Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player


Mollett Investigation

The Mollett Investigation is a private, objective, independent, self-initiated and self-funded investigation into forensic aspects of the Inge Lotz murder case.

The investigation focuses on three existing areas of evidence: Fingerprints (Folien 1), headwounds (and hammer) and bloodmarks.

Only tangible and measurable evidence are investigated and technology and science stand paramount in the investigation.

Please note that, for now at least, only basic findings will be published here. Some work is still under further review and some reports, such as the headwound report, contain sensitive and graphic material. We therefore reserve the right to publish content according to our discretion.

We welcome scrutiny and constructive debate and we will answer questions on this website, but we will not consider or entertain scathing, sarcastic, non-related (to findings) and personal orientated attacks.

Our findings thus far are: Although we cannot, at this stage, with absolute certainty tie Folien 1 to a specific DVD cover, there is no reason to exclude the relevant DVD cover as the source of Folien 1. On various points of exclusion, we found that Folien 1 was not lifted from a drinking glass. Although we cannot vouch for the overall conduct of the police, the police (in particular Const Elton Swartz) did not fabricate Folien 1 and Swartz did not make a mistake when he marked Folien 1 as a lift from the DVD cover that Inge rented.

Although we cannot confirm the suspected hammer as the murder weapon, we firmly believe that a similar hammer was used in the attack on Inge. We believe that there is no reason to exclude the particular hammer.

Because it would have been an extremely sensitive process, we cannot with all certainty say exactly how the bloodmarks in the bathroom were formed and therefore we simply explore a plausible explanation for the formation thereof, but we believe that there are enough reasons to believe that the marks could have been made by any shoe, including the suspected shoes, which we believe bear an obvious resemblance to parts on the sole of the suspected shoes.

Please also note: these are simply our findings, based on our research and subsequent reviews. Certainly not beyond scrutiny and certainly not the gospel, but they are there to be scrutinised. To say it is "rubbish" or insulting us without refuting us on facts, would simply not be good enough. We invite further scrutiny and investigation by experts around the world, and may in the future publish their findings here as well. This website aims to get to the truth. Nothing else.

The respective web pages provide a breakdown of the basic principles, while attached reports provide more detailed information.

Please be advised that this website and information hereon will be updated on a regular basis. The website remains a work in progress.

If you have any comments, suggestions or questions, please send an email to and we will answer it in reasonable time on our Q&A page. Any useful information is also welcome.



© 2013/2014/2015 Mollett - All rights reserved