Criminal cases (RESOLVED)

 Is There a Perfect Crime? Electric Otto and his wife

"Electric Otto" or "Mister Volt" - this is what the German press called Otto P. His case is undoubtedly one of the most intriguing in the history of forensics. This murderer constructed a device capable of committing a perfect crime. The fact that he used them effectively is evidenced by the fact that he is not called a serial killer solely because he has simply not been able to prove other crimes ... is the morning of May 2, 1989. At the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Hanover, one of the doctors performs an examination of the body. After the weekend, which was additionally overlapped with a day off on May 1, there are relatively many bodies, i.e. thirteen in total. The corpse belongs to people for whom, after death, the general practitioner or emergency physician was not able to determine the specific cause of death. In each of these situations, the police ordered a re-examination at the Institute of Forensic Medicine as standard. The task of the doctor working here is now, inter alia, to issue a decision in which case it would be necessary to apply to the prosecutor's office for an autopsy. The doctor then examines the deceased one by one, recording his remarks on a dictaphone; it will later add them to the documentation.

The result of the examination of the body marked with the number 4 raises his suspicions: on the body of this 39-year-old woman, both on her left shoulder and on her right lower leg, there are strange marks in the form of tiny scattered craters filled with something that looks like ash. According to the doctor, these injuries indicate burns with a very strong current that must have run from the left shoulder to the right lower leg, that is, straight through the heart. This concept also fits in the fact that the deceased has distinct pinpoints of blood from the conjunctiva of the eyes and the lids to the hairy scalp, as seen in people who suffocated or have had blood stagnation in the head. A very strong current causes contractions of the heart and muscles, which leads to a short admittedly, but extremely strong increase in blood pressure, resulting in the breaking of small blood vessels. The doctor, therefore, lists "electric shock" in the documentation as a possible cause of death. On the same day, a policewoman comes to the institute. She appears there is a completely different case, but by accident, the woman looks at the documentation prepared recently by a forensic doctor. There, the policewoman notices the name of the deceased, whose body was marked with the number 4, and having associated some facts, she exclaims in surprise: "How is it, a woman with the name of P. has died again?" She adds that there has been such a case in her area before. The case concerned the death of a woman named P; his circumstances were unclear and suspicions were linked to the victim's husband. The policewoman is moved by this discovery, and because she is absolutely sure that there is no question of a mistake, the forensic doctor notifies her superiors and the relevant authorities. The forensics machine is in motion.

Janja P., originally from Yugoslavia, died. For seven years, that is from 1982, Janja was married to a certain Otto P., an electrician. She was his next wife, specifically the fourth; It turns out that all of his wives, including the last one, died a tragic death. After these basic findings, the police begin to check all information about the deceased's husband even more carefully, also using data from various institutions. Otto P., now 56, is unemployed and seems to live mostly on benefits, including those he gets for his children. She has a lot of them because with Janja herself, three, and two of them that Janja had before she met him. In addition, Otto's family consists of children from his previous marriages. Police also establish that the man was previously convicted of insurance fraud. The backstage of these events was as follows: in 1982, Otto started a fire in his home. After the house burned down, the insurance company paid compensation in the amount of 620 thousand. brands. However, it was later proven that it was the owner himself who ordered the house to be set on fire in order to obtain the insurance money. In 1986, Otto P. was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, which he fully served. Data from registration offices are interesting: Otto P. has lived in completely different places for many years, but they are always near Hanover. From a detailed analysis of his registration and marital status data, a simple repeating pattern emerges a wedding, his wife's tragic death after some time, moving - four times exactly. Because after the death of each of his wives, Otto changed his place of residence, the case of the wife's sudden death never went to the same police station or to the same doctor. It should be assumed that it was this fact that caused so far it has not attracted the attention of investigative bodies or any other institution. Over the following weeks, the police and the prosecution gather and organize further information. Their source is the death certificates of Otto's wives, reports of the examination of the body, post-mortem examination reports (if any), comments from doctors declaring death, notes of policemen who arrived at the place. After reading all the documents, a conclusion arises that should be described as the most shocking: one does not have to do too much to remain outside the sphere of interest of law enforcement agencies for years, even if four more wives are killed in an identical (probably) way - to be maybe it is enough to just change the place of residence ... Unfortunately, this is confirmed by the history of the marriages of Otto P. On December 17, 1972, in the morning, a nervous Otto called the GP, informing them that he had just found his wife Maria lying unconscious on the floor of the house where they both lived. Upon arrival, the doctor confirmed the death of the 47-year-old woman. As she was unable to pinpoint the cause of her death, and the procedures would call for the police to be called, the doctor did so and informed the officers that the deceased had only a mild heart defect that could not, under any circumstances, lead to her death. She also informed them that Maria had been shocked for months at the news that her best friend was pregnant with her own husband Otto. The latter, in turn, explained to the police that the previous evening he had argued with his wife, had gone to bed early and had woken up only in the morning to go to the toilet, and it was then that he had tripped - literally - over Maria lying on the floor and called a doctor. The policemen placed all these remarks in the official memo.

A soon-to-be autopsy of Maria showed the presence of a ten-centimeter long mark on her right forearm, as well as similar marks on the outside of the back of the foot. The doctor noted that all the marks were red in color and resembled skin abrasions. Unfortunately, the traces were not photographed, which later, years later, turned out to be a huge mistake - skin abrasions can be easily mistaken for traces of electric shock. On the morning of April 1, 1975, Otto P. called his home doctor to his wife, 44-year-old Gerda P., informing on the phone that he had just found her in the living room with no signs of life. Gerda was lying on the couch on her back, she was wearing a nightgown. The doctor examined her and confirmed that the woman was dead. Otto, who seemed shocked by her death, told the doctor that the previous evening he had gone to bed first, because he had argued about something with his wife, and in the morning when he got up at six to smoke the stove, his wife was still alive and sleeping peacefully. About seven o'clock he wanted to wake her up and only then noticed that Gerda was not moving. The general practitioner found no injuries on the body of the deceased or anything to raise his suspicions. He reported a stroke as the cause of death, which was probably due to the fact that he knew that Gerda smoked a lot of cigarettes and was treated for high blood pressure.

On August 13, 1979, the daughter of 33-year-old Bärbel P. found her mother dead in a motorhome standing on the property in front of the house. The girl called an ambulance. Despite her young age, Bärbel already had teenage children (coming from her first marriage). It was one of them that drew the doctor's attention to the fact that there were small red spots on the skin of the inner part of the mother's arms. The doctor who carried out the examination found them to be rain spots. Upset and seemingly moved by the death of his wife, Otto informed the doctor that after the evening quarrel he had gone to bed alone, and Bärbel did not want to go to bed with him and stayed overnight in a camper van. Cardiovascular failure was reported as the cause of death; the doctor's opinion was certainly influenced by the fact that the woman suffered from diabetes and asthma, and was also obese. Bärbel's children suggested that an autopsy be performed, but Otto torpedoed the idea, so in the end, nobody inquired about anything, and Bärbel was soon buried.

In the early morning of April 28, 1989, Otto called an ambulance, informing them that something bad had happened to his wife, Janja P. because she was lying in bed with no signs of life. The ambulance doctor who arrived at the scene said that Janja had been dead for at least an hour. The doctor did not carry out any more detailed examination, but in the column, regarding the cause of death, he stated "unknown" and called the police as usual. The called patrol, in turn, attracted the criminal police. Although its officers did not find anything particularly suspicious, they wrote in the documentation that on the left arm of the deceased and on her right lower leg there were small changes on the skin resembling scabs or abrasions. The policemen also recorded the explanations of Janja's husband, who said that after a quarrel with his wife he went to bed first, did not get up until six in the morning, and when he wanted to wake his wife shortly after, he stated that she did not move at all; then he called an ambulance.

In the process of making all these findings, the results of the autopsy of Janja, Otto's fourth wife, come. They confirm the fact that the woman died as a result of an electric shock. At this point, the prosecutor's office is strongly inclined to the thesis that Otto P. murdered with the help of electricity not only his fourth wife Janja but also the first three. On June 28, 1989, exactly two months after Janja's death, Otto P. is arrested on suspicion of murdering his fourth wife. During a search of his home, investigators secure a suspicious-looking small box with cables and lamps embedded inside, as well as bottles with highly toxic chemicals such as lead and thallium compounds.

An investigation and preparations for a trial begin. The prosecution orders the exhumation of the bodies of Otto's three previous wives. Exhumations take place in September; Unfortunately, it turns out that only bones are left of Maria and Gerda, while the state of Bärbel's body decomposition does not allow us to determine the causes of death. The police collect materials, interview witnesses, including the children of Otto's wives and his own children; he also asks other family members, including Otto's former neighbors and friends and all wives. What on this occasion - complementing the previous picture - gradually comes to light, is even more shocking, because it shows in detail the impotence of all subsequent links in the chain, which is an efficient state consisting of actions leading to the capture and trial of the criminal. All the children the suspect lived with, including his own, claim that Otto was a tyrant who imposed his will on everyone in the house with regard to every aspect of life. He was also unimaginably tight-fisted and gave money to both children and wife, controlling their smallest expenses. At the same time, he was a wealthy man, because by inheriting from each of his wives, he accumulated a considerable fortune. All family members also knew that Otto kept a closed suitcase under his bed, full of money. Otto probably had one more case on his conscience, about which the investigators only now found out: a few years earlier, he allegedly molested his then eleven-year-old daughter Janji. It happened while my wife went on vacation to her native Yugoslavia. The girl complained to her mother when she returned home. Apparently, Janja attacked her husband with a knife; anyway, it is known that as a result she never informed the police of her daughter's molestation.

On Friday, April 28, the day Janja died, a wedding was taking place in the neighborhood. P.'s spouses were invited to the ceremony and Janja was very happy about it. She spent Thursday, the day before the wedding, at home. Various people visited her then, including a few neighbors and friends, and all of them later agreed that Janja was completely healthy. She was also in a very good mood, although that changed when her husband returned home in the evening. Otto, without giving any reason, had forbidden her to attend the wedding and had not given her the promised money for the hairdresser she was supposed to go to on the morning of the ceremony; all this Janja told her neighbor who visited her around 9pm. Around 10pm Otto went to the bedroom alone, and Janja talked for a long time in the kitchen with her son from her first marriage. She told him that she had enough of this life and that she would divorce Otto, and as for tomorrow's wedding, she would steal money from the suitcase for a hairdresser and go to the ceremony against Otto's will. Going to bed around 11.30 pm Janja, as her son testified, was already calm and in a good mood. It is not known what made Otto decide to murder his wife (he insisted that he was innocent all the time during the interrogations). Investigators suspected that there may have been an argument during which Janja stated that she wanted a divorce. Perhaps Otto found it humiliating, and perhaps the wife said something that made him feel threatened - for example, investigators do not rule out that Janja may have informed her husband that he would reveal her daughter's molestation to the police. In December 1989, Otto P. is officially charged with the murder of his first, third and fourth wife; in the case of the second, the evidence is too weak to prosecute. According to the prosecutor's office, Otto was murdered for particularly low motives, namely that his motive was greed. After Gerda, he inherited the house, his third wife was the owner of the aforementioned bungalow, and, as many witnesses testified, she also had a very large amount of cash, which she always kept in the kitchen cupboard. Also during the trial, Otto insists that he is innocent. Proving him the murder of Maria and Bärbel turns out to be very difficult, but in the case of Janja, the matter is different: the prosecutor's office has the results of the autopsy and the testimony of many witnesses.

As a result, in June 1990, Otto P. was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his fourth wife, Janja. The whole story, however, has its continuation: the convicted person appeals against the sentence, but in March 1993 the district court in Hanover upholds this sentence. Otto changes defense and makes another appeal. In March 1995 the Göttingen district court found him innocent; the justification says that although Janja died as a result of an electric shock, it is not certain that it was her husband who led to her death. Otto P. is therefore released from prison, but now the prosecutor's office is appealing the sentence and causing Otto to be arrested again a year later and placed on the dock. As a result, in February 1998, "Mister Volt" is sentenced to ten years in prison for the murder of his fourth wife and is sent to prison. However, the convicted person consistently assures about his innocence and lodges an appeal against this sentence as well. It is not known what the result of this appeal would be this time, because, on November 23, 65-year-old Otto P. suffers a stroke and dies two days later. Autopsy shows death from natural causes.

Bobby Dunbar - the extraordinary case of a child missing 100 years ago

The case of the kidnapping and finding of Bobby Dunbar is a story that was heard all over the United States in the early twentieth century. One hundred years later, exactly the same matter appeared in the media again - it turned out that it had a completely different ending than expected, and the discovered truth changed the lives of many people. As a child, American Margaret Dunbar Cutright loved hearing the family's story of how her grandfather, Bobby, was kidnapped at the age of four while he was on a trip to Lake Swayze with his parents, and then, almost miraculously, he found himself after eight months of searching. Little Margaret asked her grandmother to tell her this story over and over; admittedly she knew it by heart, but all the details invariably fascinated her: for example, that the lake was then swarming with alligators, that there was a thick dark forest and swamps around the lake that everyone had been looking for little Bobby for so long and almost they were sure he was dead - and then, when he finally found himself, his parents went to get him, and when they all returned home together, the whole town came out to greet them! The story of Bobby Dunbar's abduction in 1912 was something of a family legend that fascinated little Margaret in particular. Years passed. Margaret was already a mature woman when her younger brother Robbie was killed in a plane crash in 1999. It was a very difficult time for her, and she felt lonely: her husband worked in a different state and only stayed at home on weekends, and growing children began to lead their own lives. Margaret's father - wanting her daughter to take care of something - then brought her old letters, photos, and about 400 newspaper clippings from the beginning of the century. It was all about the kidnapping of her grandfather; her father said she could now take a closer look at the family legend she had always loved. Margaret did - but the more she got into grandfather's kidnapping by studying the documents and then doing her own little investigation, the more she realized that the wonderful legend is starting to turn into a story with a completely different content ... It's 1912. Lessa and Percy Dunbar live in the small Opelousas, Louisiana. Percy has his own trading company; the family is quite wealthy and, moreover, known and respected in this small community. The Dunbars have two sons: Robert, four (whom everyone in the family calls "Bobby"), and John Alonzo, two.

On August 23, when Bobby is exactly 4 years and 3 months old, the Dunbar family travels to Lake Swayze, some 50 kilometers from Opelousas; Eleven more people travel with them, including distant family members and friends. The Dunbars have their own little hut located right on the lake. They like to rest here - they swim, fish, bake caught fish. This region, right on the Gulf of Mexico, is very hot, stuffy, and humid. Lake Swayze is surrounded by dark, dense forests and wetlands, so when walking around it, you have to follow the designated paths. Everyone is having a great time, however, Percy Dunbar has to break this nice vacation and go home due to his professional duties. Little Bobby, extremely attached to his father, is so disappointed and unpleasantly surprised by this fact that he becomes hysterical. His rebellion is useless, his father leaves the company. A friend of the family, Paul Mizzy, wanting to cheer the boy, offers the children and a few adults a short trip to another part of the lake - just across the forest and you will reach a place with a lot of catfish. Bobby is very fond of the idea, and his mother agrees that both he and his brother Alonzo will go there with the adults. When the group makes their way back to the cabin after a short time, little Alonzo is so tired that Paul carries him through the forest "piggyback". The man is marching to the back of the group, and Bobby is trotting beside him. At one point the boy runs forward a bit. From there, it's hard to recreate exactly what happened, because everyone just walked on and nothing special was happening - but when the group returns to the hut Bobby is nowhere to be found.

Everyone immediately starts looking for the boy on the lakeside, in the woods, and then even on the road that takes him to the cabin, considering that maybe Bobby suddenly thought of going down the road his father had gone, and then too. come back home. Unfortunately, there is no trace of the child. Eventually, the family calls the police. She arrives after a few hours and joins the ongoing search. Percy also shows up, alerted that his son has disappeared. The search continues in the following days. The police assume that the child may have drowned in the lake, so they drag a rope with a hook across the surface of the water to pick out the body. When that doesn't work, the policemen throw dynamite into the water to create strong waves (which would cause the body to rise to the surface) - but to no avail. A straw hat, identical to the one Bobby was wearing, is placed by the police in the water to see how long it might eventually sink. However, the hat remains afloat for days, and Bobby's hat has not been found anywhere - most people, therefore, believe that the boy did not drown either in the lake or in the swamp (and thus was not eaten by alligators), but was kidnapped. For this reason, the police are ordering a nationwide search for a missing child. Authorities in all states are putting up a total of 700 posters with Bobby's photo, and news of his missing and possible kidnapping finds its way into several newspapers. The press reports that Bobby's mother has become sick with nerves and has to lie in bed, and readers are also told that family friends have stayed behind and are continuing their search. The newspapers also report on the reward for finding the boy - a thousand dollars, a huge amount for those times. The money was raised by the inhabitants of Opelousas, as even the Dunbar could not afford the expense. However, it does nothing, and the reward - according to the concluded agreement - is returned to the donors, when, after eight months, Bobby is still not found. Exactly four days after the return of the Bobby prize, an unexpected breakthrough takes place. In April 1913 in Poplarville (Mississippi), police officers check the documents of a man who travels around the area with a young boy. The policemen pay attention to him because the boy's appearance matches the description of the wanted Bobby Dunbar. According to the information, missing Bobby has a scar on his foot. Unfortunately, the child's feet are so dirty that it is impossible to check this detail immediately on the spot. The man, when asked if the boy is his son, first answers in the affirmative and finally admits that it is not his child. In this situation, the policemen decide to stop him. The man is named William Cantwell Walters. He is 51 years old and comes from Barnesville, North Carolina. He travels a lot because - as he explains - he earns his living repairing and tuning pianos. Walters claims that the boy accompanying him is named Charles Bruce Anderson and is the illegitimate son of his brother and a certain Julia Anderson. Julia works for his family in North Carolina and asked him to look after the child because she is unmarried, has to earn a living alone, and is unable to look after the child. The police officers find the story incoherent, so they notify their colleagues in Louisiana of the arrest of the man suspected of kidnapping. They also send a photo of the accompanying boy to Louisiana; Louisiana policemen in turn hand over the photos they receive to Bobby's parents.

Lessie and Percy Dunbar look at the photos they receive - and decide to go to the Mississippi immediately. They're pretty sure it's about their missing son. As the case gets louder, large numbers of journalists flock to the place where Dunbar and the boy are scheduled to meet. Today, however, it is difficult to say what exactly happened at that decisive moment when the Dunbars saw the boy, as the press reports on this subject are completely contradictory. Some newspapers report that Lessie recognized her son immediately and that he recognized her, other articles mention that the parents were not sure if it was their child, that the boy they found was only crying, refused to talk to anyone, and did not respond by name Bobby. However, the accounts of the next day are consistent: the press reports that the police are allowing Lessa to bathe the boy. While bathing, the woman notices a scar on the toe of her right foot, identical to Bobby's. In the presence of the press, Lessa announces, "Thank God, this is my son." The police have a problem, however, because the detained William Walters constantly insists that the boy taken from him is Bruce, son of Julia Anderson. The case is high-profile and the authorities cannot afford to ignore this testimony, so they pull Julia Anderson from North Carolina (one of the newspapers is paying for her trip). After a very long journey, the woman arrives and, despite the fact that she is very tired and sleepy, is immediately "tested". The police take five different boys one by one into the room she was invited to. One of the children is crying loudly; Julia points to them and says, "Is that my son?" The officials do not answer, although Julia has correctly solved the "riddle" - they observe the child, who only cries spasmodically and think that his behavior does not indicate that he considers Julia a mother. The situation is even more difficult for the policemen, as they now have two mothers, each of whom claims that the boy is her child, and now it is necessary to decide which of them to give them away. They know that their decision should be based on facts - so they think that the boy is not reacting to Julia's presence; in their view, this excludes her as a mother. Whether this decision was impartial is to be doubted. The press already knew the details of Julia's life and made them public, such as the fact that her first child died, the second was put up for adoption, and the fate of the third was apparently unclear. Maybe it was given to someone or it just died, and Julia, for fear of the consequences, had agreed on this version with Walters a long time ago? Also, the fact that Julia Anderson is single has a very negative impact on her morale and therefore on her credibility; some journalists even hint that she earns a living as a prostitute. At the same time, the police have a choice of Lessa, the wife of a wealthy merchant, a caring and loving mother who has been suffering for eight months after losing her son. The police make a decision in favor of Dunbar and give the boy back to them. The country is spreading the news of a happy end to the Bobby case and a "happy return home". When the Dunbars drive into the Opelousas, almost the entire city comes out to meet them. Julia has no money to pay for a lawyer or to stay in Poplarville, so she travels back to North Carolina.

William Walters is in jail awaiting trial. His position is very bad, the man must reckon with the fact that he will be condemned to death and executed. In Poplarville, he is not silent about the case. Witness statements are collected for the purposes of the trial, and many residents testify under oath that the accused was seen with the child long before Bobby Dunbar disappeared. However, this has no major impact on the outcome of the trial: in 1914, William Walters is sentenced to life imprisonment for the kidnapping of Bobby Dunbar. His defense attorneys are appealing, however, and the state's supreme court orders a retrial. Walters is fired because, according to the records, "the first trial cost the city so much money, prosecutors decided to drop the case instead"; the man is released after two years in prison. He returns to his old life, tuning pianos and repairing organs in village churches. For her, analyzing the documents that Margaret, granddaughter of Bobby Dunbar, received from her father, is just the beginning of her work. Margaret begins visiting archives, libraries, and courts in small towns in the South. She gets to the lengthy testimony given under oath by Julia Anderson - a woman who, until now, in her mind was only an assistant to kidnapper Walters. In that statement, Julia states that William Walters set out with her son Bruce in February 1912; she herself refused to allow the child to be taken for that long, but the boy liked Walters and would go anywhere with him. Julia Anderson emphasizes that Walters has always been very kind to her son, that the child found is definitely Bruce and that Walters is not the kidnapper. Margaret also finds a letter written by William Walters himself just days after he was arrested and thrown in prison. The letter is addressed directly to Percy Dunbar, who has just taken the boy home with him: "You got Bruce, but you brought misfortune. I have not been given a chance to prove the truth, but I feel you know you are wrong. It is very likely that I will be lost by this, but if I do, you will be accountable to God for what you have done. " In Margaret's reception, the words of both Julia Anderson and William Walters sound true through and through. Her own family history slowly begins to change its face, and the woman knows that she will not be at peace until all doubts are resolved.

So, in 2000, Margaret organizes a meeting with the descendants of Julia Anderson. Julia's children, Hollis Rawls and Jewel Tarver are present at the meeting, and Jewel's daughter Linda is also present. From Julia's children, Margaret learns many interesting things, including the fact that their mother was completely devastated after taking her child from her. The townspeople believed in her truthfulness and supported her during the trial, and afterward helped her settle in Poplarville. Julia got married and had seven children. She found solace in faith, worked in the local church, and worked as a nurse and midwife for many years. Hollis and Jewel point out that when their mother was alive, she always spoke of the baby that was taken from her - she recalled what Bruce looked like, mentioned that he did this or that. She never forgot him, and all her children grew up believing they had an older brother, Bruce, who had been taken from them by the Dunbar family of Opelousas. Julia's children also explain to Margaret why the mother, even after years, did not take any steps to get her son back: it was because of the fear of the Dunbar family; Julia emphasized at every step that since such harm had been done to her in the majesty of the law, it means that this family, in the event of a dispute, could be very harmful to them. Julia did not have the money to even travel to Louisiana, let alone reopen the court case. Margaret slowly realizes that her world is turning upside down - she herself is not a descendant of the Dunbar from Opelousas, but a completely different family and her whole life are in some sense based on a lie. Now, the final confirmation of this fact, i.e. the DNA test result, would be needed. The thought had occurred to her before, but Margaret then encountered unexpected resistance from her family, who were firmly against further "rummaging through the story." Even Margaret's father did not want it, even though he himself gave his daughter the documentation that started it all. The woman cannot decide to run the DNA test against everyone's will, so the matter is still delayed. In 2003, however, Allen Breed, a journalist at the Associated Press, learns about Margaret's research. To Margaret's surprise, the journalist manages to persuade her father to submit to the test. Apart from him, David (son of Alonz, that is the brother of Bobby Dunbar) agrees to the test. Now it will be clarified whether both men are in fact cousins, that is, children of two brothers.

The truth turns out to be shocking, even as Margaret might have expected it: the men are not related. The conducted test is therefore irresistible evidence that the boy "recovered" in 1913 was not the son of the Dunbar. For Margaret, this also means that her grandparents were living a lie - the woman believes that Lessie and Percy realized that the boy they found was another woman's child. Their selfishness, however, was so strong that all that mattered was their willingness to "get" Bobby back, at least at the cost of taking the child from another mother or the death of an innocent man. After reading the obtained documentation, Margaret knows that the Dunbars did not enjoy the family happy for long. They separated in 1920, that is seven years later; Lessie left her husband and second son, Alonz, and moved to New Orleans. Divorce records say she accused Percy of years of unfaithfulness, and it is also known that in 1920, Percy beat and stabbed a man while traveling to Florida (exactly on the eighth anniversary of Bobby's disappearance). It's hard to resist the feeling that William Walters' words in his letter to the Dunbar turned out to be prophetic… Anyway, Bobby himself must have known something. Uncle Margaret Gerald - and Bobby Dunbar's youngest son - now tells his nieces how years ago they returned home from Ohio with their family and traveled across the Mississippi. Gerald was about thirteen at the time, so it must have been 1963. When they were passing through Poplarville, his father at one point said, "This is where the people who took me to live." The DNA test results are a shock for Margaret's father as well, while the rest of the family is offended by her and accuses her of acting against their will. Since then, there has been no contact between Margaret and the rest of her relatives. The results of Margaret's work are compensation for both Julia's and William Walters' descendants, for now, it is officially known that they both spoke the truth. Margaret suspects that the "real" Bobby Dunbar drowned in a lake or wetland and was eaten by alligators. In 2012, the book "A Case for Solomon: Bobby Dunbar and the Kidnapping That Haunted a Nation" is published - Margaret wrote it together with a journalist named Tal McThenia.

Mysterious DNA

The value of DNA testing in forensics is beyond dispute - which is why what happened to 23-year-old Candy could, at least in the beginning, be more of a science fiction movie script; but because it really happened, it will remain one of the most interesting and bizarre cases in the history of DNA forensics. Candy, 23, lives in Kipling, Canada, Saskatchewan. Candy has a daughter who is raised alone. Her parents help her upbringing, thanks to which the girl can work. The year is 1992. On the night of Halloween, Candy's boyfriend comes to visit when Candy is just finishing work. It just so happens that they have an argument between them, after which the jittery Candy gets into the car and, having a no better idea, goes to her friend who works at the local hospital. Unfortunately, her friend is not at work, but one of the nurses, who are concerned about Candy's mental state, calls the doctor on duty. Candy happens to know him well - this is John Schneeberger, her family doctor. Doctor Schneeberger is a very nice man, considered a great specialist and, of course, very well known in a small Kipling, where he enjoys widespread respect and sympathy. Candy tells him that her upset is due to a recent fight. She expects to be given some sedation pills, so she is a bit surprised when the doctor gives her an injection.

She also notes that the injection has a very strong effect: Candy feels paralyzed after a while, and when she tries to move, it turns out that it is actually impossible. So the woman tries to scream but is unable to make any sound. She is overwhelmed by fear. Her awareness is dim, but Candy seems to be taking off her panties. However, he does not see this person. She also has the feeling that she is raped. As time passes and Candy is slowly recovering, there is no one but her in the doctor's office. She realizes she's wet in her crotch. Her thoughts and movements are still sluggish, but the woman is so touched by what she survived and so awake that she decides to keep her underwear as evidence. So he takes off his panties and puts them in a transparent foil bag, which he finds in a drawer. Candy is dizzy. A nurse appears in the office - when she sees Candy, he persuades her to stay overnight in the hospital. Candy agrees and stays until morning, but never tells anyone about the rape. The next day, Candy goes to Dr. Schneeberger and in a raised voice says to him, "What the hell did you give me last night?" The doctor reacts calmly - she just asks if she has had any bad dreams. Candy suddenly realizes that this is the reaction of someone who pretends that nothing happened. The woman runs out of the office. 

Straight from the hospital, Candy goes to her parents and tells them about the events of the night before and about her suspicions. Parents believe their daughter's story and agree that it is necessary to act immediately. Candy goes to the town of Regina, which is 2 hours away from Kipling. There is a clinic with a unit dedicated to rape victims. Candy wants a test run there. Doctors at the clinic in Regina find semen on the panties Candy had the previous night in the hospital, on her jeans, and a vaginal swab. A blood test shows Candy has an anesthetic called 'Versed'. This medicine has a muscle relaxant effect: you cannot speak or move your limbs after taking it; this fits in with the symptoms the woman had the night before. Candy officially files a rape charge against Dr. John Schneeberger. In a small Kipling, this information causes a storm. First of all, very many residents consider it a lie. Dr. Schneeberger is a respected member of the community and has never been accused of any similar act - many have suggested that Candy, as a single mother, wanted to pick up a wealthy married doctor, and when that failed, she now takes revenge and tries to extort him compensation. These people emphasize that Candy's story has many obscure moments, and it is particularly strange that after Candy's alleged rape, she left the hospital overnight without mentioning anything to the nurses. But John Schneeberger has to react somehow, so in order to divert suspicions while ending discussions as quickly as possible, he agrees to have blood drawn for DNA analysis. The test result is unambiguous: the doctor's DNA does not match the DNA from sperm in underwear and on a vaginal swab.

Candy is shocked, but at the same time so convinced that she is right, she won't let it go. In the following months, he sends complaints and grievances wherever he can, insisting that there was some fake in the hospital while the DNA was being tested. In August 1993, the doctor, feeling pressure, declares his readiness to undergo another DNA test. In the hospital laboratory, a nurse takes his blood, but this time the entire procedure is broadcast live and watched by investigators from the Kipling police station. The policemen can see the needle sticking into the doctor's arm; test tubes with blood samples are immediately delivered to the police medical laboratory. The result of the test, however, is identical to the previous one: the doctor's DNA is different from the DNA from the samples found on the underwear and on Candy's body. DNA tests are irrefutable evidence, and this was the second study in the Candy case. The police inform the woman that the investigation will be discontinued. Candy protests and continues to insist that something is wrong. But by now, most people at Kipling believe that the woman is either a cheat or simply mentally disturbed and hurts Dr. Schneeberger and his family. Lisa, the doctor's wife, is on the husband's side and also considers Candy a trickster. Dr. Schneeberger tells various people that the explanation for how Candy felt after the injection was the effect of the drug he gave her: the drug could have caused hallucinations, in this case of an erotic nature. According to Candy, it might even be acceptable to accept this explanation, but the effect of the drug probably does not explain the presence of sperm on her body and underwear, since - as she has repeatedly stated - she had her last intercourse many weeks before that unlucky night. Despite widespread condemnation from the small community, Candy, convinced of the doctor's guilt, continues, this time on her own. He hires a detective who breaks into Schneeberger's car. The detective has to find anything that could be used to test the DNA. She finds hair on the back of the driver's seat; He also takes a protective lipstick from the car. As it turns out in the laboratory, hair is not suitable for a DNA test because it has no roots. But on the lipstick, there are epithelial cells from the person who used it the last time. This is where the DNA is isolated and… for the first time the lab has good news for Candy: the DNA code on the lipstick matches the one that had the material taken from Candy !!!

Candy finally feels that something is starting to add up, even though the matter is problematic: first, it is impossible to conclusively prove that the doctor used lipstick; second, evidence obtained illegally is not counted in court anyway. But assuming that the lipstick cells belong to Schneeberger, the fundamental question arises: why is their DNA different from that of his blood cells ?! Candy, trying to find any possibility of taking further official action, complains about Schneeberger to the Medical Association. After the complaint hits, Schneeberger is forced to consent to another DNA test. It's November 1996. This time, the test takes place at a police forensic laboratory and the entire procedure is videotaped. Schneeberger is kind and cooperative. When the doctor wants to take blood from his finger, the doctor refuses - he explains that, due to his condition, inserting a needle causes him to develop blue stains; he prefers, therefore, that the needle should be driven higher, i.e. near the elbow, because the stains are easy to hide then.

The problem seems a bit bizarre, but because the doctor voluntarily agreed to the test, he cannot be made to do anything. So the doctor sticks the needle into his left forearm, but the blood cannot be collected. She tries a different syringe and finally succeeds. But… something's wrong. The doctor says, “There is something strange about this blood. She doesn't look fresh. " The laboratory also decides that the blood is unfit for testing. Candy is furious. For her, it was perhaps the last hard-fought chance to prove her DNA compliance (and therefore the rape committed against her), and in the lab, they had clearly screwed up again! For now, however, the woman cannot do anything because the police have no grounds to initiate another case against the doctor or to take further action. It is April 25, 1997. On this day, Dr. Schneeberger's 15-year-old foster daughter (his wife's daughter from her first marriage) says to her mother, "Mom, I have to tell you something," and then leads her mother to her room and shows her the used condom. she found in her bed. The girl adds, "Mum, he did this to me before." The teenager claims that his stepfather has come to her room at night and given her injections many times over the past few years. Lisa, the teen's mother, and Schneeberger's wife is shocked but immediately go to action. He goes to her husband's office, where she quickly finds a box of condoms, needles, and drugs, including "Versed." Lisa reports the matter to the police. Schneeberger is arrested and has to undergo another DNA test. This time, many samples are taken: hair, saliva, blood (this time from the finger, not the forearm). All three DNA profiles match those found on Candy's body. One question remains: how did the doctor manage to manipulate the DNA samples in previous tests, especially since both the laboratory technician and the policemen observing the test confirm that the needle was definitely inserted into his vein? But this question is finally answered by the accused himself. In November 1999, during an ongoing trial, John Schneeberger said that he had slipped a 15 cm plastic test tube with the blood of one of his patients under the skin of his forearm. It was for this reason, of course, that during the third examination he was so insistent not to draw blood from his finger. In the video from 1996, you can see that Dr. Schneeberger pulls up his sleeve very carefully and not too high - he obviously wants the place with the test tube to remain covered. But when you zoom in on the frame, you can see for a moment how the test tube stands out under the skin. When this third DNA test was performed, the blood in the test tube was already five years old and dark (and this aroused the doctor's distrust). During the trial, Schneeberger denies raping Candy. He claims that the woman probably broke into his house, took a used condom, and stained her clothes with its contents. The doctor explains the use of his patient's blood as follows: He did it because he saw no other way to defend himself. Despite these translations, Dr. Schneeberger is found guilty of raping Candy and misleading law enforcement. He is also found guilty of the rape of his stepdaughter and sentenced to a total of 6 years in prison. In 2003, after serving 4 years, Schneeberger is paroled from prison. As his Canadian citizenship is revoked (Schneeberger was born in Zambia and obtained Canadian citizenship in 1993), he leaves Canada and returns to South Africa.

The Stranger in the Park - the Stephanie Drews case

The murder of 10-year-old Stephanie Drews took place in the newly reunified Germany, shortly after the so-called breakthrough. Due to its brutality, the affair shocked an entire region. What happened to Stephanie shows that, unfortunately, we can never be sure how, for example, our child in a given situation will react to a proposal from a stranger - because this reaction is influenced by things that cannot be predicted. It is the summer of 1991, nearly a year after German reunification. Ten-year-old Stephanie Drews lives in Weimar, a city considered a jewel of German and European cultural history. In the vicinity of her residence, there is a beautiful, huge park, founded in the 18th century with the participation of the famous writer Goethe. This park, preserved to this day in an almost original shape, is visited by crowds of tourists - a fact that will be of great importance later. Children who live in the area also play naturally in this park. On August 23, Stephanie is here with her two younger siblings and her close friend Sabrina G. On that day, a characteristic incident occurs: the girls are accosted by a young man they don't know who tries to give them the ice cream they bought. In response to this offer, Sabrina replies that they are not accepting anything from strangers - then the girls get up and walk away quickly. The next day in the afternoon the children also spend time in the park, this time playing near the famous sphinx cave. Suddenly, the same young man who offered them ice cream the day before appears nearby. It stands on a small hill behind the grotto. She calls Sabrina and Stephanie over, asking if they've lost their money here. Running up, the girls notice that the man is holding a banknote. As they notice after a while, it is a 50-mark banknote. "No, it's not ours," they reply. A young woman with a baby in a pram is sitting nearby on a bench. Later she will remember a young man talking to two girls on the hill above the grotto; says she's never seen him here in the park before. The woman will also say that she noticed a couple (most likely tourists) who were at the same time at the grotto: the man was filming his companion standing in front of the grotto. As the police later say, it is very likely that a man talking to the girls was filmed at the same time. His conversation with the children continues for some time - the man asks about school and the like, probably wanting to gain their trust. At one point, he asks if they know how to get to the Belweder Palace. As the girls nod, the man asks if one of them would like to come with him to show him where it is. Neither of them is particularly inclined to do so, but then the man unexpectedly takes a banknote from his pocket (the same one he kept earlier) and announces that it will be a reward for taking him to the palace. You can see from Stephanie that she would love to earn 50 Marks; seeing this, the man adds that his car is just around the corner, so they would drive a short distance just so he could see where the palace was, and then he would drive Stephanie back right away. Hearing about getting in the car, Sabrina steps back and firmly states that she doesn't want to. Stephanie, on the other hand, decides to go and asks her friend to look after her siblings during this time.

Stephanie leaves with the stranger. Sabrina then checks her watch. It's a quarter to four. Sabrina waits and waits for her friend, but time passes and Stephanie does not return. Sabrina leads the toddlers to Stephanie's house herself and informs her parents that Stephanie is away because she has gone with some gentlemen to show him the way to Belvedere. The parents are terrified, the father immediately goes to the park to look for his daughter. But it didn't help, and Stephanie was like a rock to water. Two days later, the massacred body of Stephanie was found on Highway 4 between Jena and Gera, 35 km from Weimar, under the Teufelstalbrücke (lit. "Devil's Viaduct"). During the inspection, it was found that the girl was still alive when she was thrown from the viaduct - therefore she died as a result of injuries after the fall. It was most likely the first night after the girl was kidnapped. From the very beginning, a very intensive search for a man from the park was carried out. The age of the alleged perpetrator is approximately 20 years or more, and the height is approximately 170 cm. The perpetrator had short blonde hair with a fringe combed to the left side. During the conversation with the children, the man said that he had a wife, was with Eisenach, and had a red minibus - this information, of course, did not have to be true, but there was a chance that it would lead to the perpetrator, who could have repeated it under similar circumstances. It was also certain that he had access to drugs that were normally prescription, as Stephanie's body had been found to contain various sedatives; the girl - at least at the time of being thrown off the overpass - was probably unconscious. Despite extensive searches, no trace of the murderer was found. Manfred Augner, the retired criminal commissioner who dealt with the disappearance of Stephanie Drews at the time, considers the case to be one of the most difficult he has encountered in his long professional career. In October 2016, the police in Thuringia set up a special commission to deal with unsolved cases of child murder. There are three cases under investigation: Stephanie Drews, nine-year-old Bernd Beckmann, and ten-year-old Ramona Kraus. These cases were returned in the hope that the latest technology could aid the work of investigators. In May 2017, as part of their work on the Bernd Beckmann murder case, police photographed the area around the site where the boy's body was found in 1993. Photos are taken from a helicopter, with a drone, and simply from a boat; thanks to the data obtained in this way, the place where the body was found at that time is to be recreated - in the form of a three-dimensional model. The resulting model is a kind of virtual imitation of such a place, computer-coupled with all data obtained thanks to the traces left behind, as well as from the testimonies of witnesses. The computer loading of this information allows you to put it together and visualize it. This, in turn, enables the simulation of the course of events, i.e. its potential versions, and thus their exclusion or confirmation.

In July 2017, the German TV station MDR broadcasts the program "Kripo live", in which the police repeatedly ask any witnesses to report if they can provide any information. The appeal is effective: a witness reports to the police that on that day he noticed a man dropping something from an overpass. There was a small delivery truck next to the man. The witness, who was working in roadside assistance at the time, made a note of the car's registration numbers because he thought that perhaps an intervention would be necessary for connection with this incident. As emphasized by the police, it was standard practice at the time for roadside assistance workers to make these types of notes. The witness no longer has that note but is sure what its fragments looked like. What the witness remembers indicates that it was a (yet) GDR registration from the Dresden and Görlitz region. Having received this information, the police in various media ask everyone who has something to say about a vehicle with such license plates (the make and color of the vehicle are unknown) to contact them. On Sunday, March 4, 2018, after 8 a.m., a special police unit stormed the apartment of 65-year-old Hans-Joachim G. in Berlin (Reinickendorf district). Hans-Joachim G., a driver by profession, was arrested on suspicion of the murder of Stephanie Drews nearly 27 years ago. The man lived alone; his neighbors considered him nice, polite, and unobtrusive. A very large amount of sedatives was found in his apartment. The media also reports that the detainee confessed to the murder, and a children's pencil case and white gloves were found and secured in his truck parked in front of the house.

The invisible woman

The following case is one of the most mysterious and the strangest in the history of world forensics and will certainly find its way into textbooks in this field. And rightly so - the story of Petra P. certainly deserves it. It is 1984. 24-year-old Petra P. is studying computer science at the Technical University in Braunschweig, Germany. Petra lives in a dormitory. Her family home is in Wolfsburg, less than forty kilometers away; the girl goes there almost every week, spending weekends with her parents and younger brother. She is a calm and diligent student, and recently she has been mainly writing her master's thesis. On Sunday, July 22, parents escort Petra to the "Rasthof" bus stop. The stop is on the outskirts of the city on the four-lane federal road to Braunschweig; This is where the road crosses the surrounding forest. From this stop, Petra always drives to the university when she returns to the dorm on Sunday. Parents and daughters talk about current affairs while waiting for the bus. The conversation concerns Petra's plans for the next few days, and also the thesis, which the girl is just finishing writing. The work is about a hundred pages long, and Petra is now waiting to be typed. The girl also confirms that she will come home next Thursday, the day her brother Karsten has his birthday. Since the parents are to go on a two-week holiday to Italy in the coming days, Petra intends to move to her family home for this time - on the one hand, to finish her master's thesis in peace and quiet, and on the other to look after her younger brother. On Thursday, July 26, Petra is making final preparations before leaving for Wolfsburg. She asks her friend from the dormitory to water the flowers during her two-week absence. She arranges with him that the key to his room will be left for him in the door. So he does when he leaves the dorm that afternoon. He takes the manuscript of his master's thesis with him. Then he looks for a present for his brother in an office supply store - it is to be a special colored tape for the computer. Since the ribbon with this symbol is not in the assortment, Petra leaves the store without buying it.

Then the girl goes to the dentist for an appointment. The visit, as it is later stated, takes place between 2 pm and 3 pm; the doctor also sets another date. This is where the last trace ends - Petra does not appear in her family home anymore. The next day, her brother reports her missing. The police assume that Petra, as planned, went home, that is, she got on a bus to Wolfsburg and, as usual, got off at the "Rasthof" stop. To check this, the officers question both the bus driver and passengers on the line. While no one confirms that Petra got on the bus, the police assume that it did. There are two serious arguments in favor of this: firstly, it is obvious that it was not possible to interview all the passengers, secondly, in recent days Petra behaved as usual, and on Thursday, on the day she disappeared, she got things done exactly as she had planned. Therefore, it is difficult to find any indications that the girl would change her intentions on that Thursday and not get on the bus. Days pass, then weeks. There is still no trace of Petra, and the investigation has yielded no results. It is more and more likely that the student has been the victim of a crime.

The police are considering different versions of the events, but the most probable is that Petra disappeared near the Rasthof bus stop on the way to Braunschweig, and that something bad happened to her there. This version is supported by the fact that a year earlier a girl was raped and murdered in the vicinity of this stop. It happened almost at the same time (it was July 18, 1983). The then victim of Kerstin W. was 14 years old. She lived with her parents on the outskirts of Wolfsburg, and that day she went shopping in the city center by bike, just along the road to Braunschweig. It is known that she got there because in the very center of the city she was seen by some of her friends; So she was probably attacked when she was returning from the city. When Kerstin's murderer was caught after some time, he also confessed to murdering Petra P. After checking his testimony, the police found it untrue. Since Petra's body was not found and no trace of her alive was found, she was pronounced dead in 1989.

It's September 11, 2015. One of the inhabitants of a five-story building in the very center of Düsseldorf calls the police because she discovers suspicious traces on the entrance door to her neighbor's apartment: these are deep scratches in the wood, most likely indicative of an attempted burglary. The police are knocking on the door of Mrs. Schneider who lives there (this is the name on the plate), but the 55-year-old woman shows a complete lack of interest in investigating the burglary. Since this behavior seems suspicious to the officers, they ask her to provide her personal details and documents. The woman informs them that Schneider's name is not real - her real name is Petra P. and she is a student from Wolfsburg, who disappeared in 1984. This testimony gives the impression of being made spontaneously, but its content is so improbable that the policemen find it difficult to believe the story. The woman then shows her identity card issued years ago in the name of Petra P. (and of course, long expired) and claims that she has been living in hiding for 31 years because she does not want to have contact with her family. As it should be assumed, the woman preferred not to report the break-in (which actually took place) in order to continue to hide her true identity. When, after checking, it turns out that the woman is indeed missing and presumed dead Petra P., the surprise is huge. But Petra, when asked about her willingness to contact her family, officially confesses to the police that she definitely does not want this contact. Sensational information makes its way to the media and quickly circulates not only in Germany but also around the world. No wonder, because "finding" a person who was missing 31 years ago, alive and healthy, is a real phenomenon on a global scale. One of the questions that immediately arises is how you can function in a completely hidden society for 31 years - especially in today's world, so full of bureaucracy and at the same time dominated by various systems of electronic identity identification. Petra gives the police explanations that seem to be sufficient to explain how she could have lived without insurance, a valid ID card, or a bank account: she paid the rent in cash, and the doctor's bills as well; the mobile phone she had was with a prepaid card. Yes, she was not registered in the place of residence in accordance with the regulations, but the police emphasize that it is only a misdemeanor. None of Petra's actions, starting with her disappearance and hiding for years, is a crime. At the time of her explanations, it is not even certain whether her many years of illegal work will be classified as tax fraud. It is also known that during these 31 years, Petra lived in various cities in the western part of the country, and for eleven years in a building in Düsseldorf. She had never been in any relationship, had no friends or acquaintances, and lived in almost complete isolation.

Soon her immediate family also learns that Petra has found herself: her 80-year-old mother and brother (her father had died a few years earlier). Both, according to the media, say that they "cried all day" after receiving the news that Petra was alive. Yet another shock awaits them when they are informed that Petra does not want to have contact with them. For the mother, as the German press writes, this news is "like another news of death". As for his brother, he declined to comment on his reaction to this information. It is known, however, that they both wrote a letter to Petra, assuring her that if she changed her mind, she would be welcomed by them with open arms. The most important question probably remains: what made the 24-year-old girl decide to completely break with her life so far and with her loved ones? Unfortunately, the problem is that Petra flatly refused to answer them. The police tried to persuade her to explain in some way, therefore they were asked if there was violence in the family or if, for example, there was sexual abuse, but the woman strongly denied it. She also did not agree to any interviews or any contact with the media. Therefore, only speculation remains as to the reasons for her disappearance 31 years ago. In any case, it is known for certain that it was not the result of a spontaneous decision: Petra had rented an apartment in Gelsenkirchen (located approximately 350 km from Wolfsburg) much earlier and had been secretly saving money for a long time. On the other hand, it is also known that when she studied and lived in a dorm, she would go home regularly every week for the weekend - and it's hard to imagine that someone voluntarily returns to the abusive home. There is also no indication that Petra herself committed any crime that made her want to hide from the world. Since it is obvious that in a seemingly functioning family there may be problems that are invisible to outsiders, nothing can be ruled out here. One of the German newspapers writes: “The former neighbors in Mörse describe the atmosphere in the family as cool. On the other hand, there are rumors that the father, Laszlo P., charter a helicopter to search for his daughter at his own expense. She reportedly felt a strong pressure of success from her dominant university-educated father. "However, it should be emphasized once again that these are only speculations, and the answer to the question "Why?" only Petr knows. Her story is so far like a puzzle picture with too many pieces missing. To this day, despite the passage of several years from the moment of "finding" Petra, the woman remains silent, so there are many indications that we will never know anything more.