The eight jurors unanimously found the German not guilty of killing his son and faking a robbery.
The unanimous acquittals on suspicion of murder and feigning a punishable act after only one and a half hours of deliberation ended a trial that lasted three days and attracted great media interest.
Tears and applause
The 39-year-old listened to the jury’s verdict in tears, which was greeted with applause from the audience. His wife, who was present in the audience and had also testified in her husband’s favor during the trial, rushed to her husband on the dock in the jury courtroom several times and hugged him. The German made no further statement after the verdict was announced and was immediately released from custody. Judge Andreas Fleckl had also not previously given any further reasons for the verdict. The verdict was already making the rounds among relatives and media representatives waiting outside the courtroom before it was announced and led to emotional outbursts.
Criticism of investigations
His defense attorneys Albert Heiss and Mathias Kapferer, however, were as harsh in their criticism of the police investigation as they had been during the presentation of evidence. Kapferer said in harsh terms to journalists that it had “mutated at a certain point into a personal feud between investigators.” Heiss criticized the lengthy pretrial detention, which one had to “get through emotionally” and suggested further civil proceedings, which Kapferer said were “still completely open.” Now it was a question of waiting to see how the public prosecutor’s office would behave. The defense attorneys assumed, however, that they would not appeal. The jury’s verdict was “practically impossible to contest.” Kapferer also spoke of a “two-tier justice system.” The 39-year-old would probably not have been acquitted without the financially expensive expert reports.
“No happy ending for us”
“Nobody can understand what it’s like to be exposed to such accusations,” said the 39-year-old German, who lived in the lowlands, in tears before the jury deliberations on the third day of the trial. No matter what the decision, “the story will not have a happy ending for us. We will not get our son back.” It was “unbearable” that the person responsible for his son’s death “is still walking around freely.” “We will never stop looking for him,” he said, struggling to keep his composure. He was sorry that he had not protected the boy: “I will never be able to forgive myself for that.”
“Comprehensive procedure”
In his closing statement, prosecutor Joachim Wüstner had previously looked back on the “comprehensive” proceedings. “One could come to the conclusion that the matter is incredibly complicated,” said Wüstner, who accused the defense of using a “smoke grenade” strategy. However, considering the defendant’s injuries, the alleged fainting that followed, and the behavior of the alleged robber, the matter was “not that complicated.” The 39-year-old did not even try to unlock the cell phone, said the prosecutor, referring to a previous expert’s statement.
The bottle was visible in the stroller on video before the alleged robbery. The fact that the defendant did not notice the bottle when he opened the stroller or pushed it is not credible and “completely out of the question”. The question must be asked: “Why is the defendant lying about the bottle?” The defendant deliberately took the bottle with him because he needed it to fake a robbery.
“Only rational explanation”
The alleged unconsciousness was examined by the experts. Forensic doctor Walter Rabl spoke of minor injuries. According to the experts, “nothing” indicates that the defendant had been knocked down, Wüstner summed up. Rather, several pieces of evidence were presented that showed that there had been no fainting – such as the defendant’s body temperature. He also spoke of signs of a “test blow” to the back of the defendant’s head – in other words, “self-harm”.
“I also racked my brains to see if it could have been different,” admitted Wüstner: “But even if he just let it happen, he is a murderer.” The fact that he killed his child was the “only rational explanation” for faking the robbery. Wüstner explained the emotional statement of the child’s mother, who had vouched for the accused, as an emotional predicament: “What cannot be simply cannot be.” If she admitted that her husband was a murderer, her “existence would crumble.” In case of doubt, the legal principle of deciding in favor of the accused applies, Wüstner reminded them, but that does not mean “that you have to play dumb,” the prosecutor appealed to the jury.
Defender “in the wrong film”
Attorney Albert Heiss – he is defending together with attorney Mathias Kapferer – spoke for the defense and said he felt he was “in the wrong movie.” “You have to prove your guilt, not the defendant your innocence,” Heiss said to Wüstner. No one is guilty before a court has made a legally binding decision, but the defendant is already “labeled a murderer.” The investigators had a preconceived opinion and worked accordingly, thereby “violating the presumption of innocence.” Such cases are often reopened, said the defense attorney: “A miscarriage of justice is the worst thing that can happen in a constitutional state.” He made an emotional appeal to the jury to imagine for themselves what it would be like to be found guilty when innocent.
Heiss did not share Wüstner’s conclusions from the expert report by Rabl. He found inconsistencies in the description of the defendant’s condition and also in the reconstruction or the alleged timeline of the night of the crime. His client’s fainting was also plausible, based on the statements of witnesses. The person who found the man initially “thought he was dead”. Heiss also cast doubt on Wüstner’s statements, saying that no “test blow” had been found. The defendant’s body temperature could be explained by clothing. Heiss once again said that the internet search for “fainting” had been carried out in response to his client’s daughter’s inquiry about jellyfish.
Inadequate forensic evidence?
The fact that his client had feigned unconsciousness was “unbelievable” and made “no sense”. The bottle was central. If it had been as claimed in the prosecution, the defendant would have left traces on it – that was not the case. Heiss again alleged that evidence had been inadequately secured. “Assumptions and allegations” had been made, “that is not enough for criminal proceedings”. His client’s behavior before the night of the crime also did not indicate a motive. In case of doubt, an acquittal should be made, Heiss concluded by appealing to the defense and warning against a “miscarriage of justice”.
Juror excluded
One juror had previously been excluded after another juror had previously informed the presiding judge Andreas Fleckl that he 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 Rabl outside the courtroom. The trial continued from midday without the juror.
In the morning, reports by Petra Hatzer-Grubwieser from the Innsbruck Forensic Medicine Department and then by IT expert Cornelia Menzel were discussed, but these did not provide any major new findings. The forensic pathologist had examined DNA and other traces from the crime scene, including traces on the bottle already discussed in the trial, with which the defendant was knocked down according to his own statement or with which he hit himself according to the public prosecutor. Traces left by the victim were found on the bottle.
Hatzer-Grubwieser explained to the jury that traces of an unknown person – possibly a “drinking trace” – had been discovered on broken glass from the drinking area and in the interior. With a few exceptions, all other traces, such as those on the victim himself, could essentially be attributed to the defendant or his son. When asked by the presiding judge Andreas Fleckl, the expert stressed that, due to the lack of traces, no certain conclusions could be drawn with certainty: “A touch can, but does not have to, leave traces.”
IT experts speak
Finally, Menzel, who works for a Munich company, discussed her findings. She had been entrusted with the analysis of 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 twice hard” 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. An internet search for “fainting” and “jellyfish” prior to the crime was carried out close to one another and could be located at lunchtime, explained Menzel.
When asked by his defense attorney 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 had initially revolved around the search for a suspected attacker and only later turned against the now defendant.
Act vehemently denied
The accused had always vehemently denied the alleged crime. The German entered the courtroom on Thursday accompanied by cameras and under the flashes of the numerous media representatives who had again attended. 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 took place on July 17 and 18.
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.
This article was last updated at 19:12.
