When a life for 1000 euros was extinguished in Giessen

• ofKays al-khanak

  –

  shut down

–

In May 2004, a 30-year-old man was strangled on a clothesline in the northern part of Giessen. The police arrest a neighbor as a suspect. In the process, the question of the motive is central: Was it a murder out of greed or an act of affect?

All his pride fits into a narrow pocket in his wallet: the bank card enables him to withdraw money on his own. What others take for granted is something special for 30-year-old Peter E. (name changed): When he was born, there was insufficient oxygen supply, which is why he suffers from a developmental and personality disorder. Nonetheless, Peter E. managed to get his life back on track, can work and, thanks to the bank card, has free access to his money. Until May 10, 2004. On that day, Alf K. (name changed) takes this card away from him – and violently puts an end to his life.

May 11, 2004 is a Tuesday. Around 7:40 a.m., a passer-by found a man in a front garden of a house on Sudetenlandstrasse, which was surrounded by high hedges. A clothesline is pulled tightly around his neck. The man lying directly under the window of an apartment is dead. The thesis that Peter E. could have killed himself is rejected by the investigators after the autopsy report from the Institute of Forensic Medicine. There is talk of massive blunt violence on the man’s body. The result: broken collarbone, broken ribs and serious injuries to the internal organs. Peter E. would probably also have died from these injuries had he not been strangled beforehand. The police arrested two men on the same day: a 23-year-old and a 31-year-old man, two brothers. The younger one is released quickly because the suspicion against him is not substantiated. In contrast to the older brother.

Accusation: murder out of greed

Peter E. had visited Alf K. on Monday evening; the two men know each other from working together. Neighbors told the police that unusual noise came from the apartment that Monday evening. Alf K confesses that he killed his neighbor. The public prosecutor’s office accuses him of having committed the murder out of greed: he wanted to get the victim’s money and bank card. With that he withdrew 1000 euros from Peter E.’s account on the market square on the day of the act. In order to cover up his robbery, the thesis is that he killed his colleague. However, Alf K. denied this on the first day of the trial, which began in January 2005 before the Giessen Regional Court, chaired by Judge Bruno Demel.

Attorney Dietmar Kleiner describes for his client what should have happened that evening. Alf K. did not feel well; nevertheless, Peter E. insisted on visiting him. As soon as he arrived, Peter E. made slippery remarks and touched his client immorally. When Alf K. pushed him back and threatened him, the 30-year-old pulled down his pants. The defendant had “blown the fuse.” Alf K. grabbed the clothesline that was on the living room table because it was supposed to be hung in the bathroom. He does not remember that he tied a noose. As if in a trance, Alf K. finally threw Peter E.’s body out of the window.

But already the first testimonies cast doubts in the court about Alf K.’s admission. “This is so pulled up by the hair that it is already ridiculous,” says a colleague, for example, about the alleged sexual orientation of the later victim. Another witness said that Peter E. was very happy to be able to withdraw money himself with his first own bank card. “We wondered how he could keep the secret number given his limited intellectual abilities. When he said he had a slip of paper with the number in his wallet, we scolded him. “

The appraisals are decisive in many processes. You can decide whether it is a murder, manslaughter or an act in which the perpetrator was not sane. Accordingly, they are important for the assessment of the sentence. This is also the case in this case: In his psychiatric report, Prof. Willi Schumacher clearly rejects the thesis of an act of affect. “Affect offenders race like an express train into a tunnel, in which light only reappears after a long time at the other end.” They did not remember what happened in the meantime. Subsequent acts of suicide or an immediate confession to the police are typical. Alf K., however, said he had first smoked a cigarette, then wrapped the body in a blanket, got hold of the victim’s secret number, went to the market square and withdrew money from the dead man’s account. Then he fled with Peter E.’s mobile phone.

Advocate manslaughter

Schumacher also describes what Alf K. had told him in conversation about the relationship with the dead work colleague. Accordingly, he had been immorally touched by Peter E. before May 10, 2004. The question now arises to the court, why the act should have happened in affect, if Alf K. wants to have known that Peter E. supposedly wanted to get closer to him?

In the case of the pleadings, the public prosecutor’s office sticks to its version: The defendant wanted to rob his colleague and neighbor and cover up the crime with a murder. Public Prosecutor Dr. Kathrin Exler is therefore demanding life imprisonment. Attorney Kleiner, on the other hand, pleads for manslaughter and a total of 13 years imprisonment. He recalls witnesses who had stated that Peter E. had been strange, inaccessible and erratic 14 days before the crime. “Ms. Public Prosecutor, you must not suppress facts here just because they do not match your version of the crime.” Criminalistic experience also teaches that, after homicides, perpetrators often exploit the newly created situation to enrich themselves without having planned to do so. The lawyer also speaks of serious guilt and a “terrible act”, but no murder can be proven.

On April 27, 2005, the jury followed the prosecution’s arguments and found Alf K. guilty of murder. That means: lifelong. The defendant killed Peter E. out of greed. What is decisive for the court is the appraiser’s assessment that Peter E. would have been frightened and would have reacted by withdrawing if Alf K. had actually threatened to strangle him. Under no circumstances would Peter E. have tried to approach his colleague, as he had claimed. Rather, Alf K. sensed his chance to get money when Peter E. put his belongings on a chair: keys, cell phone and wallet – and in it his bank card, of which he was so proud.

Role of reviewer

In addition to factual evidence, expert opinions are an important basis for a verdict in a constitutional process. The appraiser assumes the role of assistant to the court that commissioned him. Its task is to convey the specialist knowledge of its discipline in a procedure. For example, an expert has the right to inspect files, to be present during interrogations and to ask questions during the main hearing. He must orally contribute his opinion to a process.

–