“We’re going through hell!” Marie Monique Mangold, the mother of the 39-year-old man who lost his life in the serious traffic accident on June 14 in front of the Hoepfner Pilsquelle restaurant in Blümelstalstrasse, speaks in the courtroom for the other victims for whom life changed radically within a few seconds that night. And the young woman, who had just built up her friendship with the 39-year-old, said in a halting voice: “One of the most beautiful days of my life” had become a nightmare. At the end of the taking of evidence, it had become very emotional in room 27 of the district court after the victims and their relatives had previously “held back”, as attorney Hans-Jürgen Gebhardt, who represented some of the co-plaintiffs in court, noted. In the end, Judge Alexander Kolb also seemed pleasantly surprised by the “orderly conduct of the negotiations”.
Existences are on the brink
The trial had started that morning 35 minutes late. Anyone who wanted to go to session room 27 of the district court had to look inside, bags and coats were checked and wallets examined as if it were an act of terrorism or a violent crime. Whereby: The victims and their relatives may well have felt what happened on June 14th. One dead, six seriously injured with bruised skulls, broken bones, torn ligaments, skin abrasions, damaged teeth. A lower leg had to be removed from an accident victim in the Homburg University Hospital. Post-traumatic disorders persist to this day, professional livelihoods are at risk.
Defendant apologizes
All of this was done by the drunk 51-year-old driver who raced into the group of people in front of the restaurant. “I am very sorry, I can no longer do it well, I know that,” said the defendant in his closing remarks with tears. He had previously stated through his lawyer Thomas Stumpf that he had no memory of the accident. He admitted that he drove into the group of people and damaged a parked car beforehand. His client knew that he had caused all of this, said Stumpf. In court, the 51-year-old described himself as a “social drinker” who hardly touches any alcohol at home, but mainly drinks beer with others.
“Why did a drunk have to drive our son to death?”
Marie Monique Mangold asked that. Judge Alexander Kolb was also concerned with the why question. Why did the defendant drink so much that evening – one expert spoke of up to 2.64 per mille (“Most of them would not find their car”, so Kolb.)? Why did the 51-year-old turn his car again and drive back? Why did he just keep driving after a collision with a Polo? Why didn’t he listen to a taxi driver who made him aware of the accident? Why did he drive back to the Pilsquelle at 50 to 70 kilometers an hour? Why did he get so off the road that he met the group of people? Why? “Because of increased alcohol levels”, Kolb answered the question himself. Because of the immense consequences of the accident, Kolb did not allow parole and sentenced the 51-year-old to three years and three months’ imprisonment.
The prosecutor had also asked why. This question, often asked by injured parties in criminal proceedings, “usually remains unanswered,” he said. For negligent homicide, negligent bodily harm and accident escape, he demanded a prison sentence of three and a half years. Hans-Jürgen Gebhardt and Thomas Haberland, the joint plaintiffs’ representatives, also agreed to this sentence. Haberland asked the court to find a sentence that was at least understandable for the injured party – so no suspended sentence. The defendant’s attorney, Thomas Stumpf, had asked for this. He pleaded for a two-year suspended sentence and pointed out, among other things, that his client had so far been completely innocent and had no previous convictions.
– .
