Enlarge image
Photo:
ViktorCap/iStockphoto/Getty Images
SPIEGEL:
Ms. Marquardt, you have been working as a public prosecutor since 1999 and have been dealing with capital offenses that go back a long time for over ten years. Which old case still concerns you today?
Annette Marquardt:
I particularly remember a murder from 1984. A 49-year-old angler was killed while collecting worms in Nienburg in the evening. We did not make any significant progress in the case until 2017. We received new information from file number XY, which then led to an arrest. A special case, not because of the crime itself, but because of the problems that arose during the main hearing.
SPIEGEL:
What were the difficulties?
Annette Marquardt:
The accused had already been questioned about this matter several times in the 1980s and was therefore known. However, 35 years later it was no longer clear whether he had been legally instructed and how he continually adapted his statements to the new evidence against him. The officers no longer remembered the interviews. Just one of many problems with this process. The court had doubts and acquitted the defendant.
SPIEGEL:
Cold cases seem to be more present than before. Is it a trend at the moment to reopen unsolved cases?
Annette Marquardt:
Definitely. In Lower Saxony, the police have installed so-called “cold case units” for some time now, which review old cases using new investigative approaches. I am also observing that old cases are being addressed more intensively in other federal states.
SPIEGEL:
What makes the investigation so difficult?
Annette Marquardt:
The paper is yellowed, old files are structured differently, some are incomplete, and it takes time until they are even digitized. Again and again we have to note that evidence has been destroyed - also because DNA analysis was not yet an issue in the 1970s and 1980s. What we also often observe is that there are still items belonging to victims and suspects, but they were packed together in a box, so contamination of the evidence cannot be ruled out.
SPIEGEL:
How useful are witness statements after so many years?
Annette Marquardt:
In the case of the killed angler, we assumed that the witnesses who were questioned in the 1980s would still remember this in the main hearing. But that wasn't the case. We specifically refrained from interviewing the witnesses so as not to be accused of having restored non-existent memories. In retrospect, that was probably a mistake. During the main hearing, the witnesses stated that they no longer remembered, and one witness even claimed that she did not know the defendant at all. As a result, the important and detailed information provided by the witnesses at the time was omitted. An insane situation.
SPIEGEL:
Why?
Annette Marquardt:
Another witness had since died. His statement from that time could be introduced into the main hearing by reading out the minutes. So in summary: If the witness is still alive and can no longer remember, no conviction can be based on the information he gave back then. However, things are different if the witness has since died. Another problem: In the past, witnesses were not always formally examined. If, as was often the case back then, only notes were made in the files and the essence of what was said was written down, the statement is no longer worth anything today if the witness has died. One will have to ask oneself whether that is fair!
SPIEGEL:
If you interview witnesses again today or find new ones, isn't there a risk that things will be added?
Annette Marquardt:
Yes, but this problem also occurs when there are only months between the crime and the main hearing. In cold cases, however, witnesses forget or want to forget things because memory protects people from storing up bad experiences. Witness statements are not always reliable.
SPIEGEL:
How is it handled when a witness contradicts what he said 30 years ago?
Annette Marquardt:
First of all: It may be that the current witness statement is the true one because it was recorded incorrectly decades ago, or the witness lied back then. If there are contradictions, the court will let it sink in, the chamber will deliberate and then decide what it considers to be credible. If a witness has lied, one will have to look closely at their credibility. But these are not specific cold case problems.
SPIEGEL:
You often go public when investigating cold cases, for example via the show XY. Years later, does anyone really suddenly remember something relevant?
Annette Marquardt:
Nobody remembers an ordinary day 30 years ago through file number XY. Unless there was a special event on that day. For example, a milestone birthday, something that the witness specifically associates with this particular day.
SPIEGEL:
What do you hope to achieve from this?
Annette Marquardt:
There are perpetrators who have an extremely bad conscience. We make them nervous with programs like file number XY. We convey to them: No one who has killed a person will ever find peace. But we also want to reach the surrounding area. For example, we heard from a suspect's partner that he had been drinking a lot of alcohol since the broadcast. Sometimes after decades the family circumstances are different. After the separation, a former partner is usually more willing to talk about strange occurrences or bloody clothing or other abnormalities. It is also conceivable that there are accomplices, such as people who helped dispose of the body, who themselves do not have to worry about prosecution because their crime has already expired.
SPIEGEL:
Where does your ambition to tackle unsolved cases again come from?
Annette Marquardt:
Homicides are the most serious crimes a person can commit, often with dire consequences for relatives. A mother once told us that she had not been able to watch crime shows since her daughter died. Nothing is like it was before the crime. Things are particularly bad for relatives of victims whose bodies never turned up. They live in uncertainty about what exactly happened to their loved ones. For a long time, people were not aware of how much uncertainty plagued family members. At the same time, we don't want perpetrators to feel safe even decades later. The clearance rate for homicides is well over 90 percent. And we are working persistently on the remaining percent.
SPIEGEL:
Doesn't this open up old wounds for relatives?
Annette Marquardt:
My experience is that relatives are very grateful and have the feeling that we don't forget them. Of course you have to be sensitive. On the one hand, old feelings arise, but on the other hand we awaken hope. However, we try to make it clear from the outset that the chances of solving a case do not increase after 20 or 30 years.
SPIEGEL:
Do the investigators from back then feel like their honor has been violated if years later they investigate again and the case is then solved?
Annette Marquardt:
This is also a sensitive topic. Of course, this damages the investigators' honor. But one thing is also clear: mistakes happen. If something like this happens, everyone should be tough enough to stand by it. That's what we're trying to convey to the students at the police academy.
SPIEGEL:
Are there cases that simply can no longer be solved?
Annette Marquardt:
The cases without a body are particularly difficult. But we also have cases involving dead infants who were killed immediately after birth. In these cases, clarification is hardly possible without traces.
SPIEGEL:
Are you prioritizing which old cases you will tackle again?
Annette Marquardt:
We're trying. In order to prioritize, we first have to read the files and do one or two investigations. Prioritization without at least getting into the case is hardly possible. I now often give files to the cold case course at the Lower Saxony Police Academy so that the students look for clues and new investigative approaches.
SPIEGEL:
So a kind of advance evaluation. You helped set up the cold case course at the police academy, which was launched in 2014. A course that is unique in Germany. What exactly is happening there?
Annette Marquardt:
I gave the course files in the early development phase, which for me was just a way to give young police officers the chance to work on real cases independently and in a team. I wanted to enable them to see for themselves what consequences deficiencies in instructions or interrogations can have.
SPIEGEL:
And later it became a win-win situation?
Annette Marquardt:
Exactly
.
We noticed that the public prosecutor's office also benefits. I am now discussing with our five police stations in the district which cases we should refer to the police academy. At the end of the cold case course, the students present new investigative approaches. In many cases we picked up on them and got back into it. By the way, the cooperation with students has proven successful and the course has now been expanded into an international project, the International Cold Case Analysis Project.
SPIEGEL:
Aside from the help of students, is there anything else that could help clarify cold cases?
Annette Marquardt:
We miss you
Capacities. Reopening cases is time-consuming and requires sufficient judicial and police personnel. You should actually go back to the crime scene to get direct impressions. An old case like this can easily contain 20 folders. Working your way through it, reading and organizing the traces is something completely different than a current case that you grow with, so to speak.
SPIEGEL:
Are investigations carried out differently today?
Annette Marquardt:
Yes.
Today, hundreds of photos are taken at the crime scene or where the body was found. In addition, recordings with a 360-degree camera are common in order to preserve the crime scene, so to speak. That didn't even exist until a few years ago. Previously, 20 photos were taken analogue, then the film was full. This makes it so difficult today to understand how crime scenes were discovered in old cases. In addition, the interrogations of the accused are now completely audio and video recorded. Some of the protocols contain 80 pages. And of course there are cell phone data and DNA analyzes today. Overall, there are significantly more technical possibilities that make our current investigations much more complex.
SPIEGEL:
Does this mean: In the future, investigators will have an easier time reopening today's cases?
Annette Marquardt:
There will still be cases that will not be solved. But when investigators take another look at the files in 20 or 30 years, they will hopefully have better cards than we did with cases from the 1980s. Of course, mistakes can still be made today. A case now includes up to 150 folders. These are thousands of puzzle pieces that often have to be collected and put together under stress. The risk of overlooking something or misassessing something in very extensive procedures is still there.