Cannibal from Koblenz

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas S. (* 1979 ), better known as Kannibale von Koblenz , is a German criminal , murderer and cannibal . The name Koblenz is imprecise, the actual crime scene is the small town of Brohl-Lützing , Niederlützing district, in the Ahrweiler district near Koblenz.

overview

In 2002 the case of the “Cannibal of Koblenz” made headlines. Thomas S. is said to have killed his cousin Sabine and prepared and eaten parts of her corpse. Both shared an apartment together.

After the then 22-year-old was missing, the police got on the trail of the perpetrator. The officers found parts of the body packed in bags in the shared apartment and in a nearby, disused quarry. Other body parts were cooked in the oven with rice and wine by the perpetrator.

Court process

The district court Koblenz as a circuit court initially found the defendant in December 2003 due may not be excluded debt inability of the charge of murder free and ordered his placement in a psychiatric hospital. According to an expert, the accused suffered from a serious mental abnormality, but was in the act not excludable culpable, but certainly less culpable. Because there is a high probability that similar acts will be committed, it is dangerous for the general public.

In response to the appeal of the accused, the Federal Court of Justice overturned the first instance judgment due to a procedural error in November 2004 and referred the matter back to another chamber of the Koblenz Regional Court. The procedural error related to deficiencies in the psychiatric expert's report and to incomprehensible explanations about the input features of Section 20 of the Criminal Code and the requirements of Section 63 of the Criminal Code in the judgment.

The new chamber found the accused guilty of murder in the new main hearing by judgment of April 10, 2006 and again ordered his placement in a psychiatric hospital ( Section 63 of the Criminal Code). In the imposition of the budget for murder life sentence was due to the then prevailing deterioration ban prevented, since only the accused had filed an appeal. Following a change in the law in 2007, it is now also possible to impose a penalty if a placement is canceled ( Section 358 (2) sentence 2 StPO ).

By resolution of December 1, 2006, the defendant's appeal against the judgment was rejected as unfounded. An acquittal pronounced by the Koblenz Regional Court was overturned for formal reasons, as a guilty verdict had been issued and only the legal consequences could not be worsened according to the legal situation at the time.

Thomas S. denies the act to this day. The court was also unable to clarify whether the accused had eaten parts of the dead. However, due to a number of missing body parts, the authorities assume that such an act is very likely.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. BGH, decision of November 12, 2004, Az. 2 StR 367/04, full text
  2. Law of July 16, 2007, Federal Law Gazette I p. 1327
  3. BGH, decision of December 1, 2006, Az. 2 StR 436/06, full text