A woman from Greven has been murdered. This 26-year-old man is alleged to have strangled a young woman in Greven, in the Münsterland region, last August.
“It is a legal and a procedural error. The full wrongfulness of the act should also be reflected in the guilty verdict.”
Greven in Münsterland, summer 2022. As every year in August, the big fair is taking place. Thousands of people are in town this weekend. Pia S. and her friend are also at the fair. They meet up with other friends and Pia’s family. For the 25-year-old, this will be her last meeting with her parents. After the fair, Pia wants to catch the last bus home, but she misses it.
That night, she also runs into her ex-boyfriend, with whom she would actually like to get back together. But as the evening progresses, it becomes clear that he’s no longer interested. Around 1:50 a.m., Pia’s ex-boyfriend tries to call a taxi. In vain. Her neighbor, Daniel B., with whom Pia is friends, also texts her that night. She declines his offer several times. At 2:37 a.m., the neighbor sends her a voice message.
“No, I’m picking you up now. I’m already on my way.”
Pia was last seen here on the Ems bridge in Greven that night. Pia had a brief relationship with her neighbor, which she had recently ended. She did not reciprocate his feelings and saw no future for them.
What happened that night in the summer of 2022 can be reconstructed relatively well from the chat history between Daniel B. and Pia S. Daniel B. gets into his car to pick up Pia. Shortly before 3 a.m., the two arrive at her home, an apartment building in Greven-Reckenfeld.
They argue in front of the house. Daniel B. is angry with Pia S. and jealous of her ex-boyfriend. He knew that the ex-boyfriend had stayed overnight at her place a few days earlier. The two walk a few meters further to a roundabout. Why they didn’t go home remains unclear. Daniel B. insults Pia. He takes her cell phone and then punches her in the face several times.
At that exact moment, a taxi drives by. The driver sees this and stops. Daniel B. tells him to drive on. But the taxi driver offers Pia a ride. Either she doesn’t hear him offer her a ride, or she refuses. We don’t know for sure. Daniel B. then hits Pia again, causing her to fall, and the taxi driver drives off.
On a footpath, Daniel B. continued to beat Pia and pull her hair. She tried to defend herself by kicking him. Then Daniel B. strangled Pia for several minutes. Pia died. What happened next would be crucial for the subsequent indictment and trial in Münster. The defendant allegedly drove around in his car for a while and returned about two hours later, believing the woman was still alive.
He allegedly put her in the car and drove her to a wooded area. Daniel B. stabbed the already dead Pia and left her body in a wooded area near Saerbeck. The murder of Pia S. is a femicide, one of hundreds in Germany. Pia’s murderer killed her out of jealousy. In this film, however, we focus on the legal aspects of this case.
I have a date with Damien Nippen. He is an experienced legal scholar from the University of Cologne.
“Based on what I have read of the verdict, I would say that the assumption of base motives was entirely justified. The main point here was not only that he was afraid of being alone or acted out of desperation, but he also expressed a gross disregard for the victim. This was made clear by the fact that he then defiled the victim in a specific way, presumably after the victim had already died.”
Pia’s parents immediately contacted the police when they didn’t hear from her. The police also deployed a drone in the search. Then Daniel B. came under investigation. The police initially questioned Daniel B. as a witness. During this questioning, he became entangled in contradictions and is now considered the prime suspect.
A few days after the crime, Daniel B. was arrested by the police and later had to answer for it before the Münster Regional Court.
“This 26-year-old man is alleged to have strangled a young woman in Greven, in the Münsterland region, last August out of unrequited love and jealousy. The trial for manslaughter and attempted murder began today at the Münster Regional Court.”
The Münster Regional Court reached this verdict: Why was the defendant charged with murder and also with attempted murder? Why is it legally necessary to charge him with both?
“So, this is a bit of a legal formality that came into play here. The Münster Regional Court actually distinguished between two separate offenses. Specifically, first the killing by strangulation and then later the stabbing of the victim. And the Regional Court and the public prosecutor’s office apparently assumed that the perpetrator, during the second stabbing, which occurred somewhat later, still believed the person might still be alive. They were no longer alive, but theoretically, attempted murder could still be considered. And the public prosecutor’s office assumed that the perpetrator did this to eliminate the victim as a witness to the crime. And then the perpetrator would have acted with intent to conceal, corresponding to the elements of murder. And that would also be relevant for the verdict, because then he would have been convicted of murder for base motives and attempted murder with intent to conceal. And the full wrongfulness of the act should also be reflected in the guilty verdict.”
But before the verdict could become legally binding, the defendant filed an appeal. The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe deals with such cases and concluded that part of the Münster Regional Court’s verdict, in its current form, could not stand. The reason given was that the court in Münster had not sufficiently proven that the defendant had stabbed Pia to be certain that she was dead.
What does this mean for the verdict of the Münster Regional Court? I want to find out from Henning Barton. He is a spokesperson and judge at the Münster Regional Court.
“Why did the Federal Court of Justice partially overturn the verdict?”
“In its verdict, the regional court convicted the defendant of two offenses. The Federal Court of Justice upheld the conviction for the first offense, which lawyers summarize as the strangulation of the victim, but overturned the verdict regarding the second offense. In this respect, the Federal Court of Justice was of the opinion that the Münster Regional Court had made an error in its evaluation of the evidence.”
“This means that the Federal Court of Justice has said that the Münster Regional Court made a legal error in its ruling.”
“I think it can be expressed better: Based on the reasoning of the judgment, the Federal Court of Justice cannot rule out the possibility that the Regional Court made a mistake. Because in this case, where the Federal Court of Justice judges consider the evaluation of the evidence incomplete, the Federal Court of Justice does not know what the outcome would be if the evaluation of the evidence were complete. This means there is a possibility that an error occurred. What can be said, however, is that it is a legal, a procedural error that the possibility identified by the Federal Court of Justice judges was not addressed in the reasoning of the judgment.”
“What must the regional court do if such a ruling is overturned by the Federal Court of Justice? How does the entire process work? How can I imagine it?”
“This is truly something special. The Federal Court of Justice only overturned the second conviction. However, in this case, no other outcome is conceivable because there is no higher sentence than life imprisonment, and the defendant cannot receive a lower sentence than life imprisonment because the life sentence for the first offense has already become legally binding.”
“Okay. That means the proceedings at the Münster Regional Court did not have to be completely restarted.”
“That’s correct. The proceedings here at the Münster Regional Court are concluded and will not be heard again at any other court.”
From a legal point of view, this is an interesting case.
“I wonder, does the partial reversal of the verdict mean that the perpetrator’s prison sentence will now be reduced? The verdict against the defendant ultimately remained the same. But why did two courts, the Federal Court of Justice and the Münster Regional Court, ultimately have to deal with this?”
“Exactly. In the first instance, the case was heard before the Münster Regional Court, and the Münster Regional Court convicted him, once for completed murder and then for attempted murder. And the Federal Court of Justice has said that the findings and the evaluation of evidence regarding this attempted murder are insufficient for us. This seems implausible to us. It will be referred back again.”
“What exactly happened?”
“The defendant first strangled the victim very severely and then, two hours later, stabbed the victim again with a knife. The Münster Regional Court concluded that this constituted murder by strangulation, because a medical expert was able to determine that this was indeed the cause of death. They also concluded that this constituted attempted murder because, in the Münster Regional Court’s view, the defendant assumed at that point that the person might still be alive. However, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that this was somewhat contradictory, as a relatively long period of time had passed between the two acts, and the strangulation was so intense that it could not reasonably be assumed that the person was still alive. Therefore, the Federal Court of Justice found the Regional Court’s evaluation of the evidence to be not entirely consistent or complete and is now referring only this part of the case back to the Federal Court of Justice. This means that the verdict for murder, namely the life sentence, remains unchanged.”
“Are these merely legal formalities between two different courts, or do they actually affect the defendant’s subsequent prison sentence?”
“In this case, it will therefore likely not affect the final sentence, because a life sentence has already been imposed for the completed murder, and contrary to popular belief, a life sentence in German law truly means a life sentence. After 15 years, one can apply for parole, but it remains uncertain whether this will actually be granted, and one always remains on probation. This life sentence will not change in this case, but of course there remains a legitimate legal interest in clarifying all offenses and ultimately having a clear conviction that truly encompasses all of the perpetrator’s actions.”
It’s probably a good thing that the appeal against the verdict didn’t lead to a new trial or a change in the defendant’s prison sentence. That certainly wouldn’t have been easy for Pia’s family.
