47-year-old Denise Pöhler took part in the trial every day, at the side of her lawyer as joint plaintiffs, following the trial in deep concentration, noting every statement. And she has certainly been affected by everything she has seen and heard. “I just cannot take it all in” she said last week. The pillars on which the case against Walid S. rest now seem increasingly fragile, in a case which has reached far beyond the city of Bonn.

From the beginning, the case of Niklas Pöhler made waves and has attracted national media coverage in light of the increasing violence amongst young people, not only in Bad Godesberg. The calls to politics to find solutions to the problem were loud, not only within the city. State politicians came, discussions were held. And investigators came under increased pressure to find those responsible.

In fact, the first success in the hunt for the culprit came after 10 days. Walid S., at that time 20 years old, an adolescent from a migrant background and known for violence, was presented as the offender, taken into custody and ultimately charged, along with the second suspect Roman W. He was suspected of having taken part in the fatal brawl and furthermore to have punched a female companion of Niklas in the head. The prosecution was convinced they had found two of the culprits of the crime. The third perpetrator remains unknown.

But the certainty of the prosecution seemed increasingly doubtful to those watching the court proceedings – a trial which attracted much attention and had to be protected using strict security measures. For the three supposedly solid pillars of the prosecution began to lose stability in the course of the trial: Niklas' friend and eye witness to the crime identified Walid S. as the culprit from a photograph and later in court, but then it turned out he had already named two others as suspects who could not have committed the crime.

It also became apparent in the trial that, when shown a set of photos by police, he had not recognised Walid S. Only when photos of potential suspects were distributed amongst his and Niklas’ circle of friends, did he identify Walid S. as the suspect, and this was from a photo on which Walid S. was not easily recognisable. But for this the 22-year-old Tunisian Hakim D. whose name was known in the Bad Godesburg scene and was considered as a suspect at the beginning. And to whom the jacket with Niklas’ blood belonged and which was found with Walid S. following his arrest.

Investigators did not believe that Walid S. had received this jacket after the crime through complicated means, although witnesses confirmed his story. The prosecution stood firm: Walid S. is the culprit as he did not tell the truth about the time during which he had gone to the service station with a friend to buy some drinks for his group, with whom he said he spent the whole time in the park by the duck pond. In fact, the police reported that Walid S.' mobile phone could be traced to a cell tower in the park and one at the service station, but at no other time could be traced to the scene of the crime in Rondell, where no-one had seen him.

Roman W. and Hakim D were however seen at the scene of the crime at the right time according to four witnesses. One of these witnesses, a 26-year-old, said in court that the two of them came towards him on the Rheinallee in the direction of Rondell and that Roman warned: “don’t go down there, the police will be coming.” And then this 26-year-old suddenly named another eye witness: he told her that he had seen Hakim D., Roman W. and two other acquaintances during the attack. Apparently, he did not say this in court as Hakim had threatened him with a bullet between the eyes.

After the statement, the court ordered the 26-year-old and three companions to take to the witness stand again the following day. But what happened next appeared strange not only to onlookers of the trial but also in legal circles. State Prosecutor Florian Geßler pre-empted the court and cross-examined the questionable witnesses himself. When all stood by their statements and the 26-year-old denied having seen the crime, the prosecutor did not wait for the outcome of the trial. Instead he immediately initiated proceedings against the surprise witness for making false statements. And explained on the sidelines, “I can discontinue the investigations of Hakim D.” And this begged the question: should a case be rescued by hook or by crook?

After 16 days of proceedings the court concluded the admission of evidence last week, as it had no further means which could help in the search for the truth. Walid S. reaffirmed that he had had nothing to do with the attack on Niklas. So, what is the truth? The court called around 50 witnesses, none of whom were able to clarify what happened. And it demonstrated once again that the witness is the worst and most unreliable piece of evidence: memories can be deceptive, shock situations like an attack in the night can affect the power of the memory – which is also a reason why both of Niklas’ female companions could not remember the attacker and therefore not recognise him again.

In this trial, Walid is not only accused of violent behaviour towards Niklas but also other acts of violence which he had undertaken the week before. It could be feasible that he attacked Niklas. But that does not mean he did do it. On 25th April during the closing words of the prosecution and defence, Niklas' mother will hear in detail what they believe happened in the night in question.

According to Friedrich Nietzsche, convictions are more dangerous to the truth than lies. Should Walid S. be found not guilty when the court delivers its verdict on 3 May, the 21-year-old will have been held in prison for almost a year for a crime which another person may have carried out. (Orig. text: Rita Klein)