SAPS investigator ‘lied’

William J Bodziak.

William J Bodziak.

Published Nov 16, 2010

Share

SA Police investigator Superintendent Bruce Bartholomew “lied” in his police report when he said that he had positively identified the bloody shoeprint on the tiled floor of murdered Matie student, Inge Lotz with that of a Hi-Tec sports shoe belonging to her boyfriend, Fred van der Vyver.

That’s according to William Bodziak, a former special agent to the United States’ Federal Bureau of Investigation and an expert in shoeprint analysis, who yesterday told the Western Cape High Court that mistakes made by police during the investigation were “incomprehensible”.

Bodziak was testifying before Judge Anton Veldhuizen where Van der Vyver is suing the State for R46-million for “malicious prosecution” after he was acquitted of Lotz’s murder in 2007.

Bodziak told the court that Bartholomew had consulted him in terms of the bloody imprint and flew to Florida to see him. The two men had been corresponding via email after Bartholomew sought him out, said Bodziak - who was paid for a four-hour consultation.

Bodziak said that he had stressed in two separate emails that it was of utmost importance that Bartholomew present him with the “best evidence to examine” - which included the actual footwear and detailed photographs.

But when Bartholomew arrived with the footwear and two CDs which contained the photographs of the blood marking and particularly the heel area of the shoe which Bartholomew said contained “sand grains” , they were not scaled and were only “3x5 inches (7,5cm to 12,5cm) big”.

“Bartholomew alleged there were three small pieces of debris (sand) lodged in the shoe and I explained to him that the debris was too deep in the shoe to make a marking,” said Bodziak, adding that it was these grains of sand that Bartholomew had theorised as one of the main links between the marking in the blood stain and the shoe.

Bartholomew believed that the “three white spots” in the blood had been made by the sand which was lodged in a 5mm deep groove, he said.

According to Bodziak, Bartholomew had a ‘theory’ that perhaps the person who had been wearing the shoe stood on one foot while putting on the other shoe, thereby exerting pressure on the shoe which forced the sand to touch the ground.

“We made some impressions of the opposite shoe and were unable to make the (same) impression (that appeared in the blood marking).

“With normal weight, we tried to force the print of the entire area.

“We jumped off table tops … but the sand grains were just too deep.

“ it wouldn’t make an imprint because it is protected by a surrounding robust area (on the sole),” he said.

Bodziak said that after they had established that it was impossible to make a print of the area, Bartholomew had seemed very concerned”.

“He seemed to concede at the time that it was a flaw in his examination, said Bodziak.

Later, during the criminal trial, when Bodziak was contacted by Van der Vyver’s advocate, Dup de Bruyn, who is also currently representing Van der Vyver, he told the court that he had been “shocked” by Bartholomew’s report on their consultation.

Bodziak read out his e-mail response to De Bruyn at the time: “I was shocked and amazed at how many lies are maintained in that report.

“Only the shoes and very small pictures were shown to me, which were not suitable for examination.”

The report had also said that Bodziak had confirmed the print.

“There could be no identification based on the grains of sand. We spent a long discussion on this,” said Bodziak.

“Looking at the blood mark alone, you could not tell whether it was made by a shoe print at all.”

He said even an attempt to align the blood mark with the shoe indicated that it “did not correspond”.

Bodziak said on closer inspection it was discovered that the “three white marks” in the blood had in fact been made by “wipe marks” on the blood sample, where the police forensics team had wiped the staining agent, Amido Black.

The normal protocol was that it be rinsed, said Bodziak.

Dated photographs of the blood stain itself showed that its shape had been altered, he said.

“There was nothing that I could have agreed upon with Bartholomew,” he said.

While the trial was in progress he had also informed the State prosecutors in a conference call of their findings, Bodziak said.

“You don’t have to be an expert to see that some of the shoe markings in the blood were not there,” he said.

Bodziak will face cross- examination today.

Related Topics: