[ad_1]
The air in the courtroom on Friday is so thick it could be cut off. The alleged killer Robert Schmid (57) is visibly excited. For him today is about everything. “I have been in custody innocently for 960 days,” he emphasized over and over again last week during the five-day monster’s trial at the Oberland regional court in Thun BE.
After the hearing, the judges withdrew for several days to deliberate on the verdict; now they have made their decision: Robert Schmid is guilty! The collegiate court sentenced the Oberlander to 16 years in prison for deliberate murder, arson and disturbing the peace of the dead. In addition, the 57-year-old must pay his deceased girlfriend’s family 100,000 satisfaction francs.
The court believes that the prosecutor
With this sentence, the court follows the statements of the Prosecutor’s Office. He had accused the former Bernese Oberland businessman in the accusation of having murdered his girlfriend Daniela S. († 41) in Frutigen BE in February 2018. He was then said to have poured heating oil and diesel into her bedroom, and burned the old wooden house to cover the traces. This thesis was based only on circumstantial evidence: the prosecution did not have solid evidence.
Therefore, the court heard numerous experts and witnesses at last week’s trial. It became increasingly clear how little has actually been proven in this case.
No evidence, just circumstantial evidence
Fire experts could not confirm that there really was an arson in this case, and forensic doctors are definitely not assuming a homicide. The charred corpse of the 41-year-old man weighs only 26 kilograms. Daniela S. can hardly be recognized as a person in forensic photos: the investigation of the cause of death was correspondingly difficult.
The Bern expert explained that Robert Schmid’s girlfriend may have died from a violent head injury, such as a gunshot to the head. But: The former community employee could also have died from a cocktail of illegal and legal substances. Other possible causes of death would also be suicide or an accident. The time of death could not even be precisely determined: Daniela S. could have died three weeks before the fire, or the day of the fire.
Witness incriminated Schmid
However, the case was clear to the prosecution based on what they said was related evidence. For example, the 57-year-old man’s escape to France immediately after the fire, where he was later arrested, put him in a bad situation. A witness had also stated that he met the acquaintance during his escape in a supermarket parking lot and that he had asked him, obviously desperate, for money and a telephone. “He said he couldn’t use hers because otherwise they would find it,” the old woman recalled in court.
However, the defender of the alleged murderer claimed in his plea that his client fled abroad due to a panic reaction. He saw the house on fire and saw the consequences. Schmid had been deprived of her care once before due to serious alcohol problems. He would have wanted to avoid this with his escape. He also had a plausible explanation for the rest of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor’s Office. But he obviously couldn’t convince the court with these stories.
Does the high court now have to have the books?
Schmid is anything but satisfied with the ruling of the Oberland regional court: he still wants an acquittal and is disappointed. His defense attorney said beforehand that in the event of a guilty verdict, he would likely go to higher court. The last word in this difficult case has probably not yet been said.
