There are two defendants in the case. In addition to the 39-year-old S., this is the 33-year-old Florian V., for whom the prosecutor demanded impunity, even if V. was guilty of commercial poaching. V.’s defense also demanded impunity. He should only be convicted of assisting in poaching and should also be compensated for his detention.
On the other hand, the two defenders of S. rejected the murder accusation. One of the two defenders accused the public prosecutor’s office of unilateral investigations. However, the defense attorneys did not make a specific request. A murder was not proven in the process.
Prosecutor Orthen, on the other hand, was convinced after the evidence was taken that S. had shot two police officers out of greed during a traffic check on January 31. The motive was therefore to cover up a previous poaching hunt. If the police officers survived, S. would have been identified as a poacher, the prosecutor said. He added that the double murder was “executive in nature”. The case had caused outrage across the country.
In the trial, the main defendant S. denied the allegations of killing and incriminated the co-defendant V. The prosecutor said that the taking of evidence had clearly proven the allegation that S. was the main perpetrator. He prepared his testimony in court like a play and “presented himself as an articulate dabbler” in numerous statements.
In fact, the two defendants are completely different characters. The co-accused is a stoner who has been living off odd jobs for years, the main accused, on the other hand, a “doer” who hunted a lot, constantly upgraded the quality of his weapon technology and “made the unrestrained killing of living beings his trademark”.
As the public prosecutor said, the trial also provided information about what happened after the double murder, which was still unclear. It can be assumed that the two police officers had spoken to the poachers. S. recognized both of them as police officers from the start. Immediately after the first radio message, S. fired the first shots with his shotgun. During his subsequent emergency call, the policeman shot back with his service pistol.
S. probably shot the policewoman from a distance of two to three meters and the policeman from a distance of seven to ten meters. It was not possible to clarify whether the shots were fired from the shoulder or the hip.
The policeman lay motionless on the ground after the first shots were fired and was then shot by S. in the head at close range. This was the result of the appraisal. After the first shot by S., the policewoman lay on her stomach and was still alive afterwards. The 39-year-old searched her clothes and shot her in the head.
The co-plaintiffs mostly joined the public prosecutor’s office. The lawyers for the relatives of the killed police officer demanded subsequent preventive detention, in addition to establishing the particular severity of the guilt. For V. they demanded a suspended sentence.
In his last word, S. again made serious allegations against his co-defendant. “I have to take responsibility for the fact that an obviously drug addict could carry a firearm and unleash an unforeseeable escalation,” he said.
S. apologized to the relatives of the two officials. Her death was due to a self-defence situation that V. had caused. A verdict is expected to be announced on Wednesday next week.
