An interesting post from Websleuths yesterday…
Some might be interested to know that the MM case is not the only murder charge without a body that the Braunschweig Prosecutor's office are currently pursuing.
In the case of Karsten M., who has been missing since April, the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office has brought charges against a 50-year-old federal police officer. He is said to have murdered his best friend insidiously.
According to the public prosecutor's office, the motive for the crime was the accused's desire to officially live with Karsten M.'s wife. Authorities spokesman Christian Wolters said that bloody traces of grinding were found on the victim's property in Groß Döhren in the municipality of Liebenburg (Goslar district) and at the alleged crime scene. Investigators assume that the suspect lured his victim out of the house and then probably attacked him with a crossbow. Karsten M. had to take an anticoagulant, which led to a lot of blood loss. The investigators also found traces of blood in the victim's car, which they were able to make visible again using chemical agents. The car was later discovered at the Expo site in Hanover. A body has not yet been found.
The prosecution is sure of their accusation, even without a body. "When we file charges, we always assume a conviction, otherwise we should not file charges," Wolters said. It is not entirely unusual to charge a murder without a body. "It is and remains a circumstantial process, but we believe that we can prove it."
Besten Freund getötet? Anklage gegen Bundespolizisten
The trial is currently ongoing and all of the Prosecution evidence is circumstantial in nature. Much like the MM case, the body of the victim has still not been found and there are no eye-witnesses to the crime.
The main evidence in the prosecution case is as follows-
- The victim's kitchen showed signs of an unplanned departure. Uneaten toast, the victim's phone and his bag remained, yet the victim's car had gone.
- A substantial amount of blood was found in the garden of the victim's home along with drag marks.
- Extensive traces of the victim's blood was found in the victim's car which turned up miles away from his home.
- The suspect had been having an affair with the victim's wife for several years but the wife was unwilling to leave her husband.
- The victim's family had recently found out about the affair.
- The suspect purchased various items from hardware stores in the weeks leading up to the crime including paving slabs, wire mesh and concrete footings. None of which were ever found. (The Prosecutor's assumption being the materials were used to conceal the victim's body).
- A Fiat 500 car was spotted outside the victims home by several witnesses on the morning of his disappearance. One witness also saw a man (that was not the victim) stood next to the car shortly before the time of the disappearance.
- After the suspect's car had left that morning, the Fiat 500 remained until some time later that day. It was gone by 1pm.
- Rental records show the suspect rented a Fiat 500 car matching the description during the time frame of the crime.
- Remnants of a crossbow arrow were located at the alleged crime scene (victim's garden).
- A corresponding crowbow was purchased online using the suspect's ID in the weeks beforehand.
- The crossbow purchase was debited from the suspect's PayPal account.
- A postman confirms delivering the crossbow to the supect's home address.
- Several weeks later, the day after the victim's car was found the suspect lodged a PayPal dispute that someone else had bought the crossbow under his name and he never received it. The Prosecutor alleges this was a means of covering up posession of the crossbow after realising an arrow was missing.
- A taxi driver collected a man that morning from the location of where the victim's car was found and took him to a train station. The taxi driver said the man was wearing a covid mask and although not certain, states the man matched the suspect's appearance.
Here's an update on the trial itself which is still ongoing. More details of the case can be found on the same website but I thought this particular article was especially interesting as it outlines many of the points the defence are trying to argue.
Manczak-Prozess: Hat ein Zeuge den Toten gesehen?
There are several interesting parallels with this case and the CB/MM case. The Prosecutors launched a public TV appeal for witnesses after identifying their suspect. Similarly, they appealed for details relating to certain vehicles and any sightings of their suspect. The suspect has remained silent throughout, refusing to respond to any police questions. All of the evidence against the suspect is circumstantial. The Prosecutors only released certain details to the public "so as not to jeopardise the investigation" - that's a direct HCW quote about this investigation and exactly what he also said about the CB case.
The defence has argued several points that, while predictable, the Prosecutors can expect similar points to be raised should the MM case go to trial. The suspect claims someone stole his identity to order the crossbow and that he was not in possession of it. CB's defence may similarly want to argue the phone was not in his posession on the 3rd. The defence has called witnesses who believe they may have seen the victim (or the victim's car) after the time the Prosecutors allege the victim to have been murdered. Again, FF would likley point to the many alleged sightings of MM. The defence argue that the Prosecutors did not adequately investigate other possibilities such as the victim going into hiding or having committed suicide. I think we can guess at what alternative explanations FF might propose for MM's disappearance.
What is intriguing is that the circumstantial evidence in this case must be quite different to that in the CB case. While each of the circumstantial points are not damning on their own, it is the culmination of them which is compelling. The pieces of the puzzle as HCW puts it. The motive is established via the conflict of the affair. The evidence of death is supported by the vast amount of victims blood, drag marks and a potential murder weapon. Placing the suspect at the crime scene is supported by the sighting of the suspect's hire car. Placing the suspect at the site of the victims disposed car is supported by the taxi driver. On the face of it, the BKA would not appear to have that sort of evidence against CB. So it will be interesting to see what evidence they do have to bridge these gaps in a similarly compelling manner, given that HCW states they do "now" have enough evidence to charge him.
What is also interesting is that this trial was meant to have finished quite some time ago. It was initially delayed after one of the judges fell ill just before the trial was due to commence in November, the trial was scheduled for 11 days. It was then meant to conclude in February but has since been prolonged after further witnesses came forward. The latest is that it might conclude some time in April or May. I don't know whether these developments have anything to do with any delays to charges against CB, but it's possible. The Prosecutors have the luxury of time with CB whereas they didn't in this case. The period of pre-trial detention was up, which may have resulted in a need to focus their efforts away from CB for the time being. Whatever the case, the result of this trial will be interesting to see and a potential benchmark for evidence threshold in any future murder trials where there is no body.
