Franke wanted to let his still-wife die?

franke wanted to let his still-wife die?

Conspiracy to commit murder and attempted incitement to commit murder are the charges in the indictment. These are crimes that carry sentences of three to 15 years. The man from grobensee wanted to use a car dealer to recruit a contract killer who would have killed his wife in an "accident should eliminate. The businessman, however, called in the police and appeared at the agreed meeting with a police officer as the alleged killer.

On the second day of the trial, the testimonies of witnesses – in particular those of his ex-wife – shed light on why the defendant was willing to be driven to this point. She reported fluently to the court that she had. The architect brought two almost adult children into the marriage and has two more with the defendant who go to kindergarten. The couple built a house together. In addition, each of them still had their own.

Spying on the woman
these are bourgeois circumstances. Only after auben? The wife reported her husband several times for sexual assault during the marriage before the case was brought to court. But the proceedings were discontinued. Apparently, the man also tried to monitor his wife at work by phone, calling her frequently to find out where she was. The couple went to marriage counseling. It was agreed that the husband would no longer be allowed to enter the wife’s apartment.

In june of last year, the wife then overthrew her own house, where the family lived at the time and he had his office including garage. Because the man did not comply with the ban on entering the house. The children had to be temporarily placed with a foster family. Until it was settled how to deal with the defendant’s property in the house, the wife lived out of doors. Fierce dispute over custody of the two joint children. Two courts had to deal with it. Already at that time a psychiatric expert opinion was obtained. In the end, the wife was awarded custody of the child and a custody arrangement was made. The woman returned to her house; the man lived not far away with his parents.

Suicidal intentions?
During a common car ride with the children the man is said to have once talked about driving his car to the next bridge pillar. However, he never threatened her with death. Again and again – and this was also confirmed by neighbors – the man drove through the street at high speed, apparently in order to frighten the woman with daring brake maneuvers. The last of these threatening situations occurred on the day of the meeting with the "killer". The same evening she was confronted with the arrest of her still-husband for incitement to murder. "It was a shocking situation for me, she told the court in a calm voice.

"I need to get my fears under control", the woman emphasized several times in court. She has long since left grobenseebach and sold her property there.

Only at the beginning the accused calmly followed the testimony of his former companion in life. Later, it was clear he was struggling, wanting to say something.

Only incarceration?
The co-defendant sister gave a completely different account of the background during her police interrogation. You should go to the meeting with the "order killer" even though she didn’t know what the meeting was about. According to your opinion, the wife should only be shoehorned in because the house was up for foreclosure due to the separation.

The defendant also asked a banker for advice because he was worried about his assets. According to their testimony, the couple had debts in the range one would expect shortly after building a house. The man had also taken out a loan on his parents’ house in order to build an annex to the house that belonged to his wife.This sounds like a financial separation situation that is not easy, but it can be resolved.

Michael worthmuller, head of the forensic department at the hospital on the european canal, was appointed by the court as an expert witness. The psychiatrist certified the skilled radio and television technician full criminal responsibility. Accordingly, the defendant does not have any psychiatric findings that would limit his culpability.

However, the expert diagnosed a possible adjustment disorder during the separation period. In the "overall unaccidental life development" the evaluator found no evidence of unusual separation patterns, although the defendant had entered into several long-term relationships prior to his marriage. What struck him, however, was the man’s tendency not to want to acknowledge problems.

The trial will continue on tuesday with the two defense attorneys’ pladoes and the sentencing hearing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *