 |
|
|
Online seit:
|
Fri Sep 4 00:28:11 1998
|
Anwaltsbüro
Gabriele Heinecke • Martin Klingner • Karen Mücher • Sigrid Töpfer • Ulrich Wittmann
Budapester Straße 49
20359 Hamburg
Telefon 040/ 439 60 01
Telefax 040/ 439 31 83
Gerichtskasten 510Hamburg, den 22.04.1996
Fire-Attack Lubeck 18 January 1996
Safwan Eid - Appeal against remand in custody
Press-Release
In the proceedings against the Lebanese Safwan Eid, now the defence has stated the reasons for the appeal against the warrant for arrest lodged on 29 March 1996. The central points of the reasons are the following facts:
1. As it has been proved by a copy of a document issued by Lebanese authorities and legalised by the German embassy in Lebanon in the meantime, the defendant is not 21 but only 20 years of age. This results in the lack of jurisdiction of the courts that have dealt with this case until now. Neither the warrant for arrest dated 20 January 1996, nor the warrant for arrest dated 20 March 1996 can be of lasting duration, however, the competent youth court has to re-examine the facts within the framework of proceedings for the review of the detention order. On 18 April 1996, the defence has requested again to appoint a date for an oral review of the detention order.
2. After careful examination of the files presented by the prosecution, the defence has established in the written statement of the case, received by the Regional Court and the Public Prosecutor's Office on 22 April 1996: The assertion of the prosecution is wrong that Safwan Eid indicated the exact place of the outbreak of the fire towards a first-aid attendant in the night of the fire and thus expressed knowledge that only the perpetrator could have. No witness - including the first-aid attendant - alleges that Safwan Eid talked about the first floor - the place the prosecution presumes to be the place of the outbreak of the fire. The principal witness for the prosecution, however, just talks about a door, against which supposedly petrol was tilted and then ran burning down the stairs.
At the place where the prosecution presumes the outbreak of the fire is neither a door nor a staircase. The alleged place of the outbreak of the fire is located between two doors and about 10 m away from the stairwell. However, the measuring of the gradient in the first floor, conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police, showed that, for example, tilted petrol would have had to manage not less than 13 cm of negative gradient "uphill" in order to reach the stairwell.
3. Regarding to the allegation of the first-aid attendant that Safwan Eid said "Wir warns" in the night of the fire, the defence hat to find out during a conversation, conducted with a woman interpreter in the prison on 3 April 1996, that Mr Eid answered to the corresponding question that it is possible that he told the first-aid ambulant "dir waren das"2 or "dir haben das gemacht".2 After asking him again and the question if he could write the sentence which he could have said to the first-aid ambulant, the defendant wrote before the eyes of the defence counsel and the woman interpreter the sentence mentioned above. The defendant uses "dir"2 for the word "die".
4. Against the affirmation of the first-aid attendant that the defendant told him "Wir warns", speaks furthermore that, according to the files, Safwan Eid had reported a bus driver and an acquaintance about a fire attack by persons from outside of the house shortly before the conversation with the principal witness of the prosecution took place.
Against him being the perpetrator speaks also that, according to the medical examination of the court, Safwan Eid did not have any changes at his hands or in his face caused by fire which could have been an indication to a possible arsonist.
5. The defence establishes in its letter of complaint that the investigation-report of the prosecution, which implies a fire outbreak in the first floor, is in fundamental points wrong. Thus, the investigation-report claims that, without doubt, it can be assumed that the fire burnt from the alleged place of the outbreak of the fire on the first floor through the roof . However, the first contradiction already arose to the defence during the visit of the house of the fire with the expert Prof. Achilles on 2 April 1996. Thus, in the toilet-room on the second floor, above the alleged place of the outbreak of the fire, still today hangs a roll of toilette paper that is not burnt.
The affirmation of the prosecution that it can be excluded that fire was set to the wooden porch from the outside, because the entrance door was locked, is confuted as well. Actually, there is a window in the wooden porch that did not have any locker and which could just be opened by the touch of a finger.
According to the files and diverse statements of uninvolved observers, it must be assumed that the fire broke out on the ground floor - the wooden porch -, or possibly there were three independent sources of the fire. This admits to suppose a fire-raising from the outside.
6. The death of the inhabitant of the house Sylvio A. in the wooden porch does not fit into the theory of the prosecution. Neither has been established until now what the thin wire means which, according to the file about the investigation of the death, was around the dead body, nor how can be explained that Sylvio A. did not die from poisoning of fumes and that no fundamental breathing of fumes could be detected.
7. The defence has again requested that an expert opinion on the reasons for the fire in Hafenstrase shall be made and that Prof. Ernst Achilles from Frankfurt shall be appointed as expert.