again and again, Nedzad shakes of the head. Two voice experts from the University of Marburg – a woman and a man – have come in its opinion to the result that the voice of the defendant A. “with a probability bordering on certainty” with the voice of the kidnapper of the Markus Würth. Safer, scientists are not able to be in your judgment.
your opinion, you have already created on Wednesday in the trial before the regional court of Gießen, now you have to answer the questions of the judges, the Prosecutor and the defender. There are a lot of questions. And to shake the answers of the forensic phonetician and the 48-year-old Nedzad A. head again and again.
At the end of the negotiating day, its defenders Alois Kovac and Stefan Bonn request to dismiss your client after seven and a half months of detention. The opinion was not suited to the urgent suspicion against Nedzad A. to maintain.
The judges will be in the next few days on the application. As the decision goes, is not in sight. Because even the presiding judge expressed multiple doubts about the probative value of the voice analysis.
Nedzad A. the man on the phone?
Markus Würth, son of billionaire entrepreneur Reinhold Würth from Baden-Württemberg, had been kidnapped in June 2015 in Hesse. An offender demanded in a telephone conversation with the mother of a three million Euro ransom. The Handover failed. Markus Würth came anyway. Investigators found the after a vaccine damage, from early Childhood, mentally retarded son to the note of a kidnapper in a forest near Würzburg to a tree chained.
There were several phone calls to the offender with the victim’s mother. Three recordings were made available to the evaluators, a large number of phone calls from Nedzad A. The accused was intercepted. The voice analysis plays an important role in the process. The defendant denies the allegations. The public Prosecutor also of several captors. A. was Nedzad really the man on the phone?
From the point of view of the experts, it is, for example, the “Ü”, which reveals the accused. The kidnapper called the Güvenilir Bahis Siteleri victim’s mother, Carmen Würth, on the phone, and he says: “Yes, of course.” A formulation that is also found in the wiretapped telephone conversations of the accused. The “Ü” is not German for a challenge.
Nedzad A. is a Serb. The experts assign the offender accent of a Person who comes from the former Yugoslavia. Both of the kidnappers as well as the defendant dominated the debate of the German “Ü”. Of particular importance to the evaluators think that both of them pronounce the “Ü” is not always correct, but also sometimes as “I” or “U”. It is such Details that make the difference are: the pronunciation of letters, the ingestion of letters, whether pauses with “Uh” will be filled, if the voice creaks, “aspirated”, or hoarse.
“is A vote Yes, no fingerprints and no DNA-track”
Each man to be the language of its origin, the places of his life, his biography, his education and the people affected, with whom he lives, to bear the experts. There are a number of specific speech characteristics, both the caller and the defendant had.
But may be someone whose life history is similar to that of Nedzad A., just the way he speaks. “It is possible to identify each Person uniquely based on his voice?”, the judge asks. “No, a voice is not a fingerprint and not a trace of DNA,” says the reviewer. “So there are still others that talk like that?” “Theoretically that would be possible.” Not a response that makes the decision of the judges easier.
Now, the chamber must first decide on the cancellation of the arrest warrant. The decision is likely to be a clear sign of how big the skepticism of the judges in the perpetration of Nedzad A. is. On 5. November you might know more. Then the process should be continued.