The District Court of Lenzburg has opened a written judgment in the trial of the fourfold murder of Rupperswil. It is not yet final. Now the defense and the prosecutor have the opportunity to appeal within 20 days. Thomas N. has confirmed that she killed her two 13- and 19-year-old sons and the eldest son's friend in Rupperswil Carla S. on December 21, 2015 by cutting their throats. He had died sexually with the youngest son. Then he set the house on fire.
Thomas N. was sentenced to life imprisonment in March, followed by full detention. In the present judgment, the judges state that the criterion of particularly unscrupulous behavior has been fulfilled several times. Thomas N. committed the murder actions with fully available insight and control capability, which was adequately justified in the reports of the two forensic psychiatrists.
Did Thomas N. get shot?
What Thomas N. testified in court to reduce his guilt was partially selective, sometimes simply record-breaking & # 39 ;, said the jurors. A lifelong imprisonment other than life imprisonment is unthinkable. Real and sincere repentance was not recognizable, until recently Thomas N. constantly tried to give his victims a partial responsibility. So he said that he expected Carla S. to warn alarmed acquaintances when she was forced to withdraw money. These statements appeared as "bare spot", the judges said.
The court also criticizes the media in its judgment. Thomas N. demanded a reduction in penalties for adverse reporting. In fact, parts of the report have little or nothing to do with serious journalism & # 39 ;. Nevertheless, the court did not recognize any mitigating circumstances.
Is Thomas N. treatable?
Thomas N. had also criticized the circumstances during the pre-trial detention. He was guarded in a "most rigorous regime", although he denied that he thought of suicide. The court objects: Thomas N. had told his expert that he had suicidal thoughts after the arrest. The court psychiatrist also reported an incident. "In addition, the respondent stated during the interrogation on 13 March 2018 that he was one day before the arrest […] hoped for a final rescue shot from the police, »says in the verdict.
The ordinary custody of the court was justified by the fact that "it is seriously to be expected that the suspect will commit further acts of this nature". One measure was "insufficient probability to significantly reduce the risk of further crime". The existing danger can not be restored in a similar way with a storage.
Thomas N. regarded Tat as a "perfect crime"
According to the forensic expert reports, a "reasonably reliable" decision about the success of a therapy is not possible before 10 to 15 years, according to which there can not be a therapy within the meaning of the provision, which would prevent custody.
Thomas N. had fooled his mother in a successful academic career. In an interrogation he said that the plan of robbery was "the least evil than standing in front of the mother and telling her that he does not even have a bachelor". Thomas N. had previously bought sex toys for sexual abuse. In an interrogation he said that he thought: "if he does something, he can do that". N. also commented on his approach. The verdict quotes N as saying in an interrogation: "It was like the perfect crime." He did not care if he had killed 100 people. & # 39;