Evidence Fabrication in South Africa

[pottoman]

This thread seems to be developing into a debate about whose responsibility it is to find Inge’s killer.
Clearly the burden lies with the SAPS because the State views murder as an act against itself, rather than against the individual and her family, and therefore funds the official police investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution.
Problem here is that the SAPS already believe they found their killer, as does the Department of Public Prosecution. And together they’ve done a pretty good job of convincing Inge’s parents as well.
Fred van der Vyver must realise that as long as this impasse exists, the stench of suspicion will accompany him wherever he goes and that moving on might be a concept more easily said than done.
Perhaps this is what ‘African’ means when he says that the ‘current situation’ is placing the burden of finding Inge’s killer squarely on Fred’s shoulders, especially since the SAPS don’t appear to be about to budge from their deeply entrenched position.
We can rant and rave ad nauseum about fabrication of evidence, police incompetence and corruption, and that since his acquittal Fred doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone – maybe not.
But he did say at her funeral that ‘she was my Jesus’ and reaffirmed how much he loved her.
Two very good reasons, some would say, for hunting down her killer and avenging Inge’s death once and for all.

[African]

Pottoman I have to agree.

Whose responsibility was it to bring about the end of the Second World War? Why did the Americans get involved? Who told them to get involved? Maybe it was fear of Hitler himself.
Was it ever the responsibility of Nelson Mandela to facilitate and bring about peace in a volatile South Africa on the brink of civil war after spending the better and best part of his adult years in a jail? Who paid him to reconcile with the oppressive whites? In whose name was it done?
And why is Nelson Mandela such an icon today?
Extra-ordinary things in history have been achieved because some people of our society are more than just existing and taking care of themselves.
And that is why I believe Inge’s murder will be solved. Because there are some ordinary people who are willing to stay true to themselves (their religious / moral / human compass) – regardless of the past, and the hand that life or fear (or other people) has dealt them, or sacrifices that will be required.

Dietrich Bonheoffer, (a man that died for his faith / belief) proposed that if you are a Christian, then be a Christian, and walk the talk – even if you have to go to jail – and die. That is exactly where Dietrich knew he was going... and what happened. He believed (and paid the ultimate price) for not using Christianity or Jesus to absolve or protect the Nazi regime or himself.

With reference to Pottoman: “Inge was my Jesus”?

Recently I read a two page article in “Joy” (a South African Christian magazine) where Fred, during an interview, was quoted about his proverbial “walk to freedom”. His prayer / wish were that “the people that supported me would be blessed because they listened to God’s calling to pray for me” (quoted as recollection from memory). Not once in that published interview did I read about Fred making any reference to Inge or her parents, nor the suffering her parents experienced, or that the readers should pray for Inge’s parents. Did I not get the whole article? Did I get it incorrect? I did not read once about Fred making any objection to that article.

Inge was not Jesus. But like Jesus, she was forsaken by close friends like Judas and his followers.

[Pat]

A case in which I have taken a strong interest is the murder of Harry Oakes in 1943. Oakes's son in law, Alfred de Marigny, was arrested and tried for the murder based on fingerprint evidence fabricated by the police (does anything sound familiar?). The defense proved the evidence was unreliable, although the fabrication was never proven to a court. De Marigny was acquitted, but his wife Nancy (Oakes's daughter) still left him. In 1946, de Marigny wrote a book, More Devil Than Saint, in which he professed his undying love for Nancy. Still, a couple of years later he had remarried and went on to live a full life with his new wife, Mary, until his death in 1998. Would it be said that he loved Nancy any less because he did not make it his life's passion to identify her father's murderer? Or that he loved her less during their time together merely because he got over his loss of Nancy and remarried? I think not. A different man may have done those things, but I would think no less of de Marigny for moving on with his life.

In this case, I do not doubt Fred's love for Inge seven years ago. But seven years is a long time, especially when you are just out of your teens. Do I believe Fred has a lingering moral responsibility to pursue Inge's murderer after all he has been through? No. Would I respect him if he did make it his goal to identify the murderer? Yes. Do I respect him less for moving on with his life? No.

I agree that the police "should" make it their job to identify the murderer. Historically, however, once a suspect has been found "not guilty," the police virtually never reopen a case.

While I believe in the efficacy of a reward coupled with a promise of anonymity, I am at a loss to suggest who has the moral responsibility for such an offer, if not the police.

[pottoman]

Judging by recent CLPEX viewing statistics, it seems there is a healthy appetite out there for continued discussion on the vexatious question of how, in the wake of an acquittal, justice for the victim can ever be achieved when the responsible authorities sit on their hands and do nothing.
This debate would benefit enormously from the informed comment of those close to the murder in question, as well as others with specialised knowledge of cases in which the grieving family were blessed with closure, as justice for their murdered loved-one was eventually served.
In this regard I am not convinced that casual references to AH, coupled with indifference toward the tragic events of the morning of December 7th 1941, do anything meaningful to help this process along.
Nor, I think it must be said, does the example of murder-accused Alfred de Marigny who, in the wake of his acquittal, became estranged from his wife Nancy, daughter of the phenomenally-wealthy victim Sir Harry Oakes, and went on to re-marry and supposedly live happily ever after.
Historians continue to quarrel over the precise details of this affair, published accounts therefore vary, but it appears safe to say that De Marigny was something of a gold-digging social climber with two failed marriages to wealthy heiresses already under his belt by the time he eloped with Nancy in 1942, two days after her 18th birthday. He was 32. Having previously stood by him at his trial, Nancy divorced him in 1949 whereupon he married for a fourth time, again to a wealthy heiress, just three years later.
It is interesting to note that the most recent in a long list of books on the murder, concludes that de Marigny did, in fact, murder Sir Harry Oakes, citing secret Scotland Yard archives as its source.
It appears there was little love lost between the two men and therefore scant reason for de Marigny to subsequently embark upon a one-man crusade to find his father-in-law’s killer; however much he might have professed his undying love for the victim’s daughter.
Even less so if was guilty all along.
Which brings me to another notorious murder, that of Nicole Brown Simpson.
In stark contrast, to the Oakes’ case, O J Simpson was accused of murdering his estranged wife in a fit of jealous rage along with the man with whom he presumed her to be involved with at the time; Ronald Goldman.
No amount of blood inside his Ford Bronco, on his shoes and socks, and even a pair of his gloves was sufficient to deter a veritable phalanx of high-powered attorneys from securing his acquittal.
Swearing his eternal love, OJ vowed to track down his wife’s killer and finally prove his innocence to a highly sceptical world.
He failed miserably; as recent history relates.
In a fitting epitaph to the whole ghastly episode, his erstwhile attorney, Johnnie Cochrane, is on record as saying:

“You’re innocent until proven broke”.

[pottoman]

One couldn’t help but be moved by the sheer dignified eloquence of Iain McKie’s account of the much belated apology both he and his daughter received in the Scottish Parliament on Friday.
The triumph of humanity over pride, especially in the criminal justice system, appears to be a rare thing indeed.
Why, I ask myself, does man continue to persecute the guiltless; why have so many innocent men and women been sent to rot in jail - or worse - felt the noose around their neck or the cold, wet sponge of Old Sparky ?
Was Shirley perceived by some to be such an inherently rotten individual that she ‘had it coming’ ?
Was she singled out to settle an old score ?
Or was it, from the very outset, simply a matter of pride refusing to acknowledge a mistake, a simple error that spiralled out of all proportion to create a tangled web of lies oblivious to the human sacrifice at its core ?
Is her case but the tip of a monstrous iceberg, fashioned over time by a dark army of vindictive and morally bankrupt officials, drunk on power and mindless of its destructive consequence ?
What goes through the mind of a man who knows that it was his false witness that dispossessed an innocent of his liberty ?
Are they ever at peace with either themselves or their Maker ?
Why are so many lives offered on the altar of expedience ?

Could it be that the men who wield this unruly sword of righteousness actually believe they are God themselves ?

[Pat]

I have to admit that I am having some trouble following the messages "between the lines." It is quite clear that "African" and "pottoman" both believe Fred has a moral obligation to dedicate his life and all of his resources to finding the killer of his girlfriend, who was murdered in March 2005. More veiled are the reasons they believe this, and other things on which the disagree that are only hinted at in their posts.

I have been following the numbers of views here. This thread has had 1,887 views in the past seven days. The next highest was the thread on the situation in Scotland with only 442 views. The numbers fall off drastically from there. But look at the difference between just those two. A tremendous number of readers are following the South African case, four times as many as are following the case in Scotland.

Who? Why?
_______________________________

Edited 24 hours after first part of this post: I am baffled now because I jotted down the number of "views" of the top six discussions yesterday after I posted the above comments. The top six posts and number of views are as follow:
"Evidence . . ." -- 254 views
"Problems . . ." -- 20 views
"IAI . . . " -- 14 views
"Open . . ." -- 7 views
"Shirley . . ." -- 24 views
"What . . ." -- 15 view

This discussion on the South Africa case consistantly draws vastly more views than any other -- over ten times the next most popular in the past 24 hours. But nobody has posted anything of substance for over a week. I would like to invite some of the readers from South Africa to email me personally or leave a "Private Message" here on the chat board for me. What do you think about the case? Do you know something I don't? Do you have any information you would like me to pass along anonymously to another appropriate party? Even if you are just an occasional reader of this forum, you can register and send me a "Private Message" without ever disclosing your name or any other identifying information. Or if that does not worry you, email me directly to foridents@aol.com

[Neville]

Hi African
The quote "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." may answer the question regarding why did the United States of America enter WW2. It has been reported that even Hitler himself was angry when told of the Pearl Harbour attack. I do not think there is any question about why, just thank God they did.

Hi Pat
Interesting stats, and still no comment, I suspect fear of the South African Government and their Police bosses may be the issue, how secure is the internet, not very. Is Scotland any better? How much you and I take our freedom to comment for granted.

Regards Neville.

[Pat]

Hello, Neville

You are correct, of course:

I suspect fear of the South African Government and their Police bosses may be the issue, how secure is the internet, not very. Is Scotland any better? How much you and I take our freedom to comment for granted.

And yet, even in the worst of countries, there are people whose ethics and integrity lead them to stand up to despots and speak out. Countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Arabia -- we read every day in the headlines of the imprisonment, torture, and death of people who dared challange the authorities in police states.

Since I typed that additional note to my post this morning, the views are thus:
"Evidence . . ." -- 135 views
"Problems . . ." -- 6 views
"IAI . . . " -- 4 views
"Open . . ." -- 2 views
"Shirley . . ." -- 6 views
"What . . ." -- 5 views

Amazing, isn't it? Is Inge Lotz's murderer among the views, I wonder? Are there any among that number who know the murderer's identity? Are there any who, deep down, want to tell, but are afraid of the consequences?

[African]

Dear Pat
There is no hidden message between the lines. I do not want to cross swords with you Pat, but if you want to construe my disbelief regarding the fact that Fred did not try and find the killer to imply that he should, as you put it, have a “a moral obligation to dedicate his life and all of his resources to finding the killer of his girlfriend” then you have it wrong. If we are reasonable and sensible, we may achieve something constructive, but being extreme will lead nowhere.

From the outset of the preparation of Fred’s trail it was clear that Fred had an extremely challenging trial ahead. The odds were heavily stacked against him. Not only did the Police fabricate evidence against Fred, but none of the thirteen people who attended the Sungard meeting on the day that Inge was killed, were able to testify to an alibi that would be watertight and be sufficient to trash or even challenge the evidence of the SAP. Even the convener of that meeting, Janine von Stein, who was present in the meeting on that day, was adamant that Fred’s role in the presentation was over emphasized by the defence, and that the presentation that Fred claimed he presented, did not necessarily take place on that day; and that she could not remember him being there for the full duration of the afternoon. In fact, she was the only reliable witness from the people who attended the Sungard meeting. Even after the closing arguments by the defence team, the judge remarked that no one testified with regard to Fred’s alibi. And for that reason also, this trail became history for the fact that it was the first time in South Africa that, after closing arguments were presented and the defence rested, the defence were allowed to reopen its case: to give Fred (who previously indicated that he would not testify) the opportunity to testify to his alibi.
Testimony to the above was that the best of the best had to be brought in at a tremendous cost from abroad for the defence.

And yet, in spite of all the odds, no time and energy was dedicated by the defence to finding the real killer. This in spite of Dup du Bruyn’s comment in a local Sunday paper when the question was put to him on his thoughts on who the suspect may be: “We have our suspicion. We believe this was a murder of passion, but I may be wrong.” Now with all this in mind, would it not have made common sense to try and find the killer? Would that not have been the best defence?
That Pat, the fact that Fred and Inge loved each other; that there are still a lot of people doubting the innocence of Fred; and yet he did not pursue this angle, raises questions. I realize that this may be a case of fools tread where angels fear to walk and that hindsight is an exact science. But I would at least have expected Fred to attempt a reasonable investigation into Inge’s murder. He had all the right motives, funds, more inside knowledge than any of us, and support structures to do just that.

In the verdict judge van Zyl remarked: “It is difficult to overcome the feeling that a substantial amount of additional information did not find its way to court. Why this was the case, we may never know. This may have resulted in an incomplete case being presented to the court and the court possibly not being able to fulfil its function”. (the African translation from Afrikaans)

What am I trying to achieve here? Where does this leave us? Is there no common ground for all of us following this blog? Is it too late? Can we allow someone else to fall similar fate as Inge (and her loved ones)? Are we true to ourselves, our fellow human beings, and God?

How is it possible to move on and forget about Inge; justice to both her and Fred; and a possible recurrence? It is not too late for further investigation and additional pressure on the SAP. And that Pat, is something that you, Arie, and many of your colleagues overseas can achieve with your political and other connections.

This thread has had numerous readers as you rightly pointed out, and a word of warm appreciation to Kasey for hosting this blog. Moral, religious and human conscience cannot other than call all those numerous readers out there: Make a difference if you are able to. Please do not be just another counter merely showing you visited the site if you know something that may be of value.

[Pat]

In the past 24 hours, the following numbers of views have been recorded on discussion threads on this page:

"Open . . . . ." - 85
"Survive . . . ." - 48
"Evidence . . ." - 182
"Problems. . . ." - 41
"IAI. . . . . . . ." - 25
"Shirley. . . . ." - 48
"What . . . . . " - 33
"Old . . . . . . ." - 7

The reason this discussion draws so many more views still baffles me, unless there are a large number of people with information who keep checking to see if something has been exposed. That thought leads me to hope that somebody with information will go ahead and disclose it to somebody in a position to act on it, or at least tell somebody who can pass it on again.

If you are reading this and you have information that is not known to the authorities, please register for this website. Do it anonymously using fake information if you want to protect your identity. Then you can send private messages via this website to other members. Send a private message to me, or to Louis van der Vyver. Or even to "pottoman" or "African," as I imagine even they, though anonymous themselves, might be willing to pass the information to Louis or to me or to an authority who would use it appropriately.

Or if you are reluctant to register for this website, email me privately at foridents@aol.com and I promise I will protect your identity if you want to remain anonymous.

While interest in this case is hot, do something.

[pottoman]

Wimpie Boschoff – time to step up to the plate.

You know what you have to do – and you know how to do it.

Tick-tock….

[Fox]

What does that mean?

Fox

[Tazman]

I think it means that "pottoman" and "African" know more than they are telling.

[African]

Tazman,
Inge’s killer is still out there. And, like pottoman, I believe Inge’s killer is reading this blog. He needs to be in a safe place. Safe from the animal within and the disillusionment from family and those that he can harm.
May this blog be a blog where ego, pissing contests etc do not exceed true calling, humanity and the ability to make a difference.

[Fox]

Perhaps African & Pottoman should stop all the cloak and dagger - man up and tell us all how it really is instead of all this balderdash (true calling, pissing contests - what is all that about????). Spill the beans - if you know something perhaps this is the time and the forum/site to let us all know or let it go - it could get tedious.