Seefeld murder: 5 observations on the trial

On the crime scene of the Seefeld murder:

–

With an iron face, Tobias K., rather short, trained stature, short-cropped, dark hair, smoothly shaved, dark blue suit with light blue shirt enters the courtroom on Wednesday morning. The chains of his ankle cuffs rattle on the parquet floor, which are not removed even during the negotiation. Flanked by a security guard with a button in his ear, he sits on the accused’s bench. He keeps his gaze straight ahead. Even when his former friend I. M. enters the hall – the man for whom he took the life of a person in the summer of 2016.

The Lithuanian is wearing a black fleece jacket, black jeans and Nike sneakers. His face is pale, the corners of his mouth are pulled down. He also wears ankle cuffs. Without looking around the room, looking at the floor, he purposefully heads for his seat. Icy silence.

According to the lawyer of Tobias K., the latter and the Lithuanian are hostile to spiders today. For years, K. had eaten up the lies of his Lithuanian accomplice. He had been deliberately manipulated, and that was also testified to by K.’s inmates. You would have described how I. M. fooled him straight and thread. Everyone could see that. Only apparently not Tobias K.

It was only later, seven months after the cruel act in Seefeld, shortly after his arrest, that the picture he had of I.M. slowly dissolved. When he realized that the story the supposed friend had told him was wrong, Tobias K. burst into tears.

The lawyer quotes from the minutes of Tobias K’s interview: «Why? So many lives are down the drain. I killed a human. A family has lost a son. My daughter lost her father for a very long time. »

The insane lie construct

How complex the lie construct surrounding the Seefeld murder is shown in the statements by all parties present. Both the public prosecutor and the two legal representatives of the two accused repeatedly come up with this in their pleadings.

Depending on the party involved, the lying stories are a “cleverly designed plan” (original sound from Tobias K.’s lawyer) or “stupid prison gossip” (original sound from I. M.’s lawyer).

The prosecutor and Tobias K.’s lawyer are convinced that the Lithuanian I. M. is the brain behind the Seefeld murder and that K. was only the executive. Because of his political ideas, K. was receptive to the conspiracy theories of his Lithuanian fellow inmate, says the prosecutor. The Swiss had dealt with anarchist and anti-capitalist texts. K.’s lawyer says I. M. created a threat situation that drove his client into a hopeless situation. “He assumed an emergency and acted in a kind of twilight and madness.”

The defender of the accused Lithuanian sees it quite differently. He does not deny that his client had maintained a friendship with inmate K. in the Pöschwies prison. But the whole story of the planned escape and the ransom note were just fancies. “The fact is that there are big doubts about Tobias K.’s version,” he says. I. M. never said that someone had to be killed.

Why custody is controversial

The prosecutor demands life imprisonment and proper custody for both of the accused. Should the court comply with this request, Tobias K. and I. M. would have to spend the rest of their lives in captivity.

In order to order proper custody, it must be assumed that the accused are at high risk of relapse and that no therapeutic measures promise success. For the prosecutor, this is the case with both of the accused. According to the expert opinion, Tobias K. has a dissocial personality disorder that cannot be treated. In addition, it had been shown that he had planned other similar acts.

After killing the man in Seefeld, Tobias K. was on the run for seven months, during which he tried several times to buy weapons on the Darknet. He hid in the Canton of Jura for a long time and, in order not to be recognized, changed his appearance. So he grew a beard and dyed his hair and eyebrows light blonde, according to the prosecutor. «He acted very professionally and proved that he doesn’t do half-hearted things. He stubbornly pursued his goal. »

Tobias K. only evasively answers to the question why he wanted to get weapons after the crime. In a deep and barely audible voice, he says that he did it for self-defense. “Because of the acute threat at the time.” When the judge asked him why he also needed a silencer, he replied: “So that I can practice shooting without attracting attention.”

Tobias K. is supported in his execution by his lawyer. The prosecutor’s hypotheses that K. wanted to kill more people are unfounded. There was no concrete plan. “Tobias K. was aware that a further homicide would not lead to the release of I. M.” The precondition for custody was not met.

Tobias K.’s lawyer does not speak of “murder”

At the beginning of the trial, the judge asked the accused Tobias K: “Why do you stab a person who is completely unknown to you?” He replies: “It is difficult for me to understand today.”

As difficult for him to understand, he did it anyway. Not only does the prosecutor see this as proven. Tobias K. also confessed to the crime after his arrest in January 2017. However, the offense is not supposed to have been a “murder”, but “intentional killing”. This is how K.’s lawyer explains on Wednesday in his plea. «The brutality of the act is not excusable. It was K. who killed with his own hand, but I. M. introduced him to the deed. K. acted reprehensibly, but not unscrupulously, »said the official legal representative.

The criminal code distinguishes here in that the killing takes place with particular unscrupulousness. While this is not the case for the lawyer, the case for the prosecutor is clear: «The deed could not have been more cunning and unscrupulous. It triggers a shudder when it comes to procedures and brutality. The procedure is extremely absurd and incomprehensible. »

I.M.’s lawyer demands an acquittal

“The case is pointless as rarely a crime and the prosecutor is trying to see a deeper connection in the meaninglessness,” said the lawyer of the Lithuanian I. M. at the beginning of his plea on Wednesday. He relied solely on the statements of Tobias K. However, his client was neither the head behind the deadly plan nor the assistant. He demands the acquittal of I. M.

He could not understand how his client should be held responsible for a murder if he had been in prison all the time. The prosecutor takes Tobias K. out of responsibility at the expense of I. M.

From his point of view, there was no complicity either, the talks in prison were only “stupid chatter”. “My client told stories that were not meant seriously.” K. was portrayed as a victim who was ripped off. But the opposite is the case.

The Lithuanian himself said at the end of the trial that it was a major disaster that happened here. But he had nothing to do with it.

Tobias K. apologizes to the victim family in his closing statement. Several times during the trial it was said that he did not regret the act. “That’s not true. I sincerely apologize to the victim’s family. »

The negotiations closed with these words. The verdict will be pronounced on Thursday at 5.15 p.m.