Letter from Munich – 089
Letter from Munich – the Joseph Affair – 89
EINE DEUTSCHE FASSUNG STEHT WEITER UNTEN.
http://www.joseph_affair.blogspot.com (It may take a few minutes to load this page, depending on internet connection speed.)
20 September 2002
Dear Mr. Graf, dear friends,
“You have to ask yourself,” Helmut had said to us last week, “whether this doubt that Herr Reichel had was quite reasonable or whether it was simply a means by which the authorities could restrict the investigation into Joseph’s murder and blame the whole thing on the Kantelberg-Abdullas. You also wonder why the police have never given the transcript of Frau Kantelberg-Abdulla’s own interrogation to her.”
Then Helmut continued reading the last answer of Herr Reichel, where he had interrupted it:
ANSWER (continued): Since Daniel was still too young, the Kantelberg-Abdulla family asked my partner to sign the sworn statements as parent and legal guardian. But even she never read the sworn statements, but instead they were read to her by the Kantelberg-Abdullas. So in my opinion, both Daniel and my partner, frequently did not grasp the content of these sworn statements. There were a lot of technical terms thrown in that I still don’t understand, even today.
QUESTION: Do you know the introductory formula to a sworn statement? (Sworn Statement: I understand the legal meaning of a sworn statement, especially the consequences under criminal law of making a false sworn statement; I also understand that the following sworn statement of mine is meant to be presented before a court of law.)
ANSWER: I’ve just heard this formula for first time now. This sentence was certainly never mentioned during the visits of the Kantelberg-Abdullas. They assured my partner and Daniel Steiner repeatedly that the sworn statement would never become public. With their signature on the sworn statement, both would be protected. Nothing would happen to anyone, neither with regard to the police nor anyone else.
“The Kantelberg-Abdullas,” Helmut remarked, “would dispute that these statements by Herr Reichel correspond to the truth.” Then he continued reading the transcript to us.
QUESTION: After the sworn statements were signed, was there any payment of money by the Kantelberg-Abdullas to Daniel or Annerose Steiner, either in the form of reimbursement for expenses or something similar?
ANSWER: When I was present there was never any payment of money to Annerose or Daniel by the Kantelberg-Abdullas. Whether they gave something to Daniel later, I can’t say, I don’t know.
“What disturbs me in the affair,” said Helmut, “is the way the police want to investigate everything that the Kantelberg-Abdullas did, instead of thoroughly investigating what really happened on the day of Joseph’s death. If everything had happened the way the authorities think it did, then the Kantelberg-Abdullas would never have given me this transcript. They would have tried to hide these facts.”
“But Germany is a country founded on the rule of law, isn’t it?”
He looked at me. “Is it?” he said, with a bitter smile. “If all the allegations that Herr Reichel raised on behalf of Annerose and Daniel Steiner against the Kantelberg-Abdullas are true, then why couldn’t Frau Steiner and Daniel raise these allegations themselves. Why did they need Herr Reichel to do it?”
That was a question I couldn’t answer.
Sincerely yours,
Robert John Bennett
Mauerkircherstrasse 68
81925 Germany
Telephone: +49.89.981.0208
E-Mail: ” title=”mailto:rjbennett@post.harvard.edu
“>rjbennett at post.harvard.edu
