When Logic is Lost: All Legal Contradictions in the Case of Dženan Memić

The court proceedings against Ljubo and Bekrija Seferović at the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo for the serious criminal offense against the safety of public traffic and for the criminal offense of failing to render assistance to a person injured in a traffic accident and the criminal offense of obstructing evidence, in the case of the death of Dženan Memić, have been marked by a series of illogicalities so far, writes the Bosnian news agency Patria.

In this case, the question arises whether logical contradictions should be proven in court. The news agency Patria presents an analysis of the disputed facts in this case. 

On February 8, 2016, at around 10:30 PM, the murder of Dženan Memić occurred. Initially, the case was treated as a traffic accident, then as a murder, only to be reclassified as a traffic accident again in August 2016.

At the end of May 2016, Ljubo Seferović was arrested, and on June 1, 2016, his father Bekrija Seferović was arrested. After the investigation, an indictment was filed against Ljubo and Bekrija Seferović on August 9, 2016. The indictment was filed even though the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office knew that the investigation had initially been misdirected, that police officers had altered statements taken from witnesses, which led to an investigation against one police officer. 

The accused Ljubo Seferović was charged with, while under the influence of alcohol, driving a VW T4 van and hitting pedestrian Dženan Memić with the left headlight and Alisa Mutap with the right front side. However, witnesses who appeared before the Cantonal Court confirmed that the headlights on the vehicle were intact, as evidenced by footage released by the Memić family on February 8, 2017.

Bekrija Seferović was charged with making repairs to the vehicle to prevent his son from being linked to this incident.

On the other hand, the expert finding of Hamza Žuja, published in the media, confirmed that Dženan had an injury caused by a blunt mechanical object. Why the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office has not yet called this expert, who could provide answers to numerous questions, remains unknown.

Ljubo Seferović was deprived of his liberty more than three months after the criminal event, meaning that his level of intoxication at the time of the criminal act was never precisely determined, but rather based on statements from Ljubo Seferović, his wife, and children?

The first disputed fact is how it is possible that Ljubo, while driving the vehicle, first hit Dženan Memić with the left side and then Alisa Mutap with the right side if they were next to each other.

The second disputed fact is that the camera footage available on the internet shows the van passing at 10:31 PM, but no damage to the left headlight is visible. So the question arises: how can damage to the left headlight be mentioned when the vehicle recorded by the camera of the Kuwaiti Embassy, believed to be the vehicle that caused the fatality, shows no such damage?

The third disputed fact is the statement of Ljubo Seferović, who claims he hit one pedestrian, while the indictment also includes hitting another pedestrian. The question arises, in connection with the first disputed fact, whether only Dženan was hit or Alisa was also hit. The only witness from that night is Alisa, who initially said they were hit by a car but later changed her statement, expressing doubt that they were hit by a car at all, suggesting they were victims of an attack.

Ljubo also stated that afterward he went back to his father Bekrija to make repairs to the vehicle and replace the windshield. The statement does not indicate from whom he bought the windshield.

However, at the end of November, Amel Bureković, an employee of a company dealing in auto glass, testified. He said that on February 10, 2016, Ljubo Seferović (pointing to the accused in the courtroom) came to the shop and bought glass for a car. Prosecutor Meris Ćato asked the witness what car the accused arrived in, and the witness said a „dark blue T4 van.“ In the van were a woman with a baby and two other children.

- He was nervous and in a hurry. I sold him the glass and we put it in the van. He didn't have it replaced at our place because it was too expensive for him – the witness said.

The prosecutor read to the witness the record of the statement he gave on June 29, 2016, which stated it was a dark green van. When the prosecutor repeated the question about the van's color, the confused witness said: Yes, it was dark green.

Incidentally, during the trial, various colors of the „same“ van could be heard: dark green, dark blue, burgundy, gray, ink-colored.

The fourth disputed fact is the expert examination of the broken headlight parts. The expert concludes that the broken headlight parts could originate from a VW T4 van, with emphasis on could originate, meaning the expert is not certain that the parts come from the VW T4 van believed to be the means of committing this criminal offense, i.e., leaving open the possibility that the headlight parts could also come from another vehicle. Interestingly, these parts were found at the scene only on the morning of February 9, when the investigation continued, and the prosecutor was not present. 

Also, the expert noted that relatively fresh traces of putty and paint, i.e., lacquer, were observed on the left door pillar. What does relatively fresh traces mean? Traces a month old, two, three, four.....? Given that Dženan Memić was killed on February 8, 2016, and according to documentation, the vehicle inspection was carried out on July 8, 2016, and Ljubo Seferović began repairing the damaged parts of the vehicle immediately, how is it possible that these are relatively fresh traces considering the passage of five months?

The fifth disputed fact is the traffic expert's finding, who calculated the speed of the disputed VW T4 van based on the documentation provided in the case file and during the reconstruction. The determined speed of the vehicle was 45 km/h. The methodology used by the expert for this calculation is currently unknown, and it cannot be claimed that this was the speed at which the van was moving. The finding established that contact with the pedestrians was simultaneous and focuses on the male person who was hit by the left side of the vehicle. The finding does not include how the female person was hit, which raises the question of how the prosecutor determined in the indictment that she was hit by the right side. One should not forget the findings of the team of experts who examined Alisa Mutap, and Jasminka Dželilović, a neuropsychiatrist, stated that the injury on Alisa's head was caused by a blunt object.

The sixth disputed fact is the finding of the Federal Police Administration regarding the examination of clothing, for which the expert determined that they could have, again I emphasize could have, meaning the expert is not certain, been caused by contact with the front left headlight or turn signal. The expert also assumes that the damage to the jacket and vest of Alisa Mutap was caused by impact with the ground.

The seventh disputed fact is the statement of Ljubo Seferović's daughter, who saw a boy and a girl walking and that her father hit the boy with the "front left part of the vehicle," after which they drove away at high speed, and that the damage to the vehicle was repaired by her father and her grandfather. However, Ljubo's wife stated that she saw Ljubo alone repairing the damage with a hammer.

The eighth disputed fact is the statements of Ljubo's wife, who stated that Ljubo hit a young man who tried to get out of the way. The daughter stated that the boy and girl were walking, leading to the conclusion that no one was avoiding the vehicle's impact, while the wife says the young man tried to get out of the way, and the expert concluded he was hit from behind. The question arises: what is correct? If the young man tried to get out of the way of a vehicle moving at 45 km/h, how is it possible that he was hit from behind? Logic dictates that he should have had visual contact with the vehicle, because he noticed the vehicle coming towards him, and he should have been facing the front of the vehicle, not his back, if he had seen it.

Incidentally, Vasvija Sejdović, Ljubo's wife, initially said that her husband hit the young man with a metal bar, but then retracted her statement.

The ninth disputed fact is the statement of the second daughter, which differs from the statements of wife Vasvija, the accused Ljubo, and the first daughter, who stated that Ljubo consumed alcohol at his father's, i.e., the grandfather's house, while the second daughter claims he consumed alcohol at a relative's house, raising the question of where Ljubo consumed alcohol, what type of alcohol, or whether he consumed it at all?

The tenth disputed fact is whether the VW T4 van represents the blunt mechanical object that caused the death of Dženan Memić? We will wait for the answer to this question until the verdict is pronounced.

When all available facts are analyzed in the context of the criminal event, the following can be concluded:

The evidence confirming that Ljubo killed Dženan is based on the statements of Ljubo Seferović, his wife, and children. The question arises: why do the wife and children testify against their father, i.e., husband? It is also noticeable that the statements of Ljubo's wife and children are inconsistent. From the available information, it is not clear how Alisa Mutap sustained her injuries, because all evidence suggests they were together, so the question arises: how was Dženan, who was moving away from the vehicle, hit on the left side and from behind, sustaining serious injuries, while Alisa, who was hit by the right side of the vehicle and was not moving away, sustained only minor injuries, and the vehicle was moving at 45 km/h during the impact with the pedestrians? We do not know what damage the right side of the vehicle sustained, nor has the right side of the vehicle been mentioned during the trial.

How is it possible, given that the windshield was broken, that no traces of glass were found on the head of Dženan Memić, considering the glass shattered? We remind you that traces of glass were found at the scene, but no one has yet said what they originate from.

The question of the reconstruction also arises. How is it possible that Alisa Mutap remembered the location of the impact and pointed it out, but does not remember anything else? Why did she not immediately report that it was a van? Was it determined by the reconstruction that a vehicle moving at 45 km/h can cause fatal consequences, especially if the victim is avoiding contact? Why was the father Muriz Memić, who is the injured party in this case, not present at any reconstruction?

The expert findings, except for the finding of expert Hamza Žuja, which is the only concrete one regarding the cause of death, are based on assumptions (could originate, can, most likely) and not on 100% certainty, i.e., whether they are or are not.

And finally, 99.9% of pedestrians moving at night on a street, especially an unlit one without a sidewalk, when they see headlights – vehicle lights, get off the road, especially in Aleja; why would Dženan and Alisa be exceptions?

In criminal procedural law, it is stated that "doubts regarding the existence of facts that constitute the elements of a criminal offense or on which the application of a provision of criminal legislation depends, the court resolves by a verdict in a manner that is more favorable to the accused."