initiativ periodika Archiv adressbuch kampagnen suche aktuell

Online seit:	Fri Sep  4 00:28:29 1998

The Lübeck District Court

Date: 29th January 1997

2 a KLs 29/96

In the criminal matter
against
Mr. Safwan Eid

Defence comments according to § 257 StPO on the examination of the witness Mr. Obenaus:

The examination of the witness Mr. Obenaus has proven:

1.) Porch:

The securing of evidence in the porch by officers of K 6 is marked by reproachable omissions:

It was omitted to record the inside of the porch photographically before changes were made. The carbonised remains of what is presumed to be a wooden stand recognisable on a photograph taken by the emergency doctor were not seen by the witness Mr. Obenaus. Neither were they photographically recorded by K 6 nor was the rest of the inside of the porch. Mr. Obenaus claims though that an examination of how far back the wooden pillar in the porch was polluted by fire had taken place but the search for documentation of this examination continuous to no avail.

An examination of the floor for burn throughs has been omitted, not to mention a photographic record of the existing burn throughs. It is true that after some questioning Mr. Obenaus did not exclude the possibility that there were holes in the floor on the left and right hand side right behind the entrance door (looked at from the outside). His attempt not to classify them as burn throughs despite the obvious carbonisation at the edges was conspicuous but not convincing. He even reckoned, which is hardly in line with the result of the inspection carried out on-the-spot, that one hole had been expanded by someone coming through it. Then, according to the witness, a board was placed over one hole. This or any of the other holes in the floor of the porch were not found worthy of a detailed securing of evidence though. Furthermore it is not possible to gather from the statement of the witness Mr. Obenaus that the wooden construction underneath the floor had been subject to an examination with the PID.

It has been - following the statement of the witness Mr. Obenaus - omitted to secure the wired glass filling (of the entrance door). If one follows the statement of the witness Mr. Bergeest, the melted wired glass filling was removed but disposed of later. According to all the statements given, there is no doubt that a forensic examination has been omitted to examine it forensically. It was only a “lump” to the witness Mr. Obenaus.

It was omitted to secure the melted lump of light metal never mind getting it examined. Instead of a collection and examination of this evidence there was satisfaction with the assumption that it might be the letter box even though an igniting device might have been as possible or probable. To the witness Mr. Obenaus this evidence too was “just a lump”.

It was omitted to secure existing pieces of broken glass in a way that would have allowed an attempt at assignment. As far as broken glass was situated on the window-sills of the porch windows Mr. Obenaus has conceded at any rate that he has seen them. An examination of traces of a fire accelerating liquid has according to the witness Mr. Obenaus not been carried out.

It was omitted to subject the place where the corpse of Silvio Amoussou was found to a meticulous examination. The place has not been documented photographically and Mr. Obenaus does not know if the floor covering was braised. He claims to have taken a close look at the corpse but does not appear to have noticed a wire even though the video shows that it is clearly visible.

It was omitted also to conduct measurements of the temperature in the inside of the porch.

And it was omitted to secure and/or put pieces of the stone stairs, especially the pieces described by the witness Mr. Obenaus that were crumbling away, to a forensic examination.

The activity of K 6 in relation to the condition of the porch is, if you leave the outdoor shots and the asserted sifting of material out of the account, limited to a reconstruction of the condition of the entrance door during the fire by securing evidence relating to this. Everything else that could have been expected of the forensic people in relation to the porch did not happen. Neither Mr. Obenaus nor any other witness of the forensic people was able to give a reason for this reproachable omission. One could leave it at a moderate accusation of sloppiness would it not be for the thoroughly systematic features that take shape when you look at the way the securing of evidence was carried out on the 1st floor.

2.) 1st floor:

Mr. Obenaus has testified that he had made video recordings and took photographs partly of the hall of the 1st floor. He had no part in the examinations on the first floor; he did not remove parts of the floor, only saw that kind of thing lying there. He was able to remember that parts from the edges had been secured, in his opinion with the involvement of the witnesses Koop, Mai and later Henning.

The witness Mr. Rohner had testified he had taken photographs of the 1st floor, apart from that he had been sifting through evidence until he got sick. The witness Mr. Bergeest has explained he did not participate in the securing of evidence on the 1st floor.

The witness Mr. Koop has explained he had basically been occupied with organising but had removed the piece of the floor on the 1st floor as documented on picture No. 213.

The witness Mr. Henning has testified he had been present while Dr. Herdejürgen was working. He had examined the threshold and later carried out the measurement of the gradient. While clearing out objects (not traces) he had been helpful moreover to being responsible for the examination of the windows on the ground floor. Apart from that he did not carry out any securing of evidence on the 1st floor (hall).

Ms. Mai has explained she had mainly been a secretary. She had been present at the securing of samples of the threshold. She was not able to say anything about the original condition of the floor in the hall.

The traces from the area of the threshold bear the number 15 (page 14 of the forensic report). There are more traces from the hall that bear the numbers 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27. The trace No. 22 is shown to be KTU (forensic report), page 52 which is identical to He 1, He 2, He 2a, He 3 which must have been secured by Dr. Herdejürgen. The traces 16, 20, 24, 25, 26 and 27 remain. If one follows Mr. Obenaus and the other witnesses of K 6 that have been questioned in the meantime none of them has secured these traces. A weird constellation, as if nobody of K6 wants to have been responsible for the hall of the 1st floor.

The constellation gets even weirder if one visualises what is missing:

The witness Mr. Obenaus has testified that boards from the wooden floor construction had been secured and brought to the department but then were destroyed. Whether Dr. Herdejürgen gave his approval to this destruction of evidence as it was reported to the witness Mr. Obenaus according to his statement, will have to be clarified later. According to the statement of the witness Mr. Obenaus the head of K 6, the witness Mr. Koop is supposed to have decided upon the securing of evidence. The witness Mr. Obenaus was not able to give reasons for the destruction.

The search for the chipboard that is supposed to carry characteristic traces in the forensic report has been to no avail. The exhibit No. He 1 is not the chipboard and not a part of the board either but according to the description (KTU, page 52) a part of the substructure of the layer of chipboard.

The floorboard that supposedly protected the well known toilet roll from burning and that, according to the statement of the witness Mr. Obenaus, taking into account the jaunty statement of the state prosecutor Mr. Bieler on the 29th August 1996, made a strange metamorphosis from asbestos cement to composition, disappeared also in the effort of the forensic people to have the porch and the 1st floor “swept clean”.

Apart from the fact that the forensic report in many ways does not deliver what its name promises and apart from the fact that even with Mr. Obenaus it was not possible to elucidate who did secure evidence when and where, did Mr. Obenaus give us ambiguous information as to the whereabouts of secured evidence: When he was questioned in relation to the exhibits in the box shown on the video Mr. Obenaus explained amongst other things: “All pieces except for the ones that we destroyed were handed to the Soko (special committee).”

What, asks the fearful participant in the trial has been destroyed additionally ? Mr. Obenaus has spoken about the original video recordings that are supposed to have been deleted by Mr. Henning. An abyss opens up though bearing in mind the testimony of the witness Mr. Koop that many objects had been secured that were not explainable to them even though the search for such “inexplicable things” in the forensic report is to no avail.

3.) The witness Mr. Obenaus has testified that testimonies had not been before him and he had not tried to obtain them either. But they had got a report from the office for tactical investigations on the second or the third day of the investigations at the scene of the crime that a statement had been made in relation to the accused that a liquid had been poured. There is no doubt that the witness meant the statement by Mr. Leonhardt. The search for procedural guidelines to the tactical investigation in relation to this in the forensic report dated 8th February is to no avail. The guidelines for the tactical investigation on three persons arrested that were valid only until the morning of the 19th January 1996 however is to be found in it.

A first inspection had been carried out on the 19th January 1996, according to Mr. Obenaus. Until then, only evidence from the outside had been secured. If one recalls the first statement of Mr. Leonhardt it becomes comprehensible why the witness Mr. Henning - though without success according to the state prosecution - secured 8 traces from the area of the threshold (order number 15). This securing of evidence had nothing to do with a slow systematic working forward from the entrance of the wooden porch to the 1st or even the 2nd floor but rather was an unsuccessful effort to forensically support the story of Mr. Leonhardt.

Mr. Obenaus reported that on the first inspection, the expert had established that it had been a burn through. The very words that were said had been “something must have happened here”. By which way and with which guidelines for the forensic investigation this remark - provided that it was made - did add to the thesis by Mr. Herdejürgen about the origin of the fire will have to be clarified later.

Two things are certain though according to the statement of Mr. Obenaus:

- The inside of the porch was treated with disregard because there was a guideline for the tactical investigations to the contrary. This is the only way to explain the omission described.

- Today nobody wants to have been responsible for the securing of evidence on the 1st floor, too much is missing, too much has been disposed of and in retrospect nobody is willing to consider how the statement by Mr. Leonhardt has influenced their perceptions.