Dead boy in Tyrol: Mother convinced of innocence, investigators questioned

The focus was on the testimony of the boy’s wife and mother. She swore that she was convinced of her husband’s innocence. Previously, the defense’s motions for disqualification against the jury and the forensic expert Walter Rabl had been rejected.

• Read more: Defense saw bias among jurors

The defendant’s wife hugged her husband in tears at the beginning of her questioning that afternoon. Sobbing, she described how she had learned of her son’s death. She was absolutely certain that her husband had never done anything as “bestial” as the indictment had accused him of, the defendant’s wife swore: “Not just because he’s my husband.” The only change she had noticed after that was that her husband had developed strong “fears.” The woman sharply criticized the police work – she felt that the investigators did not take her seriously, and that tips such as additional video surveillance footage were not followed up on or were followed up on too late. She had lost “all trust” in the authorities.

Mother confirmed boy’s “progress”

When asked, the woman confirmed that the child’s buggy was freely accessible near the house. She had not seen a bottle like the one with which the defendant was allegedly knocked down on the promenade by the Ache. She confirmed the defendant’s statements from the previous day, according to which her son had made enormous “progress” on several levels prior to the incident, and that the childcare situation had recently been stable. Water had attracted her son, and he had “no awareness of the danger” in this regard. The cancellation of kindergarten mentioned in the trial had been “annoying”, the woman admitted, but that had nothing to do with “any kind of overexertion”. She also confirmed that her husband had had physical problems in the shoulder area.

A discussion brought up by the defense about jellyfish on vacation in Italy, in which fainting was also said to have been a topic, had previously been the subject of questioning of the defendant’s mother and stepfather. The defendant’s mother had “not heard much” of this. She also did not notice that “fainting” was discussed in this context. However, the topic of jellyfish was very much present in the minds of her granddaughter – the defendant’s daughter. The defendant’s stepfather confirmed the same. The granddaughter was “fearful” of fainting, according to the stepfather, who claimed to have heard the relevant conversation. When asked, he also stated that the defendant had announced that he would “google” this in connection with it and had done so.

“}”>