Professional boxer Viviane Obenauf Tagliavini criticizes the circumstantial process – lawyer Valentin Landmann counters it
«Witnesses can lie, circumstantial evidence cannot»
Professional boxer Viviane Obenauf Tagliavini has been convicted of murder. She is said to have killed her husband. She now wants to move on with the verdict. The chances of a lighter sentence are intact in a circumstantial process, says lawyer Valentin Landmann.
Published: 11 minutes ago
1/7
Convicted of murder: professional boxer Viviane Obenauf Tagliavini is said to have murdered her husband with a baseball bat.
Fabian BabicEditor News
After the hearing, the matter was clear for the Oberland regional court in Thun BE: Viviane Obenauf Tagliavini (36) murdered her husband Thomas F.* († 61). The professional boxer from Interlaken BE has been sentenced to 16 years in prison. She also received a 12-year expulsion from the country.
During the December hearing, the court president said the trial was circumstantial. Nobody saw how cult host Thomas F. was killed. “It is clear in a circumstantial process that not all the evidence is available that proves an act with absolute certainty. There is much more of a mosaic picture, as the public prosecutor’s office had also carried out, »said the judge.
Professional boxer fights back
Accordingly, it is difficult to make a clear judgment in such a process. Prosecutors brought forward several pieces of evidence intended to prove Obenauf Tagliavini’s guilt.
In the SonntagsBlick, in her first interview since the night of the crime on October 19, 2020, Obenauf Tagliavini criticized the regional court’s guilty verdict. “There was not a single direct proof of my guilt.” The reasoning of the public prosecutor’s office was built on circumstantial evidence that is said to have resulted in a puzzle, says Obenauf Tagliavini during a visit to the prison by SonntagsBlick. “Although pieces of the puzzle were missing, a coherent picture should have been recognizable, which ultimately led to my conviction. This court needed a perpetrator, the pressure in the region was too great.”
On top of that, Tagliavini and her attorney are taking the case to the Supreme Court. They hope that the 36-year-old will be acquitted.
«Indication can be overstated»
What difficulties do such circumstantial processes pose? The Zurich lawyer Valentin Landmann (72) classifies. “In itself, the circumstantial evidence is the best evidence,” he says to Blick. “Witnesses can lie, circumstantial evidence cannot.” A circumstantial process can be tough and ultimately lead to a secure result.
However, one thing always has to be considered, says Landmann: “The question always arises of how to evaluate the evidence and what to conclude from it.” For example, the DNA trace of a suspected perpetrator at the scene of a killing could be clear evidence. But: “If the perpetrator is there regularly, the evidence loses a lot of weight.”
Landmann’s conclusion: “An indication cannot be wrong, but it can be overestimated.”
High court could correct verdict
In the case of a conviction in a circumstantial process, it is not unusual for the judgment to be appealed to a higher instance. Tagliavini does the same on top. “The Supreme Court has a comprehensive control function. It can examine a case in its entirety,” explains Landmann. Therefore, there is still hope for those convicted: “The higher court has a good chance that a judgment will be corrected.”
At least that’s what professional boxer Viviane Obenauf Tagliavini is firmly convinced of. “We have new facts and I assume that this time the investigation will be different: fairer, more balanced, more far-reaching. There has to be justice.”
* Name changed