ATTENTION: The following texts decribes the incidents around Khaled Idris Bahrays death. There will be detailed descriptions about the body, the location where he was found and the reconstruction of the crime.

First day of trial

Daily Summary 31th August 2015

On the first day of the trial a clarification in the name of the defendant Hassan S. was read; it described the course of events from his point of view. Therein, he described the situation as he had been attacked by Khaled Idris Bahray and how he defended himself with a knife which was brought by Khaled Idris Bahray.
To support the claim of self-defense, the advocacy tried to contest the first statement Hassan S. made on the day of his arrest at the police station. The advocacy accused the police of not instructing Hassan on his right of refusal of testimonial and of having trouble with translation.

During the further trial, they began by examinating witnesses from the police and the doctor. According to the first statements, the police considered that Khaled dropped or jumped out of the window. But , except for the fact that he lay in front of a residential house, no further evidence to support this assumption was given.
The police officer also confirmed her statement, given on the day the crime happened, that there was no window in house no. 6 which he could have jumped or dropped out. Relevant for this scenario, is also the fact that Khaled Idris Bahray lived in the house no. 8.
The doctor, who issued the death certificate on that day, did not declare that it happened without third party interference.

How is it possible that the press release of the police from January 13th mentioned that there were no indications for a third party interference?
Did they take over the assumption that he dropped out of the window because it was easier to do so, although, officers of the homicide division were there already on the 13th of january?
Why did the forensics only come after the autopsy, 30 hours after Kahleds Body was found? Was the assumption that he dropped out of the window the reason for securing evidences so late?

Proceeding of the trial Day 1

1. Reading of the indictment
Hassan S. is accused of having stabbed Khaled Idris Bahray with at least four stitches on his left chest and on his head with a 15 cm long and 4 cm broad kitchen knife on the 12th of January 2015 between 8 – 8.30 pm after a verbal argument due to of household matters. Khaled suffered a shock caused by heavy loss of blood and blood accumulation in his throat , which led to suffocations. The indictment is not because of homicide, but because of manslaughter.

2. Explanation read by the lawyer: Objection against the hearing on 22th of January 2015
The lawyer of Hassan S. criticized that there hasn’t been a proper instruction by the police as claimed by law. Furthermore, there had been problems with the interpreter who told Hassan S. that a lawyer would be of no help during an interrogation since he isn’t justified to intervene. In addition, the lawyer mentioned her doubts that the interpreter could even speak Tigre which is Hassan S. mother tongue. Hassan S. has been urged to speak out on the murder in the police car.
-> The aim of this objection is to dislegitimate the first interrogation. This would exclude the results of this interrogation from the trial.
-> Because of this objection, the two police officers and the interpreter have been ordered to court to explain how the instruction and translation took place.

3. Statement of Hassan S. , read out by his lawyer:
Hassan S. and Khaled Idris Bahray got to know each other in Munich. In Dresden, they lived together in Johannes-Paul-Tielmann-Street. They were not friends, but had a good relationship. On 12th of January 2015, coming from his language course, Hassan S. arrived back at home. In the bathroom, he found his clean laundry lying on the floor and other laundry in the washing machine. He asked his roommates whose laundry was in the washer and after everybody said no, Khaled told him that it was his. Hassan S. asked Khaled why he did this, but he didn´t answer. After that, Khaled asked Hassan S. if they could go outside. Hassan S. thought that Khaled wanted to speak with him in private. Outside, Hassan S. noticed a person sitting on a bench. Instead of talking to Hassan, Khaled hit him in the face, which made Khaled fall over causing a scrape. Khaled kept on hitting Hassan, than took him in an headlock and kicked him with his knee. Meanwhile, Hassan S. found an object in Khaleds trousers, took it and started hitting Khaled with it untill Khaled let him go. Hassan S. ran away untill he found himself in an one-way street. Hassan S. noticed that the object he carried along was a knife and threw it away. At this point Hassan S. became aware of what had happened. He assumed that the person he noticed on the bench would have already called the ambulance and went home.
Back home, his roommates told him that Khaled had been gone to the supermarket.
Hassan S. regrets the death of Khaled and still can not find an explanation for what has happened.

4. Police officer Engelhardt about the operation Tuesday morning, 13th of January 2015
The police officers were notified at 7:39 am about a lifeless body in the court of Fritz-Bush-Street. The body was found on the pathway between the entrances of house number 6 and 8. It seemed obvious to her that the person was dead because the eyes were opened and rigid. She could not see any injuries but scab in the face of the person. She could not make out any blood around the body. She and her colleague assumed a window fall and began to search the house for open windows. They could not find any window which could have fit. They searched the body for documents without moving it. Two persons from Somalia helped them to detect the identity by noticing him as a person living on second floor. The roommates of the second floor were able to identify him immediately. The ambulance was there as well and stated the dead. At 7:57 am the police officers made an emergency call and asked for an statutory health insurance physician to write a death certificate. They repeated their assumption that the death was caused by a window fall, eventhough, there was no evidence for it.

5. Doctor Friedrich, who certify the death in the morning of 13 January
He arrived at the crime scene at 9 am. There were two civil criminal police officers already, one named Schreiber and two regular cops. He certified the death. He couldn’t diagnose the cause of the death. But there were several causes suspected: He noticed an open shoulder injury on the left side of the body, blood come out of nose and mouth. Furthermore were signs for a lung injury. The body stiffness was fully developed. The doctor couldn’t see the left side of the body. He didn’t evaluate the body on-site because of the dignity of the dead person, because for further research he needs to break the body stiffness. It is in general not usual to do this kind of research in public. That there were knife wounds was not recognisable for him . Underneath the body was a 30-40cm blood stain.
There were several causes for the dead possible. He explicitly didn’t exclude external influences.
On the very same day the local court instructed an autopsy.

6. Police officer Patitz; in charge of the detention on 22th January 2015 (was summoned to declare what happened during the detention concerning the advising of the defendant of his rights)
The detention took place in the flat, together with a translator/interpreter and the police officer Berger. The officer declared that he advised Hassan S. of his rights and that this was translated. He told him that he has been detained because he is accused of killing Khaled, that he is allowed to keep silent and that he has the right to have a lawyer. Hassan S. did not say, that he did not understand the translator/interpreter. Also he (Patitz) confronted him (Hassan S.) with the facts concering the case and questioned him, and that Hassan S. did answer.

7. Hassan S. spoke out after the testimony of police officer Patitz:
He said that he has not been advised of his rights neither in the car nor at the police station. He was only told, that his laywer was on her way. He thought that it was not possible to talk to the laywer without police attendance. Furthermore, Hassan S. said that he did not say anything to the accusations while being inside the car, he just asked where he was brought to.

Second day of trial

Daily Summary 4th September 2015

In the course of the second day, it was clarified whether there were communication problems between Hassan S., the translator and the police during his detention and interview. These concerns were cleared up by the translator’s testimony and so the critique of the defense seems overcome.
Furthermore, additional witnesses were heard following the chronological course of the investigation: the first four flat mates were summoned as was the police officer present in the morning of January 13th, 2015.
The flat mates’ examination proceeded with difficulty, which seemed to stem less from themselves but more from translation. A fight about wet clothing as described by Hassan S. was not supported by their testimonies. Also, all four of them only learned about Khaled’s dissappearance and death through the police on the next day.

Proceeding of the trial Day 2

1. Interpreter from Kassel, who was translating on 22th of January 2015, the day of arrest
The interpreter appeared as summoned to explain the accusations of the defense: Were Hassan S. and the translator able to communicate with each other and what exactly did the interpreter translate? First of all it was declared that the interpreter was sworn to three languages: Tigre, Tigrinya and Blin. He comes from the region Keren in Eritrea, where these three languages are spoken.
On the day of arrest the interpreter was talking in Tigre with the defendant. The communication happened without further problems, and except for some requests by Hassan S. when the interpreter had to repeat the questions, the defendant did not claim at any moment not to understand what was talked about.
The interpreter claimed that he had only translated “Please come” inside the flat. He had not translated any further cautionings or explanations.
He replied to the question, if they were talking inside the car, that the police officer asked Hassan S. if he was the delinquent. Hassan S. denied this and said he would give a statement at the police station.
In the police station, the translator was instructing Hassan S. that he was allowed to take a lawyer or not, that he could be silent or not.
Concerning the question if the interpreter told the defendant, that the lawyer would only be allowed to sit next to him and would not be allowed to interfere in his statement, the interpreter denied having said this.
Upon request, the interpreter said that he knows legal proceedings principally because he is translating cases in court sometimes.

Futhermore, to prove the problems with translation according to the defense, some ambiguities concerning language were solved.
The interpreter was adding to this, that if he would have had the feeling that the defendant was unable to understand him, he would have cancelled the translation.

Basically the examination took two hours because the defendant was in a state of shock. The interpreter answered the question of the psychological expert witness if he thinks Hassan S. was in a clear mind with yes.

2. Detective chief superintendent Berger, who was present at the arrest on 22th of January 2015
The officer reported that they entered the flat of the defendant, where he was instructed in the corridor. He was given time to dress himself and they followed his request not to put him in handcuffs. Those were put on later, at the police station. The detective was driving the car, the interpreter sitting next to her and on the back seat the defendant, one officer for security and her colleague Patitz.
She was mainly focussing on traffic but noticed that the defendant seemed to be very nervous and was sweating. Inside the car they informed the defendant that they found the knife and he was asked about the incident. Hassan S. said he would talk about that at the police station, so the whole drive of about 20 minutes was more or less silent. Hassan S. was enlightened about his rights in the flat and again at the police station.
The examination at the police station was interrupted when the lawyer arrived, but was continued (later). At the police station they reenacted the happenings with a doll, which was recorded with pictures.
Afterwards the minutes were read again and translated. Additionally the defendant’s annotations were added, which referred to the school he was attending and if he bend the knife to the left or to the right side.
The officer claimed that the defendant and the interpreter were talking to each other and she did not had the impression that they had problems understanding each others’ languages.
For conversations held in the car they usually make a file memo. Reasons, why this had not been made on that day were not given.

3. Four flatmates of the shared flat, the statements of the first three of them are summarized to one because they said nearly the same
All three flatmates stated that, because Hassan S. had been living in the shared flat only for one month and they had generally language problems, they did not have much contact to each other. That is why they were rarely able to answer the question about Hassan S.’ personality. All three of them came home on the 12th of January after school around 6pm. All of them had seen Khaled Idris Bahray on this evening in the flat. They ate supper all together with another, fourth person. They did not notice Khaled’s disappearance in the evening, but in the next morning, when there was police in front of their door and asked them to identify the dead body in the backyard.
Principally none of the flatmates noticed an argument between the two men, not on that evening or before. Besides none of them could confirm any conflict neither because of wet laundry nor the use of the washing maschine or the drying rack. Basically there was no argument because of the use of the washing maschine so far.

The fourth flatmate had shared a room with Khaled Idris Bahray and before that had shared one room with Hassan S. So he was in more contact with both of them than the others. He also speaks a little bit of arabic, so he was able to talk to Hassan as well as to Khaled in a sort of arabic-tigrinya-mixture, because Hassan was also talking a bit of Tigrinya. He noticed generally that Khaled was not there in that night. But he was not surprised about that, because Khaled once in a while spent the night outside of the flat. The flatmate was not able to say anything about the described conflicts.

4. Police officer of the morning of the 13th of January 2015
Based on an emergency call received by the police saying that a lifeless person was laying in a backyard, the officer reached the Fritz-Busch street on Monday, January 13th 2015 at approximately 7.50 am. With his colleague he arrived shortly before the paramedics. They went to the backyard together. There they concluded that the person had to be dead for quite some time, because rigor mortis had already occurred. The officers took pictures. Since the corpse was found near the house, the officers reasoned that the person had fallen to death from a window or the roof of the house and tried to verify their assumption. On the 3rd floor there was a window in which the curtain was jammed. The police also checked the roof, but it was impossible to walk on it. Another living unit was checked. Overall, the window lintel could not be approved.
Blood was noticed at the head and the area around the neck of the corpse. As there could not be found any ID/papers at the corpse, two persons from Somalia who were stepping into the backyard were asked if they knew the person. They referred to an apartment on the 2nd floor. Then they went to this apartment and led the residents to the corpse. The residents immediatly identified the dead person and brought the ID/papers.

Third day of trial

Daily Summary

At this day of the hearing Hassan S.’s additional testimony and the forensic doctor’s testimony were the most important outcomes. The testimonies do both confirm and contradict each other. The fact that Khaled Idris Bahray did not show injuries of defense can confirm Hassan’s version that Khaled was holding him with both hands. However, the injuries on the right side of Khaled’s body do not seem to match with the circumstances of the crime as the forensic doctor explained.
The flat mates could not give any information on personal conflicts, problems or causes of the escalation, leaving the true motive of the fight uncertain, and depending on Hassan’s statements, respectively.

Proceeding of the trial Day 3

1. Police officer Schollbach about the questioning of Hassan S., January 15, 2015:
The accused testified that Khaled Idris Bahray said that he wanted to go to the supermarket. When he did not come back people were worried. He stated that Khaled’s laundry was in the washing machine and he talked to him about that. He then took Khaled’s laundry out of the machine so he could wash his own. This was described as an event and not as an argument.
Hassan S. was not interested in listening to his testimony being read out loud.
During the testimony a DNA sample was taken from Hassan for comparison. He behaved correctly and did everything which was demanded of him. The officer did not notice anything suspicious. The testimony was translated and held in Arabic.

2. Police officer Patiz, questioned about the arrest and the interrogation proceedings:
The officer stated that he made Hassan S. aware of his rights and that he questioned him about what happened. He described that Hassan S. was very agitated and that he said that it was a mistake what had happened.
Hassan S. stated that it happened at the location where the corpse was found. Khaled had a knife on him; Hassan took it and attacked him with it.
After acquiring this information a reenactment of the situation was staged by Hassan S. with a puppet. The reenactment was documented and pictures were taken. The officer stated that the reenactment showed that Hassan S. had detailed knowledge of the circumstances of the crime; he knew in detail where Khalid had been stabbed. He had information which only the perpetrator could know of. Hassan S. was in a state of emotional turmoil and could not explain why it had happened. The accused stated that he threw the knife in a sidestreet and not in a stream but could not remember where exactly. He also said that there are sometimes situations in life where you don’t know what you are doing; you are no longer in control of yourself.
Then they proceeded with another recap of the occurrences of the evening.

3. The accused Hassan S. answers questions:
Which of the stories about the washing is correct? (There are two different versions, one in his testimony as accused and one in his testimony as witness. In one version his laundry was in the machine, in the other Khaled’s.)
Hassan S.: My laundry was on the floor when I came back home. I asked the other whom the washing belonged to. Khaled said it would be his washing in the machine.

J: What else did you say?
H: Why did you throw my washing on the ground? Khaled did not answer me and went to his room. I then hung out the washing on the drying rack.

J: Why should Khaled have been angry while you should have been angry because it was your washing on the floor?
H: Maybe he was angry because I talked to him like a father. I gave him orders that he shouldn’t do it. I didn’t think about that back then. Back then I thought Khaled wanted to talk to me about the washing when he asked me to go outside with him.

J: How often did you stab him and what did you testify about this?
H: I stabbed him several times but I do not know how often, which I also said during the interrogation.
Khaled held me with both hands, preventing me from breathing and trying to kick me with his knee. I tried to free myself. Then I picked up an object and tried to hit Khaled with it. The object had been on his left side. I only realized later that it was a knife.

J: Later, when you realized that it was a knife, why did you not do anything? Why did you not call the police?
H: I assumed that there had been another person in the backyard, who had witnessed the event and would call the police.

J: Why did you not hit and kick to free yourself?
H: I was unable to free myself because he was pushing me down so hard.

J: When did Khaled collapse?
H: After hitting him with the object I felt Khaled’s weight on me. He fell on me and then I pushed him away. Then Khaled fell onto the ground.

J: Who else listened to the talk about the laundry?
H: I don’t know who listened. But I asked them all. When he asked me to follow him outside, I was alone with him in the hallway.

J: Did you attack or insult each other verbally?
H: No.

J: Why did you follow him outside instead of talking in the apartment?
H: I thought he just wanted to talk about the laundry and I do not know why we did not do this inside the apartment.

J: On which side was the knife?
H: I was holding it in my right hand, so it must have been on Khaled’s left side.

J: You could not defend yourself?
H: I was not standing firmly nor was I on the ground; I had a position somewhat in between. I tried to defend myself with my hands, but this did not work.

J: Were you angry when you found your laundry on the floor?
H: I was annoyed.

J: Had there been situations before when you were angry about Khaled?
H: I did not expect something like that to happen. I was disappointed.

J: Did you have an ordinary relationship?
H: Yes, an ordinary, good relationship.


Juror: Did you check the backyard for Khaled when you came back?
Hassan S.: No.


Prosecutor: According to the records, the accused testified that Khaled had said: “Come with me, if you are truly a man.”
Hassan S.: No. He just said, come with me.

P: Did you not notice that you were holding a knife by the form of the object?
H: I only felt an object, but not that it was a knife.

P: Why did you not call for help?
H: I cannot tell.

P: Why did you not check for Khaled again?
H: I do not know. I did not know what to do.

The accused did not want to answer the questions of the accessory prosecution. Therefore the accessory prosecution applied for making a catalogue of questions to be submitted by the judge.
The following questions are the questions of the accessory prosecution asked through the Judge.

Judge (accessory prosecution): Where exactly did the fight start?
Hassan S.: Downstairs.

J (AP): What does that mean?
H: At the door.

J (AP): When called is said to have been hitting you, did he do so with his fist or the flat hand?
H: I do not know.

J (AP): Where you injured by this?
H: No.

J (AP): How heavy was the stroke?
H: Very heavy, I had problems with my eyes afterwards.

J (AP): Was it one or several strokes?
H: One stroke directly into my face. Two more, then I fell down.

J (AP): Where your hands free?
H: I tried to protect myself with my hands.

J (AP): How long did it take from leaving the apartment to leaving the site?
H: I do not know.

J (AP): When you realized that you were holding a knife, in which way were you holding it?
H: I do not know.

J (AP):
Did you know that Khaled wanted to go to the supermarket? Did you want to accompany him?
H: I only heard about this afterwards.

J (AP): Did you go shopping yourself that evening?
H: First I was in the apartment, and later at the gas station to get cell phone credit.

J (AP): Did you have dinner together?
H: I did not really eat. I was out of my mind.


Prosecutor: Do you know the backyard? Had you been there before?
Hassan S.: Yes, we leave that way when we take the bikes.

Is it possible that you are not telling us a crucial point why the fight happened?
H: Khaled did not say anything. And I can only guess, what the problem was.

4. Andreas Engel, forensic doctor:
The examination of the accused took place January 22, 2015.
There were no injuries to be ascertained, which resulted from the fight. However, minor injuries or congestive syndromes would have healed after nine days.

Autopsy, January 14, 2015, 8.30 am.
Officer Berger of the station 11 attended the autopsy.
Since the undressing of the body released injuries pointing to a crime, the autopsy was stopped and the forensics department was called. The autopsy was continued at 10.20 am.
There were five injuries, whereby their chronological order remains uncertain. So the numbering does not refer to an order.
1. The first stab wounded the neck muscle on the left side.
2. and 3. The second and third stab wound are located in the area of neck and chest, also on the left side. The second wound is located between neck and shoulder area and continues until the inner side of the ribs in the spinal area; the channel being 15 cm deep. The third wound is the deepest injury, harming the aorta, the pleura, the lung’s upper lobe, the pectoral muscle and the windpipe. This channel is 13 cm deep.
The consequences of these injuries were at minimum 800 ml blood in the rib cage. The enormous loss of blood led to a shock. Because of the open rib cage the lung collapsed. There was also a starting process of suffocating to be noticed due to the blood streaming into the lungs by trying to breath. Furthermore, there was air inside of the vessel system. All this led to death. The period until the moment of death is estimated rather short.
4. The fourth stab wound was located on the back of the right shoulder, albeit not deep.
5. And the fifth wound was located on the right side of the back of the head. This damaged the skull but not the brain.
Regarding the question if the forensic doctor thought that the version of the accused was in harmony with the autopsy, he said: The injuries of the left side can have happened this way. The injuries on the right side are, however, hard to explain since the right side of the victim were said to have been turned away from the accused.
The injuries were visible to the forensic doctor right after undressing the body.
He also mentioned that Khaled did not show any signs of injuries of defense.

5. Two of the flat mates of Khaled und Hassan:
Both did not notice any disagreements concerning the washing this evening. They could also not give any information about the crime committed or arguments and conflicts between Khaled and Hassan in the flat. As both could speak Arabic in contrast to the other flat mates they did not have any issues to communicate with each other.
They both were at home that evening. After their dinner together with Hassan they went outside to search for Khaled. Khaled told them that he wanted to go to the supermarket.

Fourth day of trial

1. Witness – Mr. Schreiber – Chief criminal commissar
He described the occurrences of Tuesday morning when he was with his colleague Mrs. Berger at the scene of the crime. They were called because the death occurred in public and was not natural. He examined the corpse, as good as it was possible and could not find any other injuries.
It was obvious for him that the theory about him falling out of the window did not coincide with the position of the corpse.
The city funeral home brought the corpse directly to the forensics. Mr Schreiber called his colleagues about an autopsy.
Principally an autopsy is done if there are obvious signs of a crime. In this case there were no obvious signs but the prosecutor was informed that there still is an autopsy needed.

During the autopsy traces of a stabbing were found. This lead to a search of the flat on the 14.01. which also Mr. Schreiber was attending. There knifes from the kitchen were confiscated.
On the evening of the same day after the search of the flat was finished Mr Schreiber received a call. A man walking his dog saw a knife in Teutschgraben on Donaerstrasse.

Mr Schreiber and his colleague met with the man. He lead them along the path to a point which was not visible from the street. The stream there was confined and the surface was 1,80 meters deep from the surface so it was difficult to access it. The colleague collected the knife and gave it to examination.

2. Witness – Mr Ibrahim – Friend of Hassan
He learned German together with Hassan. He could not explain himself what happened and was very distressed about what happened. Shortly before the dispute happened in the flat. He came to borrow something.

Sixth day of trial

Daily Summary

At the sixth day solely the dog handler of the tracking dog was questioned. The accessory prosecution was hoping to get detailed information about the incident in the backyard. However the tracking dog is only able to locate the distribution of the smell. He can not point the details of the conflict.

The next appointment will be at the 26 October at 2.30 pm there the final speeches will be held.