„Neue Luzerner Zeitung“ October 18, 2011
Fiasco of the investigation of the Ruetli-Bomber
What remains is no more than a worthless tip from the Intelligence services: That is what the Federal Prosecutor s Office declares after four years of investigation in the case of the so called Ruetli-Bombers.
No proof or circumstantial evidence was brought forward which could linked the suspect to the bombings in any factual way, the Federal Prosecutor’ s Office wrote.
The investigation involves a presently 39 year old electrician, who had been suspected in setting off an explosive device on Ruetli meadow on August 1st in2007.
He was also accused of setting off explosive devices at the homes of four members of the Ruetli- Committee in Attinghausen, Stans and Lucerne about a month later, on September 4, 2007.
Nobody was injured. On Ruetli the celebration fortunately ended before schedule and the crowd had already dispersed and nobody was near the explosives buried in the ground, when it detonated.
A warrant date October 11th declares the closure of the investigation against the only suspect. He had spent more than 10 months in custody during the investigation in2008 and will now receive 10 000 Swiss Francs as reparation along with a compensation.
Two of the victims who were members of the Ruetli-Committee withdrew their civil claims. Only in connection to an attempted arson incident in Canton Zurich the Federal Prosecutor’s Office spoke out a suspended fine against the accused on a confession of passing on hazardous materials and uttering a threat to an official.
The man who is regarded as a weapons-owner, is a citizen of Japan, Ireland and Canada.
In the 21 page warrant of dismissal, which our newspaper staff got to review, the Federal Prosecutor s Office regrets in a self-critical manner, the bias investigation, but also states who it holds ultimately responsible: The Dienst fuer Analyse und Praevention (DAP) , which is known today as Nachrichtendienst des Bundes (NDB) , which are the Swiss federal intelligence services and the Swiss Federal Counsel.
It was the DAP who wrote a letter on September10, 2007 naming the suspect. It turns out later that an informant who had made a statement to the – Kantonspolizei Aargau was their source.
Secret Service files remain classified.
The informant's statements were neither revealed to the Federal Prosecutor’ s nor the investigating magistrate’ s office.
The intelligence service kept all documents under look and key, claiming witness protection to be at stake. After a extensive legal battle, the Federal Counsel decides in favor of the intelligence services and denies the investigating magistrate access to their files. The investigating magistrate Hans Baumgartner, who no longer is in the service of the federal government, made comparisons with the shedding of files in a case involving smuggling of nuclear technology with the Tinner family and told our newspaper: It is despicable, that Switzerland will have grow used to the executive branch of the government obstructing the justice system.
Following the decision of the Federal Counsel remains a demoralizing reality, that of document of the DAP with regards to the suspect is worthless without any information which could factually bring the suspect in connection with the offense ,the Federal Prosecutor s office adds. The only circumstantial evident which could have brought the suspect in the vicinity of one of the blast sites in the town of Attinghausen proved to be baseless.
Vague assumptions disperse into thin air
All that remained at the end, were a few vague assumptions implicating the suspect which all turned into thin air when investigated, mainly due to the fact that the questions had already suggested that the suspect was the perpetrator, the warrant of dismissal adds. It is regrettable that the investigation focused on one single suspect, mainly due to the hint of the DAP. There the opportunity was lost to direct the investigation into other, possibly more promising directions. At this point an investigation against an unknown perpetrator would have a very slim chance of any success, so the entire case is as of now abandoned.
Defense attorney Alexander Feuz spoke of false claims by the DAP. He had previously expressed suspicion, that an – „agent provocateur“ may be involved in the bombings. Feuz is considering legal steps against Media which had cast judgement on his client prematurely.
Author: Balz Bruppacher
No proof or circumstantial evidence was brought forward which could linked the suspect to the bombings in any factual way, the Federal Prosecutor’ s Office wrote.
The investigation involves a presently 39 year old electrician, who had been suspected in setting off an explosive device on Ruetli meadow on August 1st in2007.
He was also accused of setting off explosive devices at the homes of four members of the Ruetli- Committee in Attinghausen, Stans and Lucerne about a month later, on September 4, 2007.
Nobody was injured. On Ruetli the celebration fortunately ended before schedule and the crowd had already dispersed and nobody was near the explosives buried in the ground, when it detonated.
A warrant date October 11th declares the closure of the investigation against the only suspect. He had spent more than 10 months in custody during the investigation in2008 and will now receive 10 000 Swiss Francs as reparation along with a compensation.
Two of the victims who were members of the Ruetli-Committee withdrew their civil claims. Only in connection to an attempted arson incident in Canton Zurich the Federal Prosecutor’s Office spoke out a suspended fine against the accused on a confession of passing on hazardous materials and uttering a threat to an official.
The man who is regarded as a weapons-owner, is a citizen of Japan, Ireland and Canada.
In the 21 page warrant of dismissal, which our newspaper staff got to review, the Federal Prosecutor s Office regrets in a self-critical manner, the bias investigation, but also states who it holds ultimately responsible: The Dienst fuer Analyse und Praevention (DAP) , which is known today as Nachrichtendienst des Bundes (NDB) , which are the Swiss federal intelligence services and the Swiss Federal Counsel.
It was the DAP who wrote a letter on September10, 2007 naming the suspect. It turns out later that an informant who had made a statement to the – Kantonspolizei Aargau was their source.
Secret Service files remain classified.
The informant's statements were neither revealed to the Federal Prosecutor’ s nor the investigating magistrate’ s office.
The intelligence service kept all documents under look and key, claiming witness protection to be at stake. After a extensive legal battle, the Federal Counsel decides in favor of the intelligence services and denies the investigating magistrate access to their files. The investigating magistrate Hans Baumgartner, who no longer is in the service of the federal government, made comparisons with the shedding of files in a case involving smuggling of nuclear technology with the Tinner family and told our newspaper: It is despicable, that Switzerland will have grow used to the executive branch of the government obstructing the justice system.
Following the decision of the Federal Counsel remains a demoralizing reality, that of document of the DAP with regards to the suspect is worthless without any information which could factually bring the suspect in connection with the offense ,the Federal Prosecutor s office adds. The only circumstantial evident which could have brought the suspect in the vicinity of one of the blast sites in the town of Attinghausen proved to be baseless.
Vague assumptions disperse into thin air
All that remained at the end, were a few vague assumptions implicating the suspect which all turned into thin air when investigated, mainly due to the fact that the questions had already suggested that the suspect was the perpetrator, the warrant of dismissal adds. It is regrettable that the investigation focused on one single suspect, mainly due to the hint of the DAP. There the opportunity was lost to direct the investigation into other, possibly more promising directions. At this point an investigation against an unknown perpetrator would have a very slim chance of any success, so the entire case is as of now abandoned.
Defense attorney Alexander Feuz spoke of false claims by the DAP. He had previously expressed suspicion, that an – „agent provocateur“ may be involved in the bombings. Feuz is considering legal steps against Media which had cast judgement on his client prematurely.
Author: Balz Bruppacher