Analysis
Status: 01/28/2021 7:51 p.m.
–
–
–
In the trial of the murder of the Kassel District President Lübcke, the verdict has been reached. The main defendant Stephan E. receives a severe sentence, but the co-defendant Markus H. does not.
From Frank Groom,
ARD legal expert
–
–
–
Shortly before ten o’clock, the Lübcke family came into the courtroom, as always together. And as always, the wife and two sons initially stand behind their chairs. They want to know what exactly happened on June 1, 2019 on the terrace of their house, who killed the former Kassel district president, whether one or two people were there. The two defendants in the rows opposite know. Tense calm and stuffy air reign in the courtroom. Shortly after ten the State Security Senate of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court has the floor.
–
–
–
–
Stephan E. is sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Walter Lübcke. Markus H. on probation for one year and six months for unauthorized possession of a weapon. Otherwise H. will be acquitted.
Political murder for right-wing extremist motives
Stephan E. was on the terrace and shot Walter Lübcke, the court found. E. had already said this in his first of several confessions; there was no argument about it. So that a killing becomes a murder, so-called “murder features” must be added. The court says: There is “low motivation” here.
Because E. killed for right-wing extremist, political motives. Among other things because he had defended his liberal refugee policy and the values of the Basic Law at a citizens’ meeting in Lohfelden in Hesse in September 2015. In addition, the killing on the terrace was “insidious”.
The verdict – the murder of Walter Lübcke
Focus, January 28, 2021
–
–
Maximum sentence for Stephan E.
A life sentence is mandatory for murder. In addition, the court determines the “particular gravity of the guilt”. That is the maximum penalty. Since his youth E. had been shaped by racism. His right-wing extremist outlook is the overriding motive of his numerous crimes, including before the Lübcke case.
“Life only means 15 years,” one often hears. This sentence is not true anyway. Especially not in the Lübcke case. Because if the judgment “lifelong” is added to the “special severity”, this has the consequence: It is not, as usual, checked after 15 years whether the offender can be released on probation because of a good prognosis. In any case, he will remain in custody longer. In addition, the court reserves the right to order preventive detention at the end of a debt that has been served – because E. has a tendency to dangerous crimes. Whether and when he will eventually be released cannot be foreseen today.
Different versions of the crime
So a harsh sentence for Stephan E. On the other hand, one and a half years on probation for Markus H., after all charged with aiding and abetting murder in the run-up to the crime – how did it come about? The sticking point here are the various statements made by Stephan E. in the course of the investigation and criminal proceedings. Because he has delivered several versions of what happened on June 1, 2019 shortly before midnight on the terrace.
After the arrest, he said: He was there alone and shot. Half a year later it was said: Markus H. had been there, and a shot was accidentally released. In the courtroom on August 5, 2020 E. finally said: His lawyers at the time advised him to use the first two versions. But now he is telling the truth. He wanted to clarify all questions from the von Lübcke family. The version that E. stayed with until the end: E. and H. planned the crime together, they were both on the terrace, E. shot.
Matthias Quent, Director of the Institute for Democracy and Civil Society, on the verdict
Topics of the day 10:25 p.m., January 28, 2021
–
–
Court doubts the role of Markus H.
In the period that followed, the Senate investigated intensively. Can this be? Does this version match the other pieces of evidence? The result in short: The judges don’t believe E. From the court’s point of view, there were “considerable doubts” about the version of the two accomplices on the terrace. In its assessment of the evidence, the court names in detail examples why E.’s statement is not convincing. For example, he was unable to describe exactly when and how exactly the two forged their plan.
The court feels the same way with the allegation of aiding and abetting H. If a court is not convinced of guilt after assessing the evidence, it means: acquittal on these points. It remains an illegal possession of a weapon. There is a suspended sentence for this.
“Painful”, but “no judge scolding”
This result is “painful” for the Lübcke family, said their spokesman after the verdict. Because in the course of the process it turned out that, unlike the court, the two sons and wife E. believe the version of the two people on the terrace. In response to direct inquiries from the family, E. stayed with us several times. In the plea, your representative had gathered numerous indications that speak for H. as an accomplice. The court examined it but found it unconvincing.
In any case, Markus H.’s role continues to be a subject for discussion. The family spokesman emphasized that the criticism of the verdict was expressly not understood as “judge scolding”. Walter Lübcke always upheld the principles of the rule of law. One does not want to decide today whether to go into revision. In any case, the judgment is not yet final.
Frankfurt Higher Regional Court sentenced Stephan E. to life imprisonment
Sebastian Kisters, HR, daily topics 10:25 p.m., January 28, 2021
–
–
Revision in Karlsruhe likely
It is quite possible that the Federal Prosecutor’s Office will go into revision. Your charge of aiding and abetting against Markus H. was unsuccessful, as was the case in the second case of these proceedings. Stephan E. is said to have rammed a knife in the back of an Iraqi refugee from a bicycle. The court acquitted him of this charge today. Stephan E.’s defense lawyers will also examine appeals. Revision does not mean that the entire procedure will be reopened. The point is to check the written judgment for legal errors. The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe is responsible.
–
