Accusation of Arson: Acquittal for Police Officer in Upper Austria

In the early morning hours of February 11, 2024, a sofa caught fire in the guest room of a house in the Urfahr-Umgebung district. An expert determined that a pentane-containing liquid, possibly alcohol or a solvent, had been spilled and ignited. The residents of the house were absent at the time, while the over 80-year-old grandfather was sleeping in the basement. He noticed the smoke in the morning and extinguished the smoldering fire.

Police Officer Missed Backpack and Phone After Arson

The accused police officer - the son or stepson of the residents - had often slept in the guest room, including on the night of the incident after an argument with his wife. However, he claims to have done nothing, noticed no fire, and left the house at 4:00 a.m. Since then, he has been missing his backpack along with his phone. However, the phone was still active after 4:00 a.m. At that time, the accused lived a few minutes away from his mother and stepfather, together with his wife and two small children. The marriage was apparently difficult, with constant arguments between the spouses and also between the wife and her in-laws. In the meantime, restraining orders were issued, which apparently no one adhered to.

Defense Attorney of Police Officer Sees Wrong Person Accused

For the prosecution, there is no other logical explanation based on the evidence than that the accused committed the act before leaving his parents' house. The defense attorney, on the other hand, is convinced "that the wrong person was accused" and considers it possible that his client's wife could have started the fire. She had left the house after her husband came home. She would have had a motive and access to the house key, and she also often checked her husband's phone, which would explain the disappearance and early morning activity of the device, argued the lawyer. The woman herself refrained from testifying.

The prosecutor did not dismiss this suspicion outright. There had even been proceedings against the woman, which were, however, discontinued. There is "no positive evidence" that she was in the house. In contrast, it has been proven that the accused was there, and at that time, due to his private situation, he was "mentally at the end of his rope." "From my point of view, it is the most logical variant that he did it." But that would have to be decided by the jury, she emphasized. The defense attorney requested an acquittal. The penalty range for arson would have been between one and ten years.

Court Saw Evidence Against Police Officer "Far From" Necessary Certainty

However, the jury court saw the evidence as "far from" the "beyond a reasonable doubt" required by law for a conviction. That it is the - according to the prosecution - "most logical variant" that the accused committed the act is to be accepted, but not sufficient for a conviction, said the presiding judge. After all, there is at least one other person who could be considered for the act, namely the wife. There is also "no reason from our point of view why they would want to set their parents' house on fire," especially since the step-grandfather was in the building and would have been in mortal danger in the event of a fire spreading. The prosecutor waived legal remedies.

Already on Tuesday, another police officer was in court in connection with the investigations in the case: He allegedly did not deliver investigation results proving arson to the prosecution. He explained this with overload and got away with a - not legally binding - diversion.

(APA/Red)

This article has been automatically translated, read the original article here.