Two sisters murdered in Krailling, uncle arrested

448 posts in this topic

 

Don't know if you were referring to my post here - but when I said "string together enough evidence to nail the guy" I didn't mean anything about hanging or otherwise - and perhaps string wasn't the right word here. I just mean that I hope they can produce enough evidence to convict whoever did this (and I assume it is the uncle...), and put him behind bars.

I knew you didn't mean you wanted to hang him, but your post did give the impression that you'd already made your mind up about who committed the crime, which you've now clarified with the above statement. I hope they've got the right guy and can get a conviction, because if they haven't then the killer is still out there!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think punishment and prevention are mutually exclusive. Why should punishing someone mean they get out cos they've "paid"? Plenty of rapists and murderers do their time and come out again only to re-offend. Myra Hindley got out and was given a new identity at the tax-payers expense... nice lady that one. Wonder what she's doing now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

given a new identity at the tax-payers expense

its because of the mob like mentatlity showed by members of the public with nothing whatsoever to do with the case that such people have to be given new identities

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientic American article

 

There's a good article in this months Scientific American about neuroscience and the law. Sadly most of it is blocked unless you are a subscriber but the gist of the article is we are making advances in being able to read the brain and it may be that they could be used as legal defenses in the future. Hopefully the reverse is true. If somebody is found to be a sociopath/psychopath and they have murdered or committed other serious crimes perhaps it will be easier to keep them locked up for longer/forever?

 

Really, who would want to live next to one of these 'famous' people. It's in everybodys interests to have their identity changed as long as they are 'safe'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safe. That is only someone's "expert" opinion. They are safe until they strike again. Why do such people get a second chance?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the law is based on the premise that you should get a second chance.

 

I do wonder what will happen if neuroscience shows some people just can't be 'fixed'. I also wander what happens if and when we can correctly identify a psycopath/sociopath before a crime is commited. Given this makes up 25% of the people in prison in the US is society ready to say that some people are such a risk they should be watched before they commit a crime?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Pas for once about swinging backwards and forwards about capital punishment...

 

I also read how many posters wouldn't like to kill the perp (understandable).

 

Would you have the ability to kill if you happened to chance upon an attack taking place or just after? Would your rage and fury take over?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure. I would definitely try to incapacitate the perp and then try to help the victims. If I realize that they are dead I would probably really go for the guy. There is one person alive whom I used to think I would gladly kill but now I prefer him to be alive and suffering at my hands/due to my dishing out the facts wholesale.

 

Back on topic, it seems that the alibi provided by the wife has fallen through: The guy called her app. 6.30 am on the Thursday, telling her that he got up early due to a toothache and was already at work. She had cancer treatment later that day and didn't see him again until late afternoon/early evening.

 

The cops are looking for discarded, bloodstained clothing on the route between the scene of the crime and his workplace, and between his workplace and home. Seeing as how he's a mailman possibly looking along his delivery route would be a good idea.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

police are seeking witnesses who may have seen the accused or his car on the night of the murders.

here is the placard.

http://www.polizei.bayern.de/content/1/3/5/0/7/4/20110413-581-fahnungsplakat.pdf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they will get him...scumbag...funny I guess people nowadays have defences/reasons whatever for all sorts of things...but sometimes we really just need to look at it for what it was...a terrible crime whatever the reasons etc etc!!

 

Go the Police...and totally agree with some of the postings here about the shit they see sometimes!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, District Attorney Andrea Titz (yeah, get it out of your system, a lady named Titz), has submitted her indictment against Thomas S., charging him with two cases of murder. According to German law at least one of the specific motives qualifying the deed as murder is fulfilled, i.e. greed. The DA assumes that Thomas S. had planned to kill his sister-in-law, the girls' mother, as well in order to profit from her estate – for lack of other kin her estate would have fallen back, at least partially, on Thomas S.'s wife. Part of the estate is an apartment that the girls' mother did not want to sell; Thomas S. was deeply in debt after building a house for his family.

 

 

In der Anklage gegen den mutmaßlichen Doppelmörder von Krailling geht die Münchner Staatsanwaltschaft davon aus, dass Thomas S. wegen Erbstreitigkeiten aus Habgier auch seine 41-jährige Schwägerin, die Mutter der getöteten Geschwister Sharon und Chiara, umbringen wollte. Er habe sich einen "finanziellen Vorteil aus dem Nachlass sichern wollen", sagte dazu am Freitag Oberstaatsanwältin Andrea Titz.

Thomas S. has recently been compelled to switch his lawyer; the former lawyer "could not identify himself with his client's interests". This can be interpreted as the lawyer urging Thomas S. to confess the crime in exchange for the court's not considering it an aggravated case of murder without the possibility of parole.

 

He is now being defended by Adam Ahmed, the lawyer who had also defended the murderer of Rudolph Moshammer, an icon of Munich's Bussi-Bussi society who was murdered in 2004. As the accused has chosen to remain silent the whole charge has to be based on circumstantial evidence – the DNA traces found on the victims and on the weapons used in their murder. Thomas S.'s wife, who was recently granted an expedited divorce, is convinced of his guilt and will not provide an alibi. Thomas S. is appealing the divorce - keep in mind that while a spouse is entitled to withhold testimony no such restriction applies to a former spouse.

 

The DA is calling on 54 witnesses and nine forensic experts; Ahmed's strategy will most probably be to cast as much doubt as possible on factual findings. One weak point in the chain of evidence may be the fact that no one saw Thomas S. arrive at the scene of the crime, nor has any bloody clothing traceable to Thomas S. been found.

 

Ralph Alt will preside over the case, the judge who sentenced John Demjanjuk to life in prison earlier this year in one of the last big trials for crimes committed during WW II. Eight to ten court dates will be set; security for spectators and other attendees of the trial will be tight due to the massive public response to the brutality of the crime.

 

 

Angesetzt seien acht bis zehn Verhandlungstage, sagte der Vorsitzende Richter Ralph Alt, der auch den Demjanjuk-Prozess geleitet hatte. Bei dem Kraillinger Fall - der wegen seiner besonderen Brutalität viel Wut ausgelöst hatte - werden nach Angaben des Richters ähnlich strenge Einlasskontrollen gelten wie im Demjanjuk-Prozess.

According to Andrea Titz, there are no indications for compromised responsibility. Thomas S. has been subjected to the standard psychological evaluation; the examination did not result in any doubts regarding his sound mental status.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trial begins today, and some details have hit the press that give me the shivers. The girls fought for their lives and were bludgeoned and stabbed to death. The younger girl was killed in the kitchen, beaten so hard that her juglar burst, the murderer then carried her into her mother's bedroom.

 

He let water into the bathtub and placed a mixer next to it in preparation to killing the mother as well and staging an extended suicide scenario.

 

Charming person.

 

Trial dates are set through March 2012.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News flash, the accused is saying absolutely nothing. Meaning, I assume, that his lawyer hopes to throw enough doubt on the forensic evidence to get a "not proven" verdict.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for the superlong post, it's a summary of an article in today's Süddeutsche Zeitung.

 

After two months of difficult, at times almost unbearable testimony, the trial was winding up; the verdict was due for tomorrow. Until, suddenly, today the defendant claims that he is willing to speak (German link). Causing a delay in the proceedings, staving off what he knows is coming.

 

The defendant's statement is not expected to begin before 1 pm tomorrow, in the trial date scheduled for the final pleadings and the defendant's last word. There is no indication of what he will say, if he will confess, how he will either explain away the overwhelming evidence – or explain the inexplicable: What brought him to murder his nieces.

 

Today, the Süddeutsche Zeitung once more gave its whole Third Page, the feature dedicated to opinion, to in-depth investigation, to social and journalistic analysis, to this case, and it is truly chilling reading. Unfortunately, I could not find a link to the page itself; it is only available online for subscribers.

 

Andreas Knürr, an internet entrepreneur, celebrated his 30th birthday in autumn of 2009, and he asked his friends for donations that he would then grant to a needy family. He heard, through the Marianne-Strauß-Stiftung, of a family in financial distress, the mother diagnosed with cancer, one of the sons recovering from a liver transplant. After collecting €10,000 he spoke to Thomas S. and his wife Ursula who needed €100,000 to finish their half-built home. "How do you want to cover the costs?" he asked. And Thomas S. said, in his wife's presence, "When my wife is dead I will have my widower's pension and the orphans' pension for the children. She has breast cancer and has maybe one and a half years to go" Andreas Knürr felt a chill down his spine.

 

Two years or so later, Andreas Knürr is called to give testimony in the murder trial against Thomas S. He relates how he managed to collect a group of construction workers willing to work on the house for free, how they turned up on the building site – and how Thomas S. and his wife Ursula S. rattled down a list of demands such as under-floor heating, galleries in front of the children's rooms, automatic doors for the garages and a top-range kitchen. The construction workers, after a first stunned silence, one and all turned around and left; Andreas Knürr remained, shamefaced and thoroughly embarrassed.

 

This story throws a spotlight on the couple's tendency to snub and alienate anyone who had any kind of dealings with them. After hearing the family's opinions of him – "leech, legacy hunter" –, the head of a construction company stating that he had "a butcher's nature" and his co-workers' nickname – "stinker" – due to his bad bodily hygiene a spectator almost begins to hope or wish for just one friendly word, one positive opinion about the defendant.

 

He himself does nothing to disperse this impression. Sprawled in his seat, legs stretched, head in his hand with an expression that can only be called a grin – mocking, derisory, supercilious. As if bent on confirming the stereotype of an emotionless, ice-cold killer of two little girls, out of greed.

 

However, based on the description of the murders, there must have been more to the motive. The girls woke up, recognized him, fought him. And something inside him exploded. The police called the murders "overkill", i.e. using much more violence than necessary to kill the victims, then arranging them on their mother's bed and on the floor.

 

Perhaps some background on Annette S., the victims' mother, and her family can explain some of his hatred: Her grandfather drew up a will and other provisions guaranteeing that only blood relatives can inherit the extensive real estate property. In order to prevent money going to a non-blood relative, her uncle, as executor of the will, delayed a cash payout to his brother until the latter died of cancer, justifying his action with the words, "The family's interests are paramount. You have to understand when things take a bit longer". Another chilling moment.

 

Ursula S., the defendant's wife (who has filed for a divorce that has not yet been finalized), was always an outsider and "married beneath her" but always kept a sense of entitlement. When she lost her hair due to chemotherapy she insisted on a long-haired wig costing €2,500 instead of a standard short-haired wig.

 

The evidence speaks against the defendant: His blood and fingerprints at the scene of the crime, a receipt for the rope used to strangle Chiara found in his car, the counterpart of the dumbbell bar used in the murders found in his home, the alibi provided and then revoked by his wife. The prints had to be fresh as Annette S. could not stand her brother-in-law and would not have him in her house. He hadn't been there for years.

 

But there are doubts whether Ursula S. (the wife) is as uninvolved in the planning of the murders as she tries to make the public believe. She appeared in court once to refuse testimony after having sold her story to "Stern", expounding on her conviction of his guilt and their children's refusal to see their father. After her court appearance she held an audience outside the courthouse, talking on camera to a TV channel that is paying for her story as well. One of her cousins accused her – on camera – of selling herself out and called her a whore. Her own mother does not doubt that she was privy to her husband's plans, they were always sworn allies. It is as if two outlaws had found each other, basking in their exclusion and doing all they could to intensify it.

 

According to the psychiatrist who examined Thomas S. he is "low on empathy and emotionally cold". He claimed that he gave up a well-paid job as precision mechanic so that he would only have to pay minimum maintenance to his children from a previous marriage. He laughed at his son who had to wear a face mask after the liver transplant, he made disparaging remarks about his wife's cancer. But there is no sign of mental illness, meaning that he is fully competent for all his actions.

 

So what does a man like this have to say? According to his counsel he will not make any statements about the indictment itself; it is possible that he will make some comments about the evidence provided by the DA.

 

 

Thomas S. wolle sich zu den Vorwürfen äußern, teilt sein Verteidiger nur mit. Mehr will er nicht sagen. Der Angeklagte werde wohl zu einzelnen Punkten der Spurensicherung Stellung nehmen, sagt Staatsanwalt Florian Gliwitzky. Das sei ihm angedeutet worden.

No matter what he says and what the verdict will eventually be: This is one of the most violent crimes in the Munich area in the last 30 years, and there is no punishment in law, and even in lynch "justice", in any way adequate to its monstrosity.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He tried to pick apart the evidence and absolutely denied killing his nieces because "one doesn't to that" ("Das macht man nicht.").

 

Sounds like a decent attitude until you realize that it's absolutely impersonal and says nothing at all about him and his personal moral values. Or he would have said, "I would never do that". I am looking forward to what the serious media makes of this performance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Süddeutsche Zeitung:

 

Thomas S. put on quite a show in court. Armed with a stack of paper several inches high he attempted to take apart the elaborate, well-constructed case, bolstered with forensic evidence, backed up with witnesses' testimony, only to contradict himself in the cross-examination.

 

And what's more: His response to one question caused the judge to warn him that he's treading on thin ice. "You have to ask Sharon for the answer to that", he said. His dead niece.

 

Thomas S. accuses the investigators of manipulating the evidence, of planting blood from a phial taken in jail, of retouching pictures taken of his injuries after his arrest.

 

 

Er erklärt sich seine Spuren am Tatort, die in den vergangenen elf Verhandlungstagen thematisiert wurden, offenbar so: Im Gefängnis sei eine Blutampulle von ihm verschwunden, deren Verbleib die Polizei bis heute nicht erklären könnte. "Ich denke, da ist einiges so, wie es nicht sein sollte", sagt er.

During the whole statement Thomas S. does not once look at his defense lawyers. He tosses names, numbers and interpretations into the courtroom where the spectators sit - spellbound and incredulous, at times laughing with disbelief - and summarizes the whole case from his point of view, even indicating that he would be able to untangle the complicated inheritance situation in his wife's family. Modesty is not his forte.

 

During cross-examination he contradicts his testimony recorded by the interrogation officers, especially regarding an alleged visit to his nieces during which he had a sudden nose-bleed. He claims that the flashlight with his fingerprints was a present to Sharon, saying that any other testimony was wrong as he was under shock at the time.

 

The DA called his statement a hypothesis that cannot hold up to examination, unbelievable. There are strong indications that the DA will claim extreme severity of the crime, rendering Thomas S.'s automatic release after 15 years of a "lifelong" sentence impossible.

 

After a short break the defense team informed the court that its client will make no further statements. The dead girls' father's lawyer then took the floor, appreciating Thomas S.'s willingness to speak out, adding, "You should consider now if you want to take responsibility. Now is the right time to do so".

 

Next court date is 16 April.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now