– Viviane Obenauf has to go to prison for 18 years
The boxing world champion and her lawyer were unable to convince the three-member panel of judges that the accused were innocent.
Published today at 10:03 am
Viviane Obenauf during a boxing match against Bulgarian Luchiya Doncheva in December 2014 in Bern.
Photo: Peter Klaunzer (Keystone)
Boxing world champion Viviane Obenauf’s protestations of innocence did not convince the Bern High Court. On Friday the confirmed The 1st Criminal Chamber accepted the guilty verdict of the lower court and sentenced the Brazilian woman to 18 years in prison and 14 years of expulsion from the country for murder. The 37-year-old’s lawyer had called for a complete acquittal, while the public prosecutor had argued for a sentence of 18½ years.
In December 2022, the Oberland regional court in Thun sentenced the athlete and mother of a 13-year-old son to 16 years in prison and 12 years of expulsion from the country. The trip to the Bern High Court ended with an increased punishment for the accused.
Obenauf, who lived on Lake Brienz in the Bernese Oberland before her arrest, accepted the verdict without moving.
The Bern High Court considers it proven that Viviane Obenauf killed her husband Martin F. (name changed) with a baseball bat on October 18, 2020 in his apartment in Interlaken. The couple lived separately at the time. According to the verdict, Obenauf drove from Oberried to Interlaken in her car to commit the murder of the tenant of the Des Alpes restaurant. She then returned to her apartment, where she left her then nine-year-old son sleeping.
“I’m not lying”: Viviane Obenauf on February 19, 2024 during the one-day hearing at the Bern High Court.
Court drawing: Karin Widmer
The higher court convicted the world boxing champion on the basis of a variety of evidence, which the public prosecutor described as “overwhelming” in her plea last Monday. There is no doubt that Viviane Obenauf is guilty. The prosecution accused the Brazilian of having acted with almost uninhibited violence. The 61-year-old victim was seriously injured with 19 blows to the head and face and another to the torso and died in agony after a death struggle that probably lasted several minutes.
The morning after the crime, it was Obenauf who entered the apartment first. The public prosecutor and now also the higher court described it as shocking that she took her son with her and made him see his stepfather covered in blood.
The blood splatters on the shoes
An important indication of Obenauf’s guilt is the fact that her shoes had microscopic blood spatters that could be traced back to the victim. The defense had mentioned other possibilities as to how the spatter could have gotten on Obenauf’s shoes. For example, when she found the body on the morning of October 19th. However, according to the higher court, this explanation is not valid for forensic reasons. What also speaks for the Brazilian woman’s guilt is that a jacket that Obenauf was presumably wearing during the crime had traces of the victim’s blood and a DNA trace of the accused.
According to the Bern High Court, traces in Martin F.’s bedroom also point to Obenauf’s perpetrator. The victim’s cell phone, which was there, was disconnected from the charger and destroyed. A third-party perpetrator would have had no reason for this, in contrast to the accused, who was angry because of messages she read on her cell phone and may have seen as evidence of the strained relationship.
On Monday, Obenauf’s defense attorney pointed out a circumstance that was not mentioned in the lower court’s ruling: Obenauf’s son watched the film “Harry Potter 5” on the evening of the crime and then went to bed – at a time when his mother was still stayed in the apartment. The film demonstrably lasts a very long time, so that the events could not have taken place in time, as the prosecution claims. According to the defense, Obenauf simply would not have had enough time to commit the crime in Interlaken and then return to her apartment.
According to the higher court, there is numerous evidence that Obenauf left the apartment. And tried to create an alibi by streaming a film on her iPad – the content of which she then knew little about. Contrary to the defense’s statements, according to the higher court, the evidence also coincides seamlessly in terms of time.
The defense also tried to refute the testimony of a car mechanic who claimed to have seen the defendant’s car, a Cadillac SRX, driving through a roundabout on the night of the crime. He was accompanied by a colleague and a colleague. In the eyes of the defense attorney, this witness’s statements became increasingly detailed as the investigation progressed – probably under the influence of media reports. They also partially contradicted each other. Obenauf’s lawyer also pointed out that his client had herself asked to evaluate the vehicle’s on-board computer. “As the perpetrator, she certainly wouldn’t have asked for that.” However, the request failed because such evaluations are not possible for a vehicle manufactured in 2006.
The higher court, on the other hand, considers the car mechanic’s statements to be “extremely credible”. Even the minor discrepancies in the descriptions of the three people who were near the roundabout on the night of the crime would not change this. The court president rejected the defense’s assumption that it could be a deliberate false statement as unconvincing. A previous dispute between the accused and the workshop for which the witness works is not a plausible motive to frame someone for murder. Especially since the mechanic didn’t claim to have seen Viviane Obenauf behind the wheel.
Viviane Obenauf answers questions from the senior judges.
Court drawing: Karin Widmer
What Obenauf’s defense attorney was unable to convincingly explain was how another perpetrator could have gotten into the apartment. There were no signs of break-in on either the apartment door or the balcony door. The balcony door was open the morning after the crime. The fact that a hypothetical other perpetrator climbed onto the balcony in the hope that the victim had accidentally left the balcony door open on a cold October night was relegated to the realm of “purely theoretical” by the public prosecutor in her plea on Monday. In his verdict, the court president emphasized that there was nothing to indicate that the balcony door was open – especially since the apartment had not “cooled down” in the morning.
Obenauf’s defense attorney also spoke of the possibility that there could be additional keys to the apartment. The public prosecutor also rejected this. Only Obenauf had a spare key. The higher court agreed with this assessment because no additional keys were registered with the property management company.
The higher court considered the murder weapon – a baseball bat that was in the victim’s apartment – as further evidence against Obenauf. A third-party perpetrator would have taken his own weapon and not relied on finding a murder weapon at the crime scene. The court president rejected the defense’s argument that Obenauf would not have been able to carry out such a violent act because of a shoulder injury. The injury was not so bad as to prevent the movements that were necessary for the crime.
Everything points to a relationship crime
What the prosecutor also viewed as strong evidence against the world boxing champion was the fact that the perpetrators had hit Martin F. much more often and much more violently than was necessary to kill him. This procedure, known in legal language as “killing,” is typical of relationship crimes. The prosecutor cited Obenauf’s disappointment that her husband did not want a child with her as a possible motive for the crime. She also felt neglected, ignored and her pride hurt by him. The higher court confirmed this argument. There are several indications that the marriage had broken down.
The way the crime was committed indicates a strong emotional relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. According to the High Court, this clearly speaks against the hypothesis that someone else murdered the Des Alpes tenant. Overall, there is no other evidence of a third-party perpetrator. It is not really possible to understand what exactly provoked Obenauf’s hateful reaction, but the motive remains partially obscure.
The higher court considers the crime to be particularly cruel and unscrupulous, which justifies increasing the prison sentence to 18 years.
Even before the verdict of the Bern High Court, Obenauf had announced that he would continue to fight if convicted. The boxing world champion still has the option of going to the Federal Court. After the higher court’s verdict, her lawyer announced that she would decide whether to go to the highest instance once the written judgment was available. This could take weeks or even months. However, it is likely that the Federal Court will also deal with the case.
More about the Viviane Obenauf caseSandro Benini is an editor in the culture and society department. He studied Italian and German literature and was a Latin America correspondent based in Mexico for eleven years. More info
Found an error? Report now.
60 comments