Please make sure that you have read this page first.
In this this article we will reveal some rather serious mistakes and ommissions that Elsdon made in his book. What you will find disconcerting is the severity of the conclusions that Elsdon drew from these mistakes. Now we obviously don’t know if these mistakes were made intentionally or unintentionally. We will leave that to you, the reader, to decide.
Jean, Braam and His People
According to Elsdon two of Inge’s previous boyfriends, Jean and Braam, were both members of the His People Church (page 19) and that Braam was actually a senior member of this church (page 9).
Fact is, Braam and Jean were NOT members of the His People Church. This has been confirmed to us in person. The only people in this saga that were members of the His People church are Fred van der Vyver and Marius Botha.
Elsdon is convinced that Inge had intimate relations with all three of them – Marius, Braam and Jean – and that Inge, in order to break “soul ties”, was going to go public that she had sexual relations with them while they were still members of the His People church, and in this process she could ruin the church.
According to Elsdon, Inge told her spiritual adviser of her intentions, which in turn told the Pastor. The Pastor, who was very concerned about the potential repercussions, hastily convened a secret meeting with Marius, Braam, Jean and another of Inge’s past boyfriends, Danie, and severely chastised them for their inappropriate behaviour (page 19). This all played into the supposed motive as to why Marius and Braam became part of the conspiracy to permanently silence Inge. To have her killed.
Since Braam and Jean were not members of the church – and since they were unlikely to subject themselves to the chastisement of a stranger who had no business with their private lives – we can only surmise that Elsdon made it all up. If he investigated this case as well and as thoroughly as he said he did, how can he not know that Braam and Jean were not members of His People?
10 km from Durbanville Hills?
Elsdon is convinced that Mrs Lotz lied when she testified that on the morning of her death, Inge sang happy birthday to her dog Gabbi on the phone. The issue is that Mrs Lotz’s cellphone records show that the call she received was routed through the Durbanville Hills cell tower. According to Elsdon this would put Mrs Lotz in the vicinity of Durbanville Hills “more than 10 km from her home” – and thus not at her home in Welgemoed, where she claimed she was at the time of the call (page 45).
Fact is, Durbanville Hills is not 10 km away from where Mrs Lotz lived, as Elsdon stated as fact. If Elsdon bothered to measure from a map he would have found that the cell tower in Durbanville Hills is only about 3.2 km away as the crow flies, from the Lotz home – with no obstructions (e.g hills) in between (in fact there is a slight valley in between). Granted there may be certain areas within the Durbanville Hills cell tower’s coverage area that may be 10 km from the Lotz residence – but Elsdon has no evidence that she was this far away from home when Inge called at 09:31.
Although this tower was not the nearest tower to the Lotz home – there are many reasons why the nearest tower may not provide the strongest signal – causing the signal to be directed to another tower that will provide a stronger signal. Thus, the fact that the call was routed through the Durbanville Hills tower is not conclusive evidence that Mrs Lotz wasn’t home. (Whatever the case may be, the simple fact is Durbanville Hills is not more than 10 km away from Welgemoed, as Elsdon stated as fact. How can any investigator worth his salt, get this wrong? Unless it is intentional, of course.)
The Durbanville Hills cell tower is at the top of the yellow line while the Lotz residence is at the bottom of the yellow line – a distance of 3.2 km apart.
Mrs Lotz’s version is independently corroborated by Wimpie Basson, who in a sworn statement dated 21 April 2005 stated that Inge told him during their lunch meeting that it was her dog Gabbi’s birthday and that she called home earlier. Of course, according to Elsdon, Wimpie Basson is also part of the conspiracy – and perjured himself to protect the person that brutally murdered his best friend. Since Wimpie was not part of the His People church or the “gay Wolverines” we don’t know his true motive – Elsdon is not telling.
Incoming or Outgoing?
On page 23 Elsdon refers to a phone call that “underlined the seriousness of Inge’s deeds” – of how Professor Lotz called Inge on 2 March and had a “curt” 2 minute 15-sec conversation with her. The reader is left with the impression that Professor Lotz called his daughter to reprimand her because he was angry or upset that Inge was going to reveal the “dark family secret”.
Below is a snippet from Inge’s phone records that shows this call. The call started at 12:26:51 and lasted 2 minutes and 15 seconds. The “O” means it was an outgoing call – in other words, it was Inge who called her dad – and NOT the other way around! A huge error by Elsdon – and what is disconcerting is how he somehow drew the conclusion, based on the duration of the call and on this error, that the call was “curt”. Even if Professor Lotz did call his daughter – how does he know the tone and purpose of the conversation if he doesn’t have a recording of it, or a transcript verified by Professor Lotz to be true? This is classic Elsdon. He just makes stuff up as it suits him. Call him out, then you are the moron. Not him.
Sadly this is not the only instance where Elsdon couldn’t tell the difference between an Incoming and an Outgoing call.
On page 43 Elsdon talks about how, at 07:09 on the day of the murder, Marius had sent an SMS message to someone using a “hide code” in order for the recipient’s number not to show on his phone records. The reader is left with an image of Marius deviously plotting with one of the co-conspirators about what they planned to do to Inge later that day.
The snippet below is from Marius’ phone record (Court Exhibit Z) showing the details of the 07:09 SMS. Note the last column – “MTSMS”.
The code ‘MTSMS’ means it was an incoming SMS message – in other words, Marius received an incoming message – he did not send one. How can a man that calls himself an “investigator” make such an elementary mistake?
The phone number of the sender of the SMS is not shown on the phone record – and was not because anyone used a “hide code”. This question as to why some numbers are not shown for certain SMS records was asked in court from Ms. Heyneke – an expert witness from Vodacom.
Ms. Heyneke explained it as follows:
— I’m sorry, that number of the other party, the incoming SMS’s also does not appear, it has got to do with the configuration of the system, it is not possible to send somebody an SMS by removing the number, so the person receiving the SMS would see from which number the SMS comes, so the call data only makes, it only indicates that you received a SMS but the number from where the SMS was received does not appear on the data itself.
It is clear that it is not possible to hide the recipient’s number when sending an SMS. So Elsdon really has no evidence – no basis whatsoever – to claim that the 07:09 SMS was somehow sinister and linked to a conspiracy to murder Inge.
Whereas one can understand and forgive one error – Elsdon went one to make the same error twice more!
On page 53 Elsdon wrote that Marius had sent his last SMS before Inge’s murder at 13:26 – apparently again hiding the recipient’s identity. The snippet below shows the details of the 13:26 SMS. The “MTSMS” code tells us that it was an incoming SMS – thus Marius received an SMS – he did not send one.
On Page 39 Elsdon wrote that at 19:36 during the evening of 15 March he had sent an SMS to an undisclosed recipient. The snippet below shows the details of the 19:36 SMS. The ‘MTSMS’ code tells us that it was an incoming SMS – thus Marius received an SMS – he did not send one.
These are just 4 examples we found after a cursory review. There could be more. Did Elsdon really not know what MTSMS mean – especially after he explains it on Page 82 and after he used it correctly in some other instances? Or was this a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader?
What’s worrying here, is that one can point these objective “mistakes” out to Elsdon, and he simply ignores it. It is not our opinion that Elsdon made these mistakes. Anybody can compare what he has written in his book with the cellphone records and check for themselves. Elsdon got it wrong! But he still goes on as if nothing is wrong. Reading cellphone records is not hard. They give you a key. So one has to wonder if these are bona fide mistakes or intentional. If a mistake, then one really has to wonder about Elsdon’s competency, because this is basics. Not even a four year old can make such a mistake (four times) and it can therefore only mean that he needed these SMSs to be a certain way, for his story to work, and then, as with other “facts”, just made it up as it suited him.
Download a free print replica e-copy of Bloody Lies Too here