 |
|
|
Online seit:
|
Fri Sep 4 00:28:21 1998
|
2a KLs (29/96)
08.01.97
In the trial
against
Safwan Eid
with respect to the questioning of the witness Khalil El Omari and the inspection of a letter box flap - the so called exhibit 12 - on the 6.1.1997 the defence states, in accordance with § 257 StPO, the following:
1. Thanks to the statements of the witness Khalil El-Omari, the prosecution's theory, that the fire of the 18.1.1996 could have only started from within, i.e. from inside the house, could again be falsified.
The witness Khalil El Omari stated on the 6.1.97 that to the right of the main entrance in the wooden extension was a letter box. From the outside was an opening made of iron or metal for the postman and on the inside was a wooden box which could be opened. The door of this letter box was made of wood and on the evening of the 17.1.96 it was broken, actually open. After further questioning by the defence the witness confirms that: "Only a little bit more and the letter box would have fallen to the ground. It was open, completely open. Yes, the door was open."
On the 6th January 1997 the item labelled exhibit 12 was inspected. The police report describes the item as a letter box flap. The item is approx. 30cm wide and fits the witness's description of the flap which was mounted on the exterior of the wooden extension. This means that, as well as the windows and doors, there was an additional opening next to the main entrance, an opening which made it possible to pass materials from the outside to the inside without the need for even one person to enter the extension or the house.
The evidence the witness El Omari gave concerning the letterbox and the inspection of the item gave cause for the following statement:
The prosecution and the police, especially the forensic investigators and the investigating officers failed to even check whether it was possible, likely or actually the case that arson was committed by using the letter box as an opening from the exterior to the interior which was visible and accessible to anyone. In view of the fire damage inside the extension this course of investigation seems obvious, since the entrance area and the main door in the immediate vicinity of the letter box were completely burned out. In the floor immediately behind the threshold are deep holes where the fire burnt through to the wooden frame construction below.
Exhibit 12 was secured and - according to the forensic report - remained with the investigating officers. The expert witness, Dr. Herdejürgen from the Landeskriminalamt in Kiel, stated during the trial on the 6.1.97 that he never received an order to investigate the a letterbox flap, nor did he ever do so. There is no report of an investigation on file.
The melted remains of a light metal, mentioned in the forensic report, which the forensic investigators classified as part of exhibit 12, were not secured by the forensic team nor forensically examined.
There is only one explanation for such a serious omission, the same explanation that repeatedly suggests itself in other areas of the investigation (or misinvestigation) of these events: after the witness Leonhardt made his first statement on the 19 January 1996 the case was solved. Investigations which might have lead to the conclusion that the witness Leonhardt had lied, made an error or misheard, were not followed up any further.
2. There were in fact no investigations as to whether the fire could have started inside the wooden extension:
The small window in the extension that, according to the report by the Landeskriminalamt in Kiel of 27.08.1996 (Vol. XIII, 209), could be opened with minimal resistance (4 mm lift) and through which it would have been possible without problem to enter the building on the night of the fire, did not even exist according to the drawings of police officer Bergeest of the 9.2.96, and was certainly not investigated. A correction of the police drawing was only made after the expert witness Prof. Achilles opened this window with one finger during the inspection of the house on the 2.4.96.
Although securing the position of a corpse is a routine procedure for a police officer, in the case of Sylvio Amousso, who died in the extension but most certainly not as a result of the fire, this did not happen. It must have been obvious to the officers that valuable clues indicating the direction that the deceased had been moving in could have been gained from the position of the corpse.
Exhibit 10, according to the forensic report a large amount of melted reinforced glass from the front door, was not investigated either. Where this exhibit is now is not known. Every investigator must know that it is possible to determine the degree of heat at the door by investigating the melted glass. This in conjunction with the fact that Amoussou's corpse was extremely badly charred and burnt could have given an answer to the question of whether a combustion agent was used in the extension. An investigation of the fire debris from the wooden frame construction below the extension with a photo-ionisation detector could have given further hints. But this was not done.
3. In the files kept by the investigating departments are hints (which were not followed up) as to how an arson attack could have been committed through the letter box. René Burmeister, an early suspect questioned by the public prosecutor, in his statement of 3.4.96 (Vol. I, Bl. 148) says that he used a tube to siphon petrol for his car from a motorbike into a container. During question on 1.8.96 he confirms that he had one 20 litre and two 5 litre containers with him during his journey to Lübeck on the night of the fire. Also during questioning on 1.8.96 Heiko Patynowski from Grevesmühlen stated (Sd.bd. Originale, Bl. 104) that Burmeister "usually has a 20 litre petrol can and a petrol hose in the boot of his car". He needed the hose because back then he stole patrol on a regular basis and filled it into this container. This raises not only the question of why Burmeister, according to the files, departed from his usual pattern and filled up the tank of his car at a Shell petrol station not just once but twice (in Grevesmühlen and Lübeck) on the night of the fire, but one can also state that it would have been possible to commit the arson attack with these tools.
| Lawyer Heinecke | Lawyer Klawitter |