In the trial for arson in connection with 15 destroyed police cars around eight years ago, the accused was sentenced to a total of seven years in prison on Wednesday. Despite “irritating contradictions” in the descriptions of the accused, the court saw it as proven that the 30-year-old had committed arson, said the presiding judge on Wednesday when the verdict was pronounced in Erfurt. The sentence consists of a prior conviction of five years and six months in prison for a previous crime.
At the start of the trial, the public prosecutor accused the accused of joint arson with an unknown accomplice. In September 2013, he is said to have set fire to 15 brand-new police cars that had not yet been delivered to a car dealership in Erfurt. Two other cars intended for the police were damaged. In September 2013, the fire with total damage of 750,000 euros caused a great deal of excitement among the police and politicians. For a long time, the search for perpetrators was unsuccessful.
But in the Tonna correctional facility, where the accused is being held, among other things, for setting garbage containers and trucks on fire, he then told a cellmate about his act in 2013 and “bragged about it,” as the judge said. After the report of the cellmate, who also testified as a witness at the trial, the police investigated the case. “The investigations had actually come to nothing,” said the presiding judge when the verdict was announced, addressing the 30-year-old. “Without her confession, we would not have been punished here.”
It was said that it could not have been finally clarified in the course of the process whether he infected the car with an accomplice, as the public prosecutor accused him of. The defendant’s motivation was also “not so clear”. At the beginning of the trial, the accused stated that he wanted to impress a woman. It is not – as has been speculated in some cases in the years since the crime – a political act. “In any case, they wanted to impress someone. Either their girlfriend or like-minded people,” said the judge.
The act was “very significant” and actually required a long prison sentence. However, the duration of the trial, the confession and the prison sentence brought along would have had an impact on the amount of the sentence in the sense of the accused. “I can only recommend that you seek professional help,” the judge concluded. His history threatens him with a “big problem” should he be conspicuous again in comparable acts with equivalent damage.
Before the verdict was announced, the public prosecutor and the defense had come out in favor of a total of seven and a half and six and a half years in prison, respectively. The defendant’s lawyer informed the court after the verdict that his client did not wish to pursue an appeal. The public prosecutor’s office has not yet made its decision. The verdict is not yet legally binding.
