[ad_1]
In the Walter Lübcke murder trial, an expert believes Stephan E. is to blame. The repentance is not authentic, the accused shows little empathy. If convicted, there is a risk of preventive detention.
Heike Borufka, HR
When Stephan E. made his confession just three weeks after the fatal shooting of District President Walter Lübcke, it seemed like a confession for life to most observers. In this interrogation of the Kassel police, videotaped and presented in the process at the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt, E. finally apologized to the Lübcke family for about five minutes. The lawyer for the Lübcke family said in the process that it was based on regrets and was the right way to go.
Controlled regret, almost no empathy
The repentance, however, was controlled, not spontaneous. This is how Norbert Leygraf described it this Thursday. The forensic psychiatrist, who also examined Halle and Beate Zschäpe’s killer, does not consider the apology authentic. It’s too dramatic, it doesn’t fit the monotonous way Stephan E. normally speaks. In the process, he says, he only shows empathy when asked. For example, when Chief Prosecutor Dieter Kilmer asks him how the guilt is and he tearfully replies that every word to the Lübcke family sounds hypocritical.
Psychiatrist Norbert Leygraf is an experienced and recognized expert in countless trials. It only takes about half an hour until the sentence says that it is decisive for the defendant: Stephan E. has a tendency from a psychiatric point of view, a tendency towards serious crimes. That is the prerequisite for the preventive detention order, which has become highly probable today.
Hate pronounced towards foreigners by the accused
In contrast to what some observers at the trial may have seen, Stephan E. never left the scene on the right. Investing inside, Leygraf often uses these two words in relation to Lübcke’s alleged killer on this crucial day of the trial. It speaks of a deeply ingrained inner state, a set of values that is deeply ingrained in him. A pronounced hatred of the foreigners sitting there. Apparently he was back, despite the alleged departure from right-wing extremism. According to E., a few conversations with co-defendant Markus H. were enough for this. According to the psychiatrist, it could not have been an internal rejection.
Preparing for an impending civil war
The critic describes Stephan E. as a reserved person, not very empathetic and emotionally calm. A loner who has no friends, but whose relationships are based solely on common political views. A 47-year-old man who, on the one hand, has built a bourgeois life with a wife, children and a home and, on the other, has prepared for a coming civil war based on his basic radical right-wing and xenophobic attitude. That he set up a gun shop and practiced target shooting. E. himself said so in the preliminary inquiry and in court.
Stephan E. is to blame
Stephan E. has schizoid personality traits, according to expert Leygraf. On the outside he is withdrawn and distant, but on the inside he is very sensitive when it comes to him. In the expert’s opinion, E. is slightly offended personally and feels, in fact or allegedly often, unfairly treated. Y: He is fully responsible. Nothing the reviewer says about him indicates a mental disorder so severe that the ability to understand or control might even have been reduced, Leygraf says.
A key scene is the town hall in Lohfelden, in which Walter Lübcke, with his passionate demeanor, became a figure of hatred towards the scene on the right. When the expert was asked late in the day of the trial if it was possible that Stephan E. had planned such an act three years after the scene, he answered yes. So a person who does not forget. Who does not forget simply because they have carried these values within themselves for so long? “The act was related to his internal conviction,” says Leygraf. Neither incarceration nor good social conditions like family, home and work have changed that in recent decades. And that’s why Stephan E. has a hangover.
No facial expressions, no gestures, no questions.
His willingness to participate in a desertion program for right-wing extremists says nothing at all. The seriousness with which this is meant can only be assessed after a long period of participation.
Stephan E., to whom his defense attorney explained in the morning that he was unable to negotiate, kept his gaze down for most of the day. No facial expressions, no gestures, no questions.
