Pistachio ice cream fall

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pistachio ice cream case is a federal German criminal case from 1993 decided by the Federal Court of Justice in 1999 with an acquittal of the defendants. On January 21, 1993, seven-year-old Anna B. died of arsenic poisoning . The name came about because it is said to have been given the poison in a serving of pistachio ice cream.

background

The parents of the later defendant Elisabeth F. (* approx. 1954) and her two years younger brother Ernst-Rudolf B. owned a pharmacy in Stuttgart, which they finally sold after neither of the two children was interested in taking over.

Elisabeth F. had started to study pharmacy, but broke off shortly before the state examination and switched to the advertising industry. She later married; her husband was well off financially. F. liked to display her wealth: she drove a Porsche, wore expensive clothes and kept three pedigree dogs. At the time of the crime, she was living in Königstein im Taunus . Elisabeth F. suffered from lymph gland cancer and could not have children due to her condition.

Ernst-Rudolf and Benedigte B. married in 1981; their daughter Anna was born on February 3, 1985, the only child in the family. The pregnancy triggered when Benedikte as multiple sclerosis from; at the time of Anna's death she was already dependent on crutches.

The father of Elisabeth F. and Ernst-Rudolf B. died on March 17, 1987 at the age of 65 after collapsing in an underground car park; Doctors suspected a stroke. The mother died eight months later, on November 18, 1987, at the age of 60, after her blood pressure fell sharply for unknown reasons and she lost consciousness. In both cases, Elisabeth F. was in Stuttgart, which was taken as an indication in the later investigations that she could be a serial killer. In contrast, F. stated that her father suffered from diabetes, liver damage and heart problems. The mother had suffered from difficult-to-treat seizures for years.

Elisabeth F. and Ernst Rudolf B. inherited several million from their parents. F. gave her brother a general power of attorney to manage the inheritance.

The B. family lived in Tamm -Hohenstange near Stuttgart at the time of the crime . Ernst-Rudolf B. had a well-paid position as a manager, but the family lived modestly. The parents, both devout Catholics, were careful not to spoil their daughter and raise her up early to become independent; she often had to help around the house. Anna B. was very attached to her parents and was sometimes afraid for her mother.

Despite the differences, the relationship with B's sister F. was cordial. She was Anna B.'s godmother and had a good relationship with her niece. According to her own statement, she intended to use Anna B. as the sole heir of her property.

Course of events

On January 20, 1993, F. visited the B. family to take one of their dogs to a veterinarian appointment in Stuttgart the next day. She brought a pack of pistachio ice cream for her niece.

At 7:45 p.m., the parents left home to attend a religious lecture. Anna B. first took out her aunt's three dogs and then returned home. There F. gave her the pistachio ice cream she had brought to eat, with chocolate sauce from an opened bottle in her parents' refrigerator. Anna B. ate three servings; F. himself also ate some of the pistachio ice cream, but no chocolate sauce. Afterwards Anna B. was put to bed by F.

After the parents returned, she and F. had pizza delivered. Between 10 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. Anna B. vomited for the first time and complained of severe nausea. Her mother gave her black tea and Uzara , a herbal stomach remedy. The parents took their daughter with them to the marriage bed; F. stayed in the guest room.

Anna B's condition worsened overnight: she vomited four times an hour and suffered from cramps and diarrhea. Her father gave her charcoal tablets; she fell asleep around 5:00 am. At around 7:00 am, she had problems with her balance and consciousness and collapsed in the bathroom. F. only now became aware of her niece's condition and carried her to bed. Parents and aunt drove the girl to the pediatrician, whose practice was still closed, and on to the hospital in Ludwigsburg. During the journey, F. tried to keep her niece awake.

Despite intensive medical treatment, Anna B's heart began to fail at 11:00 a.m., at 11:32 a.m. she was pronounced dead.

F. had returned to her brother's house from the hospital, had brought her dog to the agreed vet appointment, then showered and changed, switched on the half-full dishwasher and only returned to the hospital around 12:00. There she learned of her niece's death from her brother.

Investigations

There were already indications of poisoning in the clinic and the poison control center was alerted during the treatment. The police opened the investigation, but no food supplies were confiscated from the family home, despite suspicions of food poisoning. Benedikt B. immediately disposed of all food supplies in the house.

The parents reluctantly agreed to an autopsy on their daughter; Above all, the mother had initially refused to do so. Ultimately, the autopsy was carried out; Anna B's body was then cremated and buried.

Less than two weeks after Anna B.'s death, the ice cream maker received a ransom note demanding 80,000 DM and threatening products with poisoning. The blackmailer who posed as “Mr. Calva ”, answered one more time, but there were no further contacts and no money was handed over. As an indication against a connection it was stated that it was atypical for a product blackmailer acting for financial reasons to first poison food and then to issue a threat; other motives were not discussed in detail. However, F.'s statement that he had eaten the ice cream himself spoke against a connection.

About eight weeks after Anna B.'s death, the autopsy revealed that she had been poisoned with arsenic trioxide , an odorless and tasteless powder. She had taken 20 to 50 times the lethal dose. Since such a dose triggers nausea after one and a half to two hours at the latest, Anna B. could not have been given the poison before 8 p.m. Food or possibly free sweets that Anna had consumed during the day were eliminated. Whether Anna B. might have been given poisoned sweets while walking with the dogs of her aunt could not be clarified in the course of the investigation. This meant that only Benedict B., Ernst-Rudolf B. or Elisabeth F. could be considered as perpetrators. Anna B. may have been given the poison with the pistachio ice cream or the chocolate sauce. It was also possible that Anna B's vomiting was initially only triggered by the large portion of ice cream and that the arsenic was only administered to her with the tea or the stomach drops.

At the time of the crime, both Elisabeth F. and Ernst-Rudolf B. still had keys to their parents' pharmacy, which had been sold for years. According to the new owner, there were still two small bottles of arsenic in old stocks in this. There was also an old field pharmacy in the house of the B. family that contained arsenic, but in an amount that was not dangerous to humans.

First of all, all three suspects were investigated; It was noticeable that all three people appeared very controlled and reserved. The theory was also put forward that the assassination attempt could not have been against Anna B. but one of the adults present that evening.

Ultimately, no conclusive motive could be found for any of the three suspects. The fact that multiple sclerosis can also trigger psychological disorders and that Benedict B. could have suffered from delusional mental disorders was not given any greater significance.

Finally, the investigation focused on Elisabeth F., who attracted attention because of her behavior, which was described as completely unaffected. Despite Anna B.'s poor condition, she left the clinic to take her dog to the vet. At her niece's funeral, her behavior was described as exuberant, she appeared heavily made up and made inappropriate remarks.

It was also taken as evidence that she was present on both days on which her parents had died of unknown causes. Anna B. had already become nauseous when F. visited in November 1992, which was interpreted as a possible first unsuccessful attempted murder. The fact that she switched on the half-full dishwasher in her brother's house the morning after the crime, which also contained the glass bowl from which Anna B. had eaten the ice cream the night before, was taken as an indication of a possible removal of traces, especially since she did so Mentioned a circumstance to her brother the moment she found out about her niece's death. It was also considered proven that F. had access to arsenic and, through her pharmacy studies, had the necessary knowledge to poison a person with it.

F. reacted calmly to the arrest by the police a good year after the death of her niece. To every question asked during the interrogation, she was able to provide an answer that invalidated any evidence of her perpetrator.

The bodies of F. and B.'s parents had been cremated. The ashes were exhumed and examined for arsenic without any suspicious concentrations being found, so that no further investigation was carried out in this direction.

Several psychiatric reports on the mental state of Elisabeth F. found no abnormalities such as fears, compulsions, depression or paranoia.

facts

After the public prosecutor's lecture , Anna B. died as a result of deliberately administered arsenic poisoning . Her aunt Elisabeth F. is said to have given the girl pistachio ice cream the night before, which is said to have contained the deadly dose of arsenic. A possible motive was given that the aunt could not have children herself for medical reasons and that the killing of her niece is said to have been an act of jealousy , so to speak. In addition, as a pharmacist's daughter , the aunt had access to arsenic and knew about the dosage of arsenic. Above all, it was taken as an indication to the detriment of the aunt that she had washed the pistachio ice cream shell in the dishwasher on the morning of January 21, 1993 and thus removed any poison residues in the shell.

It was certain that Anna had died from a lethal dose of arsenic. However, it remained unclear whether the arsenic was actually carried by the pistachio ice cream, or whether the arsenic had been brought to the victim through another carrier, in particular through tea the previous evening. Following the death, a product blackmailer approached the manufacturer of the pistachio ice cream, threatened with further poisoning of the manufacturer's ice cream bowls and wanted to extort money from the ice cream maker in this way. Anna's parents and this product blackmailer were considered suspects, but the relevant investigations had been closed. The mother's possible motive for murder had been considered that the mother's multiple sclerosis had its cause in Anna's birth and that the mother could have taken revenge on her daughter in this way. Anna's mother could have committed the act in what is known as an orderly delusion caused by illness . The father's possible motive had been considered that the father might have intended to start a new life after Anna's death.

As a result of the investigation, only Anna's aunt had been charged with the murder of her niece. It was but a few years process time by judgment of the first Criminal Division of the Bundesgerichtshof (con 1 171/98) of 19 January 1999 on charges of murder for lack Tatnachweises acquitted.

Procedure

First the accused, Anna's aunt, was convicted by the Stuttgart Regional Court. However, this judgment was overturned by a decision of the Federal Court of Justice of July 31, 1996 (BGH 1 StR 274/96; so-called pistachio ice cream case I ) and the matter was referred back to the Heilbronn Regional Court for another hearing and decision . The district court of Heilbronn sentenced the defendant again in this second round of murdering her niece. In the end, however, the accused was finally acquitted of the accusation of murder due to a lack of evidence of the crime by the Federal Court of Justice on January 19, 1999 (1 StR 171/98; so-called pistachio ice cream case II ). The Federal Public Prosecutor had previously judged the appeal to be "obviously unfounded".

Legal evaluation

The internal motives, clues and motives assumed by the accused prove to be insufficiently sustainable for a conviction : The suspicious behavior of the accused on the morning of January 21, 1993 and at the subsequent funeral service is not a meaningful indication. The defendants' defense strategy, which is apostrophized as so-called forward defense, is not a sufficient indication. Overall, it can be stated that there is a lack of evidence close to the offense. There are only general statements made by the defendants, but not directly related to the crime. Rather, the judgment of the regional court is mainly based on speculations about internal processes of the accused or in assumptions. All in all, it can be stated that the regional court presupposed the perpetration of Anna's aunt, so to speak, and ruled out the perpetration of Anna's parents in the same way from the start. In its judgment, the regional court applied two standards. In the absence of evidence, the conviction had to be lifted. A referral back to a new negotiation and a decision in a third round was ruled out because no new knowledge was to be expected from a new negotiation.

Legal meaning

The legal significance of the pistachio ice cream case is based on the following two points:

As a rule, the following applies: The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) acts as a court of appeal . This means that the BGH cancels a decision that it considers unlawful and refers the matter back to the court last dealt with the matter for a new hearing and decision. The BGH does not act as an instance of fact . The BGH itself does not make a final decision on the matter. In the pistachio ice cream case, however, the exceptional case happened: the BGH decided on the matter itself and acquitted the accused of the allegation of murder.

The 1st Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice has shown the criminal court judge the limits of the free judicial assessment of evidence ( Section 261 StPO ): A conviction must not only be based on the subjective conviction of the criminal court judge, but the criminal court judge must also and above all sufficiently objectifiable evidence for his conviction can specify. If the trial judge is unable to provide any objectifiable evidence for his conviction, he may not cover up such a deficiency with his subjective conviction. The judge must then apply the decision-making principle in dubio pro reo (“In case of doubt for the accused”) in favor of the accused and absolve the accused of the accusation of guilt in the absence of evidence.

Web links

literature

  • Christian Fahl, In dubio pro reo - § 354, 261 StPO: acquittal by the BGH - "Pistachio ice cream case" (BGH, judgment of 19.1.1999 - 1 StR 171/98) JA 1999, 31st year, issue 12 , Pp. 925-927, judgment review

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k Bruno Schrep: The unpunished death of Anna B. In: Der Spiegel , March 20, 2000, No. 12/2000, pp. 95-103, accessed on August 16, 2017 .
  2. ↑ a b c d e Ulrike Winkelmann: Arsenic in the ice . In: Die Zeit , June 6, 1997, accessed on August 16, 2017.
  3. ↑ BGH 1 StR 171/98, January 19, 1999, Rn. 3.
  4. ↑ BGH 1 StR 171/98, January 19, 1999, Rn. 24.
  5. ↑ BGH 1 StR 171/98, January 19, 1999, Rn. 17th
  6. ↑ Kerstin Rech: The murder case Anna B .: Unsolved riddle . In: Stuttgarter Zeitung , February 2, 2015, accessed on August 16, 2017.
  7. ↑ a b BGH 1 StR 171/98, January 19, 1999, Rn. 28.
  8. ↑ BGH 1 StR 247/96 - judgment of July 31, 1996 (LG Stuttgart) . In: HRRS - Jurisprudence Database, accessed on August 16, 2017.
  9. ↑ Henning Rosenau: The obvious illegality of the "ou" rejection according to § 349 Abs. 2 StPO in the ruling practice of the BGH , in: Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 5/2012, p. 199 ( PDF, 215 KB ).
  10. ↑ BGH 1 StR 171/98, January 19, 1999, Rn. 23.
  11. ↑ a b BGH 1 StR 171/98, January 19, 1999, Rn. 6th
  12. ↑ a b c BGH 1 StR 171/98, January 19, 1999, Rn. 8th.
  13. ↑ BGH 1 StR 171/98, January 19, 1999, Rn. 13.
  14. ↑ BGH 1 StR 171/98, January 19, 1999, Rn. 15th