Pilnacek Death Investigation: Autopsy Debate and Allegations of Undue Influence
The investigation into the death of former Austrian justice section chief Christian Pilnacek continues to unfold, with recent testimony before the Pilnacek-U Committee revealing a contentious debate over whether an autopsy should have been performed and raising questions about potential external pressures influencing the process. The committee heard from the community doctor who initially examined Pilnacek’s body and the public prosecutor responsible for the case, shedding light on the immediate aftermath of the revelation and the subsequent decisions made.
The U-Committee’s proceedings on Thursday centered on the questioning of the doctor present at the scene where Pilnacek’s body was discovered and the public prosecutor involved in the initial stages of the investigation.The prosecutor initially resisted the release of the body. She refused,citing a lack of sufficient information. A police officer allegedly asserted the death was likely due to drowning, a conclusion the prosecutor found unconvincing. Following a conversation with the doctor, she believed an autopsy was warranted.
The decision to order an autopsy, however, is not always straightforward. Testimony highlighted that such decisions are frequently enough made on a case-by-case basis, allowing for “a certain scope for discretion.” the prosecutor explained she typically relies on medical advice in these situations. She was unable to recall a specific statement allegedly made by the doctor, reportedly stating, “Snucky, if I have a hack now, you will have it too.” Importantly, there were no official records or notes recommending against an autopsy.
Adding another layer to the complexity, the prosecutor revealed she had been offered coaching by the Ministry of Justice prior to her involvement, accepting the offer out of a desire to understand “what I can expect.” She stated she was alone during this training session. In contrast, the community doctor previously indicated she received no preparation for her appearance before the U-Committee.
A key point of contention emerged regarding the nature of the examination conducted by the doctor. The doctor emphasized a crucial distinction between a postmortem examination and a criminal investigation, clarifying that her role was to determine if the individual was alive and ascertain the cause of death. She asserted that conducting an inspection of the deceased is the duty of the community doctor. Though, she admitted to having “never done a post-mortem examination” and onyl later learned she was even permitted to do so.
Further complicating matters, the doctor revealed she did not have a thermometer with her to measure the water temperature at the scene. Pilnacek’s body was discovered in a branch of the Danube River in Rossatz, Lower Austria, in October 2023, and officials had previously noted the absence of this crucial piece of equipment during initial investigations. She explained she was contacted by telephone at her practice and responded to the scene after being informed a body had been found. unable to promptly determine the cause of death, she requested an autopsy.
A “certainly ten minutes” long discussion ensued with the police officers present, a situation the doctor described as unprecedented in her career. While a police officer testified the previous day that no pressure was exerted, the doctor stated she did not experience direct threats, but did report “strange things” happening afterward, including slashed tires and broken windows on her car.
The doctor also noted observing a peculiar discoloration on Pilnacek’s head, describing it as “blue, deep blue,” though she did not observe any other signs of lividity. This observation contrasts with the account of the excavator driver who discovered the body, who described Pilnacek as “white as a sheet of paper.”
The U-Committee will continue its investigation with further questioning scheduled for February 11th. Following Thursday’s session, ÖVP MP Jakob Grüner stated the respondent had not perceived any political influence. However, SPÖ parliamentary group leader Jan Krainer indicated there was evidence of pressure against ordering an autopsy. FPÖ parliamentary group leader Christian Hafenecker expressed confusion over the ongoing debate, stating he “cannot understand why this is in question.”
Deputies also emphasized the importance of understanding the scope of the public prosecutor’s investigation, including whether Pilnacek’s cell phone was seized as evidence. The cell phone remains a key piece of evidence for both Nina Tomaselli (Greens) and Sophie wotschke (NEOS).
