Skip to comments.DNA Solves Cold Case Months After Killer Dies
Posted on 01/04/2013 5:34:01 PM PST by nickcarraway
German police who last year solved a murder case from 43 years ago, using modern DNA analysis found that the culprit died of natural causes - just months after giving them the crucial evidence.
The 1970 case of a woman found murdered a few metres from her parents' home in Flensburg in Schleswig Holstein had mystified police for decades, the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reported on Friday.
Now, with the help of modern techniques, police said they had identified the culprit almost exactly 43 years to the day after the 20-year-old victim was found in a wood alongside a rail goods depot in January 1970.
After taking her handbag, the murderer tried to hide her body under boxes he found at the crime scene. An autopsy showed she had been strangled to death, but a lack of further evidence meant the investigators' trail soon ran cold.
Just a few days after the crime, investigators had the man who turned out to be the actual culprit in their sights - a then 20-year-old Bundeswehr soldier posted in a nearby barracks.
But police said they did not have enough evidence against him to bring charges.
The case was reopened in spring 2012 in the hope that DNA analysis could help shed some light on the four-decade-old mystery, the Süddeutsche Zeitung said.
Police analysed voluntary saliva samples from suspects, including the culprit himself, who gave up his DNA sample willingly.
By the end of August analysts had established a match between his DNA and traces found on the victim.
But it was already too late. The murderer would never be brought to justice - he died just a month before of natural causes.
That’s okay. G-d has already met with him.
It’s funny that people nearly always say something like that... but then forget that if he became a Christian all his sins are forgiven including the murder.
Then he would have turned himself in. He didn't.
We've all heard the stories where someone was exonerated by DNA evidence. Yes, I'm all for that.
My only question is how does DNA "prove" someone didn't commit a crime? All it can prove is that they didn't find a particular perp's DNA at the scene. Doesn't mean he wasn't there, or had an accomplice, or wore gloves,etc. to prevent leaving a trace.