initiativ periodika Archiv adressbuch kampagnen suche aktuell

Online seit:	Fri Sep  4 00:28:15 1998

Anwaltsbüro

Gabriele Heinecke • Martin Klingner • Karen Mücher • Sigrid Töpfer • Ulrich Wittmann

2 a KLS (29/96)

25.09.96

In the case of criminal charges
against
Safwan Eid

the request is made

to conclude the hearing of evidence and acquit Safwan Sid.

After the questioning of the only witness for the prosecution, Leonhardt, it was obviously clear. that the prosecution would be unable to prove the accusation against Safwan Eid.

Within the frame of questioning by the chairmen, the witness stated the following on 23-9-96:

"There was a quarrel with an inhabitant or a head of family, one wanted to avenge oneself or extract vengeance. From either a container, a bottle or a mug, gasoline or another inflammable fluid was set alight, that burnt its way down the stairs and the whole staircase was burning."

Within the frame of questioning by the defence, whether he remembered the wording of the alleged manifest, the witness stated on 23-9-96:

"The wording as such I would not be able to recall today"

During the main trial, the witness was unable to explain the numerous contradictions which came to light in the various interrogations by court and police. On the contrary, during the trial the witness offered as the solution to this problem - in addition to the lack of recall he insists upon - a medley of possibilities. Thus it is here in itself not important, that the witness consciously accused Safwan Eid wrongly, is a conscious or innocent instrument or, due to the situation at the site of the fire, was impaired in his perception.

The salient point is, that during the trial the estimate of the witness' statements, in view of the ever changing statements concerning the essential point of the accusation during the pretrial, the only conclusion is, that the statements of this witness will not uphold a conviction.

Apart from the witness Leonhardt, the prosecution did not offer any other evidence, which would support the accusation against Safwan Eid.

There is considerable interest to find out who is responsible for the firs, how it started and proceeded. This very urgent investigation, however, cannot and must not be carried out to the debit of Safwan Eid as the accused. On the contrary, the investigation should now pursue those - with Safwan Eid as coplaintiff - who, according to the notes in the files, are suspects since January 18, 1996. This becomes more apparent with each new statement and expert opinion.