Good evening gentlemen,
So a couple of interesting comments posted over the last day or two.
Firstly, Truth, your observation with regards to the specific time lapse as to when Marius contacted Christo and the crime being reported is interesting. In my mind, 13 minutes does seem very little if one takes into consideration all the activities that had to be completed during this time. While not entirely impossible, it had to be done with unusual sense of urgency... consider how long the average person would wait for a knock on the door to be answered before knocking again, possibly repeating this by a knock on the window, and a call out of a name before trying to physically open the door.
With regards to the magazine, from what I recall there was very little blood found on the magazine itself, especially considering the general amount of blood splatter - by all indications, there should have been a whole lot more considering the positioning of the magazine and angle of attack. Thus, the magazine was appeared to have been placed on her lap after the deed, quite possibly having been on the coffee table during the time of the attack (and thus explains the few blood drops which may have fallen on it as part of the spatter). The significance of the magazine (and specific page it was on) does intrigue me. Assuming she was asleep when the attack occurred, it would be very unlikely that she did not close the magazine and place it next to her before taking a nap. You have to be pretty tired to fall asleep with a magazine open on your lap on an article in which an acquaintence (friend) of yours appear.
Secondly, I've also wondered about the bloodied towel that was used to clean the murder weapon. If the murder was premeditated, to such fine detail that we are still scratching our heads years later (and difficult to pinpoint by alibi, cellphone records, etc.), why on earth would you as the murderer leave something so obvious lying around? It's almost a clumsy mistake (if indeed it was that), in comparison with the rest of the murder which has yielded no evidence. Nothing found in the TV/living room, no prints, no murder weapon, no sign of entry, no eye-witnesses, no motive... but there in the floor, you leave a bloodied towel that you used to clean your murder weapon. You have otherwise taken care of your bloodied clothes, washed your hands, washed the basin of any blood but conveniently forget the towel as you leave? Surely, due to the very texture of a towel, it will easily gather residue - dust, hair, etc. when wiped against the weapon and skin to dry your hands/arms?
Also, to the earlier point regarding the possibility of one weapon being used rather than two due to the assumption that there would have been blood trails leading to the kitchen to fetch the knife - why was there no trails to the bathroom? It is almost inconceivable that you could carry out that amount of blows wih the blood spatter generated and not get a fair amount of blood on yourself or your shoes in the process. One of the reports indicated that it was likely that the killer was positioned next to her which explained the lack of blood spill in the position where the killer may have been standing. Is it possible that there was more time spent in the unit, allowing a thorough clean of the trace?
I also find it fairly inconceivable that the killer may have hidden under the bed for a specific amount of time, waiting for the right moment to 'strike'. There'd be no guarantee that she'd make herself comfortable, or fall asleep on that particular afternoon and if this was planned, the killer could have been bored out of his skull waiting to do the deed, it doesn't tie up with the urgency with which the events appear to have played out.
Lastly, while I'm not familiar with the psychology or trends in this regard, I ask myself the question - if the murder was due to a love triangle and motivated by jealousy, who might be the potential victim in such a scenario? If A + B are dating/in love/has a romantic relationship, but C also has a romantic interest in A, to the extent that the jealousy drives C to murder, would C be driven to murder A, or B?
Surely, C would want to eliminate the threat, being B.
if A was Inge Lotz, why was she murdered?
Of course, this picture changes entirely if Inge, was in actual fact B.
Till next time