suspect in a lot of people’s mind. Sorry Fred - but that is the way it will be.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Thanks to everyone for their comments. They all help me to develop the story as it unfolds.
In reply to John, I am flattered that you think that I have additional info on the case. 99% of what I write comes from news reports on IOL, Dispatch, MG, news24 and Daily News websites / newspapers.
Many people asked where I was getting my info from, so this is why in later posts I have included hyperlinks in each section to the relevant news stories. Usually I decide on a topic and then research it from different news sources. By distilling all the info I can maybe get to a semblance of what really happened!
The remaining 1% of info comes from people who email me from the site. I wish I did have some ‘inside info’! It would certainly help me with the articles and provide a wealth of material I could use hehehe. It would also help me with the accuracy of the reporting.
I have had some comments here (see above) regarding factual mistakes that I (or rather the news reports) have made. I apologise for these. Please read the disclaimer at the bottom for more info.
I am trying my best to report on what happened, my thoughts on the subject and try to get people to discuss the case. I wrote the first article out of passing interest and received an overwhelming response from the public, so decided to continue.
If anyone has any comments / questions / opinions on the case, then you are more than welcome to post messages here. The more discussion, the better!
Also, there is no language policy for the site. We are South Africans and have 11 official languages, so posting in any language is fine by me. Just remember that we do get a large number of foreign visitors who don’t speak many of the languages.
Thanks again for all your support! Please comment and leave your ideas, thoughts, opinions etc for others to see!
Regards
JS
June 12th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
In response to John Le Roux’s comments above:
Dear John, I think your thoughts are an exquisite example of illogical reasoning. What is the significance of the accused having a spare set of clothes at the deceased’s flat? The point is, did the police find any blood on any of his clothes, or anywhere else, that could be used as evidence? Well, it seems they did not. But he could have discarded it, you say. Why then did he keep the alleged murder weapon and the shoes which allegedly made the mark on the floor? The police did not find any blood on the sport shoes, nor did they find any female DNA or any other female genetic material on the ornamental hammer. (See later articles on this site.) This appears to be exonerating circumstances for the accused.
Also, how do you know that Fred wasn’t able to have fellow employees verify that he was at work? I just searched the internet, and “Die Burger” had an article recently, reporting that a lady by the name of Janine Von Stein testified that during the week of the murder on Inge Lotz there was a work session at which Fred was involved. Von Stein could remember that Fred arrived at work at about 11 am. The defence showed a video to the court and Von Stein of the “Smooth Room” where the session was held. It was pointed out where Van der Vyver sat. From the article it appears as if Fred made a presentation on the Tuesday afternoon and on the Wednesday there was an in depth discussion of the product he presented. Von Stein stated that she couldn’t remember if Van der Vyver was there the whole day. (Her testimony also comes more than two years after the event.) But, the defence also apparently stated that there are other witnesses who mention in their statements that as far as they could remember, Fred was there the whole day. So it looks as if there actually are statements from his fellow employees!
John, were there CCTV cameras at Old Mutual back in your day? “Die Burger” reported that there were cameras and there was no “inappropriate behaviour” found on the video footage. Also John, did you consider the “objective indicators” mentioned by Cindy of the accused’s version of events. E.g. cellphone records (which don’t suffer memory loss). The objective indicators point to Fred’s presence in Old Mutual during the afternoon of 16 March 2005.
But then again, one of the policeman said that he thought Fred did not cry “genuinely” on the morning after the murder. Damning testimony?