The young man allegedly bludgeoned Lotz to death in her Stellenbosch flat in March 2005.
Van der Vijver said the circumstances of Lotz’s death indicated overwhelmingly that the killer was someone known to her. There had been clear conflict between Van der Vyver and Lotz, which Van der Vyver had tried to hide from the police.
The court could also not exclude an ornamental hammer found in Van der Vyver’s bakkie as the murder weapon.
He rejected defence claims of fraud around a fingerprint of Van der Vyver’s allegedly found on a DVD cover in Lotz’s flat. To find there had been fraud, the court would have to make negative findings on the credibility of five state witnesses.
The argument that a so-called ”mishmash of dates” in police exhibit registers was indicative of a conspiracy did not hold water either.
”If there was an orchestrated attempt by the police to fabricate this evidence, one would expect much more care would have been taken to wipe out the tracks of this conspiracy,” Van der Vijver said.
Van der Vyver’s advocate, Dup de Bruyn, said there was no acceptable evidence against his client related to the fingerprint or a claimed bloody shoe mark, no evidence to link the hammer to the killing and nothing to contradict his alibi that he was at work when the murder happened.
Nor was there any objective evidence to support the notion of a major row with Lotz just before the murder. In fact, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence showed that Lotz had been excited and exuberant, sending loving messages to Van der Vyver.
He said the police officer who lifted the controversial print had given the court three contradictory versions of how he did it, while none of the dates in the continuity registers agreed.
Contradictions were not necessarily an indication of fraud, ”but there comes a point where enough is enough”, he said.
De Bruyn continues his argument on Tuesday. — Sapa