Police Inquest, Official Documents & Other Articles

Inquest Results



On February 10th, 2009, the Minister of the Interior released the results of the formal Inquest that had been requested by Green Party members of Parliament. Below is an unofficial translation of the Inquest results. As stated previously, the police were given the list of 39 questions to reply to. To no one’s surprise, they have cleared themselves, even though their answers bring more discrepancies and questions.


[stamp]

XXIV.GP.-NR

456 /AB

Feb. 10, 2009

regarding 422 /J

[to:]

President of the National Council

Ms. Barbara Prammer, MS

Parliament

1017 Vienna

Ref.: BMI-KA1000/0011/II/BK/3.2/2009

[letterhead] BM.I [national emblem]

REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA

FEDERAL MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR

DR. MARIA FEKTER

HERRENGASSE 7

A-1014 VIENNA

PO BOX 100

TEL. +43-1 53126-2352

FAX +43-1 53126-2191

ministerbuero@bmi.gv.at

Vienna, February 10, 2009


National Council representatives Lunacek and Pilz, along with friends female and male, addressed a written interpellation to me under number 422/J on December 11, 2008, regarding the “missing person case of Aeryn Gillern.”

I can answer this interpellation as follows, based on the information at my disposal:


Regarding question 1: Are investigations still pending, or is the file closed?
Investigation in this case is ongoing.


Regarding question 2: How is the probable course of events of the disappearance of Aeryn Gillern to your perception?
Based on the case record, the course of events was as follows:
Mr. Gillern got into an argument with another sauna guest between 7:00 and 7:30 PM on Oct. 29, 2007. The argument started when the other guest asked Mr. Gillern how he was. Subsequently Mr. Gillern, suddenly and for no apparent reason, ran outdoors naked from the sauna. Later two eyewitnesses were found who saw a naked, bald man (evidently Gillern) running through the 1st District of Vienna toward the Danube Canal. Shortly thereafter a fisherman on the Danube Canal at Hermann Park in 1030 Vienna [3rd District, adjacent to 1st District] noticed a bald man drifting in the water there, who called for help and then sank in the water. It can be assumed with a probability verging on certainty that the man drifting in the water was Gillern.


Regarding question 3: Did the investigators tasked with this case check out the rumors according to which there was an argument in the sauna before the disappearance?
Yes.


Regarding question 4: How many persons were interrogated altogether by the responsible Investigators in this connection?
Based on the case record, written statements were taken from 7 persons regarding the matter; information was obtained by telephone from another 10 persons.


Regarding question 5: How does police get the opinion, that a positive HIV-Test can be a motive for suicide, if such an actual test was part of the belongings of the missing person and was conveyed to police afterwards again?
There is no indication in the record that the investigators considered a positive HIV test, if there was one, as the reason for suicide by Mr. Gillern.


Regarding question 6: How do you explain for yourself the fact, that Aeryn Gillern verifiably used his phone after 19:00, which remained in the Sauna, although he is said to had left the Sauna already before 19:00?
The assumed time of the argument in the sauna as well as of the departure from the sauna is based on the statements made by several witnesses. Since the missing-person report was filed on Nov. 1, 2007, three days after the incident in the sauna, and only at this time could a connection by name be made between the unknown man in the Danube Canal and Mr. Gillern, the time of departure from the sauna could no longer be determined exactly, since the witness statements diverge. For the 7:00 PM time (supposed time of departure from the sauna) it is therefore a matter of the earliest possible time according to the witness statements. One witness gave 7:30 PM as a possible time in answering the investigators’ questions. Eyewitnesses report having noticed a naked man running toward the Danube Canal at about 8:00 PM (see also answer to question 36). The telephone call of the witness who noticed a man drifting in the Danube Canal (see also answer to question took place precisely at 8:21 PM.


Regarding question 7: Were these contradictions recorded in the file and worked on?
Since the time of departure from the sauna could not be determined exactly, there is no contradiction with the time of Mr. Gillern’s telephone calls.


Regarding question 8: At which time the emergency call was done, that led to the search on 29th Oct.2007?
At about 8:21 PM.


Regarding question 9: Who gave this emergency-call?
An eyewitness who saw the man drifting in the Danube Canal.


Regarding question 10: What was the content of this emergency-call?
“A man is drifting in the water of the Danube Canal near Urania [Café Bar and Restaurant] or ‘Hermann’s Strandbar’; he’s shouting for help.”


Regarding question 11: Which measures were taken because of the call?

Sending of several patrol vehicles−Anton 1, Anton 2, Anton 650, Theodor 94−notification of the fire department and the diving squad as well as the rescue service.


Regarding questions 12-14: Did a search with divers take place? , Which unit did execute the search? , How many divers were on duty and how are their (personal-)numbers?
No; according to the fire department, a diver operation was not possible or else did not seem sensible because of the strong current.


Regarding question 15: From when to when was the mission executed?
Specifically from 8:21 to 9:21 PM; further search measures continued after that.


Regarding question 16: In which area was the mission executed?
Site of operation: Vienna District 1, beginning at Uraniastrasse No. 1; after that, downstream, searching on both banks of the Danube Canal (site of operation: confluence of the Vienna River with the Danube Canal).


Regarding question 17: For which reasons was the mission stopped without results?
On account of the strong current prevailing at the operation site, further searching was judged to be hopeless and therefore terminated.


Regarding question 18: Who made this decision?
Primarily the head of the Leopoldstadt firefighting squad (badge No. 9017).


Regarding questions 19 and 20: Where there search-dogs in addition to the divers? , If yes: which traces were searched for?
No, since there were no indications calling for deployment of search dogs. A possible connection with the missing person was made only after the missing-person report was filed on Nov. 1, 2007.


Regarding questions 21 to 24: Did further searches take place in this case since the search of 29th oct.2007? , If yes: of which kind were these searches? , When did they take place? , With which result?
Besides the search operation on Oct. 29, 2007, no other targeted or coordinated search operations have taken place. Nonetheless, the office in charge of the case (now the Landeskriminalamt Wien [Vienna State Detective Bureau], East Branch) initiated an alerting of the regular police units (city police squads 1, 3, 11, and 20 and the Division for Special Units). This did not affect the investigative activity of the Landeskriminalamt Wien, East Branch; unfortunately, however that activity did not provide any concrete leads or starting points for a further planned search operation.


Regarding question 25: Was there contact with other Danube-neighbouring countries concerning the probable finding unknown drowning victims?
A notice was issued in accordance with the regulations for searches and requests for information (EKIS-SIS). To follow up the search activities, a special notification was undertaken, via Detective Headquarters 1, of the Danube riparian states. The Bundeskriminalamt [Federal Investigative Bureau] initiated a worldwide Interpol search regarding the disappearance of Gillern, including his DNA profile.


Regarding questions 26 and 27: Was there a cadaver of an unknown drowned person found meanwhile, that could be Aeryn Gillern? , If yes: was the mother of the missing informed of this fact?

According to the case record, no such corpse has been found.


Regarding questions 28 and 29: Were there handed out copies of the file in this case to the mother of the missing person? , If not, why not?
According to the case officer’s report of the facts on March 5, 2008, the mother was not given a copy of the case record because the legal basis for this was absent (official action in accordance with the Sicherheitspolizeigesetz [Law Regulating the Police]).


Regarding questions 30 to 32: Are the accusations of the mother concerning the non-cooperative and of presentiments against gays characterized behaviour of the investigating officials appropriate? , If no: which investigation-measures were set to verify these reproaches? , If yes, which disciplinary measures were set until now, or will be in future concerning this non-appropriate behaviour.
According to the communication from the State Police Headquarters in Vienna, which is in charge of the case, the investigative officials deny engaging in such behavior. The checking of the accusations in this regard is not yet concluded; up to now, the State Police Headquarters in Vienna sees no cause for disciplinary or administrative-law measures.
In regard to possible relevance of the accusations on file in terms of criminal law, I can report that on Nov. 24, 2008, the Büro für besondere Ermittlungen (BBE) [Office of Special Investigations] of Federal Police Headquarters in Vienna received the Gillern complaint file in question. Based on this file, that Office has begun to undertake inquiries accordingly (consulting the original records, contacting the officials responsible for the investigation of the missing-person case in question, etc.) These inquiries have not been concluded. The Vienna State Prosecutor’s Office will receive a final report on this matter in any case.


Regarding question 33: Is there a connection of the approach of police to the case with the letter of complaint Aeryn Gillern wrote to AI, in which he complained about inappropriate, brutal treatment by policemen on the occasion of a ticket-control on 11th Jan 2003?

No.


Regarding questions 34 to 36: Can you exclude that Aeryn Gillern was victim of a violence-crime? , If yes: based on which facts and proofs? , If no, which further investigational negotiations will be held, to be able to exclude a violence-crime in this case?
No. Investigation has yet to be completed of all the substantive circumstances that could contribute to a clarification of the case.


Regarding questions 37 and 38: Do you think the procedure of the police is appropriate in this case? , Do you think the procedure of the police in this case is favourable for the picture of Austria in the world?
According to the reports received, it can be assumed on the basis of the case record that proper procedures were followed in relation to both the operation on Oct. 29, 2007, and the processing of the file on the disappearance. In other respects, let me refer you to the answer to question 30. Apart from that, opinions and views are not the subject of parliamentary interpellation law, according to Art. 52, B-VG [Federal Constitutional Law]. [Translator’s note: The “opinions and views” would be in connection with a question about the effect of procedures in this case on Austria’s image in the world.]


Regarding question 39: How do you want to assure in the future, that relatives of missing persons, no matter if Austrian or from abroad, come across in forthcoming, compassionate, and comprehensible manner?
Independent of the case at hand, I may point out that the Bundeskriminalamt has been given a relevant project tasking that concerns dealing with interested parties in connection with cases of disappearance. In connection with that, training content is to be developed accordingly.

/s/ M. Fekter

http://www.aeryngillern.com/Aeryn_Gillern/Inquest_Results.html