Publications:

• Index
• Publications online:
  • Justice and Terrorism
  • The defense counsel in the reopening of a case
  • The Weimar murder case

[<< back]

3. Material Evidence: Fibers

a) False choice of comparative material

If this was a case of two suspects, with the measure of suspicion cast on them being of only minor difference, a thorough examination of the fiber traces collected on the clothes and the bare parts of the children's bodies must be preceded by two investigational steps:

- It was necessary to find out what clothes the suspects were wearing at the supposed time of the crime (Including the hours immediately before and after the presumptive time of the crime) through questioning the suspects themselves as well as the witnesses among the members of the family, circle of friends and possible witnesses from the neighborhood;

- The second step would have to be to secure the outer clothing of both suspects, which they wore at the time in question (depending on the outcome of the previous questioning of witnesses); in case the evidence of the witnesses led to vague or contradictory results, virtually every piece of outer clothing worn at that time of the year was relevant with regard to a clue; in this case it was irrefutable to secure the entire - seasonal outer clothing of both suspects.

Such steps of investigation, vital for a thorough and conscientious assessment of the fiber findings, were not taken in the Weimar murder case. All witnesses were only questioned as to what clothes Monika Weimar wore on August 3, 1986 and on the following day. The entire collection of summer clothing of Monika Weimar alone was secured, a total of twenty-seven garments.

None of the relevant witnesses was questioned as to what Reinhard Weimar wore on August 3 and 4, 1986. Only he himself and his wife were asked questions in this respect. During his questioning on August 28, 1986, he stated that he wore a "light-blue jeans" and a T-shirt, "probably a white T-shirt with a pattern". Furthermore, he believed to have worn these clothes the previous day too.

The investigators made no efforts to receive further statements as to the clothes that Reinhard Weimar wore at the time of the crime, although Reinhard Weimar himself was only able to suppose what he had on. The other suspect alone, Monika Weimar, was asked during a questioning about the clothes her husband wore on the night of Sunday to Monday, August 4, 1986. She declared that he wore "dark-blue trousers and a T-shirt striped white and blue".

Instead of securing Reinhard Weimar's entire outer clothing - suggesting itself in view of the unclear evidence situation and the inconsistency of information given by Reinhard and Monika Weimar - the special task force confined themselves to those three garments of which Reinhard Weimar stated that he had worn them on August 4, 1986, i.e. on the day on which, from the start, he was not considered to be the culprit - according to both the "night version" and the "day version".

The biased choice of clothing used to compare fibers - 27 garments belonging to Monika Weimar, three garments belonging to Reinhard Weimar (while the blue jeans and the white-blue cotton T-shirt could be excluded a priori for a lack of significance of the fiber material) inevitably pre-formed the outcome of the examinations: The bodies and clothes of the children only showed fibers originating from Monika Weimar's clothing. It was quite obvious that this result could not be correct as the children were constantly in contact with their father too, so that their clothes had to be contaminated with fibers form his garments. Despite the evident inaccuracy of these findings, the Regional Court in Fulda later found it "evident that the specialist, during the exanimation of the children and their clothes, found fibers which did not belong to one of the couple's garments handed over, but none that could be related to a garment belonging to Reinhard Weimar".

b) Errors committed during the safeguarding of fiber traces

Monika Weimar had been arrested on October 26, 1986. Among other things, the warrant of arrest was based on a report of the Office of Criminal Investigation of the state of Hesse according to which "partly no, partly a small amount of fibers that could be assigned to the fibers used in the clothing of the children (was) found" on their bed linen. What was all this about?

In her statement made for the first time on August 29, 1986, Monika Weimar had claimed that, on her return in the night of August 4, 1986, the children had worn the same T-shirts as during the day and had lain lifelessly in their beds.

The Office of Criminal Investigation checked this statement by means of three test series. From the very beginning, the examination had to be limited to Karola's T-shirt since Melanie's T-shirt was made of white cotton. The bed sheet revealed eight (polyester) fibers and the bed cover a total of six fibers of Karola's T-shirt. In adhesion tests with a dummy, however, eight to fourteen fibers - without friction - and 109 fibers with friction - were transferred to the bed sheet. In one of the test series, the bed sheet contained 22 to 43 fibers without friction and "approx." 200 fibers with friction. The discrepancy between a total of 14 secured fibers and (a minimum of) 30 and (a maximum of) 57 fibers during frictionless contact as well as approx. 309 fibers during a contact with friction suggested a strong contrast which seemed to imply that Karola could have lain in her bed wearing her T-shirt, as stated by her mother.

According to the Regional Court of Fulda, Monika was - seriously incriminated - by another examination with the following background: A total of 73 fibers of a yellow blouse which Monika Weimar had worn on August 4, 1986, was secured on Melanie's white T-shirt. Monika Weimar claimed that she had also worn this blouse on the previous day, at least in the evening when saying good-bye to the children. This seemed to be the key to the truth: The yellow fibers, had they been transferred during normal domestic ("legal") contact or in the course of a last close contact when killing the child?

The Office of Criminal Investigation tried to answer this question. The following hypothesis seemed to suggest itself. If the fibers had been transferred to Melanie's white T-shirt on the previous day - e.g. when Monika Weimar gave her child a good-bye hug -, Melanie would inevitably have transferred part of the fibers of the blouse to the bed linen, if she wore this T-shirt in bed on the return of her mother at night.

However, only one fiber was found on Melanie's bed sheet which could be assigned to the material of the yellow blouse. To support that finding, the Office of Criminal Investigation carried out three test series: 35 fibers of the yellow blouse were applied to the back of the T-shirt (the number of fibers found there). The T-shirt with the 35 blouse fibers was then put on Melanie's bed sheet and a bottle weighing about one kilogram was rolled over the T-shirt. This test was repeated twice. Out of the 35 fibers of the yellow blouse, a minimum of six and a maximum of ten fibers remained on the bed sheet.

In the report of the Office of Criminal Investigation of June 11, 1987 a conclusion of serious consequence was drawn:

"On the evening of August 3 or during the night of August 3 to 4, 1986, a contact between larger parts of one side of the T-shirt and the bed sheet took place.

Upon this assumption, the incriminating fibers found on Melanie's T-shirt could not yet have been there since this would inevitably have led to a transfer of several blouse fibers to the bed sheet. Hence, the incriminating fibers found on the T-shirt must have been applied at a later date." (Italics by the author)

This was a fatal misjudgment. What would have had to be considered?

This report was about the difference of one fiber found and six (max.: ten) fibers to be expected in accordance with the test series. Even taken on its own, this difference was not significant enough to allow an assessment of the findings with such apodictic certainty. And yet it was made. At best, a probability statement would have been appropriate. What is even more decisive, however, is that manifold sources of errors were not mentioned and not taken into account either, as the new interrogations in Gießen showed. Here they are in detail:

- Only eleven days after the children were reported missing was the bed linen secured. August 1986 was a very hot month so that one can assume that the rooms were aired a lot. Each movement of the air makes fibers move and disappear.

- Bed sheet, bed cover and pillow were put together in one single plastic bag and sent to the Office of Criminal Investigation. There was no insulating material (e.g. silk paper) between the individual pieces of cloth, which could have avoided the transfer of fibers from one piece to the other.

- Despite the possible shift of fiber traces on the surface of each piece of cloth as well as the probable transfer of fibers from one piece to the other, the forensic people only used sections of all three textiles: Only the top of the bed sheet and not its back was taped, although it must have been obvious that the rubber border of the bed sheet makes an orderly folding of the top side to the inside impossible; each time a sheet is folded, fibers are inevitably transferred from the top side to the back. Again, on the top side just a ,central area" of 40 x 70 in was secured; in fact, the bed sheet had a width of 49 in when not fitted. The bed covers, too, were only taped in a ,central area" of 27 x 75 in, although they had a width of just under 51 in. The same goes for the cover of the large pillow. With regard to the movement of fibers as a result of aerodynamic and physical influence (gravitation) alone, this limitation of the forensic people to ,,central areas" was incomprehensible. But most of all: What child really sleeps in the ,,central area" of his or her bed?

- During the fiber examination, two small pillows from each bed and a neck roll were totally ignored. The criminal investigators of Bad Hersfeld had also sent them to the Office of Criminal Investigation for examination where they had simply been overlooked.

- Even though fiber traces were secured in the packaging material (plastic bags!), too, they were not evaluated because, according to the expert of the Office of Criminal Investigation at his questioning in Gießen the loss of fibers through the transfer of fibers to the packaging material was believed to be "minimal". What the experts did not even take into consideration as a source of error was the fact that friction of smooth plastic surfaces always causes electrostatic charge and thus magnetic effects on small particles like fibers.

This enumeration is no sophisticated reasoning. Since the beginning of the 80s, textile science in criminology has developed to a prominent discipline due to significantly refined methods of preserving and analyzing traces, which in many cases supplied vital knowledge for the solution of crimes. It is its special importance for the solution of capital crimes in particular which makes a careful research, reporting and evaluation of the sources of error of each fiber analysis indispensable before drawing any conclusions.

After all, not just the conviction in Fulda, but also the acquittal in Gießen have been influenced to a large extent by a fiber analysis. The traces of the yellow blouse on Melanie Weimar's clothing showed an almost regular distribution; fiber clusters (lead traces), caused by carrying the body, as they would have to be expected according to the test series of the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation, were not found on Melanie's clothing. As the oral opinion showed, the report presented by Dr. Adolf for the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation convinced the Regional Court in Gießen.

[ forward >> ]