Talk:Rupperswil murder case

On the use of the mobile phone data

@Yngvadottir: I am not sure that we should leave it unqualified that the mobile phone thing led to Thomas N.'s arrest, especially if Blick is the principal source. The Solothurner Zeitung article seems clear that it didn't really add anything. Apparently the question wasn't a topic at all in the trial, so even the news media are kinda putting things together from leaks etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources do indicate that it played a role. Blick found someone to talk off the record—I cited the big reveal—and say that after the task force got search data from Google, that enabled them to narrow down the huge amount of cellphone data and focus on the particular phone of interest. Note info in that article about his usual pattern and the variation on that day (their point 2; point 3 is they then got a DNA sample). Solothurner Zeitung focuses on debunking the claim published by the cellphone data expert that cellphone data was the key, and points to an additional reason it was such a huge amount: the proximity of the rail line. They also emphasize that how exactly he was identified as a suspect is a state secret, which indeed was not detailed at trial. But scroll down to the quotes from Markus Gisin and Barbara Loppacher: both state that the cellphone data was insufficient on its own, and was supplemented. That paragraph begins with the admission that the state is not revealing why the cellphone data theory is a "myth". And the article also notes that it was possible to filter out the data from rail commuters. So, the nutzlos ('useless') in the headline is not borne out, and I have no reason to doubt that both articles are correct. I'd originally not used that Blick article, while retaining the one we were already citing (a mere mention supporting its being one of the worst crimes in Switzerland; currently the last citation). My rationale was the undesirability of using tabloid sources in a BLP; which was also why I only kept Nick's full name after I found a source other than the UK tabloids. But Solothurner Zeitung has at least one detail that other sources suppressed—the ruse he used to get in—and the two sources corroborate the point: cellphone data did play a role, but in combination with other data. I don't believe Blick is as bad as Bild. If it's thought to be too unreliable a source for us to use, then I believe a careful reading of the article in Solothurner Zeitung suggests the sentence should be changed to "his mobile phone records played a role in identifying him as a suspect.", omitting "and internet search history"; that's the only thing supported only by that Blick article. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can interpret Loppacher's and Gisin's words in this manner; "Es war nicht die eine Methode, die uns zum Täter geführt hat. Es war ein Mix aus verschiedenen Abklärungen." does not reference any particular technique and "Der Antennensuchlauf allein reicht in der Regel nicht zur Aufklärung von schweren Straftaten." is talking about investigating serious crimes in general, not necessarily this particular one. That sounds to me like it may not have played a role at all. The SZ article does reference police officers saying that scouring the area, "unlike the antenna search", at least advanced the investigation. Likewise, "den Mörder auf anderem Weg identifiziert hatten und seine Nummer mit den Antennendaten abglichen" does not indicate that the antenna search made a difference. These things sound like it didn't play a role at all, and I wouldn't use SZ to source such a statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, you read it quite differently from me. "Es war nicht die eine Methode" simply says they used more than one method; "Der Antennensuchlauf allein reicht ... nicht" means cellphone data is insufficient on its own, not that it's useless (with or without "in der Regel"). The police statement corresponds to what Blick is saying, without identifying the "other method"—a state secret, according to Solothurner Zeitung—at one point they call it "the added ingredient" without which the "data salad" was "worthless" ("einen Datensalat ..., der ohne die passende Zutat wertlos ist"). That doesn't mean it was in fact without value to the investigation, despite the headline. Compare Blick: first the Google search info, then correlation of that with the cellphone data, after which his deviation from his usual routine to go to the house jumped out. The articles spin the story very differently, and SZ gives as little information about the other method(s) as it can, but they're saying essentially the same thing. (SZ also provides a motive other than wanting to preserve the secret method for future investigations: resentment of the "office analysts" getting sole credit. I presume the information on his dog walking routine was part of the yield of the boots-on-the-ground, door-knocking investigation.) There's a distinction between "played a role" and "was the single key that unlocked the case". In my reading, SZ admits it played a role, despite their headline writer and the way they spin the story. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my impression is that it's not clear from these sources whether it played a role at all. The "identified through another way" thing in particular bothers me. Without some qualifier ("...may or may not have played a role...") I don't agree with it staying in. Something for a third opinion? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 13:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do need a third opinion, we're reading that source differently on that issue. I've no idea how to ask for one; if you do know how, please go ahead. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(watching:) I understand that the intention of the investigation was to intentionally keep unclear what actually led to finding the suspect, to avoid helping future criminals by letting their successful methods be known. One thing seems clear: although the Antennensuchlauf (what's that in English?) was praised as having helped, it would not have been sufficient by itself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

...I honestly don't know what it's called in English. You record every phone that was handshaking with a given cell tower in a given timespan and that tells you which phones were active in the area of the crime scene at the time the crime took place. That presupposes that the perp has the phone turned on at the time and that not too many people were using their phones in the area. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Asked at WP:3O for a start. Perhaps Sandy or someone else know another editor who can help, too. For the record, the question is about this source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

​​I would probably spell out that the exact technique that was used to catch him is a secret, and discuss the hypotheses after that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hi, I've found this discussion because I was pinged to SandyGeorgia's talk page, and this was mentioned there. I understand Antennensuchlauf in context to mean something like "mobile phone mast search procedure". I've read the Blick and Solothurner Zeitung sources, and I agree that they put different spins on it. The way I would reconcile what they say is: The Antennensuchlauf alone would have been insufficient to identify the perpetrator with certainty, and that a combination of methods was used, but the Antennensuchlauf was the one that cracked the case, in that it narrowed down the list of plausible suspects to a number that conventional policing operations could work with. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 15:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. At the risk of ad nauseam and I don't know whether this is RS, they might have had a pool of 30,000 people. I still think we need to say that the prosecution never disclosed the actual technique, certainly. But I'll rereview tomorrow. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 19:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir, Gerda Arendt, and S Marshall: OK, rewrote this to The prosecutors have never disclosed how they caught him but his mobile phone records and internet search history probably played a role in identifying him as a suspect The "probably" may be unnecessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for looking at this, S Marshall. To my surprise, I think you may be overstating the importance of the Antennensuchlauf. (I am known for my ignorance in technical matters; I would very tentatively call it a data dump of the three cell antennae/masts.) Both sources emphasize that it would not have been enough on its own; the Solothurner Zeitung source, despite its slant on the matter, does concede that the investigators were able to exclude the data from commuter traffic, but points out that that left everybody in the town, noting that some pings were from apps running in the background. The esential difference between the two sources is that Blick claims to have been told by an informant what the secret additional technique was (internet search history data), while Solothurner Zeitung emphasizes that that additional technique was a state secret. Jo-Jo Eumerus, it's not in question that the prosecution didn't reveal how they found him. The Argauer Zeitung article that you just mentioned above was published between the arrest and the trial; the one in the same paper that I used as a ref dates from May 2018, a couple of months after the conviction. That article rests in part on Marc Forster, the expert in the use of antenna data whose publication on the case (I presume a journal article) is specifically alluded to in the Solothurner Zeitung article, with the police saying it's wrong. The reporter is harsh: "Im Fall Rupperswil sah er die Gelegenheit gekommen, den schon immer erhofften Erfolg endlich bestätigen zu können. So kam es, dass er einen Beitrag verfasste, der wissenschaftlichen Standards nicht standhielt. An den entscheidenden Stellen hat er keine Quellenangaben." etc.

  So I still argue that it's indisputable that the cellphone data dump played a role. The wording I had was: ; his mobile phone records and internet search history played a role in identifying him as a suspect. The revised version currently in place is: . The prosecutors have never disclosed how they caught him but his mobile phone records and internet search history probably played a role in identifying him as a suspect. Yes, I think "probably" is too tentative. I also think this is incorrect in that we know how they caught him; they got a sample of his DNA to confirm the identification, then arrested him at a Starbucks and, presumably, fingerprinted him. The problem as I see it is: only Blick names internet search records as having been used (as the other thing that enabled them to zero in on his phone contacts with the antennae; which is of course to be distinguished from the video evidence they found on his phone when they were able to actually search it—and of course the internet search may also have been made on the phone). I'm presuming that's the other method the police refer to that they will not reveal. I've been worried that someone will call me out for synthesis; moreover, I'm trusting Blick, and as I've been pointedly reminded by someone on Wikipediocracy, Blick is a smelly source. I don't want to lean on Forster, both because his expertise was not called on and because I don't want the article to get into critiquing his wisdom in publishing.

  So I would rather either: ; analysis of mobile phone and internet search data played a role in identifying him as a suspect. or, removing Blick as unreliable: the task force identified him as a suspect after analyzing mobile phone data among other techniques. In the latter case we should also remove the Blick reference that was already present; the point that it was one of the worst crimes in Swiss history, and the nickname, are both supported by a better source (Swissinfo), and the new (2017) Aargauer Zeitung ref could be substituted there for Blick: it has the sentence "Es ist eine der brutalsten Straftaten der jüngeren Kriminalgeschichte", linked to an earlier article. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll see if I can squeeze in something between Misti and non-Wikipedia time, but are you sure we can reliably support they got a sample of his DNA to confirm the identification, then arrested him at a Starbucks and, presumably, fingerprinted him? That's a lot of details on the exact sequence of events.

  Re: Blick, I concur with removal although I note that Swissinfo has somewhat dodgy translations of the legal terms that I'll have to clean up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think we've captured the essence of what they did. I think the reference to "mobile phone records" suggests they looked at his calls and internet search history, whereas what we need to convey is that they geolocated his phone by checking to see which mobile phone masts he'd approached that day.—S Marshall T/C 12:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Expanded on that point a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, S Marshall, that's the distinction I was getting at. They were obviously only able to search his phone itself after they identified him as a suspect and arrested him. Jo Jo Eumerus, Starbucks is specified in both the Solothurner Zeitung and the Blick articles; several sources state that there was both DNA evidence and fingerprint evidence at the scene, but that he was unknown to the police; Blick has as its step 3 that they set up a checkpoint and obtained his DNA via an alcohol breath test; it came back from the lab as a match to the crime scene, whereupon they had enough confirmation to arrest him. (I imagine it came up in court how they got his DNA and so a source might be findable, but I decided not to mention that detail and am not suggesting we should.) Yes, I used Swissinfo's legal terminology, since it's a reliable source and policy is to prefer published translations over one's own. (Nor am I a certified court translator.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I am minded to disagree on the Swissinfo thing because translating "kinder" (child) as "minor" is not only simply wrong, it's not even the translation used by the Swiss government itself. That's why I am always iffy on using news as sources, they are prone to this kind of sloppiness. Although I note that the Swiss government translates "Sexuelle Nötigung" as "Indecent assault"; I got that part wrong.

As far as I know, all sources I've seen about the trial say that nothing about how they caught him came up there. I honestly don't know if district court rulings are something the public can access to, either. The Starbucks, DNA and fingerprint things are currently mentioned in the article, with non-Blick sources; is there something that needs to be fixed?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Articles to use as a template

If anyone's interested on expanding this, École Polytechnique massacre, Toa Payoh ritual murders, Tottenham Outrage, Chandler's Ford shooting, Bath School disaster, Baker Street robbery, Death of Ms Dhu and Burke and Hare murders might be useful templates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Parole or not

I am not sure that swissinfo is using the word "parole" correctly here. This article about the federal court ruling implies that Thomas N. is still eligible for parole. To be honest, I don't think there is such a thing as "not eligible for parole" under Swiss law - questions of parole and conditional release aren't settled at the criminal court from what I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in that source that I'd translate as "parole". I think the source says he's been given an indefinite prison sentence. He's applied for access to a kind of psychiatric support, in the hope that he can invoke a facet of Swiss law that says any prisoner can be discharged from prison if they can prove they're no longer a danger to society. His application for access to this psychiatric support was denied in the Obergericht (High Court, loosely); he appealed the Obergericht's decision to the Bundesgericht (Supreme Court, loosely); and the Bundesgericht confirmed that Obergericht's decision. So he only gets the regular prison psychiatrist and the chances of a discharge from prison are near zero.—S Marshall T/C 20:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Mm, I think "bedingte Entlassung" is "parole", in the sense of a release from prison on conditions. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 21:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry to be so slow responding to the note on my talk page (I avoid editing under the influence of alcohol, and also I wanted to review the sources a bit). I think I substantially agree with S Marshall, except that The Aargauer Zeitung source that Jo-Jo Eumerus cites above was on a somewhat peripheral issue. The appeal was by the prosecutors, seeking to close off a future claim that he's been psychiatrically cured and should therefore be eligible for release. The main debate has been over whether psychiatrists believe he can benefit from treatment to the extent that he will no longer be a danger to society; the cantonal high court ruled that there was insufficient expert agreement to preemptively close that door by classifying him as incurably dangerous. The SwissInfo source (December 2018, when the cantonal court ruled) links to an article at the time of sentencing on the two categories of life sentence and the background to them. However, whether we're talking about the eventual possibility of conditional release, or parole, is kind of moot in my view since it's 20 years out and thus completely outside the realm of predictions; plus I suspect terminology differs in different English-speaking countries. Firefox no longer gives me a search hit on partial words, but I can't find "parole" in the SwissInfo source; The Local (March 2018, when he received his sentence) does use the term "parole", and also seeks to explain the law and thus the relevance of psychiatric testimony.

  The Aargauer Zeitung article (May 2019, when the federal court affirmed the cantonal court ruling) is mainly about what S Marshall is talking about—he won't receive intensive therapy, just in-prison therapy—but that's a related but distinct issue from his sentence and the possibility of "parole": there were efforts, presumably through his lawyers, to have him transferred to a psychiatric facility. That article links to the newspaper's December 2018 article on the cantonal court decision rejecting the prosecutors' argument that he should be classified as incurable. (That's at the Internet Archive, but I still had to bang on the "print view" button to circumvent the paywall.) The two psychiatric Gutachter are presumably the same: they testified that he was not incurable (thus both courts ruled against the application to have him imprisoned for life with no possibility of release except under extraordinary circumstances), but being physicians, they suggested he should therefore undergo intensive treatment (which the courts ruled against since it would require many years and they apparently consider more than 5 years not worthwhile). When I was working on the article, I found references to the argument over what psychiatric treatment he should receive, but judged it outside the scope of the article. Our articles on shocking crimes sometimes dwell on the criminal, with infoboxes about them that list, for example, not merely where they are imprisoned but their prisoner number. I believe that's a mistake in focus; this isn't an article about Nick and I don't think the details of appeals are particularly relevant unless they change the outcome (if his sentence had been modified or if he had been committed to a psychiatric facility instead of a prison). I consider information about how the police found him and confirmed him as a suspect to be more relevant (and I tracked it down after finding the case mentioned as interesting in that respect, so there's a point of notability as an application of electronic data mining or whatever a person with a decent sci-tech education would call it). But the police have been eager to obfuscate that aspect of the case, to preserve the techniques for future use, while the press is as usual full of "What happened in court yesterday?" and "What do the experts say about this criminal?" So I am not sure the article can be usefully expanded; but others don't necessarily share my views on how to present crime stories.

  On the narrow question of the word "parole" ... I see I was the one who introduced that in my recasting of the article. I presumably took the word from The Local and used it as a US term to match the US dates that the article uses. I don't think it does any harm to use that term, since the preceding sentence has the context: considered for release after 20 years, as is the norm with indefinite sentences under Swiss law; but I suppose it's possible to misunderstand "parole" as meaning earlier than that. So maybe we should change to have him ruled ineligible for parole to: "to have him ruled ineligible for release until he can be shown to no longer pose a danger to society"? The article Life imprisonment in Switzerland, to which I've linked, needs updating; most of it reflects the old law. (We should probably also add to the last sentence the federal court affirming the cantonal court decision in 2019.) Yngvadottir (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well. Jo-Jo's got a good point in that "bedingte Entlassung" does mean "conditional release", and the word "parole" has the benefit of succinctness. A further benefit of saying "parole" is that "parole" suggests the release or discharge from gaol is on licence with probation officer supervision (or whatever the Swiss equivalent of probation officers might be), and I'm sure that is what we intend. My worry is that I suspect (but I don't know) the bedingte Entlassung regime in Switzerland is likely quite different from what native English speakers think parole is. The Swiss (and other mainland Europeans) have very different attitudes to locking people up than we have in the Anglosphere. But I'm quite content to be overruled on this because "parole" might well be a very defensible translation.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  On the "ineligible to", it's worth noting that in 2013 the Federal Court ruled (ruling, blog post by an attorney) that an offender who had spent 20 years in internment was eligible for conditioned release, notwithstanding him being still a risk to society and this risk not being curable, because after two decades, further internment was no longer justifiable. Now this guy was interned by that point, not serving a sentence, so it was a ruling on a completely different matter. That year the Swiss parliament turned down the proposal to create a class of offenders ineligible for parole, and checking the penal code for the word "bedingt" does not indicate anything implying the existence of a "ineligible for conditioned release" category. I believe there is a de facto category of people who won't have their parole applications accepted until they are too old/sick to commit further crimes, but it's a de facto thing not a legal thing, and in any case I see no indication that it's the job of the original sentence to determine that.

  I can't find any reliable source that explicitly compares the meaning of "parole" under English or US law to that under Swiss or German law. That said, German Wikipedia's article about "parole" de:Parole (Strafrecht) stipulates it's essentially the same thing as a conditional release before the sentence is entirely served.

  With respect to Thomas N., I figure he falls into this category "theoretically eligible for conditioned release, practically impossible until he's an invalid", and would concur with Yngvadottir's proposal of "to have him ruled ineligible for release until he can be shown to no longer pose a danger to society". This is a case where it might be helpful to have access to the actual ruling(s) of the canton court(s). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Nevermind the courts, this master thesis, "Pascale Zehntner: Sanktionenrechtliche Fragen zum «Fall Rupperswil», Masterarbeit Universität St. Gallen (2020)." linked here probably discusses the sentencing/sanction aspects better. It also summarizes the district court ruling and findings of fact, apparently...don't have much desire to read that part. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 20:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Also, found that there is in fact a "not eligible for conditional release" internment - art 123a Swiss constitution. My understanding is that the judgment by the Lenzburg district court specifically stated that Thomas N. was not in that category. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 14:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)