It is one of the most sensational criminal cases outside the borders of Tyrol. Little Leon (6) drowned in the Kitzbüheler Pijn in August 2022, his father (39) became the target of the investigation and has been in custody since February 2023. Now, almost a year after his arrest, his defense has filed for his release from prison – justifying it on a number of counts. The Innsbruck Public Prosecutor’s Office also speaks out.
Leon was affectionately called ‘Sunshine’ by his family – because of his unmistakable smile. He suffered from the so-called Syngap syndrome, an incurable genetic defect, and, among other things, woke up several times during the night, so night walks were not uncommon.
From August 28, 2022, everything changed
The accident happened during one of these walks. It was Sunday, August 28, 2022 when the then six-year-old boy drowned around 4 a.m. in the Kitzbüheler Ache near St. Johann in Tirol. An unknown person allegedly pulled a bottle over the head of the father, who was walking with his son, and he collapsed unconscious. At 5:20 am, a passerby reportedly found the still unconscious man and raised the alarm. Meanwhile, Leon is said to have crawled out of the stroller on his own and fell into the water.
Arrest of Leon’s father
The turning point will be on February 27! The police arrested Leon’s father on strong suspicion of murder and forgery. The argument of the Innsbruck Public Prosecutor’s Office was: ‘He is accused of killing his son and throwing him into the creek to put him out of his misery.’ A few days later he was taken into custody. The 39-year-old has been in Innsbruck prison ever since. He strongly denies all allegations and is presumed innocent.
Application for release from prison on February 26, 2024
Now, a year later, another stunner! His lawyer Albert Heiss submitted a request for release from prison and presented his reasons together with Mathias Kapferer, legal advisor to Leon’s mother, at a press conference on Thursday morning at the AC Hotel in the middle of Innsbruck. a whole series of arguments, facts and questionable conclusions of the investigating authorities” – even “investigative accidents”.
Inadequate forensic investigation and evaluation
“The evaluation of the traces at the crime scene remained grossly inadequate and was partly done against the state of the art. This means that evidence can no longer be used,” Heiss emphasizes. And further: “Not even half of the shards that might have come out of the bottle were recovered. Some of the shards were found by private individuals days after the incident and handed in to the police. Video recordings also show that fragments were removed from the crime scene by a street sweeper a few days after the incident. The police consider the bottle as an instrument with which the suspect allegedly injured himself.”
Violation of the principles of objectivity
According to the two lawyers, investigating officers have assessed the evidence in advance as ‘demonstrable and recorded’ – which is inadmissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Evidence such as video recordings was not secured “despite appropriate opportunities”.
Cell phone data evaluation
“When evaluating the suspect’s mobile phone data, the State Criminal Investigation Department officers used software that contained significant errors. “The police accusation that the cell phone step recordings constitute evidence is untenable – which is also reflected in external expert reports,” Heiss said. The claim that the suspect Googled the term “fainting” in preparation for a fake robbery is also untenable.
Glass bottle as a tool of crime?
This “improper preservation of evidence” makes it impossible to assess what the actual instrument of the crime was, especially when it comes to the glass bottle. “Contrary to what the police say, from a medical perspective, injury to someone else is more likely than injury to yourself. DNA testing of glass shards has not shown that these shards came into contact with the suspect. Reports confirm that another murder weapon – such as a baton – is also possible. “In addition, DNA traces of an unknown male person were found on the glass shards,” the lawyers emphasize.
Where’s the motive?
“The police’s assumption that the suspect or his family were in a desperate situation can be clearly refuted by numerous witnesses, video recordings, written confirmation and not least by a report from communication sciences,” says Heiss. The following facts would contradict this: “Leon’s health situation had improved considerably. Video footage shows that the boy was a cheerful and mobile child despite his disability.
There have already been clarifications regarding kindergarten and later school attendance. The day before the attack, the suspect improved the situation in the kitchen of the family’s apartment. Numerous video recordings from a long period of time prove that there was an excellent and extremely loving relationship between father and son,” the defense lawyers explain.
In summary, according to Heiss and Kapferer, the following can be said: “From the perspective of the defense, the urgent suspicion is not tenable. There are sufficient indications of the accuracy of the suspect’s statements. The authorities completely misjudged the motive.”
Tomorrow, Friday, a judge at the Innsbruck Regional Court will decide whether the 39-year-old will remain in custody.
Immediately before the start of the press conference, the Innsbruck Public Prosecutor’s Office responded with a press release. Spokesman Hansjörg Mayr makes it clear: “It is the defense’s job to do everything that can help the suspect’s position. The task of the Public Prosecution Service, on the other hand, is to assess everything objectively and objectively and to protect the rights of all those involved in the procedure and also the presumption of innocence. , personal motives”, but is solely mandatory and guided by law based on the facts present. This is regularly examined by the court – in this specific case also by the Supreme Court, which has confirmed the legality of the pre-trial detention.
“During the ongoing investigation, the prosecutor’s office will not comment publicly on the results of the evidence or on the defense’s requests and comments. That is left to the court hearing. The goal of the prosecutor’s office is to ensure that the court’s decision is as impartial and uninfluenced as possible. If the defense now publicly interprets the results of the investigation in their own way, they are pursuing the opposite: the goal is of course to influence the future judges – presumably jurors. The judge does not have to decide on the submitted request for release. The application must be submitted there and substantiated,” says Mayr.
“We had to examine extensive evidence submitted by the defense.”
In any case, the Public Prosecution Service will make every effort to “quickly end” the investigation, so that a decision on guilt or innocence can be made as quickly as possible in the event of any indictment. “Until then, the presumption of innocence applies. Recently, the Public Prosecution Service was, among other things, investigating further extensive requests for evidence from the defense and subsequently granting them whether they could influence the further proceedings and the question of guilt, even if this means further delay. in the investigation,” the spokesperson emphasizes.
Source: Krone
I am Wallace Jones, an experienced journalist. I specialize in writing for the world section of Today Times Live. With over a decade of experience, I have developed an eye for detail when it comes to reporting on local and global stories. My passion lies in uncovering the truth through my investigative skills and creating thought-provoking content that resonates with readers worldwide.
