As previously said, this discussion is not about Oscar’s guilt or innocence. We are debating misrepresentations of the truth.
It is fortunate for the reputation of forensic science that the brothers Thomas and Calvin Mollett have conceded that they are not forensic experts. They instead call themselves “two very average guys in search of the truth”.
Their first book (on the Inge Lotz murder) is titled Bloody Lies. Their new book has the title Oscar vs The Truth. Considering the erroneous statements which these books make, their titles are highly ironic.
Let us begin distinguishing between the real facts and the misrepresentations found in this book.
Please note that no illustrations from the book may be used for copyright reasons.
The First Misrepresentation
If the blue or the green dot marked “B” was the correct position from which the shots were fired, it is then highly unlikely that cartridge cases A1 and A2 could have landed in the position in which they were found by the police (see the diagram and photos with the positions of exhibits). However, we must consider that there was movement in the bathroom after the shooting, which may have influenced the positions of the exhibits.
On page 95 the Mollett brothers write: “Our analysis shows that he was about 1.6 m from the door when he fired the shots”. Perhaps the green dot marked “B” is what they are referring to.
If we consider the position of A1 and A2, the possibility that the firearm was facing slightly more towards the passage (backwards) cannot be excluded. The exhibit firearm ejected its fired cartridge cases to the right hand side, and slightly backwards. With his arm in a shooting stance he was probably standing in the passage (at the entrance to bathroom). This was never considered by the Mollett brothers.
The Second Misrepresentation
It is clear from this demonstration that the bullet hole in the tank top (vest) is located in the same bodily position as the abrasion 4.4. The same can be said about wound 4.5 on the right hip and short.
It is my opinion (and that of Professor Saayman and other experts) that her arm was held against her chest when the shot was fired through her arm. The arm dropped instantaneously to the right side of her body and did not bleed on the tank top (vest). However, fragments of tissue are visible around the defect (hole) in the tank top (vest). This is a further indication/confirmation that her right arm was in front of her chest when the shot was fired through the right arm, and that the defect was caused by a bullet fragment retrieved by Professor Saayman during the post mortem in the area of the defect.
In a high-profile trial such as this one, rampant speculation by members of the public is unavoidable. In many ways the ignition of people’s curiosity into the examination of criminals cases is a good thing – perhaps this process has even inspired some young people to pursue their own careers in forensics. Unfortunately, public interest is also attractive to con-artists: it gives them a platform on which to peddle their half-truths and whole lies. We must be scrupulous, vigilant, and incredulous whenever “new evidence” for such a high-profile legal event emerges.
Please continue to follow my blog for weekly updates in this series of examinations of Oscar vs the Truth.