Evidence Fabrication in South Africa

[pottoman]

You seem to me to be not so optimistic today. I hope that's not true.

Since you passed me the ball Chief, I’ll run with it.

Perhaps you’re right, I am feeling pessimistic, not because I doubt for a minute that the storm is coming but because I sense there is a reluctance to dance to your tune.

An arbitrary deadline is rapidly approaching and there exists perhaps an unrealistic expectation in the United States that the extensive and detailed post-trial examination of this case can be completed in time.

The accusations that have been laid before the ICD are extremely serious and must be thoroughly investigated, they take time and cannot be rushed. I am sure that we are all in agreement on that.

Any subsequent decision to indict a State Prosecutor and senior police officers will have colossal domestic and international implications for this country and will not be made lightly.

If and when any such decision is made, it will be not be because of the IAI Conference but in spite of it.

In an ideal world both agendas would gel nicely, but we don’t live in an ideal world do we.

[Gerald Clough]

I don't think anyone, anywhere, expects something with such potential for all sorts of results to conclude quickly. And I, for one, really don't fault the officialdom for not producing publicly a stream of hints and updates along the way. We've gotten into a sometimes unfortunate habit of thinking every ongoing official proceeding of public interest must satisfy a craving for information by declaring all sorts of interim results to prove their doing something. That ridiculous branding of people as "persons of interest" is one of the evils. It seems an admission that people have such a short attention span that, unless they are constantly reminded that something is happening, they fear they will forget to notice the ultimate outcome. I suppose it speaks to a lack of public confidence, sometimes justified, sometimes not. But the best fix is the real one of producing appropriate results at an appropriate time. I figure that if people can't maintain an interest long enough to react to the actual result, they're too dumb to merit pandering along the way. (Which is why I would be a poor politician.) Of course, when there's a genuine history of poor performance or bad acts, the desire is understandable, and those in charge will have to take some licks along the way if they hold to the "trust us" line. But substantive positive change most often is accomplished by persistence over the long term than a single hasty action.

But I also think there's too much concern with something like a presentation at an IAI conference. As I told someone the other day, it's not exactly the floor of the U.N. or the World Court. On even a national scale in the U.S., the IAI is a rather small body, largely of specialist technicians. Anyone in authority to somehow act or react with intent to the situation is not getting their information from an IAI conference session. One could walk down any street in the U.S. for days and not find anyone who would have ever heard of the organization. You could assemble a considerable group of police officers who wouldn't recognize the name. It might be uncomfortable to know something is being presented that will raise eyebrows about conditions in South African policing, but it will hardly be anything like the existing media reports and considerably less incendiary. Still, it's a professional body mostly concerned with criminal justice matters, so it smarts. But there should be much greater concerns about opinions in other arenas. Still, a few hearty fleas are useful in reminding the dog that he's a dog.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

The talk at the IAI went very well. The lead defense attorney, Dup de Bruyn, moderated the afternoon presentation. Fred van der Vyver began with a factual presentation of the basic case with a minimum of emotional remarks. Louis van der Vyver presented his perspective. I outlined the evidence indicating the questioned lift came from a drinking glass and not a DVD cover. Arie Zeelenberg continued with his examination the fingerprint and additional proof it came from a drinking glass. Then Bill Bodziak showed the series of emails between himself and Officer Bartholemew, plus Bartholemew's official report, proving that Bartholemew lied and perjured himself. Following that, Mike Grimm gave the highlight presentation of the afternoon. Mike started with a discussion of a series of experiments concluding convincingly that the murder weapon used to inflict the head injuries was a semiautomatic handgun, with wounds from both the butt of the gun and the barrel. He then gave the most startling presentation of the afternoon by showing an autopsy photo that he interpreted as showing the killer had bitten Inge, then excised the area area of flesh with most of the teeth marks. Two marks still left on the remaining skin are eerily reminiscent of the two front top teeth in a hard bite mark pattern, but the rest of the bite would have been inside of the only area of skin removed from the body. Further, Mike postulates that the bloody mark on the bathroom floor was left when the piece of excised skin was dropped on the floor while the killer washed up, then the piece of skin was flushed down the toilet. In one crime scene photo, a bath towel is seen on the bathroom floor next to the sink and next to the bloody mark on the floor. A glance at that towel shows it to have both blood and hair on it, but has some other black or dark gray wipe marks on it, as well -- oil and/or burned powder from a handgun wiped off with the towel? And might there have been saliva from the killer in the two puncture wounds in the skin that appear to be tooth marks? We will never know.

I have received word that further information may be forthcoming in the case in the next week or two and I am eagerly waiting to learn the current stage of investigations in this case.

[pottoman]

Unless I am very much mistaken it appears that the Independent Complaints Directorate have arrived at the extraordinarily feeble conclusion that there are insufficient grounds to prosecute the three police officers and one state prosecutor named in a formal complaint lodged in December of last year.

This beggars belief, or rather it doesn’t, after all this is the New South Africa.

It is the South Africa of lofty and pretentious ambition, the country of grandiose plans and worldly presumption, the overweening beacon at the tip of the vast Continent that self-righteously shines Northward and beyond to pronounce and proclaim its right to a place in the big boys' tent.

The Country where new-born babes are wrapped in newspaper for lack of State money to buy hospital blankets.

And yet the country that is nonetheless pumping some US$ 19 billion of tax-payer’s money into preparations for an international soccer-fest.

The New South Africa.

A country with all the myopic zeal and foolishness of the old one.

South Africa has learned nothing from the legacy of Nelson Mandela. If it had it would know that it is the little things that make a country great: Happy and well-nourished children, full of hope as they skip to school each morning. Functioning hospitals with clean wards and efficient caring staff. Single-digit unemployment and a contented work-force, earning good money, providing a solid future for family and loved ones. Safe streets and a conscientious police force and above all a community taking a pride in itself, in its achievements and in the hope and aspirations of its people.

What we have instead is a Nation building its future on lies and deceit, on graft and corruption and the vulgarity of greed. A Nation which has completely lost its way, its identity, its moral code, its basic and fundamental understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

I am not particularly religious but I do know that when Moses came down from Mount Sinai all those years ago he brought with him a basic set of rules that were intended to be the foundational building blocks for all time.

They’ve served the many peoples of this world for centuries either in part through universally adopted legal tenets or in whole as accepted moral doctrine.

Up until now that is.

Because The New South Africa, in the name of political expediency, is falling over itself in haste to systematically unravel the words on those great tablets of stone.

The Ninth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.

Perjury and falsification of evidence in The Cape High Court, it now appears, is just fine and dandy as long as it’s not premeditated and deliberate.

So ‘accidental’ is alright then. Just sweep it under the carpet, bag it and tag it under 'Simple and Honest Mistakes', a series of unfortunate mix-ups, a little over-zealousness here and there. To hell with the implications, do anything, anything but the right and honourable thing.

Because we all know what doing the right and honourable thing would have meant hey ?

Vindication for the Van de Vyvers and a not insubstantial compensation cheque. Ouch !

A re-opening of the Case and the whole tedious business of finding the real killer and doing justice for the murder victim, Inge Lotz. Heaven forbid !

And a messy protracted trial in 2010 for the four accused, right under the glare of the International community when all eyes should be focussed on the ‘beautiful game’ of football.

Small wonder then that the ICD look shamefully set to announce next week that after long and careful deliberation no disciplinary action whatsoever is to be recommended.

And so the DPP breathe a collective sigh of relief, hoist a glass and drink a toast to the lie that they simply had a bad day in Court: 'Fred just got lucky, of course we all know the bugger did it but we just can’t prove it and probably never will.'

Who cares, so what, poor little white girl, what was her name again ?

Forget about her……

[Pat A. Wertheim]

A friend in South Africa hinted to me a week ago that the ICD would be returning a report recommending prosecution of several police officials and a prosecutor. I see that politics won out over justice. That disappoints me greatly, but it does not surprise me.

Pottoman brings up several points. First, the decision may have had something to do with World Cup Soccer and the fact that a thousand or more reporters will be in Cape Town in 2010. Yes, it might be bad to have police and prosecutors on trial for perjury in the prosecution of an innocent man. The reporters would have cherished that kind of story on a slow soccer news day. There is a worse alternative, though -- stories about crime in the police ranks, fabrication of evidence unpunished, and knowing prosecution of innocents -- all swept under the carpet. If Fred van der Vyver's lawsuit hits the courts during World Cup Soccer, or if news about it leaks to the foreign reporters there for the soccer, then there may not be any slow news days.

Pottoman mentions something else. There may be the thought among some than Inge Lotz was just one unfortunate white girl murdered in a country where 18,000 blacks are murdered every year. Nothing more. What was the name again? That is a poor excuse for not going after the fabricators of evidence or the prosecutors of fabricated cases. If the corrupt police and prosecutors had been dealt justice in this case, then justice would have followed in other cases involving black victims. But if perjury is condoned in this case where the defendant, Fred van der Vyver, had the resources to fight it, then certainly there is nothing to stop the same crooked police and prosecutors from even more wholesale fabrication and wrongful prosecution in cases against indigent defendants.

It would seem three things have been accomplished in this case. First, a stellar but expensive defense team secured the acquittal of an innocent man. Second, it was proven that fabrication of evidence goes unpunished. Third, the fabricators learned some valuable lessons that will make them both more clever and more eager to forge ahead in future cases.

There have been a number of losers in this case. First and most tragic, Inge Lotz. It seems her life was worth little to a system populated by crooks and perjurers. Second, Professor and Mrs. Lotz, who lost their only child and received no closure. Third, Fred van der Vyver and his family, who spent a family fortune earned through generations of hard work. But perhaps most widespread, Justice is the loser. Can South Africa claim to be a just and fair nation, where honest people can walk the streets unmolested, and where the politicians and public servants care about the welfare of the citizens?

[Pat A. Wertheim]

If the rumor I heard a week ago was correct and ICD issued a report recommending prosecution, but if "pottoman's" report is also correct that an ICD report is to be released suggesting there are insufficient grounds for prosecution, it would appear there is the possibility of a cover up in the early stages. I hope that appearance is wrong. If both the rumor I heard and the story "pottoman" tells are true, then one possibility is that the first report was issued but for political reasons it was deemed prudent to suppress that report. Thus, a second version was written for widespread circulation. The problem with that scenario is the likelihood it would backfire if a copy of the first report were leaked somewhere along the way and is waiting in the wings. Of course, that may be just wild speculation from an expatriate Texan suffering from sunstroke in the Arizona desert. What could I possibly know?

1) Will the investigation into the murder of Inge Lotz be reopened with an effort to catch the real killer?
2) Will the dishonest cops be dealt with so that the public can be assured there will be no more fabrications to frame innocent victims?
3) Will the van der Vyver's suit for damages be settled in a respectable manner without making them spend even more of their dwindling resources to fight for justice?

I keep asking my reporter friends in South Africa what is going on, but none of them have heard a whisper yet. I'm sure we will know more soon.

At this point, anything is still possible. We can still hope for resolution of the three enumerated points above. It is not too late.

[Truthseeker]

Look here's the latest:

Lotz family want hammer, takkies

Lynnette Johns

September 07 2008 at 10:49AM

Fred van der Vyver, found not guilty of the murder of his girlfriend, Inge Lotz, has until the end of the week to surrender his takkies and an ornamental hammer used as evidence by the state in his trial.

The items will be handed to the Cape High Court because they feature in a civil case being brought against him by Lotz's parents, Jan and Juanita Lotz of Welgemoed. They want the items because they believe they are crucial evidence that could "disappear or be tampered with".

The hammer was described by the state in Van der Vyver's murder trial in the Cape High Court as the murder weapon, although this was dismissed by the court.

The shoes featured in the trial because the state claimed Van der Vyver had left a bloody footprint in Inge's flat. This too was dismissed by the court.

The Lotz family claims Van der Vyver is using delaying tactics to avoid defending himself in the civil case.Lotz, a Stellenbosch University student, was found dead in her flat in Stellenbosch on March 16, 2005. She had been bludgeoned to death and stabbed.Five of the stab wounds pierced her left lung and three of her ribs were severed. Her attacker made off with a fruit knife and the remote control which granted access to the complex where she lived.

Van der Vyver was acquitted of murdering Lotz. In handing down judgment, Cape High Court Judge Deon van Zyl had harsh words for the police detectives investigating the murder.Judge Van Zyl rejected the evidence of various police officials and labelled aspects of the investigation as "unscientific", "incompetent" and "unprofessional".

Jan and Juanita Lotz are each claiming about R4-million from Van der Vyver, claiming he is responsible for their daughter's death and that his alleged conduct caused them "severe emotional shock and psychological trauma". The amount they are suing for includes damages for psychological injury, permanent loss of amenities of life, pain and medical expenses. The amount was subject to quantification and expert opinion.

Van der Vyver's Hi-Tec takkies and the ornamental hammer, given to him by Inge, were both exhibits in the criminal trial and handed back to Van der Vyver on his acquittal.

In terms of Rule 36(6) of the Superior Court Practice Rules "any party may give notice requiring another party to make available for inspection or examination property under that party's control which may be relevant with regard to the decision of any matter at issue in any action".

Dani Cohen, a spokesperson for the Lotz family said: "They are concerned the articles may disappear or be tampered with before they can be examined by experts."

◦ This article was originally published on page 4 of Cape Argus on September 07, 2008

[Truthseeker]

Which got me thinking...

Why does Cohen want access to the exhibits all of a sudden? They were in the SAPS posession for all these years! The "takkie" and hammer were both subjected to forensic tests, and nothing incriminating was found.

What happened to the "new facts" that Cohen was claiming a few months ago?

[Ann Horsman]

This is sad, especially after sitting through the presentation given by the experts in Louisville. Too bad the Lotz's could not have been there. They would have seen the utter nonsense of the so-called evidence they want.

[Truthseeker]

Well, back to the ICD and NPA ranch: I have it on good authority that a refusal by the Prosecuting Authority to charge the corrupt officials and prosecutor(s) does not necessarily mean the end of that storyline.

In South Africa, in any case where the Director of Public Prosecutions declines to prosecute for an alleged offence, any private person may institute and conduct a prosecution in respect of such offence in any competent court.

The statements have been taken and the affidavits sworn to. Representations have been made and reports written. Said reports have been re-written, copied, leaked, and saved in cyberspace.

A decision has to be made:

Cover-up or truth?

[Pat A. Wertheim]

The television news special on the Inge Lotz murder and the fabrication of evidence against Fred van der Vyver will be broadcast this Sunday. The name of the news program is Carte Blanche. This press release is by the program producer:

SUNDAY SEPT 14

FORENSICS

Stellenbosch student Inge Lotz died more than 3 years ago, but the mystery of who killed her still lingers on. Although her boyfriend Fred van der Vyver was acquitted of her murder, litigation is far from over. Lotz’s parents have brought a civil action against Fred and he, in turn, is suing the state for wrongful arrest. Carte Blanche heads off to an international forensics conference in the US, where the SAPS alleged fabrication of evidence was a major talking point.

Presenter: Bongani Bingwa

Producer: Eugene Botha

The program will air on Sunday, local time in South Africa 7:00 p.m. (GMT +2 hours), on the Satellite Channel MNet (http://www.mnet.co.za/Mnet/Shows/carteb ... sp?Id=3450)

There still has been no announcement whether the DPP will follow the recommendation in the leaked ICD report, i.e., to prosecute three senior police officials and one prosecutor. Hopefully, an announcement to that effect will follow closely on the heels of the above mentioned broadcast.

[Truthseeker]

Pottoman, why don't you inform us about the insights at which you've arrived in this case following your readings on the topic of "victimology"?

Just while we wait for a transcript of sunday night's documentary to be posted here?

...while we wait for South Africa to once again take notice of the terrible injustice that befell an innocent young man.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Transcript of Carte Blanche special report broadcast on South African television:

Forensics investigated

Date: 14-09-2008
Producer: Eugene Botha
Presenter: Bongani Bingwa
Devi Sankaree Govender
Genre: Science, Computers and Technology

On the 16th of March 2005 the calm of the university town of Stellenbosch was shattered when the body of a young woman was found in this apartment block. She had been bludgeoned to death on the sofa in her flat. She was Inge Lotz, a brilliant Masters student at the university. Her brutal murder caused shock and revulsion.

At the time of her death in 2005, Inge was in a steady relationship with 25-year-old Fred van der Vyfer. They had started dating a year earlier when they were both full-time students. Louis van der Vyfer is Fred's father.

Louis van der Vyfer (Fred's father): "They were really a beautiful couple - a couple we were proud of as parents. And we had only high hopes for their future."

But Inge's death shattered all dreams of a future together. And for Fred, this was the beginning of a nightmare: a nightmare that very nearly cost him his freedom - a nightmare in which he stood accused of murdering his girlfriend in cold blood. It took a three year battle, costing millions of rand, to eventually clear his name.
Last month, at an international forensic conference held in Kentucky in the United States, Fred for the first time spoke publicly of his ordeal. His legal team and the forensic experts who had testified on his behalf, also made presentations. What they told the forensic community at the conference sounded more like the script of a Hollywood movie than real life.

From the start Fred had had an ironclad alibi.

Louis: "He was in a meeting during the time of the incident."

This was confirmed by CCTV footage at his place of work, and by numerous witnesses who were in the meeting with him. Yet, despite this evidence, Fred soon discovered that he was a suspect. Apparently the police had found this incriminating fingerprint on a DVD cover.

Louis: "Unfortunately all our attempts to meet with them, and to discuss the issue, were refused."

Then things went from bad to worse. On June 15, 2005, Fred was arrested for Inge's murder.

Louis: "We realised that...well we believed that it had to be a mistake. It couldn't be anything else. And that's why we believed that it could be cleared and sorted out without much ado."

Nevertheless, the family brought in advocates Terry Price and Dup de Bruyn to defend Fred.

Terry Price (Advocate): "We got the docket - the police docket - from them. We looked through the papers; I looked through the entire police docket, and I was absolutely shocked to see that there was absolutely nothing linking Fred to the case at all."

Dup de Bruyn (Advocate): "When we saw the evidence - when I read the police docket - I couldn't actually believe that they could continue with the case."

But they did.

Devi Sankaree Govender (Carte Blanche presenter): "A date for the trial was set in the Cape High Court. The state's case against Fred hinged on three pieces of forensic evidence: A fingerprint, a bloody smear on the bathroom floor and an ornamental hammer."

The first piece of evidence was Fred's fingerprint on a DVD cover which Inge had rented from a video store shortly before her murder. This would've placed Fred in Stellenbosch, in Inge's flat at the time of the murder, and not 40km away at his place of work.

Dup: "If it was indeed Fred's fingerprint on the DVD cover, there could be no doubt that he was guilty so that is why that was such an important aspect."

The second piece of crucial evidence was a blood smear on the bathroom floor in Inge's flat. The police claimed that Fred's shoe had made the print. The third piece of evidence was an ornamental hammer, which the police had identified as the murder weapon.
From the start, the fingerprint evidence was suspicious. Even the prosecution's experts questioned it. Initially, the prosecution had said they wouldn't use it, but in the end they did. Christhenus van der Vijver was the senior prosecutor.

Devi: "Had all things been equal, chances are you wouldn't have used that as evidence - based on what your own expert had said"

Advocate Van Der Vijver: "Yes, that is exactly the point. If the defence ... if they hadn't insisted, persisted with the claim that there was fraud with regard to the fingerprint, we would not have presented the fingerprint evidence."

Despite this, the state's case against Fred seemed overwhelming. Fred's team started his defence by attacking the fingerprint evidence. The police testimony was that they had found Fred's fingerprint on the DVD cover in Inge's flat. The defence granted that it was indeed Fred's fingerprint, but they denied it was lifted from the DVD cover. To support this, they brought in Pat Wertheim, one of the world's foremost fingerprint experts. He confirmed that the fingerprint was not lifted from a DVD cover.

Pat Wertheim (Forensic Fingerprint Expert): "A DVD cover is plastic, it has chemical plasticisers in it that make it a little oily. And when you powder the surface with the aluminium powder, the powder sticks to the surface and you get a background coating. The fingerprints will still stand out, but you've got that solid coating. When you take a lift off a DVD cover, invariably you trap little bubbles under the lifting tape, and those bubbles show up in the lift. In the folding that was alleged to have come from a DVD cover, there should have been a background coating with bubbles under, but there weren't. There was no background of powder at all."

Pat was sure that Fred's fingerprint was lifted from a glass surface.
Pat: "Glass, perfectly clean glass, has nothing on the surface to which the powder clings. Therefore when you powder a clean glass, the powder falls right off."

They then ran a number of tests on used drinking glasses and found that the patterns were identical to Fred's fingerprint lift. There were even lip prints on the test glass that matched the inexplicable lip print on Fred's fingerprint lift.

Pat: "And the conclusion then was that this lift could not have come from a DVD cover, but must have come from a drinking glass. There is no other explanation."

Pat feels certain there was foul play on the part of the police.
Pat: "There was not a single lift anywhere in that evidence that could have come from a DVD cover. Therefore an honest mistake is out of the question. This was not an accident, this was an intentional fabrication of evidence by somebody."

Devi: "Was there not fraud involved in terms of that fingerprint?"

Advocate Van Der Vijver: "No, well, the court has made it very clear in its judgement that there wasn't enough evidence to come to such a conclusion. As a matter of fact, the court said in its judgement that it might have been negligent on the part of the police, or it might have been a lack of experience. But the court definitely never made a ruling that there was malicious intent or fraud on the part of the police as far as the fingerprint is concerned."

Devi: "The defence then also challenged the findings of Superintendent Bruce Bartholomew. He was the one who testified that the blood smear on the bathroom floor was a shoe print and that it was made by Fred's shoe."

To support his findings he contacted this man, Bill Bodziak, who had been in the FBI for 28 years. He's considered the leading forensic expert on footwear impressions.

Bill Bodziak (Footwear impression expert): "In January of 2006 I was contacted via email by Superintendent Bruce Bartholomew of the South African Police Service."

Bartholomew arranged to visit Bodziak to discuss his theory that Fred's shoe had made the blood smear on the floor. When they met, Bodziak disagreed with Bartholomew's findings.

Bill: "There is nothing that mark, in any way, that a) it was made by a shoe, and b) that it was made by that shoe."

However, on his return to South Africa, Bartholomew reported back that Bodziak had agreed with him. Fred's defence team then brought Bodziak himself to South Africa to contest Bartholomew's report.

Bill: "I testified for two or three hours the first day that item by item in the letter that he wrote - known as Bartholomew's report, of his travel to the United States - that these were lies, that these were not what happened and not what I said."

What is also significant is that the prosecution had had a conference call with Bodziak some time after Bartholomew's visit. Bodziak told them that he disagreed with the findings. Yet, the prosecution continued to use Bartholomew's false report as evidence.

Bodziak: "I had explained to them everything about the visit with Superintendent Bartholomew, and my opinion and everything. And afterwards their response was, 'Well, we are truly shocked.'"

But despite this shock, the prosecution continued to present Bartholomew's report as evidence.

Devi: "Was it not a bit of a risk going on with the issue of the shoeprint evidence, despite the fact that there was this disagreement between Bartholomew and Bodziak?"

Advocate Van Der Vijver: "We confronted Bartholomew with Bodziak's version, and he stuck to his guns. He said, 'No, Bodziak is not telling the truth.' So, that's why we presented the evidence."

The court later found that Bartholomew was an unreliable witness. But it stopped short of ruling that that he had lied. Then the defence team turned their attention to the alleged murder weapon. They flew out Mike Grimm, a forensic expert on footwear impressions and wounds.

Mike Grimm (Forensic footprint & wounds expert): "In my examinations over the years of injuries, especially the human head - where you have a bony structure below the surface - generally those marks are indicative of the shape and size of the instrument that made contact. The hammer, in this case, that was recovered - the bottle-opener hammer - the head was only 20mm in width. It's physically impossible for a hammer-head of this size to have made injuries on the scalp that 30mm in width."

In fact, Mike is sure that the injuries on Inge's head weren't made by a hammer at all.

Mike: "An instrument of this size and weight could have inflicted sufficient injuries to kill someone. But the marks on her head are not consistent with this at all. Had it been a hammer, to inflict the type of injuries to the scalp that were inflicted, the hammer would have gone through the skull and would have left large gaping holes on the side of the head - not just the lacerations that are apparent. Everything indicated to me that it was something other than a hammer. My opinion is that in all likelihood, the marks on her head were caused by a handgun."

At the conference, Mike also proposed a theory that the bloody smear was caused by a piece of tissue that was cut from Inge's torso, and dropped by the murderer. However, the police wanted to prove that Fred's hammer was the murder weapon and they used it to conduct tests on pigs' heads. But the hammer was not up to it, and bent.

The police then used a much larger and heavier hammer for further tests. The test results from this larger hammer were submitted as evidence.

Devi: "But that ornamental hammer that was found in Fred's bakkie failed the test - because the hammer bent. So they used another hammer. That's the part I don't understand."

Advocate Van Der Vijver: "Well...yes, it is so. That after the second or the third blow - I'm not quite sure, I cannot really recall as to after how many blows it bent - they used that other hammer, a similar hammer...that is a fact. And I think because Mr Maritz explained during his testimony that they were afraid that they might do further damage to the hammer. And so that's why they got hold of another hammer to see if it makes the similar marks."

Fred's team concluded their arguments, and everyone anxiously awaited the judge's ruling. On the 29th of November last year Judge Deon van Zyl read the verdict: The court unanimously finds the court's alibi to be true, and that the State could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court finds him not guilty.

Some of Fred's international forensic experts expressed real concern at the implications of this case.

Pat: "I don't believe that this was the first time it happened. I believe this time was a little different because the Van Der Vyfers had the resources to bring in outside expertise. But I would suspect that there are innocent people in jail in South Africa today, that were put there by fabricated evidence."

Advocate van der Vijfer indicated that the police officers who had investigated Fred's case, and who had allegedly manufactured evidence and lied in court, would not be prosecuted. This is because the court never found that there was deliberate fabrication of evidence or that police witnesses had lied.

While the criminal case has been dismissed, the ordeal for Fred and his family is not over yet. Inge's parents still believe he is guilty, and have instituted a civil case against him for R8.5-million. And from his part, Fred's team is suing the police for R46-million for unlawful arrest.

And for Dup, Fred's advocate, what initially seemed to be a simple, straightforward case, turned out to be the fight of a lifetime.
Dup: "There is nothing as scary as defending an innocent man."

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Herewith is the text of a press release issued today by Inge's parents, through their attorney:

*Media release from the Lotz family*

*15 September 2008*

*Carte Blanche TV insert part of Fred’s propaganda campaign *

Sunday night’s Carte Blanche insert which featured so-called independent
forensic experts proclaiming Fred van der Vyver’s innocence of the
murder of Inge Lotz is part of a massive propaganda campaign being run
by the van der Vyver family.

This is according to Inge’s father, Prof. Lotz who says the campaign
will end with egg on those experts’ faces.

Dani Cohen, a spokesperson for the Lotz family says last night’s
broadcast was a sideshow.

“We deny the independence of these experts who are no more than hired
guns. OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty in the criminal trial by
a jury, but he was nonetheless found to be responsible for the murders
in the civil trial which followed – despite the fact that Simpson lead
the same expert evidence in both trials. Some of these experts acted for
Fred van der Vyver and appeared in last night’s Carte Blanche insert
which was no more than propaganda dressed up as science.”

Expert evidence, in accordance with South African law is when experts
become the witness of the court. An expert should not be for or against
any of the parties but should offer the court an opinion based on the
experience that does not exceed the facts of the case.

The Lotzes’ civil action against Mr van der Vyver is not based on
vindictiveness; it is based on cold hard facts. Cohen reiterates that
they have irrefutable factual evidence that points to van der Vyver
being the murderer without any shadow of a doubt. “The Lotzes have spent
millions in order to establish these facts. Van der Vyver cannot be
criminally charged with Inge’s murder again, but the family is seeking a
finding that he is responsible so that they may have closure on this
tragic matter.”

Prof Lotz says they are shocked and dismayed at the behavior and
arrogance of the van der Vyver family. “To paraphrase Macbeth, methinks
the gentleman doth protest too much. We have no intention of debating
the merits of our case before the public. We have chosen our forum and
that is the High Court.“

Lotz adds that he and his wife were distraught and pained Carte Blanche
found it necessary to show a picture of their daughter’s bloodied body
for the sake of sensation. “We would like to remember Inge as the
beautiful and wonderful girl who was filled with life and love. “

ENDS

As long as the police continue to deny they did anything wrong, and that Fred is the killer, Professor and Mrs. Lotz will never have closure. They are being egged on, I believe, by their neighbor, Inspector Trollop, who was up to his neck in the fabrication and perjury. Although an initial review of the case by the ICD recommended prosecution of Trollop and others, the DPP has announced that no prosecutions will take place against either the police or prosecutors who engaged in fabrication and perjury.

Getting the police to admit wrongdoing and reopen an investigation seems to be an impossible task.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Dani Cohen, a spokesperson for the Lotz family says last night’s broadcast was a sideshow.

“We deny the independence of these experts who are no more than hired guns. OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty in the criminal trial by a jury, but he was nonetheless found to be responsible for the murders in the civil trial which followed – despite the fact that Simpson lead the same expert evidence in both trials. Some of these experts acted for Fred van der Vyver and appeared in last night’s Carte Blanche insert which was no more than propaganda dressed up as science.”

I am particularly intrigued by the part,

" . . . [O.J.] Simpson lead the same expert evidence in both trials. Some of these experts acted for Fred van der Vyver . . ."

Pray tell, which of the scientists who testified to their conclusions as witnesses called by the defense in Fred van der Vyver's trial also testified in O.J. Simpson's behalf, in either his criminal trial or the subsequent lawsuit?

As a matter of fact, not a single witness who testified "for" Mr. van der Vyver was a witness on the side of O.J. Simpson. Quite the contrary, one of the prosecution's strongest witnesses against Mr. Simpson was Mr. Bill Bodziak, who testified "for" Mr. van der Vyver in this case.

Why did I put the word "for" in quotation marks? Simply because we testified to scientific conclusions, not as "hired guns" working "for" the van der Vyvers to get somebody off. A lawyer such as Ms. Cohen may take the client's money and perform her services for the client regardless of whether she believes the client, but the scientists who looked at the evidence in this case conducted independent, unbiased examinations and reached scientifically verifiable conclusions. For Ms. Cohen to denigrate us as "hired guns" because she is in the pay of the Lotzes is an insult not only to us, but to our science as well.

Unfortunately, virtually all of Ms. Cohen's press release is just as inaccurate as her characterization of Mr. Bodziak as an expert who was in the pay of O.J. Simpson and lead evidence for him at his trial.

As to whether a scientist should become an advocate for a person or a cause, if said scientist first conducts an independent, unbiased examination and reaches a valid conclusion, then I see nothing wrong with subsequently advocating against injustice.