At the end of June 2016, Tobias K. killed a man in Zurich’s Seefeld in order to free a fellow Lithuanian prisoner. The most important answers to the appointment process.
The fateful friendship between Tobias K. and the Lithuanian prisoner began in Pöschwies prison.
The appeal process in the homicide in Zurich Seefeld begins on Thursday morning before the High Court. The 29-year-old Tobias K. and a 41-year-old Lithuanian, who was imprisoned with K. in the Pöschwies correctional facility, are standing in front of the court barriers.
The fact itself is undisputed, Tobias K. admitted the homicide in the interrogations. The central question at the two-day trial is therefore: Was Tobias K. manipulated by his Lithuanian fellow prisoner in Pöschwies prison with conspiracy theories in such a way that he became a murderer during his first unaccompanied prison leave? Or is Tobias K. solely responsible for the homicide in Seefeld? And: are the two men too dangerous to ever be reintegrated into society?
What is the case?
On June 30, 2016, Tobias K. took action. The criminal, who previously fled prison leave, stabbed a 41-year-old IT specialist who was sitting on a wall and smoking an e-cigarette in Zurich’s Seefeld district. The man dies at the scene of the crime. He’s an accidental victim.
In fact, K. tried to free his fellow Lithuanian prisoner and friend from the Pöschwies prison. Among other things, he sent a blackmail letter to the Zurich cantonal council, in which he staged his own kidnapping and threatened homicide on behalf of an anonymous group from abroad if the Lithuanian was not released.
According to the public prosecutor’s office, the crime in Seefeld should not remain the same. According to the indictment, Tobias K. carried out various preparatory actions for further acts, which were announced in the blackmail letter, during the subsequent flight up to his arrest on January 18, 2017. This included trying to acquire a weapon via the dark web. The gun purchase eventually led to the arrest of K.
How did the lower court rule?
The Zurich District Court found Tobias K. and the Lithuanian, who was 13 years his senior, guilty in the first instance on January 30, 2020. The act was tantamount to a massacre, the judge said at the time. And: The Lithuanian instigated K. to commit the crime. The verdict for Tobias K.: a prison sentence of 20 years and a fine. The sentence for the Lithuanian: a prison sentence of 16½ years and also a fine. However, the court refrained from ordering custody for both men.
However, the verdict convinced neither the prosecution nor the defense. It was too mild for the prosecutor Adrian Kaegi, who called for custody, and too harsh for the defense attorneys. Both sides therefore appealed.
What is the prosecutor asking for?
From the point of view of prosecutor Adrian Kaegi, the crime in Zurich Seefeld was the result of an ominous friendship between Tobias K. and the Lithuanian prisoner. The then 36-year-old Lithuanian is said to have manipulated K. in Pöschwies prison and instigated the planning of the bloody deed. In his indictment, the prosecutor bases his charges on the statements made by Tobias K., who heavily incriminate the Lithuanian.
Kaegi is demanding life imprisonment for both suspects and ordering proper detention in accordance with Article 64 of the Criminal Code. A heavier fault than in this case is hard to imagine, says Kaegi. “Anyone who coerces the state into releasing a serious criminal from prison and massacres a completely innocent person just to back his claim deserves life imprisonment.” In particular, it was “blatantly reprehensible” that Tobias K. prepared after the first killing to kill other people in a cruel way.
In the case of Tobias K., Kaegi is applying for a conviction for murder, criminal preparatory acts for multiple murders, attempted coercion, misleading the administration of justice and multiple attempted offenses against the weapons law.
Kaegi accuses his former cellmate of murder, criminal preparations for multiple murders and misleading the administration of justice.
How does Tobias K.’s defense attorney argue?
In the course of the investigation, Tobias K. admitted to being responsible for the killing in Zurich Seefeld. According to his lawyer Dominik Zillig, he was deliberately manipulated by his Lithuanian fellow prisoner and used for his purposes. Zillig therefore requested a longer prison sentence before the district court. Because his client had acted reprehensibly, but not unscrupulously.
The responsibility for the tragedy lies with the Lithuanian. The elder had “ridden into” the younger one, and the ideas came from him. Zillig also denied that further acts were planned. K. only ordered the weapon from the dark web because he was afraid.
What role did the Lithuanian play?
The role of the Lithuanian fellow inmate is disputed. The Lithuanian’s defense attorney, Andrea Taormina, described the version presented in the indictment as not credible. In particular, it is about the allegation by the public prosecutor that the 39-year-old used lies and half-truths to persuade Tobias K. to commit the brutal crimes. In January 2020, Taormina criticized that the public prosecutor’s office based their theory solely on the statements made by the main perpetrator Tobias K.
His client cannot be held criminally responsible for the alleged acts because the conditions for complicity or incitement to the act were not met. Tobias K. and the Lithuanian prisoner talked about conspiracy theories in Pöschwies prison. But this cannot be taken seriously. “There was no joint planning, nor was my client present at the act. Because he was in prison.” Taormina is likely to plead for an acquittal again, as before the lower court.
What does proper custody mean?
Ordinary detention is regulated in Article 64 of the Criminal Code. This is a measure and not a penalty. Unlike the punishment, the measure does not serve to atone for a crime that has been committed, but exclusively to protect the public. Custody is only an option for particularly dangerous criminals.
For their arrangement, certain conditions must be met. First of all, the offender must have committed a so-called catalog offense – i.e. a criminal offense that is listed in the relevant Article 64. This includes, for example, murder or intentional killing, but also serious bodily harm.
It must then be assumed that the perpetrator will commit other similar acts, either because of his personality traits, the circumstances of the act or his life, or because of a persistent or long-lasting mental disorder of considerable severity that is related to the act. In addition, there must be agreement that a milder remedy such as an inpatient therapeutic measure would remain unsuccessful.
Before a convicted criminal is held in custody, he must first serve his sentence. With ordinary custody, there is the possibility that the convicted offender will be conditionally released early if it can be expected that he will prove himself at liberty. This is checked for the first time by the responsible authorities after two years. The authorities then clarify annually whether the custody is still justified.