The Ursula Herrmann kidnapping mystery

theguardian.com

26 points·oska··4 comments

Recognizing that I don't have much knowledge about this case—I only know what I read in the linked article—it certainly doesn't seem as though that man should have been convicted. All the evidence is circumstantial, and there really isn't all that much of it.

And, using the sound of a tape recorder to identify the guy? Really? That doesn't even pass the smell test for me.

I'm not 100% convinced he's not the culprit, but the case described in the article doesn't come close to "beyond a reasonable doubt", for me.

I don't understand the part of the story where the search strategy suddenly switches to meticulously probing the soil throughout the forrest? How did the police come to the conclusion she was burried underground? How did they know to search for a hard box at a known shallow depth?

EDIT: apparently the brother made a website:

https://www.ursulaherrmann.org

> How did they know to search for a hard box at a known shallow depth?

They didn't. They would have been searching for a shallow grave.

Thanks for linking the brother's website. I found his letter interesting, particularly this part towards the end:

> For me, there is increasing evidence suggesting the involvement of a group of people who have insofar only been rudimentarily looked at. A fresh look at the evidence and new methodology yielded very well founded suspicions against known individuals.

What a terrible story and a fantastic telling of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com