December 9, 2022

Double Plot

— J. Chr. de Vries

While reflecting on the meaning of the concepts form and content, I suddenly recalled an intriguing newspaper report from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, from many years ago, about a peculiar case in Nuremberg. The case concerned a murder investigation with two possible suspects, let us call them X and Y. Both were suspected of the murder of a certain S; that is to say, one of them had committed the murder, but the police were unable to determine which of the two.

The two men did not know each other, yet both had been seen in the vicinity of S’s flat. Two detectives were involved in the investigation; we shall call them P and Q. Detective P concluded that X was the murderer, whereas detective Q believed it was Y. It is unclear whether the two detectives ultimately came to share the same view — the newspaper report did not mention this — but the fact remains, and this is what makes the case so remarkable, that the public prosecutor’s office (Staatsanwaltschaft) mistakenly sent two different versions of the indictment to the court: one written by P, the other by Q.

The two versions differed hardly at all. All the text was identical, except for a discrepancy in the order of two paragraphs. Because of this, the conclusions concerning the two suspects stood in direct opposition to each other: one version identified suspect X as the perpetrator, the other suspect Y. Be that as it may, the court had no choice but to dismiss the charges. The murderer therefore went free. After rereading the newspaper report, I became curious about the text containing the two versions; I wanted to see if I could trace it.

The report mentioned the following additional facts. The victim, S, lived in a flat on the fifth floor without any camera surveillance. He was discovered by detectives P and Q after a neighbour across the way — the witness G — had reported suspicious events in the victim’s apartment to the police. G lived in a flat opposite S’s, on the sixth floor. From his floor he could not see precisely what was happening there; moreover, it was after sunset. He believed that two different persons were involved, though they had a similar build and both wore dark clothing and a coloured baseball cap.

Both suspects were traced with the help of data found on S’s computer. It turned out that S had been blackmailing both men with erotic recordings of them that he kept on his computer. The recordings were unrelated to one another. That, in brief, was the information contained in the newspaper report.

The erroneous indictment containing the two different interrogation versions, which the public prosecutor had mistakenly sent to the court, was later requested by the publicist Rudi Bistpelz. He was able to obtain it only after a procedure under the Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (comparable to the Dutch Arob procedure). Through an acquaintance in Nuremberg I managed to get in touch with Bistpelz, who sent me the remarkable “Doppelanzeige”, as he called it. It was not clear to me whether the text represented a literal record of the interrogations or whether it was a paraphrased version prepared by Bistpelz for his publication. But that was not relevant to my purposes: I was interested solely in the form of the two versions.

— § —

The text Bistpelz sent me contained both versions of the indictment by detectives P and Q, as well as several details concerning the investigation. When the two detectives arrived at the apartment, the front door was standing half open. The victim’s body lay in the kitchen; he had a severe head wound. Beside him, in a pool of blood, lay a heavy metal candlestick. S was lying next to the kitchen table, one of whose corners was stained with blood.

From his window G could not see the kitchen; he had a view only of the living room. The television inside it was on.

Bistpelz’s text contained no information about the interrogations of the two suspects, only that both men declared themselves innocent. They did admit that they had been in the apartment in order to confront S about his blackmail, and that a number of “heated exchanges” had taken place. Both men stated that they had not known of each other’s existence.

Witness G had seen both men in the living room. He stated that they were two different men, one was wearing glasses. Both were wearing dark clothing and a baseball cap, one blue, the other red. The one with the glasses, with the red cap, was designated suspect “X”; the other as “Y”.

The reports written by detectives P and Q were based on a handwritten rough draft made during their interview with witness G The notes were sparse and consisted partly of brief statements and filler words, sometimes accompanied by arrows pointing towards other parts of the text. This may have led to the confusion in the two elaborated versions of the draft.

The cause of death could not be established unambiguously. The head wound might have been caused either by a blow from the candlestick or by a fall against the kitchen table. A considerable amount of GBD was found in S’s blood. He must have been quite dizzy, as a result of which he may have fallen against the edge of the table, perhaps after a scuffle. The wine glass also showed traces of the party drug. It might have been administered either by suspect X or by suspect Y. Both denied this. Witness G had not been able to observe it.

— § —

Report by Detective P — Suspect Y was the last person to see S alive.

Witness G looks out of his window towards the flat opposite and sees S sitting on the sofa in front of the television. He appears to be watching the same channel that G himself has on: the Tagesschau on ARD. G remembers hearing the opening tune of the programme’s intro and recognising the images on his neighbour’s television. That is how he knew it was shortly after eight o’clock in the evening when S got up from the sofa and disappeared from view.

A little later S returned to the living room, followed by suspect X, who came after him in a threatening manner, waving his arms. Although G could of course hear nothing, it seemed clear that a heated argument was taking place. S had retreated backwards until he was standing by the television. Suddenly he grabbed a large candlestick that stood on top of the TV set. He swung it towards X and threatened to strike him with it. X, in turn, recoiled. The two men thus disappeared from view, apparently into the kitchen.

A few minutes later S reappeared in the living room, without the candlestick. He stood for a while in front of the television. Suddenly he looked back towards the kitchen and left the room. A little later he came back in again, followed by the other suspect, Y. The latter was holding a bottle of wine, which he offered to S S took it and carried it into the kitchen. The atmosphere between the two men seemed relaxed. Shortly afterwards S returned with two wine glasses. Y took them and left the room, only to return some time later with two filled glasses. The two men talked for a while, gesticulating animatedly, after which they left the living room together, presumably heading for the kitchen.

About five minutes later S returned alone. He sat down on the sofa in front of the television. By now the Tagesschau had finished and some sort of Krimi had begun. Witness G heard the wail of police sirens. S apparently heard them as well, for he got up and walked to the window. Suddenly he looked back and saw the man with the red baseball cap entering the living room. He was holding two glasses of wine and handed one to S At first S made a number of agitated gestures with his hands, but then he took the glass and left the room. Suspect X looked out of the window for a moment and shortly afterwards followed S outsside. He seemed to shout something. The room remained empty for quite a long time.

S came back into the living room; he glanced briefly at the television and then walked to the window. Suspect Y then also entered the room, and the two men had a heated argument. Suddenly S hurried out again. Y pursued him. Nothing happened for quite some time; then Y returned back alone. He walked to the window, looked down for a while, and then quickly left the room again. G continued to watch the empty living room for some time.

Report by Detective Q — Suspect X was the last person to see S alive.

— § —

Postscript

The entire affair surrounding the trial concerning the murder of S — in particular the two almost identical statements (as reproduced in the text Bistpelz sent me) — demonstrates how, in this case, form determined content, and in two distinct ways. First, in the two statements themselves, where a simple reversal in the order of two paragraphs led to opposite conclusions; and second, in the judge’s ruling, namely the decision to dismiss the charges on account of a procedural error.

There are certainly further elements that suggest carelessness in the investigation. Many questions may be raised, and various omissions identified. Yet the issue of form determining content in the way this case ultimately unfolded remains undeniable. And that makes the case not merely curious but also interesting for the question of ‘form and content’ as such — a question with many obscure and seemingly elusive aspects, yet one that appears inescapable.

What, in the end, are we to make of it? Precisely the curious nature of this case shows how difficult it is to separate the aspects of ‘form’ and ‘content’. Ultimately, the separation that here appears to have been successfully created is itself the result of inconsistencies. Had the two detectives collaborated more carefully, and had the public prosecutor not submitted a contradictory indictment, that separation between form and content would never have arisen.

This raises the question whether, within a consistent act or analysis, such a separation between form and content is in fact possible — or, in other words, whether a separation between form and content can occur only within an inconsistent process.

— The Hague, 9 December 2022