Finding the weapon used in a murder can answer a lot of questions, as well as point the finger at a particular suspect. In many cases forensic examination of a murder weapon can reveal who wielded it - even years after the crime has taken place. In the van der Vyver trial, the most compelling piece of evidence is the “ornamental hammer”. But, was it the murder weapon?

To note the importance of this hammer, we have to go back to the days following the murder. Dr Ansie Adendorff was the district surgeon in Stellenbosch at the time of the murder and conducted the autopsy of Inge. According to her report, the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. As some of these marks were semi-circular, she instructed the police to look for a hammer as a possible murder weapon.

No weapon was found at the scene, or surrounding areas, so it appeared that the murderer had left with the weapon.

Police Interview: 15 April 2005 - The Search

On April 15, 2005, Fred van der Vyver was escorted to the police investigators’ office in Bishop Lavis for questioning. At this time they had also secured a search warrant for his Opel Corsa Bakkie and apartment. According to Superintendent Johannes Kock, the police asked Fred whether he had anything of value in his vehicle. Fred then unlocked the door and took out a hammer.

This hammer is described as being an “ornamental hammer”. On the side where the claw should be, was a bottle opener instead. It was perhaps similar to the one pictured alongside. The hammer had been engraved with the inscription “Fred 2004″. It turned out that the hammer had been a gift Inge’s parents had given him at Christmas in 2004.

Sup. Kock said he was astonished when the hammer was produced as he thought of an item of value as being something like jewels or money. He asked Fred to put the hammer back in the vehicle. It was later forensically examined. A pair of scissors, with a possible hair sticking to one blade, was found in the pocket of the door. A set of seat covers were found under the seats and a set of clothes were found in the back of the bakkie (it has a canopy), as well as a receipt for a cupboard bought at Merriman Furnishers in Stellenbosch on the morning of the murder.

A second hammer was located in the Inge’s apartment, but the police later claimed that it had no relevance in the case.

Court: 14 February 2007 - Butterfly Pattern

Sup. Kok was called to the stand to recount his version of the events from 15 April 2005. He recounted the above-mentioned events and findings and then gave further evidence on the experiments he conducted and how these could be attributed to the hammer.

Sup. Kok said that in Inge’s apartment they had found a towel on the bathroom floor. On the towel was a “butterfly” pattern which is produced when a fabric was used to wipe an object clean. He showed the court the original stain, as well as stains that he experimentally produced by wiping a hammer on a towel. Kock specifically stated that by way of his experiments in producing butterfly marks he could not specifically include or exclude the ornamental hammer as the object wiped on the towel.

Another photo was then produced showing the “ornamental hammer” placed over the pattern of the original stain. There is no testimony on record that the ornamental hammer “fits” to the pattern of the original stain.

He also mentioned that diluted blood had been found in the basin, leading the police to suggest that the weapon may have been washed there too.

Court: 15 February 2007 - Blood Trace

Peta Janet Davitsz, of the SA Police Service’s biology unit, took the stand and told the court that her job was to carry out “presumptive chemical tests” on biological samples from crime scenes to determine which of these should be sent for DNA testing.

She had tested a number of items related to the case, including, facial tissues, the towel, clothing from both Inge and Fred, a carpenter’s hammer from Inge’s apartment, some orange-handled scissors taken from Fred’s vehicle, the ornamental hammer, car seats and a pair of Fred’s shoes.

Davitsz said that possible traces of blood were detected on Inge’s shorts, top, underwear and bathroom towel. These were visual as well as chemically visible.

Invisible, possible blood had been detected on the ornamental hammer, scissors and a steel paring knife by using Luminol, a blood detecting chemical. At this time there was no mention as to where the paring knife had come from.

Davitsz said that it was important to emphasise that she had tested for possible blood only, as Luminol could also pick up other substances that had a similar chemical make-up. DNA tests would show whether the liquid detected was actually blood and whether it was from a man or woman.

No traces of possible blood were found on Fred’s clothes, shoes, the carpenter’s hammer or bakkie’s seats.

On cross-examination, she stated that “If it (the blood) is diluted far enough the white blood cells are lost. We test for red blood cells, which contain no DNA.” So it would not be possible to state if the blood was male or female.

Luminol:

Luminol is used by crime scene investigators to locate traces of blood, even if it has been cleaned or removed. The investigator prepares a solution of luminol and the activator and sprays it throughout the area under investigation. The iron present in any blood in the area catalyzes the chemical reaction that leads to the luminesence revealing the location of the blood.

The amount of catalyst necessary for the reaction to occur is very small relative to the amount of luminol, allowing the detection of even trace amounts of blood. The glow lasts for about 30 seconds and is blue. Detecting the glow requires a fairly dark room. Any glow detected may be documented by a long exposure photograph.

Luminol has some drawbacks that may limit its use in a crime scene investigation:

* Luminol also fluoresces in the presence of copper or an alloy of copper, horseradish, and certain bleaches; and as result if a crime scene is thoroughly cleaned with a weak bleach solution (5-6 drops per L), residual bleach will cause the entire crime scene to fluoresce, effectively camouflaging any organic evidence, such as blood.

* Luminol will also detect the small amounts of blood present in urine and it can be distorted if animal blood was present in the room that is being tested.

* Luminol reacts with fecal matter, causing the same glow as if it were blood.

* Luminol’s presence may prevent other tests from being performed on a piece of evidence. However, it has been shown that DNA can be successfully extracted from samples treated with luminol reagent.[4]

* Luminol is a possible carcinogen, but has not yet been proven as such.

(Info from Wikipedia)

For more information on Luminol, pop over to Howstuffworks.com or wikipedia. You can also see a youtube video here on detecting blood in the police lab.

Court: 13 March 2007 - Testing on Animal Carcasses

Frans Maritz, a former SAPS ballistics expert from Somerset West, currently employed by police in the United States, was called to the stand. He testified that he had measured the length, breadth and width of the knife, hammer head and bottle opener, using these to conduct impression experiments on animal tissue and comparing the results to Lotz’s multiple wounds.

The court was then shown graphic footage to demonstrate the similarities of the wounds. They compared the marks left on Inge’s body to test marks made on a clay model, sheep skull, pig carcass and skull. Animal carcasses are often used in this way as the bone and flesh is a similar consistancy to human tissues.

Afterwards the court was shown the suspected murder weapons and how they corresponded to life-size pictures of Inge’s wounds.

Maritz said that he concluded that both ends of the hammer could have caused the wounds on Inge’s body. However, on the video provided by the prosecution, it was clear that during the testing, the bottle-opener side of the hammer had bent after just one blow!

Maritz also conceded that he did not perform any tests or experiments with any objects other than the ornamental hammer and the claw hammer. He therefore does not have a proper basis for excluding other blunt objects. So basically, he cannot EXCLUDE the ornamental hammer as a POSSIBLE murder weapon.

Court: 7 June 2007 - Revelations

The final day of the prosecution had a few revelations. The state was forced to had over a statement from DNA analyst, Sharlene Otto. The report stated that only a minute amount of genetic material was found on the hammer. This proved to be MALE genetic material! In addition, no genetic material could be isolated on the paring knife, and there was not enough genetic material for analysis on the scissors.

Furthermore, the state could not prove that there was blood on the hammer. Under the Luminol test conducted by Peta Davidsz, only a pinhead size amount of possible blood was found on the handle of the hammer. Nothing was found on the head of the hammer.

Conclusions, Questions and Comments:

Could Fred have cleaned the hammer etc? Yes he could have, but it is extremely difficult to do so. If he used bleach etc, it would have shown under Luminol. The chance that he could have cleaned all the items so thoroughly is extremely thin.

If Fred did it, why didn’t he dispose of the items? Good question! Why would he hang on to the items if they could link him to the crime - especially keeping them in his vehicle!Surely after a monthhe would have disposed of them. Some people, however, would argue that he could have kept them as ‘trophies’, planned to dump them but never got the chance.

In order to clean these items, he would of had to remove them from the vehicle, clean them and then replace them in the car. Why would he do that?

Although not definitive, it was pretty compelling that the bottle opener end of the hammer bent on the first blow. If it was indeed used in the murder, then surely it would have had damage back then.

The most compelling evidence for the prosecution was showing that the hammer can fit the wound marks on Inge’s body. This was shown in the court with overlaying the hammer on the wound marks.

Secondly, the butterfly pattern does seem to fit the hammer. But then all it really suggests is that a similar sized object made the impression.

The state does not have any real proof tying the hammer, scissors or paring knife to to the murder. There is no blood evidence or DNA evidence on the items. I also wondered why they didn’t volunteer this information in court. They had to be forced to hand over the report at the insistence of the defence!

As with the previous ‘evidence’ there doesn’t seem to be much evidence in evidence. There is only supposition and circumstantial evidence. Nothing tangible has been offered so far.

Updated: 18/06/2007

Posted June 11th, 2007 by J.S. in Inge Lotz Murder | Trackback

Related Posts: