By Karen Breytenbach
Police forensic work done on the Inge Lotz murder scene was the shoddiest he had seen in his 22 years on the bench, Judge Deon van Zyl said on Monday.
Judge Van Zyl said he was shocked at how many people had walked around in her flat, possibly damaging footprint and other forensic evidence next to the couch where the Stellenbosch student's body lay and in her bathroom, where a bloody mark was found next to a towel on the tile floor.
"There was a total lack of order and discipline," he said.
It was also alleged in court that police had lied in a report about a six-hour consultation with an internationally-acclaimed American shoeprint expert last year.
The state showed the expert a proposed match between the shoe mark on the bathroom floor and that of a shoe belonging to Lotz's boyfriend, Fred van der Vyver.
Former police superintendent Bruce Bartholomew travelled to Florida, in the US, in June last year to consult with William J Bodziak about his famous textbook theories, used in this case.
Afterwards, Bartholomew's senior, Director Attie Trollip, used his notes on the consultation to write a report for court. The report stated that Bodziak largely agreed with Bartholomew on the match.
But in an email to head defence advocate, Dup de Bruyn, on Friday, the former senior FBI expert, said: "I am both shocked and amazed about how many lies are contained in that report."
Bodziak earlier wrote that he was "able to disagree with Bartholomew". The recently retired policeman claimed Bodziak did agree with him "to an extent" about matches in the design of the shoe, some unique marks such as three sand grains wedged in a groove on the heel and the shape of the bloody mark.
Bartholomew said he made a note of Bodziak saying, "there is a good chance it is the same shoe".
De Bruyn presented Bodziak's emailed response in court on Monday, after receiving the state's report on the visit on Thursday and sending it to Bodziak for comment on Friday.
Judge Van Zyl told De Bruyn that he was "not interested" in Bodziak's reaction unless he would be called as a witness.
De Bruyn said the defence would call Bodziak to the stand if necessary, but would otherwise disregard the email as evidence.
Bodziak wrote that he was shown only small, unscaled and useless photographs, because a CD with photographs would not open on his computer. No test impressions were brought along, as he requested, because Bartholomew was apparently afraid it would damage the condition of the shoe and the wedged sand grains.
"I did not confirm any identification," Bodziak wrote.
Bartholomew conceded that Bodziak did not agree with him that three white spots, illuminated when the chemical Amido Black was applied to the blood mark, matched with the sand grains.
He added, however, that Bodziak did not have a microscope and used the naked eye to reach his conclusions.
Bartholomew said Bodziak told him he could use sand grains as "additional points of identification", if enlarged.
Bodziak said the sand would not show in a two-dimensional impression on a hard surface because it was wedged too deeply but, to prove this, tests had to be done.
"I advised that a test impression must be made. I pointed out that, visually, it appeared that the sand grains were not even in the same location as Superintendent Bartholomew was surmising."
Trollip wrote: "Mr Bodziak emphasised that Superintendent Bartholomew would be the most suited person to give evidence in court (because of) his presence at the crime scene and the in-depth background knowledge of the footwear impressions."
In the email, however, Bodziak said it had not been discussed who would be best suited to testify.
Bartholomew said he had sought Bodziak's "opinion only" and therefore the American would not have to testify in the case. The court was then presented with transparencies of the mark laid over a picture of the shoe sole.
The defence said that, judging by the naked eye, it did not seem to overlap. Bartholomew, after overlaying it, agreed.
The trial continues