What happened to Oury Jalloh? Was it murder? Did he put fire on his own? For years, questions have been unclear – and will perhaps remain forever. For twelve years, two court trials and innumerable opinions later, case has not been clarified, but prosecutor's office in Halle has neverless surprisingly ceased investigation of Jalloh death conditions.
This decision was taken after "careful examination" of all findings, it says in press release. There was "no sufficient evidence to involve third parties in firing". DieStaatsanwaltschaft Dessau-Roßlau have once again made an attempt to have fire investigated and Interdisciplinaryly examined by 2016. But this fire test did not bring "safe knowledge". Furr clarification is not to be expected.
Surely we know until today what happened in early morning of January 7, 2005. Jalloh asked two women in city of Dessau to be able to rent ir mobile phone. The women felt harassed, called police. He n forcibly took Sierra Leone. At noon, Jalloh burned in his cell with a living body.
According to police and public prosecutor, he had laid fire himself to generate attention. To do so, he should have torn up mattress on which he had been handcuffed and lighted filling. For relatives and supporters, this explanation makes little sense. The initiative in memory of Oury Jalloh speaks of murder.
Controversy lighter not clarifiedCritics say that latest fire test in year 2016 was carried out under non-comparable conditions. In September 2015, family of lawyers had given six reasons why Oury Jalloh could not have laid fire himself. Among or things, y doubt, citing several expert opinions, sis that Jalloh had ir own lighter in cell, with which he could have lit. They suspect that lighter was subsequently brought into cell. Finally, neir DNA traces nor tissue remnants of jalloh clothing or mattress could be detected. Instead, investigators of state Criminal office Stuttgart found on lighter foreign polyester fibres and animal hair as well as DNA of unknown origin. British fire expert Iain Peck found 2015 that presence of light at crime scene could be "safely excluded".
In addition, mattress only with larger amounts of fire accelerators can burn so quickly and violently. Furrmore, lawyers cite toxicological findings. Thus, Jalloh should have been unconscious at time of death – so fire could not have laid. And even if he had been conscious, it was unlikely to be impossible for Jalloh to be able to achieve this in bounded state.
This representation contradicted public Prosecutor's Hall, without, however, expertise in legal evidence of 2015. With correspondingly much misunderstanding and dismay, relatives responded. Lawyer Heinecke announced on behalf of family to appeal against hiring. She will give up again to Public Prosecutor's office, "which furr investigative steps are compelling to take".
Date Of Update: 14 October 2017, 12:02
