Earlier in the morning, expert reports had been discussed, but they did not provide any major new insights.
A juror had informed the presiding judge Andreas Fleckl that another juror had said before the start of the trial that he was “already sure how he would decide”. This was apparently the juror who had already been the focus of a motion for disqualification on the second day of the trial because he had spoken to the expert Walter Rabl outside the courtroom. The trial continued in the early afternoon with motions for evidence and without the juror.
Forensic pathologist Petra Hatzer-Grubwieser had examined DNA and other traces from the crime scene, including traces on the bottle already discussed in the trial, with which the defendant, according to his own statement, was knocked down or, according to the public prosecutor, hit himself. Traces left by the victim were found on the bottle. Traces of an unknown person – possibly a “drinking trace” – were also discovered on shards from the drinking area and inside, Hatzer-Grubwieser explained to the jury. The trace in the drinking area was found under the cap: “It was therefore not exposed to any environmental influences.”
“Casual people”
When asked by the defense, the expert did not accept the fact that no DNA from the defendant was found on the bottom of the bottle as proof that it had not come into contact with the defendant’s head: “It was only a fraction of a second and there was hair in between.” Even if all the shards were secured at the crime scene, her expectations would not change to get a different result, said Hatzer-Grubwieser when asked. “In an ideal world,” of course, all the shards would be available.
All other traces, such as those on the victim himself, could essentially be attributed to the defendant or his son. No blood was found in suspicious places on the father’s jacket. Only the defendant’s own prints were found on his wallet and smartphone. In a few places, however, traces were found that came from police officers or rescue workers – so-called “occasional persons”. Only in one place on the victim – in the chest area – was there a trace that could not yet be attributed. According to the expert, however, this was probably created later. When asked by the presiding judge Andreas Fleckl, the expert emphasized that certain conclusions could not be drawn with certainty due to the lack of traces: “A touch can, but does not have to, leave traces.”
Recording of steps in itself is “not reliable” as evidence
Finally, IT expert Cornelia Menzel, who works for a Munich company, discussed her findings. She had been entrusted with evaluating the defendant’s cell phone. The recording of steps in itself is “not reliable” as evidence, and the data can theoretically be influenced – for example, if you shake the phone or walk in circles, according to the IT expert. It is possible that steps were not recorded. For example, due to a “temporary defect” or if the cell phone “hit the ground hard twice” and the short period of time in between was “not recognized as a sequence of steps” by the device. However, there was no evidence of such a fall, the expert explained in response to a question from the public prosecutor.
Among other things, Menzel was also asked to clarify the time of the internet search in question for the word “fainting”. She examined the time associated with it – the search was carried out at noon, although a different time had been recorded on the cell phone. “The time stamp was wrong,” she explained, citing technical reasons. A search for “jellyfish” had been carried out at a similar time. Menzel also explained in detail which activities in general had been recorded on the defendant’s cell phone on the night of the crime – from recording videos to music apps. The last activity had taken place at 3:34 a.m., the expert confirmed.
Smartphone locked by facial recognition
Meanwhile, when asked by his defense attorney Mathias Kapferer, the defendant explained that his smartphone had been locked using facial recognition: “It was useless for someone who doesn’t have my face,” said the 39-year-old. That was a possible explanation for why a suspected robber didn’t take the cell phone with him. The presiding judge then went through the course of the investigation again – which initially revolved around the search for a suspected attacker and only later turned against the defendant. Kapferer read out the statements of several witnesses who had later observed men wearing hoods and reported them to the police because of any unusual behavior. Public prosecutor Joachim Wüstner, in turn, presented the statements of police officers who had first viewed the unsecured surveillance video of a store that had already been discussed in the trial. According to them, no one following the defendant could be seen on it.
The defendant had always vehemently denied the alleged crime. The German entered the courtroom on Thursday accompanied by cameras and under a barrage of flashbulbs from the numerous media representatives present. The man’s wife, who had testified as a witness on the second day of the trial, was also present. The first two days of the trial – especially the start of the trial – had already ensured a full jury room in the Innsbruck regional court. The number of seats available to the public was therefore limited, as were those for representatives of the press.
Great sensation
At the start of the trial, prosecutor Wüstner referred to the jury in particular to incriminating evidence and expert opinions. Video recordings showed, for example, that the champagne bottle with which an alleged unknown person was said to have knocked down the defendant was already in the stroller before the crime. The injuries and the long period of unconsciousness could not be reconciled with the father’s version of events.
The 39-year-old’s defense attorneys – Kapferer and Albert Heiss – have raised doubts in the two days of the trial so far on July 17 and 18, arguing that there were possible shortcomings in the police investigation. For example, evidence was not secured in time. The 39-year-old’s wife and mother of the deceased child also gave an emotional statement in favor of the defendant. If the trial is not adjourned, a verdict is likely to be reached on Thursday evening.
In the case that caused a great stir, it was originally assumed that the father had been robbed. But after months of intensive investigations, during which no hot leads emerged for the alleged robber, the 39-year-old himself became the target and was finally arrested on February 27, 2023.
In any case, the accused must answer not only for the suspicion of the crime of murder but also for the suspicion of feigning a punishable act. If convicted, he faces up to life imprisonment.
This article was last updated on August 1, 2024 at 1:57 p.m.
